diff --git a/annotations/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/us_adjudications.json b/annotations/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/us_adjudications.json
index c9fd8b0a..292005a1 100644
--- a/annotations/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/us_adjudications.json
+++ b/annotations/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/us_adjudications.json
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
{
"schema_version": 2,
"note": "Developer adjudications of judge verdicts. An entry either resolves a non-final judge class to a final one (llm_error, parse_contract_failure) or affirms prompt_ambiguity, which is allowed only together with excluded_from_scoring: true, meaning the output is removed from scoring for every model and listed in the run's reference_exclusions.json (the freezer verifies the two records agree). Each entry keeps the judge's verdict verbatim beside the decision and the reasoning. Applied to the row annotations and case notes by scripts/apply_adjudications.py before export.",
- "date_conventions": "adjudicated_on names the audit wave that made the decision (2026-09-05, 2026-09-22, 2026-09-29, 2026-10-05, 2026-10-06 or 2026-10-10). It carries no time of day or time zone. The 2026-09-05, 2026-09-22 and 2026-09-29 waves' decisions were written up to the day each wave's release was committed (2026-09-05, 2026-09-23 and 2026-09-30); the 2026-09-29 wave's reference sweep began on 2026-09-29 UTC, before its decisions were written. The 2026-10-05 wave's decisions follow Max's rulings of 2026-10-05 US Eastern time (2026-10-06 UTC) and were written on 2026-10-06 UTC. The 2026-10-06 wave's decisions follow Max's rulings of 2026-10-06 (17:11 UTC) and were written on 2026-10-09 UTC. The 2026-10-10 wave's decisions exclude the outputs the references' engine upgrade moved onto an input the prompt does not state, and were written on 2026-10-10 UTC. judged_on_utc, judge_rejudged_on and each judge_previous item's judged_on are UTC days, read from the verdict's sidecar (verdict.meta.json judged_at_utc). The top-level judge fields name the case's verdict in this release's audit tree, dated by judge_rejudged_on when a later wave judged the case again and by judged_on_utc otherwise, and judge_previous keeps the verdict that re-judge replaced. A wave's own judge runs could finish after one of its decisions was first written, so a recorded verdict can postdate adjudicated_on up to the last day its wave's decisions were written. A flag an earlier judge run raised stays recorded and names that run in judge_reference_suspect_source, at the top level or on the judge_previous item it belongs to. Where a later wave replaced the verdict a decision reviewed without keeping it, adjudicated_verdict gives that verdict as the decision's own release recorded it.",
+ "date_conventions": "adjudicated_on names the audit wave that made the decision (2026-09-05, 2026-09-22, 2026-09-29, 2026-10-05, 2026-10-06, 2026-10-10 or 2026-10-14). It carries no time of day or time zone. The 2026-09-05, 2026-09-22 and 2026-09-29 waves' decisions were written up to the day each wave's release was committed (2026-09-05, 2026-09-23 and 2026-09-30); the 2026-09-29 wave's reference sweep began on 2026-09-29 UTC, before its decisions were written. The 2026-10-05 wave's decisions follow Max's rulings of 2026-10-05 US Eastern time (2026-10-06 UTC) and were written on 2026-10-06 UTC. The 2026-10-06 wave's decisions follow Max's rulings of 2026-10-06 (17:11 UTC) and were written on 2026-10-09 UTC. The 2026-10-10 wave's decisions exclude the outputs the references' engine upgrade moved onto an input the prompt does not state, and were written on 2026-10-10 UTC. The 2026-10-14 wave's decisions keep scored outputs on cases this release's new models re-opened, affirming a reference the case's verdict flagged or resolving rows the judge gave a class outside the final set, and were written on 2026-10-14 UTC. judged_on_utc, judge_rejudged_on and each judge_previous item's judged_on are UTC days, read from the verdict's sidecar (verdict.meta.json judged_at_utc). The top-level judge fields name the case's verdict in this release's audit tree, dated by judge_rejudged_on when a later wave judged the case again and by judged_on_utc otherwise, and judge_previous keeps the verdict that re-judge replaced. A wave's own judge runs could finish after one of its decisions was first written, so a recorded verdict can postdate adjudicated_on up to the last day its wave's decisions were written. A flag an earlier judge run raised stays recorded and names that run in judge_reference_suspect_source, at the top level or on the judge_previous item it belongs to. Where a later wave replaced the verdict a decision reviewed without keeping it, adjudicated_verdict gives that verdict as the decision's own release recorded it.",
"adjudications": [
{
"country": "us",
@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@
"scenario_id": "scenario_073",
"variable": "head_medicare_eligible",
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
- "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-13",
+ "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-14",
"judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
"judge_failure_subtype": "age_disability",
"adjudicated_failure_source": "prompt_ambiguity",
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@
"adjudicator": "developer",
"reasoning": "The output is removed from scoring for every model: its reference depends on an engine input the certified household data never carried and the prompt therefore never listed, and a careful reader could take the stated facts the other way. Recomputed with policyengine-us 1.755.4 (the version that produced the references) the reference moves from 0.0 to 1.0 under the alternative reading. Neither reading is established by the facts; rows that matched the frozen value leave the score along with rows that did not. Judge diagnoses are retained as description; the class prompt_ambiguity records that the reference, not the model, is indeterminate here. In law the under-65 route needs 24 months of SSDI entitlement; a year-round recipient has at least 12. The facts do not settle it.",
"judge_reference_suspect": false,
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -61,6 +61,13 @@
"judge_failure_subtype": "age_disability",
"judge_reference_suspect": false,
"judged_on": "2026-09-23"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "age_disability",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13"
}
],
"adjudicated_verdict": {
@@ -76,9 +83,9 @@
"scenario_id": "scenario_074",
"variable": "head_medicare_eligible",
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
- "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-13",
+ "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-14",
"judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
- "judge_failure_subtype": "age_disability",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "categorical_eligibility",
"adjudicated_failure_source": "prompt_ambiguity",
"adjudicated_failure_subtype": "age_disability",
"excluded_from_scoring": true,
@@ -87,7 +94,7 @@
"adjudicator": "developer",
"reasoning": "The output is removed from scoring for every model: its reference depends on an engine input the certified household data never carried and the prompt therefore never listed, and a careful reader could take the stated facts the other way. Recomputed with policyengine-us 1.755.4 (the version that produced the references) the reference moves from 0.0 to 1.0 under the alternative reading. Neither reading is established by the facts; rows that matched the frozen value leave the score along with rows that did not. Judge diagnoses are retained as description; the class prompt_ambiguity records that the reference, not the model, is indeterminate here. In law the under-65 route needs 24 months of SSDI entitlement; a year-round recipient has at least 12. The facts do not settle it.",
"judge_reference_suspect": false,
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5",
@@ -116,6 +123,13 @@
"judge_failure_subtype": "age_disability",
"judge_reference_suspect": false,
"judged_on": "2026-10-09"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "age_disability",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13"
}
]
},
@@ -124,7 +138,7 @@
"scenario_id": "scenario_079",
"variable": "head_medicare_eligible",
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
- "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-13",
+ "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-14",
"judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
"judge_failure_subtype": "age_disability",
"adjudicated_failure_source": "prompt_ambiguity",
@@ -135,7 +149,7 @@
"adjudicator": "developer",
"reasoning": "The output is removed from scoring for every model: its reference depends on an engine input the certified household data never carried and the prompt therefore never listed, and a careful reader could take the stated facts the other way. Recomputed with policyengine-us 1.755.4 (the version that produced the references) the reference moves from 0.0 to 1.0 under the alternative reading. Neither reading is established by the facts; rows that matched the frozen value leave the score along with rows that did not. Judge diagnoses are retained as description; the class prompt_ambiguity records that the reference, not the model, is indeterminate here. In law the under-65 route needs 24 months of SSDI entitlement; a year-round recipient has at least 12. The facts do not settle it.",
"judge_reference_suspect": false,
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -157,6 +171,13 @@
"judge_failure_subtype": "age_disability",
"judge_reference_suspect": false,
"judged_on": "2026-09-30"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "age_disability",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13"
}
],
"adjudicated_verdict": {
@@ -172,7 +193,7 @@
"scenario_id": "scenario_084",
"variable": "head_medicare_eligible",
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
- "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-13",
+ "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-14",
"judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
"judge_failure_subtype": "age_disability",
"adjudicated_failure_source": "prompt_ambiguity",
@@ -183,7 +204,7 @@
"adjudicator": "developer",
"reasoning": "The output is removed from scoring for every model: its reference depends on an engine input the certified household data never carried and the prompt therefore never listed, and a careful reader could take the stated facts the other way. Recomputed with policyengine-us 1.755.4 (the version that produced the references) the reference moves from 0.0 to 1.0 under the alternative reading. Neither reading is established by the facts; rows that matched the frozen value leave the score along with rows that did not. Judge diagnoses are retained as description; the class prompt_ambiguity records that the reference, not the model, is indeterminate here. In law the under-65 route needs 24 months of SSDI entitlement; a year-round recipient has at least 12. The facts do not settle it.",
"judge_reference_suspect": false,
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -212,6 +233,13 @@
"judge_failure_subtype": "age_disability",
"judge_reference_suspect": false,
"judged_on": "2026-10-09"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "age_disability",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13"
}
],
"adjudicated_verdict": {
@@ -227,7 +255,7 @@
"scenario_id": "scenario_023",
"variable": "snap",
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
- "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-13",
+ "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-14",
"judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
"judge_failure_subtype": "age_disability",
"adjudicated_failure_source": "prompt_ambiguity",
@@ -238,7 +266,7 @@
"adjudicator": "developer",
"reasoning": "The output is removed from scoring for every model: its reference depends on an engine input the certified household data never carried and the prompt therefore never listed, and a careful reader could take the stated facts the other way. Recomputed with policyengine-us 1.755.4 (the version that produced the references) the reference moves from 461.339722 to 3596.039795 under the alternative reading. Neither reading is established by the facts; rows that matched the frozen value leave the score along with rows that did not. Judge diagnoses are retained as description; the class prompt_ambiguity records that the reference, not the model, is indeterminate here. SSI itself stays $0 under either reading (the head's countable income exceeds the federal benefit rate); SNAP moves because SSI-disabled status switches on the elderly-or-disabled SNAP rules. The 2026-09-22 audit recomputes the alternative as 3,576.00 with every publication convention and upstream fix (the frozen-engine value above was 3,596.04).",
"judge_reference_suspect": false,
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -267,6 +295,13 @@
"judge_failure_subtype": "age_disability",
"judge_reference_suspect": false,
"judged_on": "2026-10-08"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "age_disability",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13"
}
],
"adjudicated_verdict": {
@@ -282,7 +317,7 @@
"scenario_id": "scenario_057",
"variable": "snap",
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
- "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-13",
+ "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-14",
"judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
"judge_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
"adjudicated_failure_source": "prompt_ambiguity",
@@ -295,7 +330,8 @@
"judge_reference_suspect": true,
"reference_verdict": "unlisted_input",
"reference_basis": "42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(A); 20 CFR 416.905",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the case's current verdict.json does not flag it",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -326,6 +362,13 @@
"judge_reference_suspect": true,
"judged_on": "2026-10-09",
"judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the verdict dated here does not flag it"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": true,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13"
}
],
"adjudicated_verdict": {
@@ -341,7 +384,7 @@
"scenario_id": "scenario_100",
"variable": "snap",
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
- "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-13",
+ "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-14",
"judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
"judge_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
"adjudicated_failure_source": "prompt_ambiguity",
@@ -352,7 +395,7 @@
"adjudicator": "developer",
"reasoning": "The output is removed from scoring for every model: its reference depends on an engine input the certified household data never carried and the prompt therefore never listed, and a careful reader could take the stated facts the other way. Recomputed with policyengine-us 1.755.4 (the version that produced the references) the reference moves from 8625.889648 to 8917.490234 under the alternative reading. Neither reading is established by the facts; rows that matched the frozen value leave the score along with rows that did not. Judge diagnoses are retained as description; the class prompt_ambiguity records that the reference, not the model, is indeterminate here. SSI stays $0 under either reading ($2,800 in the bank exceeds the $2,000 resource limit); SNAP moves through the elderly-or-disabled SNAP rules. The 2026-09-22 audit recomputes the alternative as 8,844.00 with every publication convention and upstream fix (the frozen-engine value above was 8,917.49). r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua (engine defect, since fixed upstream by PolicyEngine/policyengine-us#10033, which the policyengine-us 2.41.0 references include) also moves this output on the stated facts, from 8,556.00 to 6,924.00; the record keeps its 2026-09-05 classification.",
"judge_reference_suspect": false,
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -381,6 +424,13 @@
"judge_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
"judge_reference_suspect": false,
"judged_on": "2026-10-09"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13"
}
],
"adjudicated_verdict": {
@@ -396,7 +446,7 @@
"scenario_id": "scenario_057",
"variable": "ssi",
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
- "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-13",
+ "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-14",
"judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
"judge_failure_subtype": "categorical_eligibility",
"adjudicated_failure_source": "prompt_ambiguity",
@@ -410,7 +460,7 @@
"reference_verdict": "unlisted_input",
"reference_basis": "42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(A); 20 CFR 416.905",
"judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the case's current verdict.json does not flag it",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -441,6 +491,14 @@
"judge_reference_suspect": true,
"judged_on": "2026-10-09",
"judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the verdict dated here does not flag it"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "categorical_eligibility",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": true,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the verdict dated here does not flag it"
}
],
"adjudicated_verdict": {
@@ -582,11 +640,11 @@
"adjudicated_on": "2026-09-22",
"adjudicator": "developer",
"excluded_from_scoring": true,
- "judge_reference_suspect": true,
+ "judge_reference_suspect": false,
"reference_verdict": "engine_defect",
"reference_basis": "26 U.S.C. 219(g); IRS Notice 2025-67 (2026 ranges)",
"reasoning": "The frozen reference is 106,505.90; the corrected value is 107,198.34. PolicyEngine deducts traditional IRA contributions without the active-participant phase-out.",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -615,6 +673,13 @@
"judge_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
"judge_reference_suspect": false,
"judged_on": "2026-10-08"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": true,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13"
}
]
},
@@ -635,7 +700,7 @@
"reference_basis": "whether federal income tax before refundable credits includes the net investment income tax, which the output's definition does not say",
"reasoning": "The frozen reference is 68,056.71; the alternative is 68,112.09. The prompt defines the output as federal individual income tax after nonrefundable credits and before refundable credits. The reference adds the net investment income tax (26 U.S.C. 1411), which Form 1040 reports on Schedule 2, Part II with self-employment tax, after line 22's tax after nonrefundable credits; read as line 22, the output excludes it.",
"judge_reference_suspect_source": "claude-opus-5-5 judge run adjudicated 2026-09-22",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -667,6 +732,14 @@
"judge_reference_suspect": true,
"judged_on": "2026-10-08",
"judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the verdict dated here does not flag it"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": true,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the verdict dated here does not flag it"
}
]
},
@@ -686,7 +759,7 @@
"reference_verdict": "engine_defect",
"reference_basis": "26 U.S.C. 219(g); IRS Notice 2025-67 (2026 ranges)",
"reasoning": "The frozen reference is 104,211.41; the corrected value is 104,225.26. PolicyEngine deducts traditional IRA contributions without the active-participant phase-out.",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -715,6 +788,13 @@
"judge_failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
"judge_reference_suspect": true,
"judged_on": "2026-10-08"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": true,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13"
}
]
},
@@ -723,8 +803,8 @@
"scenario_id": "scenario_056",
"variable": "snap",
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
- "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
- "judge_failure_subtype": "state_local_rule",
+ "judge_failure_source": "reference_model_issue_fixed",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
"adjudicated_failure_source": "prompt_ambiguity",
"adjudicated_failure_subtype": "categorical_eligibility",
"adjudicated_on": "2026-09-22",
@@ -734,8 +814,7 @@
"reference_verdict": "unlisted_input",
"reference_basis": "weekly_hours_worked_before_lsr and whether the listed home mortgage interest is on the home the SNAP household occupies",
"reasoning": "The frozen reference is 1,140.00; the alternative is 0.00. The prompt lists no hours worked and says to treat unlisted numeric inputs as 0; the reference assumed 40 hours a week, which clears the SNAP work requirement for able-bodied adults without dependents. Under the zero-hours reading the time limit applies, which ends benefits after three countable months unless an exemption or area waiver applies; the alternative value is the engine's zero-hours result, not a certified entitlement. The prompt also lists home mortgage interest without saying the mortgaged home is the household's residence; if it is, SNAP counts the mortgage payment, interest included, as a shelter cost (7 CFR 273.9(d)(6)(ii)(A)), which is the reading under the alternative value.",
- "judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the case's current verdict.json does not flag it",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -766,6 +845,14 @@
"judge_reference_suspect": true,
"judged_on": "2026-10-09",
"judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the verdict dated here does not flag it"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "state_local_rule",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": true,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the verdict dated here does not flag it"
}
]
},
@@ -826,7 +913,7 @@
"reference_verdict": "unlisted_input",
"reference_basis": "the relationship of an adult tax dependent to the filers who claim them",
"reasoning": "The frozen reference is 1.00; the alternative is 0.00. The prompt lists an adult 'Dependent' without saying whether that person is the claiming filers' child. If the dependent is their child, 42 CFR 435.603(f)(2) puts the dependent in the parents' Medicaid household, whose combined MAGI decides eligibility; the reference treats the dependent as a non-child whose household is their own (42 CFR 435.603(f)(2)(i), (f)(3)).",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5",
@@ -848,6 +935,13 @@
"judge_failure_subtype": "household_unit_or_filing_status",
"judge_reference_suspect": false,
"judged_on": "2026-10-09"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "household_unit_or_filing_status",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13"
}
]
},
@@ -890,7 +984,7 @@
"scenario_id": "scenario_067",
"variable": "dependent1_medicaid_eligible",
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
- "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_source": "reference_engine_defect",
"judge_failure_subtype": "household_unit_or_filing_status",
"adjudicated_failure_source": "prompt_ambiguity",
"adjudicated_failure_subtype": "household_unit_or_filing_status",
@@ -901,8 +995,7 @@
"reference_verdict": "unlisted_input",
"reference_basis": "the relationship of an adult tax dependent to the filers who claim them",
"reasoning": "The frozen reference is 1.00; the alternative is 0.00. The prompt lists an adult 'Dependent' without saying whether that person is the claiming filers' child. If the dependent is their child, 42 CFR 435.603(f)(2) puts the dependent in the parents' Medicaid household, whose combined MAGI decides eligibility; the reference treats the dependent as a non-child whose household is their own (42 CFR 435.603(f)(2)(i), (f)(3)).",
- "judge_reference_suspect_source": "claude-opus-5-5 judge run adjudicated 2026-09-22",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-09-29",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -910,6 +1003,14 @@
"judge_failure_subtype": "household_unit_or_filing_status",
"judge_reference_suspect": true,
"judged_on": "2026-09-23"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "household_unit_or_filing_status",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": true,
+ "judged_on": "2026-09-29",
+ "judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the verdict dated here does not flag it"
}
]
},
@@ -929,7 +1030,7 @@
"reference_verdict": "engine_defect",
"reference_basis": "7 U.S.C. 2014(e)(6)(C)(iv)(I), as amended by P.L. 119-21 sec. 10103(a) (approved 2025-07-04)",
"reasoning": "The frozen reference is 3,596.04; the corrected value is 3,240.00. PolicyEngine grants the heat-and-eat standard utility allowance to households without an elderly or disabled member, which P.L. 119-21 sec. 10103 ended.",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -958,6 +1059,13 @@
"judge_failure_subtype": "categorical_eligibility",
"judge_reference_suspect": false,
"judged_on": "2026-10-09"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "categorical_eligibility",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13"
}
]
},
@@ -967,7 +1075,7 @@
"variable": "state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
"judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
- "judge_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "state_local_rule",
"adjudicated_failure_source": "reference_engine_defect",
"adjudicated_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
"adjudicated_on": "2026-09-22",
@@ -978,7 +1086,7 @@
"reference_basis": "M.G.L. c. 62 sec. 2(b), 2(c)(2)(a), 2(c)(4), 2(f); DOR TIR 02-21",
"reasoning": "The frozen reference is 8,238.41; the corrected value is 8,232.90. PolicyEngine taxes Massachusetts Part A dividends gross, without the short-term capital loss offset its own Part A AGI computes.",
"judge_reference_suspect_source": "claude-opus-5-5 judge run adjudicated 2026-09-22",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -1010,6 +1118,14 @@
"judge_reference_suspect": true,
"judged_on": "2026-10-09",
"judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the verdict dated here does not flag it"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": true,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the verdict dated here does not flag it"
}
]
},
@@ -1037,7 +1153,7 @@
"variable": "state_refundable_credits",
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
"judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
- "judge_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "state_local_rule",
"adjudicated_failure_source": "prompt_ambiguity",
"adjudicated_failure_subtype": "state_local_rule",
"adjudicated_on": "2026-09-22",
@@ -1048,7 +1164,7 @@
"reference_basis": "source of survivor_benefits (pension or annuity, or another survivor payment) and taxability of survivor_benefits",
"reasoning": "The frozen reference is 271.39; the alternative is 0.00. The prompt lists survivor benefits other than Social Security without saying what they are. Wisconsin homestead household income counts the gross amount of a survivor pension or annuity (Wis. Stat. 71.52(6); Schedule H line 9d), which is the reading under the alternative value; the reference leaves them out.",
"judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the case's current verdict.json does not flag it",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -1079,6 +1195,14 @@
"judge_reference_suspect": true,
"judged_on": "2026-10-09",
"judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the verdict dated here does not flag it"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": true,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the verdict dated here does not flag it"
}
]
},
@@ -1099,7 +1223,7 @@
"reference_basis": "weekly_hours_worked_before_lsr",
"reasoning": "The frozen reference is 287.68; the alternative is 0.00. The prompt lists no hours worked and says to treat unlisted numeric inputs as 0; the reference assumed 40 hours a week, which clears the SNAP work requirement for able-bodied adults without dependents. Under the zero-hours reading the time limit applies, which ends benefits after three countable months unless an exemption or area waiver applies; the alternative value is the engine's zero-hours result, not a certified entitlement.",
"judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the case's current verdict.json does not flag it",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -1130,6 +1254,14 @@
"judge_reference_suspect": true,
"judged_on": "2026-10-09",
"judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the verdict dated here does not flag it"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": true,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the verdict dated here does not flag it"
}
]
},
@@ -1149,7 +1281,7 @@
"reference_verdict": "unlisted_input",
"reference_basis": "whether the listed home mortgage interest is on the home the SNAP household occupies",
"reasoning": "The frozen reference is 2,903.94; the alternative is 3,576.00. The prompt lists home mortgage interest without saying the mortgaged home is the household's residence; if it is, SNAP counts the mortgage payment, interest included, as a shelter cost (7 CFR 273.9(d)(6)(ii)(A)), which is the reading under the alternative value.",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -1178,6 +1310,13 @@
"judge_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
"judge_reference_suspect": false,
"judged_on": "2026-10-09"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13"
}
]
},
@@ -1197,7 +1336,7 @@
"reference_verdict": "engine_defect",
"reference_basis": "26 U.S.C. 219(g); IRS Notice 2025-67 (2026 ranges)",
"reasoning": "The frozen reference is 40,021.82; the corrected value is 40,028.32. PolicyEngine deducts traditional IRA contributions without the active-participant phase-out.",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -1226,6 +1365,13 @@
"judge_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
"judge_reference_suspect": false,
"judged_on": "2026-10-09"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13"
}
]
},
@@ -1281,7 +1427,7 @@
"reference_basis": "42 U.S.C. 1397jj(b)(1)(C); 42 CFR 457.310(b)(2)(ii); Pennsylvania CHIP state plan 4.1.7",
"reasoning": "Child 3 has employer-sponsored group coverage, which bars CHIP; the household's income passes Pennsylvania's CHIP limit, so the judge's income-limit hypothesis fails.",
"judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the case's current verdict.json does not flag it",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-09-29",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -1290,6 +1436,14 @@
"judge_reference_suspect": true,
"judged_on": "2026-09-23",
"judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the verdict dated here does not flag it"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "health_coverage",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": true,
+ "judged_on": "2026-09-29",
+ "judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the verdict dated here does not flag it"
}
]
},
@@ -1298,7 +1452,7 @@
"scenario_id": "scenario_056",
"variable": "state_refundable_credits",
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
- "judge_failure_source": "reference_engine_defect",
+ "judge_failure_source": "reference_model_issue_fixed",
"judge_failure_subtype": "credit_phaseout",
"adjudicated_failure_source": "llm_error",
"adjudicated_failure_subtype": "credit_phaseout",
@@ -1308,7 +1462,7 @@
"reference_verdict": "affirmed",
"reference_basis": "N.J.S.A. 54A:4-7(a)(4); Rev. Proc. 2025-32",
"reasoning": "New Jersey bases the earned income credit for filers 18 and older who fail only the federal age test on the federal maximum credit for filers without a qualifying child, and pays it as a flat yearly amount: 40% of the 2026 $664 maximum is $265.60. The judge's phase-in reading fails.",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -1337,6 +1491,13 @@
"judge_failure_subtype": "credit_phaseout",
"judge_reference_suspect": true,
"judged_on": "2026-10-09"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "reference_engine_defect",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "credit_phaseout",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": true,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13"
}
]
},
@@ -1355,7 +1516,8 @@
"reference_verdict": "affirmed",
"reference_basis": "26 U.S.C. 62(a)(2)(D), 62(d)(3); Rev. Proc. 2025-32 section 3.12",
"reasoning": "The 2026 educator expense cap is $350, so the head's $337.50 is fully deductible; the judge's $300 cap is not the law.",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the case's current verdict.json does not flag it",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -1378,6 +1540,13 @@
"judge_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
"judge_reference_suspect": true,
"judged_on": "2026-10-09"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": true,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13"
}
]
},
@@ -1387,7 +1556,7 @@
"variable": "state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
"judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
- "judge_failure_subtype": "state_local_rule",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
"adjudicated_failure_source": "llm_error",
"adjudicated_failure_subtype": "state_local_rule",
"adjudicated_on": "2026-09-22",
@@ -1397,7 +1566,7 @@
"reference_basis": "Idaho Code 63-3029L (taxable years 2018 through 2025); Idaho Administrative Bulletin, July 1, 2026, Docket 35-0101-2601",
"reasoning": "Idaho's $205 child tax credit applies only to taxable years beginning in 2018 through 2025, so it does not reduce 2026 tax; the judge's missing-credit hypothesis fails. The reference applies the Idaho zero-rate threshold held at its published 2025 amount.",
"judge_reference_suspect_source": "claude-opus-5-5 judge run adjudicated 2026-09-22",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -1429,6 +1598,14 @@
"judge_reference_suspect": true,
"judged_on": "2026-10-09",
"judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the verdict dated here does not flag it"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "state_local_rule",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": true,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the verdict dated here does not flag it"
}
]
},
@@ -1448,7 +1625,7 @@
"reference_basis": "N.Y. Tax Law 606(e) as amended by Part RR of Chapter 59 of the Laws of 2025",
"reasoning": "From 2025 New York keys the real property tax credit to federal AGI and a flat table; with federal AGI of $0 and property tax above 3.5% of it, a filer 65 or older receives $375. The judge applied the repealed household-gross-income rule.",
"judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the case's current verdict.json does not flag it",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -1478,6 +1655,14 @@
"judge_failure_subtype": "state_local_rule",
"judge_reference_suspect": true,
"judged_on": "2026-10-09"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "state_local_rule",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": true,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the verdict dated here does not flag it"
}
]
},
@@ -1497,7 +1682,7 @@
"reference_basis": "7 U.S.C. 2012(u), 2017(a); USDA FY2026 SNAP COLA memorandum (signed 2025-08-14); 7 U.S.C. 2017(a); 7 CFR 273.10(e)(2)(ii)(C)",
"reasoning": "The frozen 287.68 is regenerated as 288.00: it applies the publication rule: SNAP October-December 2026 hold the FY2026 schedule (the SNAP uprating index behind the maximum allotments, deductions, shelter cap and utility allowances), the last USDA published before the 2026-07-03 reference freeze; USDA published FY2027 on 2026-08-21. The poverty guideline is the 2026 HHS guideline, published in January 2026. The engine's SNAP rounding defects are root causes r26, r27, r28 and r31, fixed upstream and applied with the convention.; it corrects an engine defect fixed upstream (fixed in PolicyEngine/policyengine-us#9162 (merged 2026-07-28), after the reference freeze): The minimum benefit is 8% of the maximum allotment for a household of one, rounded to the nearest whole dollar ($24 a month for FY2026, as USDA published).",
"judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the case's current verdict.json does not flag it",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -1530,6 +1715,14 @@
"judge_reference_suspect": true,
"judged_on": "2026-10-09",
"judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the verdict dated here does not flag it"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "categorical_eligibility",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": true,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the verdict dated here does not flag it"
}
]
},
@@ -1539,7 +1732,7 @@
"variable": "federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
"judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
- "judge_failure_subtype": "household_unit_or_filing_status",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
"adjudicated_failure_source": "llm_error",
"adjudicated_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
"adjudicated_on": "2026-09-22",
@@ -1582,6 +1775,14 @@
"judge_reference_suspect": true,
"judged_on": "2026-10-08",
"judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the verdict dated here does not flag it"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "household_unit_or_filing_status",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": true,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the verdict dated here does not flag it"
}
]
},
@@ -1602,7 +1803,7 @@
"reference_basis": "Louisiana Department of Revenue, Revenue Information Bulletin 26-019, dated 2026-09-28: Louisiana's 2026 standard deduction is $12,838 for single and separate filers and $25,676 for the other statuses, the first 2026 return amount Louisiana published",
"reasoning": "The frozen 814.95 is regenerated as 820.35: it corrects an engine defect fixed upstream (fixed in PolicyEngine/policyengine-us#8839 (issue #8828), after the reference freeze): Capital gain distributions are long-term capital gain in gross income and in the preferential-rate base. The frozen reference is 820.35; the value under the published figure is 820.26. The reference rests on a 2026 Louisiana standard deduction of $12,835, which policyengine-us computed from published CPI-U under R.S. 47:294(B) but which no Louisiana publication stated before the 2026-07-03 freeze; Louisiana's first 2026 return amount, $12,838, came in Revenue Information Bulletin 26-019 on 2026-09-28. Excluded under decision d994, which keeps the published-amounts convention for every other reference (reference_audit/2026-10-05-louisiana).",
"judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the case's current verdict.json does not flag it",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -1635,6 +1836,14 @@
"judge_reference_suspect": true,
"judged_on": "2026-10-09",
"judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the verdict dated here does not flag it"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": true,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the verdict dated here does not flag it"
}
]
},
@@ -1654,8 +1863,8 @@
"reference_basis": "7 U.S.C. 2012(u), 2017(a); USDA FY2026 SNAP COLA memorandum (signed 2025-08-14)",
"reasoning": "The frozen 3,596.04 is regenerated as 3,576.00: it applies the publication rule: SNAP October-December 2026 hold the FY2026 schedule (the SNAP uprating index behind the maximum allotments, deductions, shelter cap and utility allowances), the last USDA published before the 2026-07-03 reference freeze; USDA published FY2027 on 2026-08-21. The poverty guideline is the 2026 HHS guideline, published in January 2026. The engine's SNAP rounding defects are root causes r26, r27, r28 and r31, fixed upstream and applied with the convention.",
"judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the case's current verdict.json does not flag it",
- "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-09",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-09",
+ "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-14",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -1664,6 +1873,14 @@
"judge_reference_suspect": true,
"judged_on": "2026-09-23",
"judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the verdict dated here does not flag it"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": true,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-09",
+ "judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the verdict dated here does not flag it"
}
]
},
@@ -1701,7 +1918,7 @@
"reference_basis": "7 U.S.C. 2012(u), 2017(a); USDA FY2026 SNAP COLA memorandum (signed 2025-08-14); 7 CFR 273.10(e)(2)(ii)(A)",
"reasoning": "The frozen 8,020.55 is regenerated as 7,932.00: it applies the publication rule: SNAP October-December 2026 hold the FY2026 schedule (the SNAP uprating index behind the maximum allotments, deductions, shelter cap and utility allowances), the last USDA published before the 2026-07-03 reference freeze; USDA published FY2027 on 2026-08-21. The poverty guideline is the 2026 HHS guideline, published in January 2026. The engine's SNAP rounding defects are root causes r26, r27, r28 and r31, fixed upstream and applied with the convention.; it corrects an engine defect fixed upstream (fixed in PolicyEngine/policyengine-us#9318 (merged 2026-08-25), after the reference freeze): If 30% of net income ends in cents, the state rounds it up to the next dollar or rounds the allotment down to the next dollar; with a whole-dollar maximum allotment both give the same whole-dollar allotment.",
"judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the case's current verdict.json does not flag it",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -1734,6 +1951,14 @@
"judge_reference_suspect": true,
"judged_on": "2026-10-09",
"judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the verdict dated here does not flag it"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": true,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judge_reference_suspect_source": "an earlier judge run in the 2026-09-22 wave (flagged_sept22_wave.json); the verdict dated here does not flag it"
}
]
},
@@ -1753,8 +1978,8 @@
"reference_verdict": "unlisted_input",
"reference_basis": "whether the prior-year deduction of the refunded state and local tax reduced federal tax (prior-year itemization, the income-versus-sales-tax election, SALT-cap headroom)",
"reasoning": "The frozen reference is 3,818.15; the alternative is 3,788.99. The prompt lists state and local tax refund income without saying whether the refunded tax reduced federal tax in the year it was deducted; policyengine-us 2.15.17 counts the whole refund as income (policyengine-us#9422, fixing issue #9122), while under 26 U.S.C. 111(a) none of it is income if the household took no tax benefit from the deduction. Found in the 2026-09-29 engine upgrade (reference_audit/2026-09-28, cluster salt_refund_gross_income_9122).",
- "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-08",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-08",
+ "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-13",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -1762,6 +1987,13 @@
"judge_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
"judge_reference_suspect": false,
"judged_on": "2026-09-29"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-08"
}
]
},
@@ -1781,8 +2013,8 @@
"reference_verdict": "unlisted_input",
"reference_basis": "whether the prior-year deduction of the refunded state and local tax reduced federal tax (prior-year itemization, the income-versus-sales-tax election, SALT-cap headroom)",
"reasoning": "The frozen reference is 24,164.46; the alternative is 23,772.80. The prompt lists state and local tax refund income without saying whether the refunded tax reduced federal tax in the year it was deducted; policyengine-us 2.15.17 counts the whole refund as income (policyengine-us#9422, fixing issue #9122), while under 26 U.S.C. 111(a) none of it is income if the household took no tax benefit from the deduction. Found in the 2026-09-29 engine upgrade (reference_audit/2026-09-28, cluster salt_refund_gross_income_9122).",
- "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-13",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-14",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -1804,6 +2036,13 @@
"judge_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
"judge_reference_suspect": false,
"judged_on": "2026-10-09"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13"
}
]
},
@@ -1823,8 +2062,8 @@
"reference_verdict": "unlisted_input",
"reference_basis": "whether the prior-year deduction of the refunded state and local tax reduced federal tax (prior-year itemization, the income-versus-sales-tax election, SALT-cap headroom)",
"reasoning": "The frozen reference is 24,961.34; the alternative is 24,391.80. The prompt lists state and local tax refund income without saying whether the refunded tax reduced federal tax in the year it was deducted; policyengine-us 2.15.17 counts the whole refund as income (policyengine-us#9422, fixing issue #9122), while under 26 U.S.C. 111(a) none of it is income if the household took no tax benefit from the deduction. Found in the 2026-09-29 engine upgrade (reference_audit/2026-09-28, cluster salt_refund_gross_income_9122).",
- "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-13",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-14",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -1846,6 +2085,13 @@
"judge_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
"judge_reference_suspect": false,
"judged_on": "2026-10-09"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13"
}
]
},
@@ -1865,8 +2111,8 @@
"reference_verdict": "unlisted_input",
"reference_basis": "meets_ssi_disability_criteria, the Social Security definition of disability that 42 CFR 435.540(a) and California's 250% Working Disabled Program require",
"reasoning": "The frozen reference is 1 (eligible); the alternative is 0. The prompt says only that the head is disabled. The head's MAGI is 141.2% of the federal poverty guideline, above the 138% limit for the adult expansion group, so only a disability pathway leads to Medi-Cal. California's 250% Working Disabled Program requires the Social Security definition of disability, which the prompt does not state; policyengine-us 2.15.17 tests the broad is_disabled flag instead and places the head in the program. With the program's test reading the Social Security definition, the head qualifies only by meeting it. The same unlisted input excludes this household's SNAP. Judge diagnoses are retained as description; the class prompt_ambiguity records that the reference, not the model, is indeterminate here. Flagged in the 2026-09-29 engine upgrade (reference_audit/2026-09-28, cluster excl_snap_ssi_disability) and excluded on review of the release.",
- "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-13",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-14",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -1881,6 +2127,13 @@
"judge_failure_subtype": "categorical_eligibility",
"judge_reference_suspect": false,
"judged_on": "2026-10-08"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "categorical_eligibility",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13"
}
]
},
@@ -1890,15 +2143,15 @@
"variable": "federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
"judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
- "judge_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
"adjudicated_failure_source": "llm_error",
"adjudicated_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
"adjudicated_on": "2026-09-29",
"adjudicator": "developer",
"judge_reference_suspect": false,
"reasoning": "The judge labeled seven models' rows reference_later_law because they applied the pre-TCJA rules scheduled to return in 2026 (a smaller standard deduction, a personal exemption and a 15% second bracket). The reference applies the permanent TCJA parameters of P.L. 119-21, enacted July 4, 2025, before the July 3, 2026 reference freeze, and the benchmark scores law published before the freeze; the rows are model errors.",
- "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-13",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-14",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -1913,6 +2166,13 @@
"judge_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
"judge_reference_suspect": false,
"judged_on": "2026-10-08"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13"
}
]
},
@@ -1929,8 +2189,8 @@
"adjudicator": "developer",
"judge_reference_suspect": false,
"reasoning": "The judge labeled the case, and the rows of claude-opus-5.5 and gpt-6.1-sol, reference_later_law because those models applied New Jersey's pre-2026 child tax credit schedule. The reference applies P.L.2026, c.26, approved June 30, 2026, before the July 3, 2026 reference freeze, and the benchmark scores law published before the freeze; the rows are model errors.",
- "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-13",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-14",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -1952,6 +2212,13 @@
"judge_failure_subtype": "state_local_rule",
"judge_reference_suspect": false,
"judged_on": "2026-10-08"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "reference_later_law",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "state_local_rule",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13"
}
]
},
@@ -1971,8 +2238,8 @@
"reference_verdict": "unlisted_input",
"reference_basis": "state income tax withheld or paid during 2026, which the federal state and local tax deduction takes as its state income tax part; policyengine-us fills it with state_withheld_income_tax, a formula estimate on federal AGI that the household data never set",
"reasoning": "The frozen reference is 11,113.57; the alternative is 11,895.23. The prompt lists no state income tax withheld or paid during 2026; policyengine-us 2.15.17 fills the state income tax part of the federal state and local tax deduction with state_withheld_income_tax, a formula estimate of California withholding on federal AGI ($6,058.85), while read as the household paying its 2026 California income tax during the year the deduction takes the engine's liability ($2,505.87). Found in the 2026-10-05 audit of the state income tax in SALT (reference_audit/2026-10-05, scripts/sweep_salt_withholding.py).",
- "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-13",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-14",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -1987,6 +2254,13 @@
"judge_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
"judge_reference_suspect": false,
"judged_on": "2026-10-08"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13"
}
]
},
@@ -2006,8 +2280,8 @@
"reference_verdict": "unlisted_input",
"reference_basis": "whether the employer deducts the employee share of a state paid-leave or disability premium that the law lets it deduct but does not require, which decides whether that share is a mandatory employee state payroll tax",
"reasoning": "The frozen reference is 2,346.10; the alternative is 2,218.50. The prompt counts mandatory employee state payroll taxes; Minnesota Paid Leave contributions are the employer's, which may deduct the employee share from wages but need not (Minn. Stat. 268B.14, subds. 1, 3 and 5a), and policyengine-us 2.15.17 counts the largest share the employer may deduct ($127.60); read as the amount the law requires of the employee, $0, the output is employee federal payroll tax alone. Found in the 2026-10-05 audit of state payroll components (reference_audit/2026-10-05-payroll, program_classification.json).",
- "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-13",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-14",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -2022,6 +2296,13 @@
"judge_failure_subtype": "state_local_rule",
"judge_reference_suspect": false,
"judged_on": "2026-10-08"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "prompt_ambiguity",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "state_local_rule",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13"
}
]
},
@@ -2041,8 +2322,8 @@
"reference_verdict": "unlisted_input",
"reference_basis": "whether the employer deducts the employee share of a state paid-leave or disability premium that the law lets it deduct but does not require, which decides whether that share is a mandatory employee state payroll tax",
"reasoning": "The frozen reference is 330.73; the alternative is 312.74. The prompt counts mandatory employee state payroll taxes; Colorado FAMLI contributions are the employer's, which may deduct the employee share from wages but need not (C.R.S. 8-13.3-507(2) and (5); 7 CCR 1107-1 s. 1.4(6)(A)), and policyengine-us 2.15.17 counts the largest share the employer may deduct ($17.99); read as the amount the law requires of the employee, $0, the output is employee federal payroll tax alone. Found in the 2026-10-05 audit of state payroll components (reference_audit/2026-10-05-payroll, program_classification.json).",
- "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-08",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-08",
+ "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-13",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -2050,6 +2331,13 @@
"judge_failure_subtype": "state_local_rule",
"judge_reference_suspect": false,
"judged_on": "2026-09-22"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "prompt_ambiguity",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "state_local_rule",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-08"
}
]
},
@@ -2069,8 +2357,8 @@
"reference_verdict": "unlisted_input",
"reference_basis": "state income tax withheld or paid during 2026, which the federal state and local tax deduction takes as its state income tax part; policyengine-us fills it with state_withheld_income_tax, a formula estimate on federal AGI that the household data never set",
"reasoning": "The frozen reference is 26,932.27; the alternative is 26,991.31. The prompt lists no state income tax withheld or paid during 2026; policyengine-us 2.15.17 fills the state income tax part of the federal state and local tax deduction with state_withheld_income_tax, a formula estimate of Massachusetts withholding on federal AGI ($8,484.41), while read as the household paying its 2026 Massachusetts income tax during the year the deduction takes the engine's liability ($8,238.41). Found in the 2026-10-05 audit of the state income tax in SALT (reference_audit/2026-10-05, scripts/sweep_salt_withholding.py).",
- "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-13",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-14",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -2085,6 +2373,13 @@
"judge_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
"judge_reference_suspect": false,
"judged_on": "2026-10-09"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13"
}
]
},
@@ -2104,8 +2399,8 @@
"reference_verdict": "unlisted_input",
"reference_basis": "whether the employer deducts the employee share of a state paid-leave or disability premium that the law lets it deduct but does not require, which decides whether that share is a mandatory employee state payroll tax",
"reasoning": "The frozen reference is 14,192.66; the alternative is 13,387.65. The prompt counts mandatory employee state payroll taxes; Massachusetts PFML contributions are the employer's, which may deduct the employee share from wages but need not (M.G.L. c. 175M, s. 6(a) and (c); 458 CMR 2.05(5)), and policyengine-us 2.15.17 counts the largest share Massachusetts's published 2026 rates let the employer deduct ($805.01); read as the amount the law requires of the employee, $0, the output is employee federal payroll tax alone. Found in the 2026-10-05 audit of state payroll components (reference_audit/2026-10-05-payroll, program_classification.json).",
- "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-13",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-14",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -2120,6 +2415,13 @@
"judge_failure_subtype": "state_local_rule",
"judge_reference_suspect": false,
"judged_on": "2026-10-09"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "prompt_ambiguity",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "state_local_rule",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13"
}
]
},
@@ -2139,8 +2441,8 @@
"reference_verdict": "unlisted_input",
"reference_basis": "whether the employer deducts the employee share of a state paid-leave or disability premium that the law lets it deduct but does not require, which decides whether that share is a mandatory employee state payroll tax",
"reasoning": "The frozen reference is 8,108.03; the alternative is 7,664.92. The prompt counts mandatory employee state payroll taxes; New York disability and Paid Family Leave contributions are the employer's, which may deduct the employee share from wages but need not (N.Y. Workers' Compensation Law ss. 209(3)-(4) and 210(1)), and policyengine-us 2.15.17 counts the largest share the employer may deduct ($443.11); read as the amount the law requires of the employee, $0, the output is employee federal payroll tax alone. Found in the 2026-10-05 audit of state payroll components (reference_audit/2026-10-05-payroll, program_classification.json).",
- "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-13",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-14",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -2155,6 +2457,13 @@
"judge_failure_subtype": "state_local_rule",
"judge_reference_suspect": false,
"judged_on": "2026-10-09"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "prompt_ambiguity",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "state_local_rule",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13"
}
]
},
@@ -2163,19 +2472,19 @@
"scenario_id": "scenario_114",
"variable": "federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
- "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_source": "reference_engine_defect",
"judge_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
"adjudicated_failure_source": "prompt_ambiguity",
"adjudicated_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
"adjudicated_on": "2026-10-05",
"adjudicator": "developer",
"excluded_from_scoring": true,
- "judge_reference_suspect": false,
+ "judge_reference_suspect": true,
"reference_verdict": "unlisted_input",
"reference_basis": "state income tax withheld or paid during 2026, which the federal state and local tax deduction takes as its state income tax part; policyengine-us fills it with state_withheld_income_tax, a formula estimate on federal AGI that the household data never set; also Medicare enrollment and a Medicare Part B premium paid during 2026, which the medical expense deductions count; policyengine-us treats every Medicare-eligible person as enrolled (takes_up_medicare_if_eligible defaults to true, so medicare_enrolled follows is_medicare_eligible) and adds the modeled premium (medicare_part_b_premium) to medical expenses, and the household data never set either",
"reasoning": "The frozen reference is 10,729.61; the alternative is 11,137.31. The prompt lists no state income tax withheld or paid during 2026; policyengine-us 2.15.17 fills the state income tax part of the federal state and local tax deduction with state_withheld_income_tax, a formula estimate of Virginia withholding on federal AGI ($5,367.30), while read as the household paying its 2026 Virginia income tax during the year the deduction takes the engine's liability ($3,514.15). The reference's medical deduction also counts a modeled Medicare Part B premium ($2,434.80) the prompt does not list; without it the output is 11,265.27. Found in the 2026-10-05 audits of the state income tax in SALT (reference_audit/2026-10-05) and of the Part B premium (reference_audit/2026-10-05-medicare-part-b).",
- "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-13",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-14",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -2190,6 +2499,13 @@
"judge_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
"judge_reference_suspect": false,
"judged_on": "2026-10-09"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13"
}
]
},
@@ -2209,8 +2525,8 @@
"reference_verdict": "unlisted_input",
"reference_basis": "Medicare enrollment and a Medicare Part B premium paid during 2026, which the medical expense deductions count; policyengine-us treats every Medicare-eligible person as enrolled (takes_up_medicare_if_eligible defaults to true, so medicare_enrolled follows is_medicare_eligible) and adds the modeled premium (medicare_part_b_premium) to medical expenses, and the household data never set either",
"reasoning": "The frozen reference is 3,514.15; the alternative is 3,654.15. The prompt lists no Medicare enrollment or Part B premium; policyengine-us 2.15.17 treats the 69-year-old head as enrolled (takes_up_medicare_if_eligible defaults to true) and adds the $2,434.80 standard Part B premium to medical expenses, which Virginia's itemized deductions carry from the federal ones; read with no premium paid, the output is the alternative. Found in the 2026-10-05 audit of the Part B premium (reference_audit/2026-10-05-medicare-part-b, scripts/sweep_part_b.py).",
- "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-13",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-14",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -2225,6 +2541,13 @@
"judge_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
"judge_reference_suspect": false,
"judged_on": "2026-10-09"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13"
}
]
},
@@ -2244,8 +2567,8 @@
"reference_verdict": "later_law",
"reference_basis": "Louisiana Department of Revenue, Revenue Information Bulletin 26-019, dated 2026-09-28: Louisiana's 2026 standard deduction is $12,838 for single and separate filers and $25,676 for the other statuses, the first 2026 return amount Louisiana published",
"reasoning": "The frozen reference is 305.14; the value under the published figure is 305.05. The reference rests on a 2026 Louisiana standard deduction of $12,835, which policyengine-us computed from published CPI-U under R.S. 47:294(B) but which no Louisiana publication stated before the 2026-07-03 freeze; Louisiana's first 2026 return amount, $12,838, came in Revenue Information Bulletin 26-019 on 2026-09-28. Excluded under decision d994, which keeps the published-amounts convention for every other reference (reference_audit/2026-10-05-louisiana).",
- "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-13",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-14",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -2253,6 +2576,13 @@
"judge_failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
"judge_reference_suspect": false,
"judged_on": "2026-10-09"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13"
}
]
},
@@ -2272,8 +2602,8 @@
"reference_verdict": "unlisted_input",
"reference_basis": "whether the income tax outputs cover only the head and spouse's return or every return the household's members must file; the definitions name no return, and a dependent here must file their own",
"reasoning": "The frozen reference is 8,628.99; the alternative is 11,848.99. A dependent with $45,000 of wages must file their own federal and state return, and the engine computes only the head and spouse's return. The output definitions name no return, tax unit or household, the prompt shows one tax unit and asks for quantities 'for this household', and careful readers split both ways (reference_audit/2026-10-05-reference-adversary/verification/independent/pa_123.md, verification/definition_conformance.md). Excluded under decision d1022 until decision d1029 settles the scope for version 2.",
- "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-13",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-14",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -2281,6 +2611,13 @@
"judge_failure_subtype": "household_unit_or_filing_status",
"judge_reference_suspect": false,
"judged_on": "2026-10-09"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "household_unit_or_filing_status",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13"
}
]
},
@@ -2300,8 +2637,8 @@
"reference_verdict": "unlisted_input",
"reference_basis": "whether the income tax outputs cover only the head and spouse's return or every return the household's members must file; the definitions name no return, and a dependent here must file their own",
"reasoning": "The frozen reference is 3,388.25; the alternative is 4,528.08. A dependent with $45,000 of wages must file their own federal and state return, and the engine computes only the head and spouse's return. The output definitions name no return, tax unit or household, the prompt shows one tax unit and asks for quantities 'for this household', and careful readers split both ways (reference_audit/2026-10-05-reference-adversary/verification/independent/pa_123.md, verification/definition_conformance.md). Excluded under decision d1022 until decision d1029 settles the scope for version 2.",
- "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-13",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-14",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -2309,6 +2646,13 @@
"judge_failure_subtype": "household_unit_or_filing_status",
"judge_reference_suspect": false,
"judged_on": "2026-10-09"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "household_unit_or_filing_status",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13"
}
]
},
@@ -2328,8 +2672,8 @@
"reference_verdict": "unlisted_input",
"reference_basis": "whether the income tax outputs cover only the head and spouse's return or every return the household's members must file; the definitions name no return, and a dependent here must file their own",
"reasoning": "The frozen reference is 5,200.24; the alternative is 8,420.24. A dependent with $45,000 of wages must file their own federal and state return, and the engine computes only the head and spouse's return. The output definitions name no return, tax unit or household, the prompt shows one tax unit and asks for quantities 'for this household', and careful readers split both ways (reference_audit/2026-10-05-reference-adversary/verification/independent/pa_123.md, verification/definition_conformance.md). Excluded under decision d1022 until decision d1029 settles the scope for version 2.",
- "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-13",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-14",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -2337,6 +2681,13 @@
"judge_failure_subtype": "household_unit_or_filing_status",
"judge_reference_suspect": false,
"judged_on": "2026-10-09"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "household_unit_or_filing_status",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13"
}
]
},
@@ -2356,8 +2707,8 @@
"reference_verdict": "unlisted_input",
"reference_basis": "whether the income tax outputs cover only the head and spouse's return or every return the household's members must file; the definitions name no return, and a dependent here must file their own",
"reasoning": "The frozen reference is 3,070.06; the alternative is 4,451.56. A dependent with $45,000 of wages must file their own federal and state return, and the engine computes only the head and spouse's return. The output definitions name no return, tax unit or household, the prompt shows one tax unit and asks for quantities 'for this household', and careful readers split both ways (reference_audit/2026-10-05-reference-adversary/verification/independent/pa_123.md, verification/definition_conformance.md). Excluded under decision d1022 until decision d1029 settles the scope for version 2.",
- "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-13",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-14",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -2365,6 +2716,13 @@
"judge_failure_subtype": "household_unit_or_filing_status",
"judge_reference_suspect": false,
"judged_on": "2026-10-09"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "household_unit_or_filing_status",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13"
}
]
},
@@ -2384,8 +2742,8 @@
"reference_verdict": "unlisted_input",
"reference_basis": "county of residence (Indiana county income tax)",
"reasoning": "The prompt places the household in Indiana but states no county. Every Indiana county levies its own local income tax (IC 6-3.6), at rates that differ by county. policyengine-us 2.15.17 left county income tax out of local_income_tax, so the frozen reference was $0.00. From policyengine-us 2.23.1 (PolicyEngine/policyengine-us#9694, which standardized local income tax) the engine counts Indiana county income tax in local_income_tax, at the rate of the county it assigns a household with no stated county. The reference therefore depends on the household's county, which the prompt does not state.",
- "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-13",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-14",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -2393,6 +2751,13 @@
"judge_failure_subtype": "state_local_rule",
"judge_reference_suspect": false,
"judged_on": "2026-10-10"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "prompt_ambiguity",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "state_local_rule",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13"
}
]
},
@@ -2412,8 +2777,8 @@
"reference_verdict": "unlisted_input",
"reference_basis": "county of residence (Indiana county income tax)",
"reasoning": "The prompt places the household in Indiana but states no county. Every Indiana county levies its own local income tax (IC 6-3.6), at rates that differ by county. policyengine-us 2.15.17 left county income tax out of local_income_tax, so the frozen reference was $0.00. From policyengine-us 2.23.1 (PolicyEngine/policyengine-us#9694, which standardized local income tax) the engine counts Indiana county income tax in local_income_tax, at the rate of the county it assigns a household with no stated county. The reference therefore depends on the household's county, which the prompt does not state.",
- "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-13",
- "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-13",
+ "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-14",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-14",
"judge_previous": [
{
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
@@ -2421,8 +2786,47 @@
"judge_failure_subtype": "state_local_rule",
"judge_reference_suspect": false,
"judged_on": "2026-10-10"
+ },
+ {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "prompt_ambiguity",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "state_local_rule",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_on": "2026-10-13"
}
]
+ },
+ {
+ "country": "us",
+ "scenario_id": "scenario_009",
+ "variable": "federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
+ "adjudicated_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "adjudicated_failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
+ "adjudicated_on": "2026-10-14",
+ "adjudicator": "developer",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": false,
+ "reasoning": "The judge labeled eight models' rows reference_later_law (deepseek-v4-pro-0813, deepseek-v4.1-flash, gemini-3.7-flash, gemini-4-argon, grok-4.5, grok-4.6, grok-4.7 and grok-build-0.1) because they applied the pre-TCJA rules scheduled to return in 2026 (a smaller standard deduction, personal exemptions and a 15% second bracket). The reference applies the permanent TCJA parameters of P.L. 119-21, enacted July 4, 2025, before the July 3, 2026 reference freeze, and the benchmark scores law published before the freeze; the rows are model errors, as the 2026-09-29 wave decided for the same rule in scenario_007's federal income tax.",
+ "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-13"
+ },
+ {
+ "country": "us",
+ "scenario_id": "scenario_064",
+ "variable": "state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "state_local_rule",
+ "adjudicated_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "adjudicated_failure_subtype": "state_local_rule",
+ "adjudicated_on": "2026-10-14",
+ "adjudicator": "developer",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": true,
+ "reference_verdict": "affirmed",
+ "reference_basis": "Wis. Stat. 71.05(10)(c)2. (for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2022, a net capital loss offsets ordinary income up to $3,000, or $1,500 for married persons filing separately); 2025 Wisconsin Schedule WD, line 28",
+ "reasoning": "The judge flagged the reference on the hypothesis that Wisconsin limits the net capital loss deduction to $500, and labeled claude-opus-5.5's row reference_model_issue_fixed because it applied that limit. The $500 limit is Wis. Stat. 71.05(10)(c)1., which covers only taxable years beginning before January 1, 2023; for 2026, subd. 2. allows $3,000 on a joint return, the $3,000 the reference deducts, so Wisconsin adds nothing back and the reference's Wisconsin AGI of $114,421 stands. The rows are model errors.",
+ "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-14"
}
]
}
diff --git a/annotations/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/us_audit_row_annotations.csv b/annotations/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/us_audit_row_annotations.csv
index c2f1c667..589950c3 100644
--- a/annotations/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/us_audit_row_annotations.csv
+++ b/annotations/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/us_audit_row_annotations.csv
@@ -1,48 +1,49 @@
country,scenario_id,variable,model,failure_source,failure_subtype,reference_suspect,annotation
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Treated the head as a qualifying surviving spouse, but that status requires a dependent child, so the filer is single. Using the joint $32,000/$44,000 Social Security thresholds understated taxable SS ($11,542 instead of $18,542.70), and the joint $32,300 standard deduction replaced the single $16,100. This cut taxable income to $3,486 when it should be $26,287.11."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Taxable SS of $18,542 and AGI were correct, but the model applied the joint/QSS $32,200 standard deduction, $1,650 aged add-on and joint brackets. With no dependent child the head files single, so the deductions are $16,100 + $2,050 + $6,000 = $24,150, leaving $26,287.11 of taxable income that reaches the 12% bracket."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Put the nontaxable $48,000 of veterans benefits into gross income and subtracted ESI premiums even though there were no wages. It then dropped its own roughly $6,600 estimate and answered $0 with no computation. The correct single-filer computation leaves $26,287.11 of taxable income and $2,906.45 of tax."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Said taxable income was below the tax threshold. In fact, AGI of $50,437.11 minus the $18,150 aged single standard deduction and the $6,000 senior deduction leaves $26,287.11 taxable, which produces $2,906.45 of tax."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Filing status and deductions were correct, but the Social Security formula used half of the benefits ($13,048) as the base instead of the lesser of $4,500 or half the benefits. This pushed taxable SS to the $22,182 cap when the correct figure is $18,542.70. The model also ended the 10% bracket at $12,150 instead of $12,400."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Assumed qualifying surviving spouse (joint) status even though no dependent child is listed, and overstated taxable SS at $22,182. It then claimed taxable income was 'near zero', which contradicts its own roughly $14,000 residual. The correct single computation leaves $26,287.11 taxable."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Set taxable SS at the 85% cap of $22,182 instead of $4,500 + 85% × ($50,520 − $34,000) = $18,542.70. It then cut its own roughly $3,300 tax estimate to $1,176 with no computation behind the change."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Used the joint/surviving-spouse $32,200 standard deduction and $1,650 aged add-on even though a widowed filer with no dependent child is single. The single deduction totals $16,100 + $2,050 + $6,000, leaving $26,287.11 of taxable income instead of $10,586."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Treated the head as a qualifying surviving spouse and used a joint standard deduction, even though there is no dependent child and the filer is single. It also set taxable SS at the full 85% ($22,182), which its own $32,000/$44,000 thresholds don't support, and it left out the $6,000 senior deduction entirely."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Used QSS/joint status even though there is no dependent child, set taxable SS at $22,182 instead of $18,542.70, and left out the $6,000 senior deduction. It then raised its own $2,023 computation to $3,204 with an unexplained 'adjustment'."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Applied the joint/surviving-spouse $32,200 standard deduction and $1,650 aged add-on. A widowed filer with no dependent child files single, so the deduction is $18,150 (plus the $6,000 senior deduction), leaving $26,287.11 of taxable income instead of $10,586."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Left out the $6,000 OBBBA senior deduction and used an outdated $15,400 single standard deduction instead of $16,100. It also ended the 10% bracket at $12,025 instead of $12,400. These errors produced $32,986 of taxable income when the correct figure is $26,287.11."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Overstated taxable SS at the $22,182 cap when the single-threshold formula gives $18,542.70. It also used a $17,350 standard deduction instead of $18,150 and left out the $6,000 senior deduction. Together these produced $36,726 of taxable income instead of $26,287.11."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied pre-TCJA sunset law, with a $5,300 personal exemption and a 15% second bracket, but OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent for 2026. It also deducted ESI premiums as a medical expense. The correct computation uses the $18,150 standard deduction plus the $6,000 senior deduction with 10%/12% brackets."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used the correct $18,150 single aged standard deduction but left out the $6,000 OBBBA senior deduction for filers 65 and older. It also ended the 10% bracket at $12,200 instead of $12,400, which leaves $32,286 taxable instead of $26,287.11."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Assumed TCJA expired in 2026, so it used a personal exemption, an uncapped itemized deduction with ESI premiums counted as medical expenses, and a 15% bracket. Under OBBBA the filer takes the $18,150 standard deduction plus the $6,000 senior deduction and is taxed at 10%/12%."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Stated taxable income of $37,990, which leaves out the $6,000 senior deduction and part of the standard deduction, and the $1,109 answer does not follow from applying any bracket schedule to that figure. The correct taxable income is $26,287.11, producing $2,906.45 of tax."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Assumed TCJA sunset rules, with a personal exemption, itemized real estate taxes and 10%/15% brackets. Under OBBBA the filer takes the $18,150 standard deduction plus the $6,000 senior deduction with 10%/12% brackets."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied pre-TCJA law for 2026, with a $5,050 personal exemption, itemized deductions and a 15% bracket above $11,000, even though OBBBA kept the TCJA standard deduction and rates. The correct deductions are $18,150 + $6,000, taxed at 10% up to $12,400 and 12% above."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Claimed income was below the standard deduction and exemptions. In fact, AGI of $50,437.11 exceeds the $24,150 of total deductions by $26,287.11, which is taxable."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied TCJA-sunset rules, with itemized real estate taxes plus a personal exemption and 15% brackets. Under OBBBA 2026 law the filer takes the $18,150 standard deduction plus the $6,000 senior deduction under 10%/12% brackets."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used pre-TCJA law (a personal exemption, itemized property tax and a 15% bracket), even though OBBBA makes the $16,100 + $2,050 standard deduction, the $6,000 senior deduction and the 10%/12% brackets apply in 2026."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Left out the $6,000 OBBBA senior deduction and used a $17,000 aged single standard deduction instead of $18,150. This produced $33,436 of taxable income instead of $26,287.11."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Left out the $6,000 OBBBA senior deduction. It also estimated the single aged standard deduction at $17,510 instead of $18,150 and ended the 10% bracket at $12,283 instead of $12,400."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Itemized $21,076 by counting the ESI premiums as a medical expense, even though they are not itemizable medical costs, and left out the $6,000 senior deduction. The correct deductions are the $18,150 standard deduction plus $6,000, leaving $26,287.11 taxable."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Applied a surviving-spouse rate structure even though there is no dependent child, and claimed all income was offset. The single computation leaves $26,287.11 of taxable income and $2,906.45 of tax."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Said the standard deduction fully offsets income, but AGI of $50,437.11 exceeds the $18,150 standard deduction plus the $6,000 senior deduction by $26,287.11, which is taxed at 10%/12%."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Used the joint/surviving-spouse $32,000/$44,000 Social Security thresholds and the $32,200 joint standard deduction, even though the head has no dependent child and files single. This understated taxable SS ($11,542 instead of $18,542.70) and overstated the standard deduction."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Filing status, deductions and brackets were correct, but taxable SS was miscomputed as about $18,592 instead of $4,500 + 0.85 × $16,520 = $18,542.70. This overstated taxable income by about $49 and tax by about $6."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Filed as a surviving spouse with joint thresholds and standard deduction even though no dependent child exists. That left only about $3,590 taxable at 10%, when single status gives $26,287.11 taxable."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Applied the $33,850 joint/surviving-spouse aged standard deduction even though the head has no dependent child and must file single. The correct deduction is $18,150, which leaves $26,287.11 taxable instead of $10,586."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used the correct single deductions and brackets but overstated taxable SS by about $49 (about $18,592 instead of $18,542.70). That produced $26,336 of taxable income instead of $26,287.11."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Used joint/surviving-spouse Social Security thresholds and the $33,850 joint aged standard deduction, even though a widowed filer with no dependent child is single. This understated taxable SS ($11,542 instead of $18,542.70) and left only $3,586 taxable."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Asserted that the senior deductions exceed taxable income. The $18,150 standard deduction plus the $6,000 senior deduction leave $26,287.11 of AGI taxable."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied TCJA-sunset law (a $16,600 standard deduction plus a $5,300 personal exemption and a 15% bracket) and used a joint-width $23,200 10% bracket for a QSS filer with no dependent child. Under OBBBA single rules the deductions are $16,100 + $2,050 + $6,000, and the 10% bracket ends at $12,400."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Assumed restored pre-TCJA law, with a personal exemption, itemized property tax and 10%/15% brackets. Under OBBBA 2026 the filer takes the $18,150 standard deduction plus the $6,000 senior deduction with 10%/12% brackets."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Got taxable income right at $26,286 but ended the 2026 single 10% bracket at $12,200 instead of $12,400. Taxing that extra $200 at 12% instead of 10% overstated the tax by about $4."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied TCJA-sunset law (no SALT cap, a 15% bracket), counted ESI premiums as a medical deduction, and left out the $6,000 senior deduction. Under OBBBA the filer takes the $18,150 standard deduction plus $6,000 and is taxed at 10%/12%."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Returned no value for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so the required output is missing."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Subtracted credits that don't apply: a Lifetime Learning credit with no education expenses, and a $750 elderly credit that the high nontaxable Social Security and AGI eliminate. That drove tax to $0. The correct computation leaves $2,906.45 with no nonrefundable credits."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Left out the $6,000 OBBBA senior deduction for filers 65 and older, which leaves $32,286 taxable instead of $26,287.11. Everything else was correct, so the omission alone overstates tax by $720."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Left half of the Social Security benefits out of provisional income ($37,472 instead of $50,520) and dropped the $4,500 base-amount tier. This produced $2,951 of taxable SS instead of $18,542.70."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Treated the full $26,096 of Social Security as nontaxable even though provisional income of $50,520 exceeds the $34,000 threshold. It also used a $31,150 QSS standard deduction for a filer with no dependent child, who files single."
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Claimed the aged single standard deduction wipes out taxable income. AGI of $50,437.11 minus the $18,150 standard deduction and the $6,000 senior deduction still leaves $26,287.11 taxable."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Treated the surviving spouse as a qualifying surviving spouse even though no dependent child is listed, which is required for that status. It therefore applied the $32,000/$44,000 joint Social Security thresholds (taxable SS $11,542 instead of $18,542.70) and a joint $32,300 standard deduction. Single status gives deductions of $18,150 + $6,000 and taxable income of $26,287.11."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"AGI of $50,436 was correct, but it used the qualifying-surviving-spouse $32,200 joint standard deduction and a $1,650 aged add-on even though there is no dependent. Single status gives $16,100 + $2,050, plus the $6,000 senior deduction, which makes taxable income $26,287.11 instead of $10,586. That income is taxed at 10%/12%."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Wrongly counted the $48,000 of nontaxable veterans benefits in income and subtracted ESI premiums from AGI despite having no wages. It also taxed the full 85% of Social Security. After its own math produced about $6,600 of tax, it switched to $0 for no stated reason. The correct path is AGI $50,437.11 minus $24,150 of deductions, which gives tax of $2,906.45."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Claimed taxable income was zero without computing it. AGI is $50,437.11 ($24,000 pension + $7,849 IRA + $45 interest + $18,542.70 taxable SS), and the $18,150 standard deduction plus the $6,000 senior deduction leave $26,287.11 taxable. That produces $2,906.45 of tax."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Filing status and deductions ($18,150 + $6,000) were right, but the second-tier Social Security formula used half of benefits ($13,048) instead of the $4,500 cap. That made taxable SS $22,182 instead of $18,542.70 and AGI $54,076 instead of $50,437.11. It also ended the 10% bracket at $12,150 instead of $12,400."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Applied qualifying-surviving-spouse joint status and a joint standard deduction of about $32,300 even though no dependent child is listed. It also taxed the full 85% of Social Security, then cut its own positive taxable-income estimate to $0 with no supporting calculation. Under Single status, taxable income is $26,287.11 and tax is $2,906.45."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Correctly used Single status and $24,150 of deductions, but taxed the full 85% cap of Social Security ($22,182) instead of $18,542.70. That overstated AGI by about $3,640. It then cut its own roughly $3,300 tax figure to an arbitrary $1,176 instead of applying 10%/12% to $26,287.11."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Computed AGI correctly but deducted the joint/QSS standard deduction ($32,200 + $1,650) even though a surviving spouse without a dependent files Single. Single gives $16,100 + $2,050 + $6,000 = $24,150, leaving $26,287.11 taxable, with part of it in the 12% bracket."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Used qualifying-surviving-spouse joint status (about $31,550 standard deduction and joint brackets) without a qualifying child. It taxed the full 85% of Social Security ($22,182 instead of $18,542.70) and left out the $6,000 senior deduction."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Applied the joint/QSS $33,850 standard deduction and brackets despite there being no dependent, taxed the full 85% of Social Security, and left out the $6,000 senior deduction. It then raised its own $2,023 figure to an unsupported $3,204."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Used the single Social Security thresholds and the correct $50,436 AGI, but deducted the joint/QSS standard deduction ($32,200 + $1,650) instead of the Single $16,100 + $2,050. That understated taxable income at $10,586 instead of $26,287.11."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"AGI was correct, but it omitted the $6,000 OBBBA senior deduction for filers 65 and older. It also understated the 2026 single standard deduction ($15,400 instead of $16,100), so taxable income came out at $32,986 instead of $26,287.11."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Taxed the full 85% of Social Security ($22,182) instead of the $18,542.70 the tiered formula produces, used a $17,350 standard deduction instead of $18,150, and omitted the $6,000 senior deduction. Taxable income came out at $36,726 instead of $26,287.11."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Assumed TCJA expired in 2026, so it applied a $5,300 personal exemption and a 15% bracket. In fact, the OBBBA made the $16,100 + $2,050 standard deduction and the 12% bracket permanent and added the $6,000 senior deduction. It also itemized the employer-sponsored insurance premiums as a medical expense, which the engine's itemized total ($17,587.20 of SALT) does not include."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"AGI and the $18,150 single age-65 standard deduction were correct, but it omitted the $6,000 OBBBA senior deduction. It also used a $12,200 top for the 10% bracket instead of $12,400. Taxable income was $32,286 instead of $26,287.11."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Assumed the 2026 TCJA sunset, so it used a $5,300 personal exemption and the 15% bracket and itemized ESI premiums as medical expenses. The OBBBA made the TCJA rules permanent, so the correct path is the $18,150 standard deduction plus the $6,000 senior deduction, with 10%/12% brackets applied to $26,287.11."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its stated taxable income of $37,990 omits the $6,000 senior deduction and is about $11,700 too high. Its $1,109 tax is not consistent with that income under any bracket schedule. The correct path is AGI $50,437.11 minus $24,150, giving $26,287.11 taxable and $2,906.45 of tax."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"AGI was correct, but it applied pre-TCJA 2026 rules: a roughly $5,400 personal exemption, itemized real estate taxes, and a 15% bracket. The OBBBA kept the TCJA structure, so the $18,150 standard deduction plus the $6,000 senior deduction apply, with no exemption and a 12% second bracket."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Assumed TCJA reverted in 2026, so it used a $5,050 personal exemption, itemized $16,470, and applied a 15% bracket. The applicable law has no personal exemption, an $18,150 standard deduction plus the $6,000 senior deduction, and a 12% second bracket."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Claimed income was below the deductions without computing either. AGI is $50,437.11 including $18,542.70 of taxable Social Security, and total deductions are only $24,150, which leaves $26,287.11 taxable."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used the TCJA-sunset framework: itemized real estate taxes plus a personal exemption, taxed at 10%/15%. 2026 law has no personal exemption, an $18,150 standard deduction plus the $6,000 senior deduction, and 10%/12% brackets."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Assumed TCJA expired, so it took a personal exemption with itemized real estate taxes and the 15% bracket. The OBBBA kept the $16,100 + $2,050 standard deduction, added the $6,000 senior deduction, and kept the 12% bracket."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"AGI was correct, but it used a $17,000 single age-65 standard deduction instead of $18,150 and omitted the $6,000 senior deduction. Taxable income came out at $33,436 instead of $26,287.11."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied post-TCJA-expiration rules: a $5,300 personal exemption, a 15% bracket, and a medical deduction from ESI premiums. It also miscomputed taxable Social Security as $19,942 instead of $18,542.70. The correct path is the $18,150 standard deduction plus the $6,000 senior deduction under the 10%/12% brackets."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Single status and AGI were correct, but it omitted the $6,000 OBBBA senior deduction. It also underestimated the standard deduction ($17,510 instead of $18,150) and the 10% bracket top ($12,283 instead of $12,400)."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Itemized $21,076 by counting the $8,389 employer-sponsored insurance premiums as a medical deduction. The engine's itemized total is only $17,587.20 of SALT, so the $18,150 standard deduction applies. It also omitted the $6,000 senior deduction, which applies either way."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Used a surviving-spouse (joint) rate structure without a qualifying dependent and asserted the deductions wiped out all income. Under Single status, AGI of $50,437.11 minus $24,150 of deductions leaves $26,287.11 taxable."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Asserted that the standard deduction offsets all income without computing taxable Social Security. Taxable SS is $18,542.70, which puts AGI at $50,437.11, well above the $24,150 of total deductions."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Used surviving-spouse joint Social Security thresholds and the joint $32,200 standard deduction even though there is no dependent, which makes the filer Single. As a result, taxable SS came out at $11,542 instead of $18,542.70 and the deduction was overstated by about $14,000."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The method was right (Single status, $18,150 + $6,000 deductions, 10%/12% brackets), but taxable Social Security was overstated at $18,592 instead of $18,542.70. That inflated taxable income to $26,336 instead of $26,287.11."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Applied surviving-spouse joint thresholds and standard deduction without a qualifying dependent. That shrank taxable income to about $3,590 instead of the Single-status $26,287.11."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"AGI was correct, but it applied the joint/QSS $33,850 age-adjusted standard deduction instead of the Single $18,150. Taxable income came out at $10,586 instead of $26,287.11."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Correct framework, but taxable Social Security was overstated by about $49, which put taxable income at $26,336 instead of $26,287.11. It also rounded the result to whole dollars."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Applied surviving-spouse joint Social Security thresholds (taxable SS $11,542) and the $33,850 joint standard deduction even though there is no dependent. The filer is Single."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Asserted without computation that senior deductions exceed taxable income, and wrongly listed nontaxable veterans benefits among the income items. Taxable SS is $18,542.70 and AGI is $50,437.11, so $26,287.11 remains after the $24,150 of deductions."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied pre-TCJA 2026 rules (a $5,300 personal exemption and a 15% bracket) and used the joint $23,200 10% bracket for a filer who is Single. It also omitted the $6,000 senior deduction."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Assumed the TCJA sunset, so it itemized property tax, added a personal exemption, and used 10%/15% brackets. The correct path is the $18,150 standard deduction plus the $6,000 senior deduction, with the 10%/12% brackets applied to $26,287.11."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Deductions and taxable income were correct, but it ended the 2026 single 10% bracket at $12,200 instead of $12,400. That moved $200 into the 12% rate and produced $2,910 instead of $2,906.45."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Assumed the TCJA sunset (no SALT cap and a 15% bracket) and itemized ESI premiums as medical expenses, which the engine's $17,587.20 itemized total excludes. It also omitted the $6,000 senior deduction."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Gave no answer or reasoning for this output. The correct derivation gives AGI of $50,437.11, minus the $18,150 standard deduction and the $6,000 senior deduction, which taxed at 10%/12% yields $2,906.45."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Subtracted an inapplicable lifetime learning credit and a $750 elderly credit from its tax estimate. The elderly credit is zero because about $7,553 of nontaxable Social Security exceeds the $5,000 initial amount. No nonrefundable credits apply, so the tax on $26,287.11 stays at $2,906.45."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"AGI, the $18,150 standard deduction, and the brackets were correct, but it omitted the $6,000 OBBBA senior deduction for filers 65 and older. Taxable income came out at $32,286 instead of $26,287.11."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Left half of Social Security benefits out of provisional income (used $37,472 instead of $50,520) and dropped the $4,500 base amount. That made taxable Social Security $2,951.20 instead of $18,542.70, which understated AGI."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Used qualifying-widow joint status without a dependent and treated Social Security as fully nontaxable, even though provisional income of $50,520 exceeds the $34,000 threshold. The correct path is Single status with $18,542.70 of taxable SS."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Claimed the single age-65 standard deduction eliminates taxable income. AGI is $50,437.11, so even after the $18,150 standard deduction and the $6,000 senior deduction, $26,287.11 remains taxable."
us,scenario_000,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_000,head_medicaid_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated age 77 and an asserted income exclusion calculation as sufficient for Texas aged Medicaid without identifying or satisfying an aged eligibility pathway. The person qualifies through no Medicaid category and receives no SSI, so the claimed below-threshold aged eligibility does not apply."
us,scenario_000,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model correctly stated that no earned wages were reported and that payroll tax therefore equals zero, but then submitted $1,534 instead. Its numeric output contradicts its own payroll-tax-base analysis and the required final-value contract."
@@ -87,43 +88,45 @@ us,scenario_002,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,prompt_
us,scenario_002,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model excluded the disability benefits in its final pass but declared the full $44,080 of Social Security taxable. Its own combined income of $40,780 falls below the $44,000 MFJ second threshold, so only 50% × ($40,780 − $32,000) = $4,390 is taxable. It also used a $32,600 deduction that leaves out the $12,000 senior deduction. The correct AGI of $23,130 gives $0 tax."
us,scenario_002,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model correctly identified a zero taxable wage base and then contradicted that computation by inventing taxable wage-equivalent income and assigning $1,926 of Social Security and Medicare taxes. No listed income is employee compensation subject to payroll tax, so the employee Social Security, Medicare, Additional Medicare, and mandatory state payroll-tax components all equal zero."
us,scenario_002,spouse_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model incorrectly evaluated the spouse as a separate zero-income individual and assumed that age alone opened an aged Medicaid pathway. Washington's pathway evaluation includes the applicable household income and categorical requirements; this spouse receives no SSI, has household MAGI of 2.90 times FPL, and qualifies for no category."
-us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its own working reached about $22,379 using a $32,300 standard deduction and the correct 2026 brackets. It then submitted $27,049, a number that nothing in its reasoning supports."
-us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took a $500 deduction for auto loan interest. The facts never show a loan on a qualifying new, US-assembled vehicle, so the OBBBA car-loan interest deduction does not apply. That $500 at 22% is exactly the $110 shortfall from $22,400.65."
-us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It taxed only 85% of the excess over $32,000 ($23,384) of Social Security instead of the 85% cap ($50,583). It also deducted the desired traditional 401(k) and IRA contributions even though no one has compensation. Finally, it treated a spouse as 65 or older and used an outdated $28,900 standard deduction instead of $32,200."
-us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It showed no calculation and was unsure about age-65 status. Neither spouse is 65, so no extra deduction applies. The correct taxable income of $151,090 produces $22,401. Its $14,800 implies about $34,500 less taxable income at 22%, consistent with adding retirement-contribution or age-65 deductions that are not available."
-us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,other,False,"It calculated about $22,652–$22,674, even with 2025-style bracket limits ($24,150/$98,200). It then submitted an unrelated $19,524, citing estimation uncertainty instead of reporting its own result."
-us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used 2025 bracket limits (10% to $23,850, 12% to $96,950) and a $32,300 standard deduction. The 2026 values are $24,800, $100,800 and $32,200. This pushed more ordinary income into the 22% bracket and overstated tax by about $382."
-us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a 24% bracket to ordinary taxable income of about $147,331. The 2026 joint 22% bracket runs to about $211,400, so ordinary tax is $21,837, not $23,886."
-us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It estimated the 2026 joint standard deduction as $30,000 by indexing pre-OBBBA amounts. OBBBA set it at $32,200. It also used projected bracket limits ($24,450/$99,375) instead of $24,800/$100,800, which overstated taxable income and tax."
-us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted the $1,118 traditional IRA contribution even though neither spouse has compensation, so the deductible limit is $0. It also overstated pre-Social Security income by $100 ($132,807) and rounded its approximate result down to $22,000."
-us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted a $23,500 traditional 401(k) deferral and a $1,118 IRA deduction even though the household has no wages or other compensation, so neither is deductible. It also used a $30,600 standard deduction instead of $32,200."
-us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA had expired and applied a $15,000 standard deduction, $5,100 personal exemptions and the 10/15/25% brackets. OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent, so 2026 uses a $32,200 standard deduction, no exemptions and the 10/12/22% brackets. It also understated AGI at $180,611."
-us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It wrongly claimed Social Security is excluded from income in 2026. Section 86 still applies, and with provisional income near $167,704, $50,583 is taxable. It also used a $30,700 standard deduction instead of $32,200."
-us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $30,000 standard deduction and 2025 bracket limits (10% to $23,850, 12% to $96,950). The 2026 values are $32,200 and $24,800/$100,800, so it overstated ordinary tax."
-us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the TCJA sunset rules: a $16,000 standard deduction, $10,000 of personal exemptions and the 10/15/25% brackets. Under OBBBA, 2026 uses a $32,200 standard deduction, no exemptions and the 10/12/22% brackets."
-us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its stated taxable income of about $183,865 is higher than AGI, so it never subtracted the $32,200 standard deduction. The correct taxable income is $151,090."
-us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA had expired and subtracted a pre-TCJA standard deduction plus personal exemptions, reaching about $155,490 of taxable income taxed at the old rates. OBBBA kept the $32,200 standard deduction, no exemptions and the 10/12/22% brackets for 2026."
-us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the TCJA sunset rules: a $16,100 standard deduction, $10,100 of personal exemptions and the higher pre-TCJA brackets. OBBBA made the $32,200 standard deduction and the 10/12/22% brackets permanent for 2026."
-us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,other,False,"It reported $0 with no calculation, even though $151,090 of taxable income remains after the $32,200 standard deduction. That income produces $21,837 of ordinary tax plus $564 on qualified dividends."
-us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $30,800 standard deduction and 2025 bracket limits (10% to $23,850, 12% to $96,950). The 2026 values are $32,200 and $24,800/$100,800, which explains its $23,112.71."
-us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It subtracted personal exemptions and a pre-TCJA standard deduction for 2026, assuming the TCJA had expired. OBBBA eliminated exemptions permanently and set the joint standard deduction at $32,200 with the 10/12/22% brackets."
-us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $23,287 matches a $30,000 standard deduction and 2025 bracket limits ($23,850/$96,950) applied to a slightly misstated AGI of $183,280.50. The 2026 values are a $32,200 standard deduction and $24,800/$100,800 bracket limits."
-us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,other,False,"Its own working ended at $28,867, which already had several errors: it capped the long-term loss at -$3,000 instead of netting to -$1,582, used a $30,000 standard deduction, taxed qualified dividends twice, and invented a $500 'sick spouse' credit. It then submitted an unrelated $49,523.45."
-us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted the $1,080 short-term gain as separate income and also inside the -$1,582 net capital loss, overstating AGI at $184,370.50 instead of $183,290.25. It also used a $32,600 standard deduction instead of $32,200."
-us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It claimed age-65 deductions, but the head is 64 and the spouse 61, so no additional or senior deduction applies. Medical expenses also fall below the 7.5%-of-AGI floor (about $13,747), so itemizing gives nothing. The $32,200 standard deduction leaves $151,090 taxable, not $0."
-us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted retirement contributions, which are not allowed without compensation, and itemized medical expenses that fall below the 7.5%-of-AGI floor. Its $2,320 implies only about $23,000 of taxable income, when $151,090 remains after the $32,200 standard deduction."
-us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It said the desired 401(k)/IRA contributions and the standard deduction wipe out tax. With no compensation those contributions are not deductible, and the $32,200 standard deduction leaves $151,090 taxable, producing $22,400.65."
-us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the TCJA sunset rules: a $16,100 standard deduction, $10,600 of personal exemptions and the 10/15/25% brackets. OBBBA made the $32,200 standard deduction, zero exemptions and the 10/12/22% brackets permanent for 2026."
-us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used post-sunset pre-TCJA rules (standard deduction plus personal exemptions, 10/15/25% brackets) to reach $155,391 of taxable income. Under OBBBA, 2026 taxable income is $151,090 after the $32,200 standard deduction and is taxed at 10/12/22%."
-us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA had expired, using a $17,000 standard deduction, $10,800 of exemptions and pre-TCJA brackets. OBBBA kept the $32,200 joint standard deduction with no exemptions and the 10/12/22% brackets for 2026."
-us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used inflation-adjusted pre-TCJA parameters: a $17,103 standard deduction, $10,908 of exemptions and the 10/15/25% brackets. 2026 law under OBBBA uses a $32,200 standard deduction, no exemptions and the 10/12/22% brackets."
-us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $1,080 short-term gain as income and then also subtracted the -$1,582 net capital loss that already includes it. That overstated AGI at about $184,371 instead of $183,290 and pushed the tax above $22,400.65."
-us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used projected pre-TCJA 2026 law: a $16,950 standard deduction, $10,800 of exemptions and the 10/15/25% brackets. OBBBA made permanent the $32,200 standard deduction, no exemptions and the 10/12/22% brackets."
-us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used bracket limits of $24,400 and $99,150 instead of 2026's $24,800 and $100,800, which overstated ordinary tax. It also took a $500 car-loan-interest deduction that the facts don't support, since nothing shows a loan on a qualifying new, US-assembled vehicle."
-us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"It returned $0 because there were no wages and never taxed the non-wage income: $94,720 of IRA distributions, $32,525 of pension, $50,583 of taxable Social Security, and interest and dividends. That income produces $151,090 of taxable income."
-us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $1,582 net capital loss twice. AGI was already $183,290.50, but it reported taxable income of $149,508.50 instead of $151,090.50, understating tax by $348 (22% of $1,582)."
-us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,other,False,"Its working reached $25,531.98 after ignoring the $1,582 capital loss, treating the head as 65 or older, and miscalculating ordinary tax. It then submitted an unrelated $41,228.50."
-us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The correct path is AGI of $183,290.25 minus the $32,200 standard deduction, giving $151,090.25 taxable and $22,400.65 of tax. Its $21,902.90 matches about $2,260 less taxable income at the 22% rate, an unexplained extra reduction that the facts do not support."
+us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its own reasoning reached about $22,379, close to the correct figure but using a $32,300 standard deduction instead of $32,200. It then submitted $27,049, which doesn't follow from that work. The submitted number matches a TCJA-sunset calculation (personal exemptions and 25% bracket), and 2026 law does not use those rules."
+us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted $500 of auto-loan interest as a deduction on top of the $32,200 standard deduction. That $500 is ordinary household auto-loan interest, not qualified vehicle-loan interest, so it isn't deductible here. The correct taxable income is $151,090.25, not $150,590.50, and the extra deduction cut the tax by exactly 22% × $500 = $110."
+us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted the traditional 401(k) ($23,926) and IRA ($1,118) contributions even though there are no wages or other compensation to support them. It also figured taxable Social Security as 85% of the excess over $32,000 ($23,384) instead of the $50,583 cap. Finally, it used a $28,900 standard deduction with an over-65 addition, but neither spouse is 65 and the 2026 MFJ amount is $32,200."
+us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"It gave a rough $14,800 without working through the brackets and was unsure about 65+ status. Neither spouse is 65, so no additional or senior deduction applies. On $151,090.25 of taxable income, the 2026 MFJ brackets plus 15% on qualified dividends produce $22,400.65."
+us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,other,False,"Its reasoning reached about $22,652 using 2025-level brackets (10% to $24,150, 12% to $98,200). It then submitted an unsupported $19,524, citing 'estimation uncertainty'. The correct 2026 brackets (10% to $24,800, 12% to $100,800) on $147,330.25 of ordinary income give $21,836.65, plus $564 on dividends."
+us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used 2025 bracket thresholds (10% to $23,850, 12% to $96,950) and a $32,300 standard deduction. The 2026 MFJ values are $24,800, $100,800, and $32,200. Because the lower thresholds push more income into the 22% bracket, it overstated tax by about $380."
+us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said it applied a 24% bracket to about $147,331 of ordinary income and got $23,886. The 24% bracket doesn't start until $211,400 for 2026 MFJ, so all of the income above $100,800 belongs at 22%. Correct ordinary tax is $21,836.65."
+us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It projected the 2026 standard deduction as $30,000 by inflating the 2024 amount. That misses the OBBBA-set $32,200 and overstates taxable income by $2,200. It also used estimated brackets (12% ending at $99,375) instead of the actual $100,800 threshold."
+us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted the $1,118 traditional IRA contribution. A deductible IRA contribution requires taxable compensation, and this household has no wages. It also overstated pre-Social Security income by $100 ($132,807 instead of $132,707), and then rounded a rough bracket estimate down to $22,000."
+us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It cut AGI by $23,500 of 401(k) deferrals and $1,118 of IRA contributions. With no wages there is nothing to defer and no compensation to support an IRA deduction, so AGI stays at $183,290.25. It also used a $30,600 standard deduction instead of $32,200."
+us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied pre-TCJA law to 2026: $5,100 personal exemptions, a $15,000 standard deduction, and 10/15/25% brackets. OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent, so 2026 uses the $32,200 standard deduction, no exemptions, and 10/12/22% brackets. It also dropped about $2,680 from AGI ($180,611 instead of $183,290)."
+us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed Social Security is not taxed in 2026 and left out the full $50,583 taxable portion. Benefits remain taxable under the provisional-income test: provisional income of about $167,704 is far above $44,000, so 85% is includible. It also used a $30,700 standard deduction instead of $32,200."
+us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got AGI right but used a $30,000 standard deduction instead of $32,200. It also used 2025 bracket thresholds (10% to $23,850, 12% to $96,950) instead of the 2026 values ($24,800 and $100,800). Both errors overstated tax."
+us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA expires in 2026 and used a $16,000 standard deduction, $10,000 of personal exemptions, and 10/15/25% brackets. OBBBA made the TCJA permanent, so the correct calculation uses the $32,200 standard deduction, no exemptions, and 10/12/22% brackets."
+us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It put taxable income at about $183,865, which is roughly AGI. In effect, it never subtracted the $32,200 standard deduction. Taxable income is $151,090.25, and that produces $22,400.65 of tax."
+us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA expires and subtracted a pre-TCJA standard deduction plus personal exemptions, then applied the older bracket structure. Under OBBBA-permanent law, 2026 has a $32,200 standard deduction, no personal exemptions, and 10/12/22% brackets."
+us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset rules: a $16,100 standard deduction, $10,100 of personal exemptions, and the 25% bracket. OBBBA made the TCJA permanent, so the correct 2026 calculation uses a $32,200 standard deduction, no exemptions, and 10/12/22% brackets."
+us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,other,False,"It reported $0 without any calculation, even though AGI of $183,290.25 is far above the $32,200 standard deduction and there are no offsetting nonrefundable credits. The $151,090.25 of taxable income produces $22,400.65 of tax."
+us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $30,800 standard deduction instead of $32,200. It also used 2025 bracket thresholds (10% to $23,850, 12% to $96,950) instead of the 2026 values ($24,800 and $100,800). The result was about $712 too high."
+us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It subtracted personal exemptions and a pre-TCJA standard deduction, which assumes the TCJA sunset. 2026 law has no personal exemptions, a $32,200 MFJ standard deduction, and 10/12/22% brackets."
+us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got AGI right, but its $23,287 corresponds to a standard deduction of about $30,000 and 2025 bracket thresholds. The correct 2026 parameters are a $32,200 standard deduction and brackets of $24,800 and $100,800, which give $22,400.65."
+us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $22,290.71 is exactly 22% × $500 below the correct amount. That shows it subtracted the $500 of household auto-loan interest on top of the standard deduction. This interest is not deductible here, so taxable income stays at $151,090.25."
+us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,other,False,"It made several errors: it applied a -$3,000 long-term loss instead of the actual $2,662, overstated ordinary tax at about $28,803 on roughly $152k, and invented a $500 credit for a sick spouse. It then submitted $49,523.45, which contradicts its own $28,867 figure."
+us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $1,080 short-term gain to ordinary income and then also subtracted the $1,582 net capital loss, which already includes that gain. That double count overstated AGI at $184,370.50 instead of $183,290.25. It also used a $32,600 standard deduction instead of $32,200."
+us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It assumed age-65 deductions and itemized medical and interest deductions wiped out the tax. The head is 64 and the spouse is 61, so neither the additional standard deduction nor the senior deduction applies. Medical expenses of $10,900 fall below the 7.5%-of-AGI floor, so the $32,200 standard deduction leaves $151,090.25 taxable."
+us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reduced income using retirement-account deductions and itemized medical expenses. With no compensation, the contributions aren't deductible, and the $10,900 of medical expenses is below the $13,747 floor (7.5% of AGI). With only the $32,200 standard deduction, taxable income is $151,090.25 and the tax is $22,400.65, not $2,320."
+us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the desired retirement contributions and the standard deduction as enough to zero out the tax. With no wages, none of the contributions are deductible. The $32,200 standard deduction leaves $151,090.25 taxable."
+us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used post-TCJA-sunset rules: a $16,100 standard deduction, about $10,600 of personal exemptions, and 10/15/25% brackets. OBBBA made the TCJA permanent, so 2026 uses a $32,200 standard deduction, no exemptions, and 10/12/22% brackets."
+us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got AGI right but applied a pre-TCJA standard deduction, personal exemptions, and 10/15/25% brackets on the assumption that the TCJA sunset. 2026 law keeps the $32,200 standard deduction, no exemptions, and 10/12/22% brackets."
+us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA sunset and used a $17,000 standard deduction plus $10,800 of personal exemptions. OBBBA made the TCJA permanent, so the 2026 MFJ standard deduction is $32,200 with no exemptions, and the 22% bracket applies above $100,800."
+us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used inflation-adjusted pre-TCJA parameters: a $17,103 standard deduction, $10,908 of exemptions, and 10/15/25% brackets. 2026 law under OBBBA keeps the $32,200 standard deduction, no exemptions, and 10/12/22% brackets."
+us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted the $1,080 short-term gain as income and then also subtracted the full $1,582 net capital loss, which already includes that gain. That double count overstated AGI at about $184,371 instead of $183,290.25, and taxable income by $1,080."
+us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a projected pre-TCJA $16,950 standard deduction, $10,800 of personal exemptions, and 10/15/25% brackets. OBBBA made the TCJA permanent, so 2026 uses the $32,200 standard deduction, no exemptions, and 10/12/22% brackets."
+us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted a $500 car-loan-interest deduction, but the household's auto-loan interest is not deductible here. It also used understated bracket thresholds (12% ending around $99,150 instead of $100,800). Ordinary tax on $147,330.25 is $21,836.65."
+us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"It returned $0 because there were no wages. Retirement distributions, pensions, taxable Social Security, interest, and dividends add up to $183,290.25 of AGI. After the $32,200 standard deduction, the tax is $22,400.65."
+us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the correct $32,200 standard deduction, but its $22,241 ordinary tax comes from 2025 bracket thresholds (10% to $23,850, 12% to $96,950). The 2026 thresholds ($24,800 and $100,800) give $21,836.65."
+us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $1,582 net capital loss a second time after it was already netted into AGI. That put taxable income at $149,508.50 instead of $183,290.50 - $32,200 = $151,090.50, which understated the 22%-bracket income."
+us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,other,False,"It treated net capital gains as $0 instead of taking the $1,582 net capital loss deduction, which overstated AGI at $184,872.50. It used a $32,300 standard deduction based on a wrong '65+ head' premise and overstated ordinary tax at $24,967.98. It then submitted $41,228.50, which contradicts its own $25,531.98 total."
+us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,other,False,"Its $21,902.90 is $497.75 below the correct $22,400.65. That gap equals about $2,262 of 22%-bracket income removed by an extra deduction the facts don't support. The correct calculation taxes $147,330.25 of ordinary income through the 2026 MFJ brackets plus $3,760 of qualified dividends at 15%."
us,scenario_003,head_medicare_eligible,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"The model's explanation correctly said the head, at 64, is under the age-65 Medicare threshold and has no disability pathway, and it ended with ""value = 0"". Its submitted numeric value was still 1 (Yes), so the output field contradicts its own correct reasoning."
us,scenario_003,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model invented a ""near-term eligibility"" rule that counts a 64-year-old as Medicare-eligible. Eligibility requires reaching age 65 (or a disability/ESRD pathway, none of which is present). The prompt also fixes age as constant for the tax year, so no projection to 65 applies."
us,scenario_003,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,other,False,"The model's reasoning correctly said that 64 is below the Medicare eligibility age of 65 and that the head is ""not eligible"". It then submitted value = 1, which contradicts its own conclusion; the correct value is 0."
@@ -150,189 +153,197 @@ us,scenario_004,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite
us,scenario_004,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $3,212 implies about $64,000 of New York taxable income under the MFJ brackets — more than the household's entire $52,540 of gross receipts including Social Security — so it both taxed the $51,475 benefit and imputed unlisted wage earnings from the 40-hour work weeks that the prompt requires be treated as 0. The actual New York base is $1,065 of interest less partnership loss, fully offset by the ~$16,050 MFJ standard deduction, for $0 of tax."
us,scenario_004,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It wrote that New York does not tax Social Security yet built its base from $52,540 with the full $51,475 benefit included, never applying the federal provisional-income test ($26,803 against the $32,000 MFJ base) that makes the benefit 0% taxable and therefore leaves only $1,065 of federal AGI to flow to New York. Its arithmetic is also self-contradictory: $52,540 less its stated $16,850 standard deduction is $35,690, not the $18,426 it claimed, and $3,451.12 on $18,426 is an 18.7% effective rate against NY's 4%–4.5% brackets at that level (about $743). The correct result is $1,065 of NY AGI wiped out by the ~$16,050 standard deduction, giving $0."
us,scenario_004,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly found federal AGI under $5,000 and used the table amount of $90 plus $15 for the second exemption, but it counted the NY household credit (Tax Law §606(b)) as refundable. That credit is nonrefundable: it only offsets NY tax, which is zero here, and it never enters state_refundable_credits. None of NY's refundable credits apply (EITC, Empire State child credit, real property tax credit), so the answer is $0, not $105."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Left out the 3.8% net investment income tax entirely ($5,722 on $150,578 of net investment income), which the frozen reference includes although the record leaves its inclusion in this output unresolved, and then added an unexplained ~$600 to its own $100,206. It also used a $32,600 standard deduction instead of $32,200 and skipped the $1,070 non-itemizer cash charitable deduction."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its brackets, 15% dividend tax, and $5,722 NIIT match the frozen derivation, but taxable income is $559 above the frozen reference. Differences include the $1,070 non-itemizer charitable deduction, refund treatment, and the frozen engine's pro rata 401(k) allocation of $41,650 rather than $46,308; refund taxation and excess-deferral allocation are unresolved. Both the model and the frozen reference deduct $2,164 of IRA contributions, which the exclusion's corrected treatment disallows under 219(g)."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Invented about $110,000 of mortgage interest from the $2.85M balance, although no interest paid was listed, so the mortgage-interest deduction is $0. Its $249,914 also has no arithmetic link to its own taxable-income figure. The frozen reference uses the $32,200 standard deduction plus the $1,070 non-itemizer deduction, giving $503,495 of taxable income and $89,096 + $11,688 + $5,722 of tax; those figures include a defective $2,164 IRA deduction that the exclusion's corrected treatment disallows under 219(g)."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Submitted 0 as a placeholder without computing anything, despite about $537k of AGI. The frozen computation gives $89,096 of ordinary tax on $425,575, $11,688 on $77,920 of qualified dividends, and $5,722 of NIIT; its taxable income includes a defective $2,164 IRA deduction that the exclusion's corrected treatment disallows under 219(g)."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Explicitly left out the $5,722 NIIT included in the frozen reference ('NIIT not part of this line'); the record leaves NIIT inclusion unresolved. It then reported $91,458, roughly its ordinary-bracket tax alone, dropping the $11,688 qualified-dividend tax it had computed itself (its own total was $102,907). It also used a $31,500 standard deduction and skipped the $1,070 non-itemizer charitable deduction. Its inclusion of the $4,148 refund differs from the frozen reference, but refund taxation is unresolved."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Imputed mortgage interest on the $2.85M balance although no interest paid was listed. It taxed qualified dividends at 20% even though income stacked on top of ordinary income stays in the 15% band. Its reported $154,430 also does not follow from its own components (~$92,000 + $15,584, about $107,600)."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Mis-added AGI to $604,318, although its own components sum to about $538,418. It imputed mortgage interest that was never listed and applied an invented 18.8% blended rate to qualified dividends. The frozen reference's AGI is $536,764, followed by the $32,200 standard deduction plus the $1,070 non-itemizer charitable deduction; that AGI includes a defective $2,164 IRA deduction that the exclusion's corrected treatment disallows under 219(g)."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its brackets, 15% dividend tax, and $5,722 NIIT match the frozen derivation, but taxable income ($504,054) is $559 above the frozen reference. Differences include the $1,070 non-itemizer charitable deduction, refund treatment, and the frozen engine's pro rata 401(k) allocation of $41,650 rather than $46,308; refund taxation and excess-deferral allocation are unresolved. Both the model and the frozen reference deduct $2,164 of IRA contributions, which the exclusion's corrected treatment disallows under 219(g)."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Assumed the TCJA expired in 2026, applying pre-TCJA brackets, a $10,000 SALT cap, restored 2% miscellaneous deductions, and a $7,141 AMT. Under 2026 law the TCJA bracket structure stays, the household takes the $32,200 standard deduction, and no AMT applies. It also imputed $52,500 of mortgage interest at an assumed 7% rate, with no interest listed, and computed NIIT on $153,578 without the $3,000 capital-loss offset (the correct base is $150,578)."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Imputed about $28,000 of mortgage interest and used a $10,000 SALT cap in order to itemize, then reported a rounded $115,000 that was never worked through the brackets. With no mortgage interest listed, the household takes the $32,200 standard deduction plus the $1,070 non-itemizer charitable deduction. The frozen reference reports $503,495 of taxable income and $89,096 + $11,688 + $5,722 of tax, including a defective $2,164 IRA deduction that the exclusion's corrected treatment disallows under 219(g)."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Itemized (SALT of about $31.9k plus $2.6k of charity) instead of taking the $32,200 standard deduction plus the $1,070 non-itemizer cash charitable deduction. It ignored the 2026 floor of 0.5% of AGI, which wipes out the $2,574 itemized charitable deduction. Its refund inclusion and $46,308 of 401(k) deferrals differ from the frozen reference's refund exclusion and pro rata $41,650 allocation; the record leaves those treatments unresolved. Denying the $2,164 IRA deduction agrees with the exclusion's corrected treatment under 219(g), whereas the frozen reference improperly allows it."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used a $30,750 standard deduction instead of $32,200 and skipped the $1,070 non-itemizer charitable deduction. Its $507,668 taxable income exceeds the frozen reference's $503,495, which includes a defective $2,164 IRA deduction disallowed under 219(g); its refund inclusion also differs from the frozen reference, but refund taxation is unresolved. Its brackets also overstated ordinary tax ($92,234 on $429,748, versus $90,431 under the 2026 schedule). NIIT was computed on $153,578 without the $3,000 capital-loss offset."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Added a $131,247 AMT that does not arise: with the standard deduction and the 2026 AMT exemption, tentative minimum tax stays below regular tax. Its $465,449 taxable income reflects itemized deductions the facts do not support. NIIT used $153,578 instead of $150,578 of net investment income."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied rules that only hold if the TCJA expired: the Pease limitation, about $59.5k of itemized deductions, and an AMT that raised tax to $127,938. Under 2026 law the household takes the $32,200 standard deduction plus the $1,070 non-itemizer charitable deduction and owes no AMT. NIIT used $153,578 instead of $150,578."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Taxed $396,990 of ordinary income at pre-TCJA 2026 brackets after $63,508 of itemized deductions. 2026 law keeps the TCJA rate schedule (the 32% bracket starts at $403,550 for joint filers) and gives this household the $32,200 standard deduction plus the $1,070 non-itemizer deduction. Its NIIT on $153,578 also left out the $3,000 capital-loss offset."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Assumed the TCJA expired: uncapped SALT, a $1M mortgage-interest limit despite no interest paid being listed, $10,400 of personal exemptions, and $108,283 of itemized deductions. Its $88,016 of ordinary tax therefore rests on the wrong deduction base. 2026 law gives the $32,200 standard deduction plus the $1,070 non-itemizer deduction. The frozen reference's $89,096 of ordinary tax on $425,575 also reflects a defective $2,164 IRA deduction that the exclusion's corrected treatment disallows under 219(g)."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Built AGI of $460,936 by counting pension income and dropping other taxable income, even though the $70,000 pension and the $8,961 of interest are tax-exempt and excluded. It gave no bracket work for its $110,996. The frozen reference's AGI is $536,764, leading to $89,096 + $11,688 + $5,722; it includes a defective $2,164 IRA deduction that the exclusion's corrected treatment disallows under 219(g)."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Subtracted the $13,369 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums from wages, giving AGI of $525,049, compared with the frozen reference's $536,764. The frozen engine uses a pro rata $41,650 traditional 401(k) allocation and improperly deducts $2,164 of IRA contributions; the record leaves excess-deferral allocation unresolved and disallows the IRA deduction under 219(g). It then added an AMT that does not arise under 2026 law with the standard deduction."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Assumed the TCJA individual provisions expired: it deducted uncapped state income and real estate taxes and used pre-TCJA brackets up to 33%. 2026 law keeps the TCJA brackets, and this household takes the $32,200 standard deduction plus the $1,070 non-itemizer deduction. The frozen reference's $89,096 ordinary tax, $11,688 dividend tax, and $5,722 NIIT also reflect a defective $2,164 IRA deduction that the exclusion's corrected treatment disallows under 219(g)."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Gave no derivation. Its $106,093 is $413 below the frozen reference, consistent with the frozen tax structure applied to ordinary taxable income about $1,290 below the frozen amount. The frozen reference's $503,495 taxable income uses the engine's pro rata $41,650 traditional 401(k) allocation, $33,270 of standard plus charitable deductions, and a defective $2,164 IRA deduction disallowed under 219(g); excess-deferral allocation is unresolved."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Subtracted $13,369 of employer insurance premiums from wages (AGI $525,049, compared with the frozen reference's $536,764, which includes a defective $2,164 IRA deduction disallowed under 219(g)) and used itemized deductions and personal exemptions as if the TCJA had expired. It also taxed qualified dividends at 20%, although income stacked on top of ordinary income stays in the 15% band ($11,688 on $77,920)."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied brackets that assume the TCJA expired, subtracted health insurance premiums from wages, and itemized mortgage interest that was never listed, understating tax at $88,392. The frozen computation taxes $425,575 of ordinary income at 2026 TCJA-structure brackets ($89,096) and adds $11,688 of dividend tax and $5,722 of NIIT; its taxable income includes a defective $2,164 IRA deduction that the exclusion's corrected treatment disallows under 219(g)."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Itemized as if the TCJA had expired (uncapped state income tax, 2% miscellaneous deductions) instead of taking the $32,200 standard deduction plus the $1,070 non-itemizer charitable deduction. Its $534,270 AGI uses $46,308 of traditional 401(k) deferrals rather than the frozen engine's pro rata $41,650 allocation, which the prompt does not settle. It correctly omits the $2,164 IRA deduction disallowed under 219(g). Its rounded $105,000 differs from the frozen reference's $89,096 + $11,688 + $5,722, which includes that defective IRA deduction."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used 2025 figures (a $30,000 standard deduction and 2025 brackets) instead of the 2026 $32,200 standard deduction, the $1,070 non-itemizer charitable deduction, and 2026 brackets. It left out the $5,722 net investment income tax entirely and counted the $4,148 state refund in AGI."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Claimed the full $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction although only $1,070 of cash donations exist. It deducted $46,308 of traditional 401(k) deferrals rather than the frozen engine's pro rata $41,650 allocation, which the prompt does not settle. Omitting the $2,164 IRA deduction agrees with the exclusion's corrected treatment under 219(g); the frozen reference improperly allows it. It also computed NIIT on $153,578 instead of $150,578, and its $87,724 of ordinary tax on $422,150 understates the 2026-bracket amount of $88,000."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Reported $21,735 with no bracket work, about one-fifth of the frozen reference. The frozen $503,495 taxable income produces $89,096 ordinary tax, $11,688 dividend tax, and $5,722 NIIT, but includes a defective $2,164 IRA deduction that the exclusion's corrected treatment disallows under 219(g)."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Reported $75,657 with no derivation, about $31,000 too low. The frozen computation taxes $425,575 of ordinary income at 2026 joint brackets ($89,096) and $77,920 of qualified dividends at 15% ($11,688), then adds $5,722 of NIIT; its taxable income includes a defective $2,164 IRA deduction that the exclusion's corrected treatment disallows under 219(g)."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used the $32,200 standard deduction plus the $1,070 non-itemizer deduction and the $5,722 NIIT, but its $538,418 AGI is $1,654 above the frozen reference's. Omitting the $2,164 IRA deduction agrees with the exclusion's corrected treatment under 219(g). Its refund inclusion and $46,308 traditional 401(k) deduction differ from the frozen refund exclusion and pro rata $41,650 allocation; those treatments are unresolved. Its answer is $163.42 below the adjudicated corrected $107,198.34."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Gave no numbers in its reasoning. Its $104,535 is $1,971 below the frozen reference, matching ordinary taxable income about $6,160 below the frozen $425,575. The frozen components are $89,096 ordinary tax, $11,688 dividend tax, and $5,722 NIIT, but include a defective $2,164 IRA deduction that the exclusion's corrected treatment disallows under 219(g)."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Included the $4,148 refund and itemized, differing from the frozen reference's refund exclusion and $32,200 standard deduction plus $1,070 charitable deduction; refund taxation is unresolved. Its tax is $632 above the frozen reference, whose $503,495 taxable income includes a defective $2,164 IRA deduction disallowed under 219(g). Its answer is $60.34 below the adjudicated corrected $107,198.34."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its total matches taxable income of $506,218 with the $32,200 standard deduction and no $1,070 non-itemizer charitable deduction. Its inferred $538,418 AGI includes the refund and uses $46,308 of traditional 401(k) deferrals rather than the frozen engine's pro rata $41,650 allocation; those treatments are unresolved. Omitting the $2,164 IRA deduction agrees with the exclusion's corrected treatment under 219(g). Its tax is $871 above the frozen reference, but only $178.66 above the adjudicated corrected $107,198.34."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Subtracted $13,369 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums from wages (AGI $525,049 compared with the frozen reference's $536,764) and itemized $36,959, producing taxable income below the frozen reference's. The frozen engine uses a pro rata $41,650 traditional 401(k) allocation and $32,200 standard plus $1,070 charitable deductions, but also improperly deducts $2,164 of IRA contributions disallowed under 219(g); excess-deferral allocation is unresolved."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Included the $4,148 refund and deducted $46,308 of traditional 401(k) deferrals rather than the frozen engine's pro rata $41,650 allocation; those treatments are unresolved. Omitting the $2,164 IRA deduction agrees with the exclusion's corrected treatment under 219(g). Its tax is $571 above the frozen reference, but $121.34 below the adjudicated corrected $107,198.34."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Subtracted the $13,369 of employer insurance premiums from wages (AGI $525,049 compared with the frozen reference's $536,764) and itemized a phased-down SALT deduction instead of taking the $32,200 standard deduction plus the $1,070 non-itemizer charitable deduction. Its tax is $4,106 below the frozen reference, whose AGI includes a defective $2,164 IRA deduction that the exclusion's corrected treatment disallows under 219(g)."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Subtracted the $13,369 of employer insurance premiums from wages (AGI $525,049 compared with the frozen reference's $536,764) and used $34,385 of itemized deductions instead of the $32,200 standard deduction plus the $1,070 non-itemizer charitable deduction. Its tax is $4,106 below the frozen reference, whose AGI includes a defective $2,164 IRA deduction that the exclusion's corrected treatment disallows under 219(g)."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Cited a qualified business income deduction and mortgage interest that the facts do not support (there is no business income and no interest paid listed), and reported $112,450 without a derivation, about $5,944 above the frozen reference. The frozen components are $89,096 + $11,688 + $5,722 after the $32,200 standard deduction plus the $1,070 non-itemizer deduction, but also reflect a defective $2,164 IRA deduction that the exclusion's corrected treatment disallows under 219(g)."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied rules that only hold if the TCJA expired (Pease, personal exemptions, miscellaneous itemized deductions) and concluded that a $125,199 tentative AMT exceeds regular tax. Under 2026 law the household takes the standard deduction, the $140,200 joint AMT exemption is not phased down at this income, tentative minimum tax stays below regular tax, and no AMT applies."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied rules that only hold if the TCJA expired (Pease, $59,573 of itemized deductions) and added $25,486 of AMT from SALT and miscellaneous add-backs on top of regular tax. In 2026 the household takes the $32,200 standard deduction plus the $1,070 non-itemizer deduction and owes no AMT. The frozen total of $89,096 + $11,688 + $5,722 also reflects a defective $2,164 IRA deduction that the exclusion's corrected treatment disallows under 219(g)."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used the 2025 $31,500 standard deduction instead of 2026's $32,200 and skipped the $1,070 non-itemizer cash charitable deduction. Its $538,418 AGI includes the refund and deducts $46,308 of traditional 401(k) deferrals rather than the frozen engine's pro rata $41,650 allocation; those treatments are unresolved. Omitting the $2,164 IRA deduction agrees with the exclusion's corrected treatment under 219(g). Its $506,918 taxable income exceeds the defective frozen $503,495, and its answer is $332.66 above the adjudicated corrected $107,198.34."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Subtracted employer health premiums from wages and itemized as if the TCJA had expired (uncapped property tax, 2% miscellaneous deductions). Its $106,958 of ordinary tax on $423,928 far exceeds the 2026 schedule amount of about $88,569. It also computed NIIT on $153,578 instead of $150,578."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied rules that only hold if the TCJA expired (uncapped SALT of about $64,011, Pease, 2% miscellaneous deductions) and added $18,221 of AMT. Under 2026 law the household takes the $32,200 standard deduction plus the $1,070 non-itemizer deduction with no AMT. It also subtracted health premiums from wages, giving AGI of $525,049 compared with the frozen reference's $536,764, which includes a defective $2,164 IRA deduction disallowed under 219(g)."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Returned no value and no explanation for this output, so there is no answer to score."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used the $32,200 standard deduction but missed the $1,070 non-itemizer cash charitable deduction. Its $538,418 AGI includes the refund and deducts $46,308 of traditional 401(k) deferrals rather than the frozen engine's pro rata $41,650 allocation; those treatments are unresolved. Omitting the $2,164 IRA deduction agrees with the exclusion's corrected treatment under 219(g). Its $506,218 taxable income exceeds the defective frozen $503,495; its tax is $871 above the frozen reference, but only $178.98 above the adjudicated corrected $107,198.34."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Concluded that deductions wipe out all tax by inventing mortgage interest on the $2.85M balance (no interest paid is listed) and counting unreimbursed employee business expenses, which are not deductible. The frozen reference reports $536,764 of AGI, $33,270 of standard plus non-itemizer deductions, and $106,506 of tax; those figures include a defective $2,164 IRA deduction that the adjudicated corrected $107,198.34 disallows under 219(g)."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Subtracted employer insurance premiums from wages, putting AGI near $525,000 compared with the frozen reference's $536,764, and gave no derivation for the remaining steps. Its tax is $2,806 below the frozen reference, whose AGI includes a defective $2,164 IRA deduction that the exclusion's corrected treatment disallows under 219(g)."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Missed the $1,070 non-itemizer cash charitable deduction. Its $538,418 AGI includes the refund and deducts $46,308 of traditional 401(k) deferrals rather than the frozen engine's pro rata $41,650 allocation; those treatments are unresolved. Omitting the $2,164 IRA deduction agrees with the exclusion's corrected treatment under 219(g), whereas the frozen reference improperly allows it. It also computed NIIT on $142,667 instead of $150,578 ($5,421 instead of $5,722)."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Imputed $43,118 of mortgage interest at an assumed 5.75% rate although no interest paid was listed. It netted the $10,911 capital loss against qualified dividends, giving a preferential base of $67,009 instead of $77,920 and no $3,000 ordinary loss deduction. It also used invented bracket boundaries and left out the $5,722 NIIT."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used a $15,700 single-filer standard deduction on a joint return instead of $32,200 plus the $1,070 non-itemizer charitable deduction. It added an AMT that does not arise and omitted the $5,722 NIIT included in the frozen reference; NIIT inclusion in this output is unresolved. Its $89,067 is below the frozen $106,506, which includes a defective $2,164 IRA deduction that the exclusion's corrected treatment disallows under 219(g)."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Computed only regular tax ($100,206) and left out the $5,721.98 net investment income tax, which this output includes. It also disallowed the $2,164 IRA deduction and skipped the $1,070 non-itemizer charitable deduction. It then raised its own figure by about $600 with no basis."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Added the $4,148 state refund to income and left out the $1,070 non-itemizer cash charitable deduction. It also excluded the full $46,308 of 401(k) deferrals instead of the $41,650 left after the combined Roth-plus-traditional $24,500 cap. Net result: taxable income of $504,054 instead of $503,494.75, about $179 too much tax."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Made up about $110,000 of mortgage interest from the $2.85M balance even though no interest was listed. Its final $249,914 is far above what the brackets produce on its own roughly $408k of taxable income. The correct path uses the standard deduction plus $1,070 of charity, giving $89,095.92 + $11,688 + $5,721.98."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Did not compute the liability and entered 0 as a placeholder. The required steps are bracket tax of $89,095.92 on $425,574.75 of ordinary taxable income, plus $11,688 on qualified dividends, plus $5,721.98 of NIIT."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Explicitly left NIIT out of this line, although the output includes the $5,721.98 of 3.8% tax on net investment income. Its final $91,458 also drops its own $11,688 qualified-dividend tax, so it reports roughly the ordinary-bracket tax alone."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Assumed mortgage interest on the balance with no interest listed and applied the old $10,000 SALT cap, reaching about $60,000 of itemized deductions instead of the $32,200 standard deduction plus $1,070. It taxed qualified dividends at 20% instead of 15%. Its stated parts (about $92,000 + $15,584) do not add up to the $154,430 it reported."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Added its listed income items to an AGI of $604,318 when they total $538,418. It also made up about $60,000 of itemized deductions, including mortgage interest that was never listed. The reference uses an AGI of $536,764.50 and the standard deduction plus the $1,070 charitable deduction."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Counted the $4,148 state refund as income, left out the $1,070 non-itemizer cash charitable deduction, and excluded the full $46,308 of 401(k) deferrals. Because of the combined $24,500 Roth-plus-traditional cap, only $41,650 qualifies. Taxable income came out at $504,054 instead of $503,494.75."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Assumed the TCJA expired, so it used pre-TCJA brackets, the $10,000 SALT cap and restored 2% miscellaneous deductions, and it added $7,141 of AMT. Under OBBBA 2026 law, TCJA rates continue and the $140,200 AMT exemption has no AMT phase-out below $1,000,000. It also made up $52,500 of mortgage interest at an assumed 7% rate and did not net the $3,000 capital loss out of investment income for NIIT."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Made up about $28,000 of mortgage interest when no interest was given and applied a $10,000 SALT cap, so it itemized $40,574 instead of taking the $32,200 standard deduction plus $1,070. It then rounded to $115,000 without running the brackets, overshooting what 2026 rates plus NIIT produce."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Chose to itemize by counting $2.6k of charity alongside the phased-down SALT cap, ignoring OBBBA's 0.5%-of-AGI floor, which wipes out the $2,574 of gifts. The standard deduction plus the $1,070 non-itemizer charitable deduction ($33,270) is larger. It also included the $4,148 refund and disallowed the $2,164 IRA deduction."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used a $30,750 standard deduction instead of the 2026 OBBBA amount of $32,200 and left out the $1,070 non-itemizer charitable deduction. It included the $4,148 refund, denied the IRA deduction, and computed NIIT on $153,578 without subtracting the $3,000 capital loss (correct base: $150,578.34)."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied a $131,247 AMT. Under 2026 law, the $140,200 joint AMT exemption does not start phasing out until $1,000,000, so tentative minimum tax stays below regular tax and no AMT applies. It also itemized deductions large enough to cut taxable income to $465,449 instead of using the standard deduction."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied the TCJA-sunset rules: the Pease limit on itemized deductions and an AMT that raised regular tax to $127,938. OBBBA made TCJA rates permanent, permanently repealed Pease, and keeps AMT off at this income. The correct tax is regular tax of $100,783.92 plus $5,721.98 of NIIT."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Taxed ordinary income at pre-TCJA 2026 brackets and itemized $63,507.64 instead of using OBBBA's TCJA-rate brackets and the $32,200 standard deduction plus $1,070. It computed NIIT on $153,578 without the $3,000 capital-loss offset."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Assumed the TCJA expired: it claimed $10,400 of personal exemptions, uncapped SALT and mortgage interest on up to $1M of debt (none was listed), for $108,283 of itemized deductions. Under 2026 law, personal exemptions are zero and the standard deduction plus $1,070 applies. Its total lands near the reference only because the errors partly offset."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Built an AGI of $460,936 that counts the tax-exempt pension while undercounting investment income. The correct AGI is $536,764.50. Its $110,996 figure does not follow from the standard deduction and 2026 brackets."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Subtracted the $13,369 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums from wages to reach an AGI of $525,049, and it added AMT. Under 2026 law, no AMT applies below the $1,000,000 exemption phase-out start, and wages are reduced only by the capped 401(k) deferrals."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Assumed the TCJA expired, deducting uncapped state income and property taxes and using brackets that reach 33%. OBBBA keeps TCJA brackets and the phased-down SALT cap, so the standard deduction plus $1,070 and 32% top-bracket tax apply."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Gave no derivation. Its $106,093 is $413 below the correct $89,095.92 + $11,688 + $5,721.98. That gap matches taxable income about $1,290 below $503,494.75 at the 32% marginal rate, such as from deducting the full $46,308 of 401(k) deferrals."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Subtracted employer insurance premiums from wages (AGI $525,049), claimed personal exemptions under assumed TCJA expiration, and taxed qualified dividends at 20%. Taxable income of $503,494.75 is below the 2026 joint 20% threshold of $613,700, so the dividends are taxed at 15%."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Subtracted the health insurance premiums from wages and itemized deductions that include mortgage interest, although none was listed, using TCJA-expiration rules. This understated taxable income well below the correct $503,494.75 and produced only $88,392."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Itemized under TCJA-sunset rules, deducting state income tax beyond the SALT cap and 2% miscellaneous employee expenses, then rounded to $105,000. OBBBA permanently suspends miscellaneous itemized deductions and keeps the SALT cap, so the $32,200 standard deduction plus $1,070 applies."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied post-TCJA sunset rules for 2026 and included the $4,148 state refund. Under OBBBA, TCJA rates and the $32,200 standard deduction continue, which gives $100,783.92 of regular tax plus $5,721.98 of NIIT."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used 2025 brackets and a $30,000 standard deduction instead of the 2026 $32,200 plus the $1,070 non-itemizer charitable deduction. It also left out the $5,721.98 NIIT entirely."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Claimed the full $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, although only the $1,070 of cash gifts qualifies. It denied the $2,164 IRA deduction and excluded the full $46,308 of 401(k) deferrals instead of the $41,650 allowed under the combined cap. It also computed NIIT on $153,578 without the $3,000 capital-loss offset."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Reported $21,735, a small fraction of the correct amount. Bracket tax on $425,574.75 of ordinary taxable income alone is $89,095.92, before the $11,688 dividend tax and the $5,721.98 NIIT."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Reported $75,657, well below even the regular tax of $100,783.92. That is consistent with underapplying the 24%/32% brackets and omitting the $5,721.98 NIIT."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Counted the $4,148 state refund, denied the $2,164 IRA deduction, and excluded the full $46,308 of 401(k) deferrals instead of the $41,650 allowed under the combined cap. That gave taxable income of $505,148 instead of $503,494.75, $529 too much tax at 32%."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Reported $104,535, $1,971 below the correct total. That matches taxable income about $6,160 under $503,494.75 at the 32% rate, or a slightly low NIIT, for example from excluding the full $46,308 of 401(k) deferrals and computing other deductions differently."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Included the $4,148 state refund in taxable income and itemized instead of taking the $32,200 standard deduction plus the $1,070 non-itemizer charitable deduction. This overstated taxable income by about $2,000, which accounts for the $632 overage."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $107,377 matches taxable income of $506,218. That figure includes the $4,148 refund, denies the $2,164 IRA deduction, omits the $1,070 non-itemizer charitable deduction and excludes the full $46,308 of 401(k) deferrals. The correct taxable income is $503,494.75."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Treated the $13,369 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums as pretax wage reductions, cutting AGI to $525,049 instead of $536,764.50. It then itemized $36,959.30 instead of taking the $32,200 standard deduction plus $1,070."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Included the $4,148 state refund, used the standard deduction alone without the $1,070 non-itemizer cash charitable deduction, and did not take the $2,164 IRA deduction. This overstated taxable income above $503,494.75."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Subtracted the $13,369 of employer insurance premiums from wages (AGI $525,049) and itemized a phased-down SALT deduction. The correct AGI is $536,764.50, with the $32,200 standard deduction plus $1,070 charity, giving taxable income of $503,494.75."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Subtracted the $13,369 of pretax insurance premiums from wages to reach an AGI of $525,049, which understates income by about $11,700. It also itemized $34,385.30 instead of using the $32,200 standard deduction plus the $1,070 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Invoked a qualified-business-income deduction and mortgage interest, though the household has no business income and no listed interest, and reported $112,450, about $5,944 too high. The correct figure is $89,095.92 + $11,688 + $5,721.98 on $503,494.75 of taxable income."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied TCJA-sunset rules: Pease, personal exemptions, miscellaneous itemized deductions and a $125,199 tentative AMT. Under 2026 law, the AMT exemption phase-out begins at $1,000,000, so no AMT applies and tax is regular tax plus $5,721.98 of NIIT."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied sunset-era Pease ($59,573 of itemized deductions) and added a $25,486 AMT on top of regular tax. OBBBA keeps miscellaneous deductions suspended, and the $1,000,000 AMT phase-out start means no AMT at this income."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used the 2025 $31,500 standard deduction instead of the 2026 $32,200 and left out the $1,070 non-itemizer charitable deduction. It also included the $4,148 refund and denied the $2,164 IRA deduction, putting taxable income at $506,918 instead of $503,494.75."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Subtracted employer insurance premiums from wages and claimed 2% miscellaneous deductions. It also charged $106,958 on $423,928 of ordinary income, while 2026 joint brackets (24% up to $403,550, then 32%) give about $88,569 on that amount."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used TCJA-sunset rules (uncapped SALT of about $64,011, miscellaneous deductions, Pease) and added $18,221 of AMT. It also subtracted pretax health premiums from wages. Under 2026 law, the standard deduction plus $1,070 applies and no AMT is due."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Returned no value or explanation for this output, so nothing could be scored."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Included the $4,148 state refund, denied the $2,164 IRA deduction, and used the $32,200 standard deduction without the $1,070 non-itemizer cash charitable deduction. Even after it excluded the full $46,308 of 401(k) deferrals, taxable income was $506,218 instead of $503,494.75."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Claimed that deductions, including made-up mortgage interest and suspended employee business expenses, wipe out all tax. Taxable income is $503,494.75 after the standard deduction and produces over $100,000 of tax."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Computed only regular tax on $506,218 of taxable income and left out the $5,721.98 NIIT, which this output includes. It also included the $4,148 refund and missed the $1,070 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Subtracted the employer insurance premiums from wages, giving an AGI near $525,000 instead of $536,764.50. That understated taxable income and the ordinary-bracket tax."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Computed net investment income as $142,667 instead of $150,578.34 (interest plus dividends minus the $3,000 capital loss), understating NIIT. It also included the $4,148 refund, denied the IRA deduction and omitted the $1,070 charitable deduction, putting taxable income at $506,218."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Netted the $10,911 capital loss against qualified dividends and deducted it in full in AGI, instead of limiting it to $3,000 and taxing all $77,920 of dividends at 15%. It also made up $43,118 of mortgage interest, applied a $10,000 SALT cap, used wrong bracket thresholds, and left out NIIT."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied the $15,700 single-filer standard deduction to a married-filing-jointly return instead of $32,200 plus the $1,070 charitable deduction. It added an AMT that does not apply and left out the $5,721.98 NIIT."
us,scenario_005,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used 1.2% for CA SDI ($5,160) when the 2026 rate is 1.3% uncapped ($5,590), and a $183,600 Social Security base instead of $184,500. It then submitted $33,296.55, which matches neither its own $35,558.20 total nor any component sum."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its federal figures are right ($22,599 + $6,235 + $1,620 = $30,454), but it left out California's mandatory employee SDI: 1.3% of $430,000, or $5,590."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It used the 2024 Social Security base of $168,600 and wrongly capped the head's $180,000 under it. It also applied a 1% SDI rate with a $153,164 ceiling that no longer exists, and then added the employer-paid ETT plus about $10,087 of state income tax, which are not employee payroll taxes."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"It skipped the calculation and entered $0, even though $430,000 of wages owes $30,454 in employee FICA and Additional Medicare Tax plus $5,590 in CA SDI."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied CA SDI at 1.2% ($5,160) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% on all wages ($5,590). It also capped the spouse's Social Security at $181,800 instead of the $184,500 2026 base, understating that tax by $167."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It correctly found $30,454 of federal employee tax, then dropped CA SDI (1.3% × $430,000 = $5,590). It submitted $28,586.60, a number below even its own FICA subtotal."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It said CA SDI was 'already reflected' but submitted $30,437, which is just the federal FICA total (and $17 short of $30,454). The $5,590 of 1.3% uncapped SDI was never added."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 Social Security base of $176,100, which wrongly capped the head's $180,000 and undercounted the spouse (2026 base is $184,500). It also used 1.2% for CA SDI instead of 1.3%, understating SDI by $430."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the old $176,100 Social Security base for both earners and a 1.1% SDI rate instead of 1.3% on $430,000. It then submitted $27,306, which does not match its own $34,421.40 working total."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It counted Social Security for only one worker ($11,253) instead of $11,160 for the head plus $11,439 for the spouse. It also left out CA SDI of $5,590 (1.3% of $430,000)."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its CA SDI of $4,080 is too low; the 2026 rule is 1.3% of all $430,000 of wages, or $5,590. Its Social Security of $22,407 also implies a spouse wage base below the $184,500 2026 cap."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It capped CA SDI wages at $153,164 per worker, a ceiling repealed for 2024 onward, and used 1.2% instead of 1.3%, giving $3,676 instead of $5,590. It also capped the spouse's Social Security at $181,800 instead of $184,500."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used 1.2% for CA SDI ($5,160) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($5,590), and a $184,200 Social Security base instead of $184,500."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied CA SDI at the old 1.1% rate ($4,730) instead of 1.3% ($5,590). Its Social Security of $21,242 is $1,357 below the correct $22,599 ($11,160 + $11,439 at the $184,500 base)."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only Social Security and Medicare and left out California's mandatory employee SDI ($5,590 at 1.3%). Its $31,398 also does not match the correct federal sum of $30,454."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It took the employer health premiums out of the wage base. PolicyEngine taxes the full $430,000 gross for Social Security, Medicare, Additional Medicare and SDI, and SDI is 1.3% of that full amount, or $5,590."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied CA SDI at 1.1% ($4,730) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% on all wages ($5,590). Its total also implies Social Security below the correct $22,599."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only Social Security and Medicare and left out both the $1,620 Additional Medicare Tax on joint wages above $250,000 and the $5,590 CA SDI. Even its FICA figure is below the correct $28,834 of base Social Security and Medicare."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It cut each worker's wages by the employer health premiums, to $173,111 and $243,520, when the full $430,000 gross is taxable. It also used a $181,200 Social Security base instead of $184,500 and a 1.1% SDI rate instead of 1.3%."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The correct federal total is $30,454, so its $33,814 implies only about $3,360 of CA SDI. The correct SDI is 1.3% of all $430,000 of wages, or $5,590, which means it used too low a rate or a repealed wage cap."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It left out CA SDI ($5,590 at 1.3% uncapped). It also used the 2025 base of $176,100 for both workers, which wrongly capped the head's $180,000 and undercounted the spouse against the $184,500 2026 base."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It capped CA SDI wages at $165,384 per worker at 1.2%, but California removed the SDI wage ceiling in 2024 and the 2026 rate is 1.3%, so SDI is $5,590, not $3,969. It also capped the spouse's Social Security at $182,100 instead of $184,500."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It stated that California has no mandatory employee payroll tax. California requires employee SDI at 1.3% of all wages in 2026, which adds $5,590 to its correct federal $30,454."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It wrongly said the Additional Medicare Tax does not apply. Joint Medicare wages of $430,000 exceed the $250,000 married-filing-jointly threshold by $180,000, so $1,620 is owed. It also left out CA SDI ($5,590), and its Social Security plus Medicare is below the correct $28,834."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"Its $13,905 roughly covers one worker's FICA. The correct total is $22,599 Social Security for both earners, $6,235 Medicare on $430,000, $1,620 Additional Medicare and $5,590 CA SDI."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used 1.2% for CA SDI ($5,160) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($5,590), and a $183,600 Social Security base instead of $184,500, which understated the spouse's tax by $55.80."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the correct 1.3% SDI rate ($5,590), but its $36,667 implies $31,077 of federal tax, $623 more than the correct $30,454. That overstatement matches a Social Security wage base about $10,000 above the $184,500 2026 cap."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its $35,614 equals the correct $30,454 federal total plus SDI at 1.2% ($5,160). The 2026 CA SDI rate is 1.3% of all wages, or $5,590."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its $35,614 equals the correct $30,454 federal total plus SDI at 1.2% ($5,160). The 2026 CA SDI rate is 1.3% of all wages, or $5,590."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It treated the employer health premiums as pretax and cut payroll wages to $416,631, which lowered Social Security, Medicare, Additional Medicare and SDI. The full $430,000 gross is taxable, so Medicare is $6,235, Additional Medicare is $1,620 and SDI is $5,590."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It computed CA SDI at 1.2% ($5,160) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% on all $430,000 of wages ($5,590). Its federal figures ($22,599, $6,235, $1,620) are correct."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It treated the employer health premiums as pretax and cut payroll wages to $416,631, which shrank every component. The full $430,000 gross is taxable, giving $22,599 Social Security, $6,235 Medicare, $1,620 Additional Medicare and $5,590 SDI."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its reasoning lists only Social Security, Medicare and Additional Medicare Tax, with no explicit CA SDI. Its $34,515 is $4,061 above the correct $30,454 federal total, which falls short of the $5,590 SDI owed at 1.3% uncapped."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied a wage cap to CA SDI at 1.2% ($4,226), but the cap was repealed in 2024 and the 2026 rate is 1.3% of all wages ($5,590). It also capped the spouse's Social Security at about $182,000 instead of $184,500."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied CA SDI at 1.2% subject to a wage limit. In 2026 SDI has no wage limit and the rate is 1.3%, giving $5,590 on $430,000."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It cut payroll wages by the $13,369 of health premiums when the full $430,000 gross is taxable. It also applied CA SDI at 1.1% to an invented $83,067 per-person base instead of 1.3% of all wages ($5,590)."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,inkling,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It cut wages by the health premiums and capped Social Security at the 2024 base of $168,600 instead of $184,500. It also capped CA SDI at 1.2%, when the 2026 SDI is 1.3% of the full $430,000 with no cap."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no payroll_tax value and no explanation, so there is no answer to score."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its Social Security, Medicare and Additional Medicare figures are correct ($30,454), but it used 1.2% for CA SDI ($5,160) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($5,590)."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"It claimed employee payroll taxes are 'offset by deductions/exemptions' and entered $0. Income tax deductions do not reduce FICA or SDI, and $430,000 of wages owes $36,044 in employee payroll tax."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,muse-wonder,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It took cafeteria-plan health premiums out of the payroll wage base. The full $430,000 gross is taxable for Medicare, Additional Medicare and 1.3% CA SDI ($5,590)."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,ox-alpha,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It used the $200,000 per-employee withholding threshold on the spouse's wages ($2,250) instead of 0.9% of the couple's combined wages above the $250,000 joint threshold ($1,620). It also said California has no mandatory employee payroll tax and left out the $5,590 SDI."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied CA SDI at 1.1% with a repealed $153,164 per-worker cap ($3,370) instead of 1.3% of all wages ($5,590). It also capped both workers at the 2025 $176,100 Social Security base, including the head's $180,000."
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It left out CA SDI entirely, and its $25,474 of federal tax is short of the correct $30,454 ($22,599 Social Security on $180,000 plus $184,500, $6,235 Medicare, $1,620 Additional Medicare)."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used a $183,600 Social Security wage base instead of $184,500, and a 1.2% SDI rate instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% on all $430,000 ($5,590). It reached $35,558.20 in its reasoning but then submitted an unrelated $33,296.55."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model's federal FICA figure ($30,454) was correct, but it left out California's mandatory employee SDI, which is 1.3% of $430,000 = $5,590."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used the 2024 Social Security cap of $168,600 instead of $184,500. It also applied a 1% SDI rate with a $153,164 wage cap, even though the cap was repealed in 2024 and the 2026 rate is 1.3% uncapped. On top of that, it added roughly $10,087 of state income tax into the payroll tax total."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,missing_output,False,"The model never computed anything and submitted 0. Applying FICA to $430,000 of wages ($30,454), plus 1.3% CA SDI ($5,590), gives $36,044."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model capped the spouse's Social Security wages at $181,800 instead of the 2026 base of $184,500. It also applied CA SDI at 1.2% instead of 1.3%, so SDI came out at $5,160 instead of $5,590."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly got $30,454 of federal FICA, then left out CA SDI (1.3% × $430,000 = $5,590) because it was unsure of the rate. It then submitted $28,586.60, a number that doesn't match its own figures."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said its total included CA SDI, but its $30,437 contains no SDI at all; it is essentially the federal FICA sum of $30,454, minus a $17 arithmetic error. It omitted the 1.3% uncapped SDI of $5,590."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 2025 wage base of $176,100 instead of $184,500, which wrongly capped the head's $180,000 below their full wages and also understated the spouse's capped amount. It also applied CA SDI at 1.2% instead of 1.3%."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used a $176,100 Social Security cap for both earners (it should be $184,500, and the head's $180,000 falls below it) and a 1.1% SDI rate instead of 1.3%. It then discarded its own $34,421.40 and submitted an unsupported $27,306."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model calculated Social Security for only one capped wage base ($11,253), leaving out the second earner's Social Security tax, even though each worker has their own cap. It also omitted CA SDI of 1.3% × $430,000 = $5,590."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model understated Social Security ($22,407 instead of $22,599) by using a cap below $184,500. It put CA SDI at $4,080, which is far below the correct 1.3% × $430,000 = $5,590."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied CA SDI at 1.2% subject to a $153,164 per-worker cap, but that cap was repealed starting in 2024. The 2026 SDI is 1.3% of all $430,000 ($5,590). The model also used a $181,800 Social Security cap instead of $184,500."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied CA SDI at 1.2% ($5,160) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($5,590). It also capped Social Security at $184,200 instead of $184,500."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model computed CA SDI at 1.1% ($4,730) instead of 1.3% ($5,590). Its Social Security figure of $21,242 implies the head's $180,000 was wrongly capped. The correct amount is 6.2% × ($180,000 + $184,500) = $22,599."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted only federal Social Security and Medicare and left out CA SDI ($5,590 at 1.3% uncapped). Even its federal figure of $31,398 doesn't match the correct FICA sum of $30,454."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model subtracted employer-sponsored insurance premiums from wages before computing FICA and SDI. The payroll tax base is the full $430,000 of gross wages, so this shortchanged both, and its SDI also falls short of 1.3% × $430,000 = $5,590."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied CA SDI at 1.1% instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3%, losing $860. Its total also implies Social Security below $22,599, the correct figure using the $184,500 cap on the spouse."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model left out CA SDI ($5,590), and its $26,588 also understates federal FICA. The correct federal amount is $22,599 Social Security + $6,235 Medicare + $1,620 Additional Medicare = $30,454."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model subtracted ESI premiums from both earners' wages (giving $173,111 and $243,520), shrinking the FICA, Additional Medicare and SDI bases below the full $430,000. It also used a 1.1% SDI rate instead of 1.3%, and a $181,200 Social Security cap instead of $184,500."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model's $33,814 means it counted only about $3,360 above the $30,454 federal FICA. The correct CA SDI is 1.3% × $430,000 = $5,590, so its SDI was understated by an outdated rate or a repealed cap."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model left out CA SDI ($5,590) entirely. It also capped both earners at the old $176,100 base, though the head's $180,000 falls entirely below the 2026 cap of $184,500."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied CA SDI at 1.1% ($4,730) instead of 1.3% ($5,590), and capped the spouse at $181,800 instead of the 2026 base of $184,500."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied CA SDI with a $165,384 per-worker wage cap, but SB 951 removed that cap starting in 2024. The correct SDI is 1.3% of all $430,000 = $5,590. The model also used a $182,100 Social Security cap instead of $184,500."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model wrongly said California has no mandatory employee payroll tax, which led it to leave out the 1.3% uncapped SDI contribution of $5,590. Its federal FICA of $30,454 was correct."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model wrongly concluded that no Additional Medicare Tax applies, even though combined wages of $430,000 exceed the $250,000 MFJ threshold by $180,000 ($1,620). It also treated both spouses as above the Social Security cap when the head is below it, and it left out CA SDI ($5,590)."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model's $13,905 is less than even the Social Security tax alone ($22,599), which means it effectively capped Medicare and left out large components. The correct total is $30,454 of federal FICA plus $5,590 of 1.3% CA SDI."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied CA SDI at 1.2% ($5,160) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($5,590). It also capped the spouse's Social Security wages at $183,600 instead of $184,500."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model used roughly 1.3% for CA SDI ($5,590), but its $36,667 total overshoots by $623. That means its federal components came out above the correct $30,454 ($22,599 Social Security with the $184,500 cap + $6,235 Medicare + $1,620 Additional Medicare)."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model's $35,614 is exactly $30,454 of FICA plus SDI at 1.2% ($5,160). The 2026 CA SDI rate is 1.3% on uncapped wages, which gives $5,590."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model's $35,614 is exactly $30,454 of FICA plus SDI at 1.2% ($5,160). The 2026 CA SDI rate is 1.3% on all $430,000, which gives $5,590."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model used the correct 1.3% SDI rate and $184,500 cap, but it subtracted $13,369 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums from wages as cafeteria-plan reductions. The full $430,000 of gross wages is the base for FICA, Additional Medicare and SDI."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model computed federal FICA correctly at $30,454, but applied CA SDI at 1.2% ($5,160) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($5,590)."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model used the correct 1.3% SDI rate and $184,500 cap, but treated ESI premiums as pretax and reduced wages to $416,631. Gross wages of $430,000 are the base for FICA, Additional Medicare and SDI."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model's reasoning covers only OASDI, HI and Additional Medicare, which total $30,454, and it never computed CA SDI at 1.3% of $430,000 ($5,590). Its $34,515 understates the correct sum by $1,529."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied CA SDI at 1.2% with a wage cap ($4,226), but the cap was repealed in 2024 and the 2026 rate is 1.3% on all $430,000 ($5,590). It also capped the spouse's Social Security wages at about $182,000 instead of $184,500."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied CA SDI at 1.2% subject to an SDI wage limit, but no SDI wage limit exists after 2024. The 2026 rate is 1.3% of the full $430,000, which is $5,590."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model subtracted $13,369 of ESI premiums from the FICA wage base and applied SDI at 1.1% to an invented $83,067 per-person cap. The correct SDI is 1.3% of the full $430,000 with no cap, and FICA is based on gross wages."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,inkling,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model subtracted ESI premiums from gross wages and capped Social Security at the stale $168,600 base instead of $184,500. It also applied SDI at about 1.2% to capped wages, when the correct SDI is 1.3% of all $430,000."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no payroll_tax value and no explanation, so there was no answer to score."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model got federal FICA right at $30,454 and correctly treated SDI as uncapped, but used 1.2% ($5,160) instead of the 2026 CA SDI rate of 1.3% ($5,590)."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,minimax-m3,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model wrongly claimed that income tax deductions offset employee payroll taxes, and submitted 0. Payroll taxes apply to gross wages with no such offset: $22,599 Social Security + $6,235 Medicare + $1,620 Additional Medicare + $5,590 CA SDI."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model got federal FICA right at $30,454, but computed CA SDI at 1.2% ($5,160) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% on $430,000 ($5,590)."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,muse-wonder,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model subtracted cafeteria-plan premiums from each spouse's wages before applying Social Security, Medicare and SDI. The base is full gross wages of $430,000, with SDI at 1.3% ($5,590)."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the Additional Medicare Tax to the spouse's wages over the $200,000 single-filer withholding threshold ($2,250). For MFJ, the tax applies to combined wages over $250,000, giving $1,620. The model also left out CA SDI of 1.3% × $430,000 = $5,590."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied CA SDI at 1.1% subject to a $153,164 per-worker cap, but the cap was repealed in 2024 and the 2026 rate is 1.3% uncapped ($5,590). It also capped both earners at the 2025 base of $176,100 instead of $184,500, which wrongly limited the head's $180,000."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model left out CA SDI (1.3% × $430,000 = $5,590). Its federal FICA of $25,474 also falls short of the correct $30,454 ($22,599 Social Security + $6,235 Medicare + $1,620 Additional Medicare)."
us,scenario_005,self_employment_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It imputed about $22,800 of mortgage interest from the $2.85M balance, but no interest paid is listed, so the deduction is $0. It also subtracted the full $46,308 of traditional 401(k) deferrals instead of the $41,650 left after the $24,500 combined traditional+Roth cap. Its own bracket math reached about $38,832, then it jumped to $45,856 with no computation behind it and assumed the exemption credits were fully phased out, when $114 remains."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It set CA AGI at about $532,106 by subtracting the full $46,308 of traditional 401(k) deferrals and also deducting $2,164 of IRA contributions. The engine allows no IRA deduction and caps each spouse's traditional deferral at $20,825, so CA AGI is $538,928. That left taxable income about $7,900 short ($510,546 vs $518,408), and an exemption credit of about $210 instead of $114 pulled the tax further down."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,other,False,"It made up deductions for employer health premiums and 'federal income tax paid', used a 12% bracket that does not apply at this income, and subtracted about $21,621 of nonrefundable credits that do not exist. The only nonrefundable credit here is the $114 phased-down exemption credit, taken against $41,089 of tax on $518,408 of taxable income."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,missing_output,False,"It did no calculation and entered $0. The household owes $41,089 of California tax on $518,408 of taxable income, less a $114 exemption credit."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It imputed about $60,000 of mortgage interest from the $2.85M balance, but no interest paid is listed, so the deduction is $0. It also left out the miscellaneous employee-expense deduction and the high-income itemized limitation, and subtracted the full $46,308 of 401(k) deferrals, giving $453,116 of taxable income instead of $518,408. It took a $560 exemption credit with no phase-down, when only $114 is allowed at this AGI."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $70,000 tax-exempt private pension to California income and imputed about $35,000 of mortgage interest with no interest input; the engine excludes the pension and allows no mortgage interest. Its stated ~$595,000 of taxable income would produce far more than $36,767 at the 9.3% rate, so its answer follows neither its own figures nor the engine's $518,408 of taxable income."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It put CA taxable income at about $560,000 by partly including the tax-exempt private pension and counting mortgage interest, and it cited rates up to 11.3%. The engine excludes the pension, allows no mortgage interest because none is listed, and taxes $518,408 with a 9.3% top marginal rate."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It computed CA AGI of about $532,106 by subtracting the full $46,308 of traditional 401(k) deferrals plus $2,164 of IRA contributions. The engine caps traditional deferrals at $20,825 per spouse because traditional plus Roth requests ($27,240) exceed $24,500, and it allows no IRA deduction, so CA AGI is $538,928. Taxable income came out about $8,750 low, and a $256 exemption credit instead of $114 left the answer $1,164 short."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the full $46,308 of traditional 401(k) deferrals instead of the $41,650 allowed under the $24,500 combined traditional+Roth cap, giving CA AGI of $534,270 instead of $538,928. It never applied California's high-income itemized limitation, so it kept $23,017 of deductions where the engine allows $20,520. It also took a ~$500 exemption credit with no AGI phase-down, when only $114 is allowed."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It imputed $50,000 of mortgage interest from the $2.85M balance even though no interest paid is listed, which cut taxable income to $464,416. It then misapplied its own brackets: that income yields roughly $37,000, not $32,000. The engine's itemized deductions are property tax, charity, and miscellaneous expenses ($20,520 after limitation), giving $518,408 of taxable income."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used CA AGI of about $534k by subtracting the full $46,308 of traditional 401(k) deferrals instead of the $41,650 allowed under the cap. It left out the $2,986 deduction for employee expenses above the 2% floor and treated the exemption credits as fully phased out when $114 remains. Taxable income ended about $4,400 below $518,408 and the result $475 short."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It started from $538,418 of federal AGI without the SALT-refund subtraction and itemized only $19,854, which happened to put taxable income ($518,564) almost exactly at the engine's $518,408. Its bracket math then produced $42,151 instead of about $41,100, and it dropped the $114 exemption credit that survives the phase-down."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $497,700 of taxable income is about $20,700 below the engine's $518,408. That gap comes from deducting more than the engine's $41,650 of capped 401(k) deferrals and $20,520 of limited itemized deductions from $538,928 of CA AGI. It also took a $300 exemption credit instead of the $114 left after phase-down."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $512,889 of taxable income is $5,519 below the engine's $518,408. Most of the gap comes from subtracting the full $46,308 of traditional 401(k) deferrals instead of the $41,650 allowed once traditional plus Roth requests are capped at $24,500 per spouse. It also claimed no exemption credit, though $114 survives the phase-down."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used CA AGI of $534,270 by subtracting the full $46,308 of 401(k) deferrals instead of the capped $41,650. It itemized only $18,663 because it left out the $2,986 of employee expenses above the 2% floor, giving $515,607 of taxable income instead of $518,408. It also took a $310 exemption credit with no phase-down, when $114 is allowed."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $73,017 of itemized deductions includes imputed mortgage interest, but no interest paid is listed, so the engine allows $0. It also skipped the high-income itemized limitation and subtracted the full $46,308 of 401(k) deferrals, cutting taxable income to $461,253 instead of $518,408."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no computation. $31,215 corresponds to roughly $412,000 of taxable income, about $106,000 below the engine's $518,408 ($538,928 CA AGI less $20,520 of limited itemized deductions), which matches subtracting a large deduction that does not exist, such as mortgage interest, or leaving out investment income."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its ~$501,848 of taxable income is $16,560 below the engine's $518,408. It understated CA AGI relative to $538,928 (the engine excludes only $41,650 of capped 401(k) deferrals) and deducted more than the $20,520 left after the high-income itemized limitation."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It computed CA AGI of $520,901 by subtracting the $13,369 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums from wages on top of the full $46,308 of 401(k) deferrals. Those premiums are not a wage reduction here, and traditional deferrals are capped at $20,825 per spouse, so CA AGI is $538,928. It also itemized only $19,854, leaving out the $2,986 deduction for employee expenses above the 2% floor."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no computation. $33,816 is $7,159 below the reference, which at the 9.3% marginal rate means taxable income about $77,000 below the engine's $518,408. That matches over-deducting from the $538,928 CA AGI, which carries only $20,520 of limited itemized deductions and no mortgage interest."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started from federal AGI without subtracting the $4,148 SALT refund that California excludes, skipped the high-income itemized limitation, and applied no exemption credit, coming out $1,175 high. The engine taxes $518,408 for $41,089 and then subtracts the $114 phased-down exemption credit."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no figures, and its $36,918 is $4,057 low, about $43,600 less taxable income than the engine's $518,408 at 9.3%. That matches subtracting 'pre-tax' items beyond the engine's $41,650 of capped 401(k) deferrals, such as employer health premiums and IRA contributions, which the engine does not deduct."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used CA AGI of $534,270 by subtracting the full $46,308 of traditional 401(k) deferrals instead of the $41,650 allowed under the $24,500 combined traditional+Roth cap, giving about $515,000 of taxable income instead of $518,408. It then rounded the tax to $40,000 instead of computing $41,089 less the $114 exemption credit."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left the $77,920 of qualified dividends out of AGI, applied the full $10,911 net capital loss instead of the $3,000 limit, and invented a $2,000 California capital-loss limit. It also took an $11,000 standard deduction even though itemized deductions ($20,520 after limitation) are larger. Its $438,439 of taxable income is about $80,000 below the engine's $518,408."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the ~$11,300 standard deduction instead of itemizing $17,280 of property tax, $2,574 of charity, and $2,986 of miscellaneous expenses, which total $20,520 after the high-income limitation. It also subtracted the full $46,308 of 401(k) deferrals, and it applied no exemption credit even though $114 survives the phase-down."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It did no computation, and $20,677 is about half the correct figure. The engine taxes $518,408 of taxable income ($538,928 CA AGI less $20,520 of limited itemized deductions) for $41,089 and subtracts only a $114 exemption credit."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no figures. Its $37,099 is $3,876 low, about $41,700 of understated taxable income at 9.3%, which means it deducted far more than the engine's $41,650 of capped 401(k) deferrals and $20,520 of limited itemized deductions allow."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reduced wages by 'pretax health premiums' ($13,369 of employer-sponsored premiums, which are not a wage reduction here) in addition to the full $46,308 of 401(k) deferrals. That understated CA AGI against the engine's $538,928, where traditional deferrals are capped at $20,825 per spouse, and left the answer $2,141 low."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its ~$519,427 of taxable income is about $1,019 above the engine's $518,408, which is $538,928 of CA AGI less $20,520 of limited itemized deductions. The extra income added about $95 of 9.3% tax, which a slightly oversized exemption credit only partly offset, leaving it $49 high."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied unspecified 'California additions', but the engine's only California adjustment to federal AGI is the $4,148 SALT-refund subtraction. Its result is $175 high, the equivalent of about $1,900 of extra taxable income at 9.3% above the engine's $518,408."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $8,961 of tax-exempt interest to California income, which the engine does not do. It still finished $809 low, so it over-deducted elsewhere by more than that addition, which matches subtracting the full $46,308 of traditional 401(k) deferrals instead of the capped $41,650 and taking more than the $114 exemption credit left after phase-down."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It set CA AGI at $520,901 by subtracting $13,369 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums from wages and excluding the full $46,308 of 401(k) deferrals; the engine's CA AGI is $538,928, with traditional deferrals capped at $20,825 per spouse. It used the 2025 bracket schedule and exemption amounts that the release's California convention (c_ca_hold_2025) holds for 2026; its $222 exemption credit reflects its understated AGI, compared with $114 in the current reference."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted the $4,148 state tax refund as California income, though California subtracts it. It also took the standard deduction instead of itemizing $20,520 of property tax, charity, and miscellaneous expenses, which overstated taxable income and pushed the tax $815 too high."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its ~$492,027 of taxable income is $26,381 below the engine's $518,408, the result of deducting well beyond the $20,520 of limited itemized deductions (property tax, charity, miscellaneous) taken from $538,928 of CA AGI. It also took two full personal exemption credits instead of the $114 left after the high-AGI phase-down."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It set CA AGI at $520,901 by subtracting $13,369 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums from wages and excluding the full $46,308 of 401(k) deferrals; the engine's CA AGI is $538,928, with traditional deferrals capped at $20,825 per spouse. It used the 2025 bracket schedule and exemption amounts that the release's California convention (c_ca_hold_2025) holds for 2026; its $222 exemption credit reflects its understated AGI, compared with $114 in the current reference."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no breakdown. $48,720 is $7,745 high, which means taxable income about $83,000 above $518,408. That is the size of adding the $70,000 tax-exempt private pension and $8,961 of tax-exempt interest, both of which the engine keeps out of CA AGI."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used CA AGI of $534,270 by subtracting the full $46,308 of traditional 401(k) deferrals instead of the $41,650 left after the $24,500 combined traditional+Roth cap, giving taxable income of about $512,000 instead of $518,408. It also kept a ~$280 exemption credit where the phase-down leaves $114."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated CA AGI as equal to its $538,418 federal AGI without subtracting the SALT refund, and that federal AGI already subtracted the full $46,308 of 401(k) deferrals. Its $22,934 of itemized deductions skipped the $2,320 high-income limitation. That gave $515,484 of taxable income instead of $518,408, and with a $177 credit instead of $114 it finished $500 low."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used CA AGI of $534,270 by subtracting the full $46,308 of 401(k) deferrals instead of the capped $41,650, and it left out the $2,986 deduction for employee expenses above the 2% floor. It also took $314 of exemption credits where the phase-down leaves $114, which put the answer $318 low."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It set CA AGI at $525,049, about $13,900 below the engine's $538,928, and applied no high-income limitation to its $23,201 of itemized deductions, giving $501,848 of taxable income instead of $518,408. It also used no exemption credit, though $114 survives the phase-down."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $70,000 tax-exempt private pension and the tax-exempt interest to CA AGI, reaching $604,010. The engine excludes both; its CA AGI is federal AGI less the SALT refund, $538,928, which leaves $518,408 of taxable income instead of $582,388."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value or explanation for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was nothing to score against the $40,975.25 reference."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $538,418 federal AGI subtracts the full $46,308 of traditional 401(k) deferrals, so its CA AGI was $534,270 instead of $538,928; the engine allows only $20,825 per spouse because traditional plus Roth requests exceed $24,500. Taxable income came out at $512,433 instead of $518,408, and a $258 exemption credit instead of $114 left the answer $874 low."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the federal $10,000 SALT cap to California, which has no such cap, and imputed mortgage interest with no interest input, then concluded the tax was eliminated. California taxable income is $518,408, producing $41,089 of tax before the $114 exemption credit."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no figures. $39,300 is $1,675 low, which at 9.3% means taxable income about $18,000 below the engine's $518,408. That matches subtracting the full $46,308 of 401(k) deferrals instead of the capped $41,650 and deducting beyond the $20,520 of limited itemized deductions."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used $538,418 of federal AGI without subtracting the $4,148 SALT refund. It also over-applied the high-income itemized limitation, cutting $19,854 to $11,912, when the limitation is 6% of AGI above roughly $500k, or $2,320. It also left out the $2,986 miscellaneous deduction, so taxable income reached $526,500 instead of $518,408."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It never subtracted 401(k) deferrals, kept the $4,148 SALT refund in income, used the full $10,911 net capital loss instead of the $3,000 limit, and took the standard deduction instead of $20,520 of itemized deductions. It then miscomputed the brackets, getting $33,544 on $565,375 when the 9.3% schedule gives roughly $45,000, and subtracted $892 of exemption credits with no phase-down."
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It took the standard deduction instead of $20,520 of itemized deductions (property tax, charity, and miscellaneous expenses after the high-income limitation). Its bracket math also produced only $29,423 on $495,603 of taxable income, when California's schedule with a 9.3% top marginal rate gives roughly $39,000."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It made up about $22,800 of deductible mortgage interest from the $2.85M balance, even though no interest paid was listed and unlisted inputs are 0. Its own bracket math gave about $38,832, and it then jumped to $45,856 with no supporting steps. The correct itemized deduction is only $20,519.93, giving $518,408.38 of taxable income and $41,089.25 of tax, less a $114 exemption credit."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its CA AGI of about $532,106 deducted the $2,164 of traditional IRA contributions, which are not deductible for plan participants at this income. It also excluded all $46,308 of 401(k) deferrals, although the combined Roth and traditional deferrals exceed the elective limit. This put taxable income about $7,900 below $518,408.38, and it kept a $210 exemption credit instead of the phased-down $114."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted a deduction for federal income tax paid, which California does not allow, and the employer-paid health premiums, which were never in wages. It also used a 12% bracket that does not exist and invented about $21,621 of nonrefundable credits. The only nonrefundable credit here is the $114 phased-down exemption credit against $41,089.25 of tax."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,missing_output,False,"It never computed California tax and defaulted to $0. CA taxable income of $518,408.38 produces $41,089.25 of tax, less the $114 exemption credit."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It made up about $60,000 of mortgage interest from the loan balance even though no interest paid was listed, which cut taxable income to about $453,116 instead of $518,408.38. It also skipped the employee-expense deduction above the 2% floor and the 6% high-income cut. It took a full $560 exemption credit instead of the phased-down $114."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $70,000 tax-exempt private pension to CA income and made up about $35,000 of mortgage interest that was never provided. It then reported $36,767, far below the roughly $48,000 its own taxable income of about $595,000 implies. Correct CA AGI excludes the pension ($538,928.31), and limited itemized deductions are $20,519.93."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It put CA taxable income at about $560,000 instead of $518,408.38, because it did not start from federal AGI less the SALT refund and subtract the $20,519.93 limited itemized deduction. It also cited rates up to 11.3%, which do not apply at this income; the 9.3% bracket gives $41,089.25, less the $114 credit."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its CA AGI of about $532,106 deducted the $2,164 of traditional IRA contributions, which are not deductible for active plan participants at this income. It also excluded all 401(k) deferrals despite the combined Roth and traditional limit, so taxable income came out about $8,750 too low ($509,652). It used a $256 exemption credit instead of $114."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It excluded all $46,308 of traditional 401(k) deferrals, although about $4,658 exceeds the combined elective limit with the Roth deferrals. This gave CA AGI of $534,270 instead of $538,928.31. It also never applied the 6% high-income cut ($23,017 instead of $20,519.93) and subtracted an unphased $500 exemption credit instead of $114."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It made up about $50,000 of mortgage interest even though no interest paid was listed. It also underpriced its own $464,416 of taxable income: the bracket schedule it listed gives about $36,700, not $32,000."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its itemized deductions counted only property tax and charity ($19,854). It left out the $2,986 of employee business expenses above the 2% floor, which California still allows. It used about $534k of CA AGI by excluding all 401(k) deferrals, and treated the exemption credit as fully phased out when $114 remains."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used federal AGI of $538,418 as the California base without subtracting the $4,148 SALT refund, and it left out the employee-expense deduction above the 2% floor. Its brackets produced $42,151 on $518,564 of taxable income, where the 2026 schedule gives about $41,100. It also claimed no credits and missed the $114 exemption credit."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its taxable income of $497,700 is about $20,700 below the correct $518,408.38, which is CA AGI of $538,928.31 less $20,519.93 of limited itemized deductions. It subtracted a $300 exemption credit instead of the phased-down $114."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its taxable income of $512,889 is about $5,500 short of $518,408.38 because it excluded all traditional 401(k) deferrals, even though the combined Roth and traditional deferrals exceed the elective limit. It said no nonrefundable credits apply, missing the $114 exemption credit."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used CA AGI of $534,270, excluding all $46,308 of traditional 401(k) deferrals although about $4,658 exceeds the combined elective limit. Its $18,663 itemized total left out the employee business expenses above the 2% floor. It took a $310 exemption credit instead of the phased-down $114."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $73,017 of itemized deductions includes about $50,000 of made-up mortgage interest, although no interest paid was listed. This cut taxable income to $461,253 instead of $518,408.38. It also skipped the 6% high-income cut and used a $288 exemption credit instead of $114."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It showed no computation. Its $31,215 is about $9,760 below the reference, which equals about $105,000 less taxable income at the 9.3% marginal rate, so it over-deducted. The correct path is $538,928.31 of CA AGI less $20,519.93 = $518,408.38 taxable, giving $41,089.25 of tax less $114."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its taxable income of about $501,848 is $16,560 below the correct $518,408.38. That figure comes from subtracting the $13,369 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums from wages, though the employer paid them and they were never in wages. It also excluded all 401(k) deferrals despite the combined Roth and traditional limit."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its CA AGI of $520,901 equals $534,270 minus the $13,369 of employer-paid insurance premiums, which were never part of the $430,000 of wages. It also excluded all 401(k) deferrals despite the combined Roth and traditional limit. Its $19,854 itemized total left out the employee business expenses above the 2% floor."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It showed no computation. Its $33,816 is about $7,160 short, which equals about $77,000 too little taxable income at the 9.3% marginal rate. The correct figure is $518,408.38 of taxable income, $41,089.25 of tax, less the $114 exemption credit."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started from federal AGI without subtracting the $4,148 SALT refund that California excludes, and it did not apply the 6% high-income cut to itemized deductions. It claimed no exemption credit, so $42,150 exceeds even the $41,089.25 of pre-credit tax that should be reduced by $114."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave only a generic description. Its $36,918 is about $4,057 short, which equals about $43,600 too little taxable income at 9.3%, so it took deductions beyond the $20,519.93 limited itemized amount and the partial 401(k) exclusion."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used CA AGI of $534,270, excluding all traditional 401(k) deferrals although about $4,658 exceeds the combined elective limit. That gave about $515,000 of taxable income instead of $518,408.38, and it then rounded to $40,000 rather than netting the $114 exemption credit from $41,089.25."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Its pre-credit tax is close to $41,089.25, but it subtracted two full personal exemption credits. Above the AGI threshold each credit loses $6 per $2,500 of excess AGI, which leaves only $114, so it ended about $163 low."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left the $77,920 of qualified dividends out of AGI and wrongly capped California's capital loss at $2,000 instead of $3,000. It also took the standard deduction instead of the larger $20,519.93 itemized deduction, which put taxable income at $438,439 instead of $518,408.38."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the roughly $11,300 standard deduction, but itemizing is larger: $17,280 property tax, charity and employee expenses above the 2% floor total $20,519.93 after the 6% cut. It also claimed no nonrefundable credits, missing the $114 exemption credit."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It showed no computation, and $20,677 is about half the correct liability. On $518,408.38 of taxable income, the California MFJ schedule gives $41,089.25 of tax (9.3% marginal rate), less the $114 exemption credit."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave only a generic description that includes subtracting retirement contributions. Its $37,099 is about $3,876 short, which equals about $41,700 too little taxable income compared with $518,408.38."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted pretax health premiums from wages, but the $13,369 of employer-sponsored premiums are employer-paid and never part of the $430,000 of wages. It also excluded all 401(k) deferrals despite the combined Roth and traditional limit, leaving taxable income about $23,000 too low."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Its taxable income of $519,427 is about $1,019 above $518,408.38 because its itemized deduction came out short of $20,519.93. It also netted an exemption credit of about $160 instead of the phased-down $114, ending $49 above the reference."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no figures. Its $41,150 exceeds even the $41,089.25 of pre-credit tax, so after the personal credits it claimed, its taxable income was about $1,900 above $518,408.38. Applying the full $20,519.93 limited itemized deduction and the $114 credit gives $40,975.25."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $8,961 of tax-exempt interest to California income, which is not part of CA AGI here ($538,928.31 is federal AGI less only the SALT refund). Its other deductions or credits more than offset this, leaving it $809 below the reference instead of matching $518,408.38 of taxable income less the $114 credit."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its CA AGI of $520,901 subtracts the $13,369 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums, which the employer paid and which were never in wages. It also excluded all 401(k) deferrals despite the combined Roth and traditional limit, understating AGI by about $18,000. It used a $222 exemption credit instead of $114."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It kept the $4,148 state tax refund in California income, but California subtracts it. It also used the standard deduction instead of the larger $20,519.93 itemized deduction (property tax, charity and employee expenses above the 2% floor, after the 6% cut)."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its taxable income of about $492,027 is roughly $26,400 below $518,408.38. It understated CA AGI ($538,928.31) and/or claimed itemized deductions above the $20,519.93 limited amount, and it subtracted two exemption credits instead of the phased-down $114."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its CA AGI of $520,901 subtracts the $13,369 of employer-paid insurance premiums, which were never in wages, and excludes all 401(k) deferrals despite the combined Roth and traditional limit. It also used a $222 exemption credit instead of $114."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no figures. Its $48,720 is about $7,745 too high, which equals about $83,000 of extra taxable income, matching the $70,000 tax-exempt pension plus the $8,961 of tax-exempt interest. Neither belongs in CA AGI of $538,928.31."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used CA AGI of $534,270, excluding all traditional 401(k) deferrals although about $4,658 exceeds the combined elective limit with the Roth deferrals. This left taxable income near $512,000 instead of $518,408.38, and it kept about $280 of exemption credit instead of $114."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It set CA AGI equal to federal AGI of $538,418 without subtracting the $4,148 SALT refund, and it also missed the 401(k) deferrals above the combined elective limit. Its tax of $40,652 on $515,484 is about $165 below the 2026 schedule, and it netted a $177 exemption credit instead of $114."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It subtracted $314 of personal exemption credits, but the phaseout leaves only $114. Its itemized deductions also left out the employee business expenses above the 2% floor, and its CA AGI of $534,270 missed the 401(k) deferrals above the combined elective limit."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its CA AGI of $525,049 equals federal AGI of $538,418 minus the $13,369 of employer-paid insurance premiums, which were never in wages, and it never subtracted the SALT refund. This gave taxable income of $501,848 instead of $518,408.38, and it also skipped the 6% cut and the $114 exemption credit."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $70,000 tax-exempt private pension and the tax-exempt interest to CA AGI ($604,010). The correct CA AGI is federal AGI less only the SALT refund ($538,928.31), and the larger AGI also shrank its 2%-floor employee-expense deduction."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,It submitted no value or explanation for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits.
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used CA AGI of $534,270, excluding all $46,308 of traditional 401(k) deferrals although about $4,658 exceeds the combined Roth and traditional limit, which gave $512,433 of taxable income instead of $518,408.38. It also netted a $258 exemption credit instead of the phased-down $114."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the federal $10,000 SALT cap, which California does not have, and made up mortgage interest that was never listed. It then claimed deductions erase all tax, although CA taxable income is $518,408.38 with $41,089.25 of tax."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its itemized deductions counted only property tax and charity ($19,854), leaving out the employee business expenses above the 2% floor. It used CA AGI of $534,270, which misses the 401(k) deferrals above the combined elective limit, so taxable income came to about $514,000 instead of $518,408.38."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave only a generic description. Its $39,300 is about $1,675 short, which equals about $18,000 too little taxable income compared with $518,408.38 (CA AGI of $538,928.31 less $20,519.93 of limited itemized deductions)."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used federal AGI of $538,418 without subtracting the $4,148 SALT refund. It cut its itemized deductions to $11,912 by overapplying the high-income limit (the 6% cut is only $2,319.90) and left out the employee expenses above the 2% floor, which put taxable income at $526,500 instead of $518,408.38."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It skipped the traditional 401(k) exclusion, used the full -$10,911 capital loss instead of the $3,000 limit, kept the SALT refund, and took the standard deduction. On its own $565,375 of taxable income, the schedule gives about $45,460, not $33,544, and it also took an unphased $892 exemption credit."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It took the standard deduction instead of the $20,519.93 itemized deduction. Its bracket math gave $29,423 on $495,603 of taxable income, where the 2026 MFJ schedule with a 9.3% marginal rate gives about $38,970."
us,scenario_005,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the $19,285 of SSDI as fully non-taxable, but provisional income of $44,922.50 is above the $34,000 threshold, so $13,784 of it is taxable. It also used the 2024 $14,600 standard deduction instead of the 2026 $16,100."
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed taxable SSDI was about $0 because other income was 'low'. In fact $35,280 of pension plus half the SSDI gives provisional income of $44,922.50, which makes $13,784 taxable. Leaving that out cut taxable income to roughly $19,180."
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly got taxable SS of $13,784, AGI of $49,064 and taxable income of $32,964, and computed about $3,713. It then submitted $2,386 for an unexplained 'taxable SS recalculation' that contradicts its own derivation. It also used $12,150 as the top of the 10% bracket instead of the 2026 figure of $12,400."
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the 85% cap ($16,392) as taxable SS instead of the lesser-of amount, 0.85 × $10,922.50 + $4,500 = $13,784, which overstated AGI at $51,672. It then submitted $1,858, a number unrelated to its own computed tax of $4,021."
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its reasoning gets every step right (taxable SS $13,784, AGI $49,064, taxable income $32,964, tax about $3,708), but it submitted 2,534 as the value. The final output contradicts its own correct derivation."
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Because provisional income was above $34,000, it taxed a flat 85% of SSDI ($16,392.25) instead of the lesser-of formula result of $13,784.12. It also added the $284 tax-exempt pension to provisional income. It then used 2025 parameters (a $15,000 standard deduction and a $11,925 10% bracket) instead of 2026's $16,100 and $12,400."
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Instead of the formula result of $13,784, it used an unsupported 'approximation' of $15,650 for taxable SS and computed $3,941. It then submitted $1,611 with no supporting arithmetic, so the final value matches neither the correct liability nor its own calculation."
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $49,064 is correct. However, it used a $15,400 standard deduction instead of the 2026 OBBBA figure of $16,100, and a $12,250 10% bracket instead of $12,400, which overstated taxable income at $33,664."
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $49,064 is correct. However, it subtracted a $15,300 standard deduction instead of the 2026 single amount of $16,100, and used $12,200 instead of $12,400 as the top of the 10% bracket."
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted the full 85% cap ($16,392.25) as taxable SS instead of the lesser-of amount ($13,784.12), which inflated AGI to $51,672. It also used a $15,400 standard deduction and a $12,225 10% bracket instead of 2026's $16,100 and $12,400."
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied pre-TCJA law: an $8,100 standard deduction, a $5,300 personal exemption and a 15% second bracket. OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent, so the correct 2026 figures are a $16,100 standard deduction, no exemption, and 10%/12% brackets."
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $49,064 is correct. However, it used a $15,700 standard deduction instead of 2026's $16,100, and the 2025 $11,925 10% bracket instead of $12,400."
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied a head-of-household standard deduction with the over-65 add-on. The head is 56 and files as single with no dependents, so only the $16,100 single deduction applies. The larger deduction drove its tax down to $1,391."
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It explicitly used pre-TCJA rules (a smaller standard deduction plus a personal exemption, with a 15% bracket) for 2026. Under OBBBA the TCJA structure continues: a $16,100 single standard deduction, no exemption, and 10%/12% brackets."
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $49,064 is correct. However, it applied a pre-TCJA $8,300 standard deduction plus a $5,150 personal exemption and the 15% bracket, instead of the permanent post-OBBBA $16,100 standard deduction and 12% bracket."
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"At 2026 brackets, $3,212 implies taxable income of about $28,830, roughly $4,130 below the correct $32,964. That points to under-including taxable SS (the correct amount is $13,784) or over-deducting relative to the $16,100 standard deduction."
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $49,064.13 is correct. However, $3,807.18 implies a standard deduction of about $15,350 and the 2025 $11,925 10% bracket, instead of the 2026 figures of $16,100 and $12,400."
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its explanation derives the correct $3,707.70 from AGI of $49,064.13, but the numeric value it submitted was $3,744. The final output contradicts its own correct computation."
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $49,064 is correct. However, it used a $15,350 standard deduction instead of 2026's $16,100, and a $12,200 10% bracket instead of $12,400, which overstated taxable income at $33,714."
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $284 tax-exempt pension to provisional income, which raised taxable SS to $14,025.53. Only tax-exempt interest belongs in provisional income, so the correct amount is $13,784.12. It also used 2024 parameters (a $14,600 deduction and a $11,600 10% bracket) instead of 2026's $16,100 and $12,400."
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied only the first-tier formula, 50% × (provisional income − $25,000) = $9,961, and ignored the second tier above $34,000. The second tier gives 0.85 × $10,922.50 + $4,500 = $13,784. It also used a $15,750 standard deduction and a $12,000 bracket instead of $16,100 and $12,400."
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the standard deduction offsets all income. In fact AGI of $49,064 ($35,280 pension plus $13,784 taxable SS) minus the $16,100 deduction leaves $32,964 of taxable income, so tax is $3,707.70, not zero."
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It returned zero tax, as if deductions and credits eliminated all liability. The $35,280 pension plus $13,784 of taxable SS, minus the $16,100 standard deduction, leaves $32,964 taxable, and no nonrefundable credit applies."
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $49,064 and its brackets are correct. However, it used the 2025 OBBBA single standard deduction of $15,750 instead of the 2026 inflation-adjusted $16,100, which overstated taxable income by $350."
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its taxable income of $35,572 equals $51,672 − $16,100, which means it taxed the full 85% cap of SSDI ($16,392) instead of the lesser-of formula amount ($13,784)."
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its taxable income of about $33,206 is about $242 too high, which matches 0.85 × $284. In other words, it included the tax-exempt private pension in provisional income, but only tax-exempt interest counts."
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"$3,736.66 corresponds exactly to taxable income of $33,205.53, which means it added the $284 tax-exempt pension to provisional income and raised taxable SS by $241.40. Only tax-exempt interest belongs in provisional income."
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It set taxable SS at the 85% cap ($16,392) instead of the lesser-of amount, 0.85 × ($44,922.50 − $34,000) + $4,500 = $13,784, which inflated AGI to $51,672."
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"At 2026 brackets, $2,444 implies taxable income of about $22,400, far below the correct $32,964. It understated the taxable portion of SSDI, which the 85% tier makes $13,784."
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $49,064 is correct. However, it assumed the TCJA had sunset and applied a projected $8,535 standard deduction, a $5,443 exemption and a 15% bracket, instead of OBBBA's permanent $16,100 deduction and 10%/12% brackets."
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $49,064 is correct. However, it applied post-TCJA-sunset parameters ($8,496 standard deduction, $5,419 exemption, 15% bracket) instead of the 2026 OBBBA $16,100 standard deduction and 12% bracket."
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It explicitly assumed the TCJA had sunset for 2026, using an $8,550 deduction, a $5,450 exemption and a 15% bracket. OBBBA made the TCJA rates and the larger standard deduction permanent, so the correct deduction is $16,100 with no exemption, taxed at 10%/12%."
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the full 85% cap ($16,392) as taxable SS instead of the lesser-of amount ($13,784). It also used a $15,420 standard deduction and a $12,259 10% bracket instead of 2026's $16,100 and $12,400."
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no value or explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was no answer to score."
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $49,064.13 is correct. However, it applied a 'deduction/exemption' structure and higher rates consistent with pre-TCJA law, instead of the 2026 $16,100 standard deduction with 10%/12% brackets."
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left the $19,285 of SSDI out of AGI entirely, even though $13,784 is taxable once provisional income passes $34,000. It also miscomputed the 10% bracket tax as $1,540."
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $49,064 is correct, but it approximated the 2026 bracket and deduction figures instead of applying them exactly. The exact calculation is $16,100 deduction → $32,964.12 taxable → $1,240 + 12% × $20,564.12 = $3,707.70, not its $3,702."
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $284 tax-exempt pension to provisional income and also added up its combined income wrong ($45,406 instead of $45,207). As a result it taxed $14,196 of SS instead of $13,784.12."
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"In the second-tier formula it used $6,000, the married-filing-jointly figure, instead of the single filer's $4,500, and it also counted the tax-exempt pension in provisional income, giving taxable SS of $15,526. It also used a $15,750 deduction and a $12,150 bracket instead of 2026's $16,100 and $12,400."
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left the $13,784 of taxable SSDI out of income, used a $15,750 deduction, and applied a non-existent 12.5% rate. It then submitted $4,202, which contradicts its own stated $2,177."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the $19,285 of SSDI as fully non-taxable. Provisional income of $44,922.50 is above the $34,000 threshold, so $13,784 of it is taxable. It also used the 2024 standard deduction of $14,600 instead of the 2026 amount of $16,100, so its taxable income came out at $20,680 instead of $32,964."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed taxable SSDI was about $0 'given low other income.' Provisional income of $44,922.50 is above $34,000, so $13,784 is taxable. That left out $13,784 of AGI, and its $1,900 is not even the right 10%/12% tax on the $19,180 it was left with."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly reached taxable income of $32,964 and about $3,713 of tax (it used a $12,150 bracket edge instead of $12,400). It then dropped that result and submitted $2,386, which no step in its reasoning supports."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It set taxable Social Security at the 85% cap ($16,392) instead of the smaller formula amount ($13,784), which overstated AGI at $51,672. It then calculated $4,021 but submitted $1,858, a figure its own work does not support."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It derived the correct $13,784 of taxable Social Security, $32,964 of taxable income and $3,708 of tax. It then submitted $2,534, which contradicts its own correct calculation."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $284 tax-exempt pension to provisional income and then taxed a flat 85% of benefits ($16,392) without applying the lesser-of formula, which gives $13,784. It also used the 2025 deduction of $15,000 and bracket edge of $11,925 instead of the 2026 values of $16,100 and $12,400."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It came up with an inconsistent taxable Social Security figure of about $15,650 instead of $13,784 and calculated about $3,941. It then submitted $1,611, which has no basis in its reasoning."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $49,064 was right, but it used a projected 2026 standard deduction of $15,400 instead of the $16,100 set by the OBBBA, and ended the 10% bracket at $12,250 instead of $12,400. This overstated taxable income by $700."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $49,064 was right, but it used a $15,300 standard deduction instead of the 2026 amount of $16,100 and ended the 10% bracket at $12,200 instead of $12,400. Taxable income came out at $33,764 instead of $32,964."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It taxed 85% of benefits ($16,392.25) instead of the smaller formula amount ($13,784.12), and used a $15,400 standard deduction and $12,225 bracket edge instead of the 2026 values of $16,100 and $12,400."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied rules that assume the TCJA expired: an $8,100 standard deduction, a $5,300 personal exemption and a 15% second bracket. The OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent, so 2026 has a $16,100 deduction, no personal exemption, and a 12% rate above $12,400."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $49,064 was right, but it used a $15,700 standard deduction instead of $16,100 and the 2025 bracket edge of $11,925 instead of the 2026 edge of $12,400. Both errors push the tax above $3,707.70."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It filed the head as a head of household over 65 and applied nonrefundable credits. The head is a 56-year-old single filer with no dependents, so the age-65 deduction and the elderly credits do not apply. The correct $32,964 of taxable income gives $3,707.70."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It modeled 2026 under pre-TCJA rules, with a personal exemption and the 15% bracket. The OBBBA made the $16,100 standard deduction, the zero personal exemption and the 10%/12% brackets permanent, so its tax is overstated."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $49,064 was right, but it used TCJA-sunset parameters: an $8,300 deduction plus a $5,150 exemption, with 15% bracket rates. The 2026 law gives a $16,100 deduction with no exemption and a 12% rate, for $3,707.70."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $3,212 matches about $28,800 of taxable income at the 2026 brackets, roughly $4,100 below the correct $32,964. That points to understated taxable Social Security (the correct figure is $13,784) or a nonrefundable credit this filer does not qualify for."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $49,064.13 was right, but $3,807.18 matches a standard deduction of about $15,350 with the 2025 $11,925 bracket edge. The 2026 values are $16,100 and $12,400."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its explanation correctly derived $3,707.70 from $49,064.13 of AGI, the single standard deduction and the 2026 brackets. The value it actually submitted was $3,744, which contradicts its own explanation."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $49,064 was right, but it used a $15,350 standard deduction instead of the 2026 amount of $16,100 and ended the 10% bracket at $12,200 instead of $12,400. Taxable income came out at $33,714 instead of $32,964."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied TCJA-expiration rules: an $8,350 deduction plus a $5,300 exemption and a 15% bracket. The 2026 law uses a $16,100 deduction with no exemption and a 12% rate. It also added the $284 tax-exempt pension to provisional income, raising taxable Social Security to $14,026 instead of $13,784."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the 2024 standard deduction of $14,600 and bracket edge of $11,600 instead of the 2026 values of $16,100 and $12,400. It also added the $284 tax-exempt pension to provisional income, which inflated taxable Social Security to $14,026 instead of $13,784."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used only the 50% formula, 0.5×(provisional income − $25,000) = $9,961, and skipped the 85% tier that applies above $34,000. The correct taxable Social Security is $13,784. It also used the 2025 deduction of $15,750 instead of $16,100."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the standard deduction wipes out the income. AGI of $49,064 less the $16,100 deduction leaves $32,964 of taxable income, and no nonrefundable credit offsets the resulting $3,707.70."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reported zero liability as if credits or the deduction removed all tax. The $35,280 pension plus $13,784 of taxable Social Security, less $16,100, leaves $32,964 taxable, which is $3,707.70 of tax, and no nonrefundable credits apply."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $49,064 and its brackets were right, but it used the 2025 standard deduction of $15,750 instead of the 2026 amount of $16,100. That overstated taxable income by $350, which adds $42 of tax."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $35,572 of taxable income equals $51,672 − $16,100, which means it taxed the full 85% of benefits ($16,392) instead of the smaller formula amount ($13,784). That overstated taxable income by $2,608."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $33,206 of taxable income is $242 too high, which equals 85% of the $284 tax-exempt pension. It added that pension to provisional income and got $14,026 of taxable Social Security instead of $13,784; only tax-exempt interest counts in that calculation."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $3,736.66 equals $1,240 + 12% × ($49,305.53 − $16,100 − $12,400), which means it put the $284 tax-exempt pension into provisional income. That raised taxable Social Security to $14,025.53 instead of $13,784.12."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It set taxable Social Security at the 85% cap ($16,392) instead of the smaller formula amount, 0.85×($44,922.50−$34,000)+$4,500 = $13,784. That inflated AGI to $51,672 and the tax to $4,021."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $2,444 matches only about $22,400 of taxable income, roughly $10,500 below the correct $32,964. That means it left out most of the $13,784 of taxable Social Security."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $49,064 was right, but it applied a projected post-TCJA-sunset law: an $8,535 deduction, a $5,443 exemption and a 15% bracket. The OBBBA kept the $16,100 deduction, zero exemption and 10%/12% rates for 2026."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $49,064 was right, but it used TCJA-sunset parameters: an $8,496 deduction plus a $5,419 exemption and a 15% rate. The 2026 law is a $16,100 deduction, no exemption and 12% above $12,400."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $49,064 was right, but it assumed the TCJA expired, using a $5,450 personal exemption, an $8,550 standard deduction and the 15% bracket. The OBBBA made the $16,100 deduction and 10%/12% brackets permanent."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the 85% cap ($16,392) for taxable Social Security instead of the smaller formula amount ($13,784). It also used a $15,420 deduction and a $12,259 bracket edge instead of the 2026 values of $16,100 and $12,400."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It gave no value and no explanation for this output. The correct path is $32,964.12 of taxable income at 10%/12%, which yields $3,707.70."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $49,064.13 was right, but it applied a 'deduction/exemption' scheme and a $4,708 result, both consistent with pre-TCJA 15% brackets. The 2026 law is a $16,100 standard deduction, no personal exemption and 12% above $12,400."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It set AGI at $35,280 and left out the $13,784 of taxable SSDI, even though provisional income of $44,922.50 is above $34,000. It also put the 10% bracket tax at $1,540 instead of $1,240."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It put taxable SSDI at about $15,284 instead of the formula result of $13,784, and used the 2025 deduction of $15,750 instead of the 2026 amount of $16,100. Taxable income came out at $34,814 instead of $32,964."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $49,064 was right, but $3,702 matches about $32,914 of taxable income, which implies a standard deduction of about $16,150 instead of $16,100. The correct $32,964 at the 2026 brackets gives $3,707.70."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $284 tax-exempt pension to provisional income and also added wrong, getting $45,406 when the sum of its own figures is $45,207. Taxable Social Security came out at $14,196 instead of $13,784, an overstatement of $412."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used $6,000 in the 85%-tier formula, which is the married-filing-jointly amount; the single amount is $4,500. It also added the $284 tax-exempt pension to provisional income, which gave $15,526 of taxable Social Security instead of $13,784. On top of that it used a $15,750 deduction and a $12,150 bracket edge instead of $16,100 and $12,400."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $13,784 of taxable SSDI, used the 2025 deduction of $15,750, and applied a non-existent 12.5% rate to get $2,177. It then submitted $4,202, which contradicts that calculation."
us,scenario_007,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_007,head_medicare_eligible,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Correctly noted the head is under 65 and that SSDI-based Medicare needs a 24-month waiting period, but then assumed that period was met because status is held constant for the year. Being constant within the year says nothing about 24 prior months. The months-of-SSDI input is unlisted, so it is 0 and the waiting-period test fails."
us,scenario_007,head_medicare_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Treated receipt of SSDI income as automatically giving Medicare eligibility and skipped the 24-month entitlement requirement. With zero recorded months of SSDI and the head aged 56, neither the disability pathway nor the age-65 pathway applies."
@@ -360,91 +371,95 @@ us,scenario_007,head_medicare_eligible,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,age_disabili
us,scenario_007,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model first recognized that no wage was listed but then asserted $1,516.30 of employee Social Security and Medicare tax on unspecified “applicable taxable wages.” The listed Social Security disability and private pension payments are not employee FICA wages, and the 50 weekly hours cannot create wage income when the unlisted wage rate and annual wages are zero."
us,scenario_007,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model supplied no payroll_tax output or explanation, violating the required structured-output contract."
us,scenario_007,self_employment_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It reached $19,180 of taxable pension income but taxed it at the outdated 5.695% rate with no $4,811 zero-rate band. It never subtracted the $2,080 of health insurance premiums and left out the $10 permanent building fund tax. It then raised its own $1,092 result to $1,571 without basis; the correct figure is 5.3% of ($17,100 − $4,811) + $10 = $661.32."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly subtracted the taxable Social Security and the $16,100 standard deduction. It skipped Idaho's $2,080 health insurance premium subtraction, so taxable income was $19,180 instead of $17,100. It applied 5.3% from the first dollar instead of above the $4,811 zero-rate band and left out the $10 permanent building fund tax."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It applied Idaho's retirement-benefits deduction to wipe out the $35,280 private pension. That deduction covers only qualifying public, civil-service and military retirement pay, starting at age 65 (or 62 if disabled), so it does not apply to a 56-year-old's private pension. The pension stays taxable, and after the Social Security and health-premium subtractions and the $16,100 deduction, Idaho taxable income is $17,100."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It said there was no Idaho liability without doing a calculation. The $35,280 taxable pension minus the $2,080 health-premium subtraction and the $16,100 standard deduction leaves $17,100 of taxable income. That income owes 5.3% above $4,811 plus the $10 permanent building fund tax."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It reached $19,180 but used the outdated 5.695% rate instead of 5.3% above a $4,811 zero-rate band. It never took the $2,080 health insurance premium subtraction or added the $10 building fund tax. It then raised its own $1,092 to $1,379 for no reason."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 standard deduction of $15,750 instead of $16,100 for 2026, skipped the $2,080 health-premium subtraction, and used the 5.695% rate with a made-up ~$4,673 threshold. It then raised its own $846 to $1,300 without basis. The correct path is 5.3% of ($17,100 − $4,811) + $10."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $2,080 health insurance premium subtraction, so it started from $19,180 instead of $17,100. Its own method (5.3% above about $4,700) gives roughly $767, so the $1,112 it submitted does not follow from its stated steps. It also left out the $10 permanent building fund tax."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly applied 5.3% above the $4,811 zero band but never subtracted the $2,080 of health insurance premiums, so it taxed $19,180 instead of $17,100. It also left out the $10 permanent building fund tax, which is part of Idaho tax before refundable credits."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly said Idaho has no Social Security subtraction and taxed 85% of the benefits. It also used a $15,000 deduction instead of $16,100, a $4,950 personal exemption that Idaho does not have, and the 5.695% rate. It then subtracted the grocery credit, which is refundable and does not reduce tax before refundable credits."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $14,600 standard deduction instead of $16,100, the 5.695% rate instead of 5.3% above $4,811, and no health-premium subtraction. It then raised its own $1,178 to $1,800 with an unsupported 'phase-in' adjustment."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It taxed $19,180 at a flat 5.3% from the first dollar. It missed Idaho's $2,080 subtraction for health insurance premiums (taxable income is $17,100) and the $4,811 zero-rate band, and it left out the $10 permanent building fund tax."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It started from the full $49,064 federal AGI and never took Idaho's subtraction for the $13,784 of taxable Social Security. It also used a $14,000 deduction instead of $16,100, skipped the $2,080 health-premium subtraction, and taxed at 5.695% instead of 5.3% above $4,811."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,300 standard deduction instead of $16,100 and the repealed 5.8% rate instead of 5.3% above the $4,811 zero-rate band. It never took the $2,080 health insurance premium subtraction or added the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,400 standard deduction instead of $16,100 and a flat 5.695% instead of 5.3% above $4,811. It skipped the $2,080 health-premium subtraction (correct taxable income is $17,100) and the $10 permanent building fund tax."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used an $8,100 standard deduction instead of Idaho's federally conforming $16,100, which overstated taxable income at $27,180. It also missed the $2,080 health-premium subtraction, the $4,811 zero-rate band and the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,700 standard deduction instead of $16,100 and the superseded 5.8% rate instead of 5.3% above $4,811. It never applied the $2,080 health insurance premium subtraction or added the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It treated the disability benefits as Idaho-taxable, but Idaho fully subtracts the $13,784 of Social Security included in federal AGI. Its $1,582 is consistent with a flat rate on roughly $28,000–30,000 of income. It applied neither the $2,080 health-premium subtraction nor the $4,811 zero-rate band."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $1,246 matches a flat 5.695% on about $21,900, so it used an outdated rate and too small a deduction. The correct base is $17,100 after the $2,080 health-premium subtraction and $16,100 deduction, taxed at 5.3% above $4,811, plus the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It took about $13,450 of 'standard deduction and personal exemption' instead of the $16,100 standard deduction, and Idaho has no personal exemption. It also skipped the $2,080 health-premium subtraction and taxed $21,830 at 5.695% instead of 5.3% above $4,811."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its $3,371 matches a flat rate on about $59,000–64,000, which is more than the household's total income. It never subtracted Social Security, the $2,080 of health premiums, or the $16,100 standard deduction from the $35,280 pension."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $1,115.08 equals ($35,280 − $15,700) × 5.695%. It used a too-small $15,700 deduction and the outdated 5.695% flat rate instead of 5.3% above $4,811, and it missed the $2,080 health insurance premium subtraction."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its explanation computes $1,092.30 (= $19,180 × 5.695%) but it submitted $1,894. Both figures are wrong: it used the outdated 5.695% rate with no $4,811 zero-rate band and missed the $2,080 health-premium subtraction and the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,350 standard deduction instead of $16,100 and the repealed 5.8% flat rate instead of 5.3% above $4,811. It skipped the $2,080 health-premium subtraction and the $10 permanent building fund tax."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It used Idaho's retirement-benefits deduction to wipe out the $35,280 private pension. That deduction covers only qualifying public and military retirement pay for filers 65 and over (or 62 and disabled), so it does not reach a 56-year-old's private pension. Idaho taxable income stays at $17,100."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly added the $10 permanent building fund tax but used the 2025 $15,750 deduction instead of the 2026 $16,100. It also skipped the $2,080 health insurance premium subtraction and taxed $19,530 at 5.3% from the first dollar instead of above the $4,811 zero-rate band."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the standard deduction cancels all Idaho income, but the $35,280 taxable pension is well above the $16,100 deduction plus the $2,080 health-premium subtraction. That leaves $17,100 taxed at 5.3% above $4,811, plus the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It returned $0 without a derivation. The $35,280 taxable pension minus the $2,080 health-premium subtraction and the $16,100 standard deduction leaves $17,100 taxable, and no nonrefundable credit removes that tax."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $5,000 zero bracket instead of $4,811 and never subtracted the $2,080 of health insurance premiums, so it taxed $14,180 instead of $12,289. It also left out the $10 permanent building fund tax."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its $1,885 equals 5.3% of about $35,572, which is federal AGI with 85% of benefits taxable ($51,672) minus $16,100. It never took Idaho's subtraction for taxable Social Security, the $2,080 health-premium subtraction, or the $4,811 zero-rate band."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It taxed $19,180 at a flat 5.3% from the first dollar. It missed the $2,080 health insurance premium subtraction (taxable income is $17,100), the $4,811 zero-rate band and the $10 permanent building fund tax."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its $1,759.89 equals 5.3% of $33,205, which is federal taxable income with the taxable Social Security still in it. It skipped Idaho's full Social Security subtraction, the $2,080 health-premium subtraction and the $4,811 zero-rate band."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,other,False,"It computed the $651.32 of income tax correctly, after the Social Security and health-premium subtractions and 5.3% above $4,811. It left out Idaho's $10 permanent building fund tax, which this household owes and which is part of state income tax before refundable credits."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its $35,572 taxable income is federal AGI with 85% of benefits taxable ($51,672) minus $16,100. It never subtracted Social Security, which Idaho excludes entirely, or the $2,080 of health premiums, and it applied 5.3% with no $4,811 zero-rate band."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a ~$4,990 zero-rate amount instead of $4,811 and never subtracted the $2,080 of health insurance premiums, so it taxed $14,190 instead of $12,289. It also left out the $10 permanent building fund tax."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly applied 5.3% above $4,811 but missed Idaho's $2,080 health insurance premium subtraction, so it taxed $19,180 instead of $17,100. It also left out the $10 permanent building fund tax."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $1,477 matches a flat rate on about $26,000–28,000, which means it used far less than the $16,100 standard deduction. It also skipped the $2,080 health-premium subtraction and the $4,811 zero-rate band."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a pre-TCJA-style $8,535 deduction instead of the permanent $16,100 that Idaho follows. It also taxed at 5.695% instead of 5.3% above $4,811 and skipped the $2,080 health-premium subtraction."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a roughly $8,500 'conforming' deduction instead of $16,100, which gave $26,803 of taxable income. It taxed that at 5.695% instead of 5.3% above $4,811 and missed the $2,080 health-premium subtraction."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the TCJA standard deduction would expire and used $8,550, but federal law made the higher deduction permanent ($16,100 for 2026) and Idaho follows it. It also missed the $2,080 health-premium subtraction, the $4,811 zero-rate band and the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its $36,252 is federal AGI with 85% of benefits taxable ($51,672) minus a $15,420 deduction. It skipped Idaho's Social Security subtraction and the $2,080 health-premium subtraction, and it used the repealed 5.8% rate instead of 5.3% above $4,811."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used federal taxable income of $32,964 ($49,064 − $16,100) as the Idaho base and never removed the $13,784 of taxable Social Security, which Idaho subtracts in full. It also missed the $2,080 health-premium subtraction and applied 5.3% with no $4,811 zero-rate band."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It submitted no value or explanation for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was no answer to score."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $2,500 zero bracket instead of $4,811 and never subtracted the $2,080 of health insurance premiums, so it taxed $19,180 instead of $12,289. It also left out the $10 permanent building fund tax."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It claimed Idaho has no individual income tax, which is false. Idaho taxes income at 5.3% above a $4,811 zero-rate band and adds a $10 permanent building fund tax, so this household owes tax on $17,100 of taxable income."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It taxed $19,180 at a flat 5.3% from the first dollar. It missed the $2,080 health insurance premium subtraction (taxable income is $17,100), the $4,811 zero-rate band and the $10 permanent building fund tax."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reached $19,180 after the Social Security subtraction but skipped Idaho's $2,080 health insurance premium subtraction. It applied 5.3% from the first dollar instead of above $4,811 and left out the $10 permanent building fund tax."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted 100% of the disability benefits in federal AGI and did not subtract Social Security, which Idaho excludes. It used a $14,600 deduction and the repealed 5.8% rate, and it subtracted the refundable grocery credit. It then lowered its own $2,198 to $1,707 without basis."
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It took a second, made-up $5,200 Idaho deduction on top of federal taxable income and applied invented graduated brackets. Idaho has one 5.3% rate above a $4,811 zero-rate band, applied to $17,100 after the $2,080 health-premium subtraction, plus the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Correctly picked the refundable Idaho Grocery Credit as the only refundable state credit, but used the old $120 per-person amount. HB 231 raised the under-65 amount to $155 starting in tax year 2025, so the 2026 credit is $155."
-us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Said Idaho has no refundable individual income tax credits and missed the Idaho Grocery Credit, which is refundable. That credit gives this 12-month-qualifying resident $155 for 2026."
-us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,Said no refundable state credits apply and missed the refundable Idaho Grocery Credit. That credit is $155 per person for 2026 for a full-year resident who is not on SNAP.
-us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its reasoning used the outdated $120 under-65 grocery credit, yet it submitted $140, the old age-65+ amount, which does not apply to a 56-year-old. Under HB 231 the correct 2026 under-65 amount is $155."
-us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Wrongly treated the Idaho Grocery Credit as nonrefundable on the income tax return. The credit is refundable on the return and pays $155 regardless of tax liability, so state refundable credits are $155."
-us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Recognized the grocery credit but moved it out of refundable credits as a 'nonrefundable/other item.' The Idaho Grocery Credit is a refundable credit, worth $155 for this filer in 2026."
-us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,Concluded the grocery credit becomes nonrefundable and is absorbed whenever there is tax liability. The full Idaho Grocery Credit is refundable regardless of liability. It also used the stale $120 amount instead of the $155 in effect for 2026.
-us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Wrongly classed the Idaho Grocery Credit as nonrefundable against tax liability. It is a refundable credit, and this filer gets the full $155 for 2026."
-us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Correctly treated the Idaho Grocery Credit as refundable but used the pre-2025 amount of $120 per person. The amount increased to $155 starting in tax year 2025.
-us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Invented a roughly $22,500 income phase-out for the Idaho Grocery Credit. The credit has no income phase-out and is reduced only for SNAP or incarceration months, so this filer gets the full $155."
-us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Identified the refundable grocery credit but used the outdated $120 per-person amount instead of the $155 set by HB 231 for tax years 2025 and later.
-us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used $100, the grocery credit amount from before 2023. The 2026 under-65 amount is $155."
-us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Used the old $100 grocery credit amount instead of the 2026 amount of $155 per person for filers under 65.
-us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Correctly treated the grocery credit as refundable but used the superseded $120 per-person amount. For 2026 it is $155.
-us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Said the household gets no refundable Idaho credits and missed the refundable Idaho Grocery Credit, which every full-year resident not receiving SNAP gets. For 2026 it is $155."
-us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Correctly applied the under-65, no-SNAP grocery credit but used the old $120 amount. HB 231 raised it to $155 starting in 2025."
-us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Used the pre-2025 grocery credit of $120 for filers under 65 instead of the $155 in effect for 2026.
-us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Answered $0 and missed the refundable Idaho Grocery Credit, which is worth $155 for this full-year resident."
-us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Correctly identified the refundable grocery credit but used the outdated $120 per-resident amount instead of the $155 that applies for 2026.
-us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Applied the stale $120 grocery credit. The amount for filers under 65 has been $155 since tax year 2025.
-us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Used the old $100 per-person grocery credit amount instead of the 2026 amount of $155 for filers under 65.
-us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Wrongly claimed Idaho's grocery credit was repealed. The credit is still in effect, refundable, and worth $155 per person in 2026, so the household's refundable credits are $155."
-us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Correctly found no income phase-out but used the outdated $100 grocery credit amount instead of $155 per person under 2026 law.
-us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,Found no refundable Idaho credit and missed the Idaho Grocery Credit. The credit is refundable and needs no special household facts beyond full-year residency without SNAP; it is $155 for 2026.
-us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Assumed refundable state credits need specific qualifying facts. The Idaho Grocery Credit only requires residency without SNAP receipt, so this filer gets $155."
-us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Applied an income phase-out that the Idaho Grocery Credit does not have. The credit is reduced only for SNAP or incarceration months, so the full $155 applies."
-us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Said no refundable Idaho credits apply and missed the refundable Idaho Grocery Credit, which is $155 for this full-year resident in 2026."
-us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used the old $100 grocery credit amount for filers under 65. After HB 231, the 2026 amount is $155."
-us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Correctly applied the refundable grocery credit with take-up but used the outdated $100 amount instead of $155.
-us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Correctly identified the grocery credit as the only refundable Idaho credit but used the superseded $120 amount instead of the 2026 amount of $155.
-us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Concluded no state refundable credits apply and missed the Idaho Grocery Credit, which is refundable and worth $155 for a full-year resident not receiving SNAP."
-us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Gave no value or explanation for state_refundable_credits, so there was no answer to score against the $155 Idaho Grocery Credit."
-us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Correctly applied the refundable grocery credit for one person under 65 but used the old $120 amount instead of the $155 in effect for 2026.
-us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Wrongly said Idaho has no state income tax. Idaho has an individual income tax, and its return carries the refundable Grocery Credit, which is $155 for this filer."
-us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Guessed an inflation-adjusted amount of about $140, but the Idaho Grocery Credit is not indexed for inflation. The law sets the under-65 amount at $155 for 2025 and later."
-us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Said no meaningful refundable Idaho credits apply and missed the refundable Idaho Grocery Credit, which is $155 for this full-year resident."
-us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,Found no Idaho refundable credits and missed the Idaho Grocery Credit. The credit is refundable for any full-year resident not on SNAP and is $155 in 2026.
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model reached $19,180 of taxable income and applied the repealed 5.695% rate to get $1,092. It then raised that figure to $1,571 with no stated basis. It also missed the $2,080 health-premium subtraction, the $4,811 zero-rate band at 5.3%, and the $10 permanent building fund tax."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model taxed $19,180 at a flat 5.3% from the first dollar. It never applied Idaho's $2,080 subtraction for health insurance premiums or the $4,811 zero-rate band. It also left out the $10 permanent building fund tax. The correct calculation is 5.3% × ($17,100 − $4,811) + $10."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model excluded the $35,280 private pension using an invented Idaho retirement income exclusion. Idaho's retirement benefits deduction covers only qualifying civil service, military, and police/fire pensions, and only at age 65+ or 62+ if disabled. A 56-year-old's private pension therefore stays taxable, and Idaho taxable income is $17,100."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed no Idaho liability without doing any calculation. The $35,280 private pension is fully taxable in Idaho at age 56. After the $2,080 health-premium subtraction and the $16,100 standard deduction, Idaho taxable income is $17,100. That gives $651.32 of income tax plus the $10 building fund tax."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly reached $19,180 and calculated $1,092 at the repealed 5.695% rate. It then raised the answer to $1,379 with no stated rule. It never applied the $2,080 health-premium subtraction, the $4,811 zero-rate band at 5.3%, or the $10 permanent building fund tax."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used a $15,750 standard deduction instead of $16,100 and the old 5.695% rate instead of 5.3%. It skipped the $2,080 health-premium subtraction. It then replaced its own $846 result with an unsupported $1,300 and also omitted the $10 building fund tax."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model stopped at $19,180 because it never subtracted the $2,080 of health insurance premiums. Its stated method of 5.3% above about $4,700 gives roughly $767, yet it submitted $1,112, which matches none of its own steps. It also omitted the $10 permanent building fund tax."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The rate, zero-rate band, and standard deduction were all correct. The model missed Idaho's subtraction for the $2,080 of health insurance premiums paid, which overstated tax by $110.24. It also omitted the $10 permanent building fund tax."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Idaho has no Social Security subtraction and taxed 85% of the benefits. In fact Idaho fully subtracts Social Security included in federal AGI. The model also added a personal exemption Idaho no longer allows, used the 5.695% rate, and subtracted the grocery credit even though it is refundable."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used a $14,600 standard deduction instead of $16,100 and the 5.695% rate instead of 5.3%. It skipped the $2,080 health-premium subtraction and the $4,811 zero-rate band. It then raised its own $1,178 to $1,800 with no rule given and omitted the $10 building fund tax."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model taxed $19,180 at 5.3% from the first dollar. It never subtracted the $2,080 of health insurance premiums and never applied the $4,811 zero-rate band. It also left out the $10 permanent building fund tax."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model did not apply Idaho's full subtraction of the $13,784 of taxable Social Security, so that income was taxed. It used a $14,000 standard deduction instead of $16,100 and the 5.695% rate instead of 5.3% above the $4,811 zero-rate band. It also missed the $2,080 health-premium subtraction and the $10 building fund tax."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used a $15,300 standard deduction instead of $16,100 and the old 5.8% rate instead of 5.3%. It applied no zero-rate band and skipped the $2,080 health-premium subtraction. It also left out the $10 permanent building fund tax."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used a $15,400 standard deduction instead of $16,100 and the repealed 5.695% rate instead of 5.3%. It applied no $4,811 zero-rate band and skipped the $2,080 health-premium subtraction. It also omitted the $10 building fund tax."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used an $8,100 standard deduction, which assumes the pre-TCJA amount returns. Idaho conforms to the $16,100 federal amount for 2026. The model also skipped the $2,080 health-premium subtraction, the $4,811 zero-rate band, and the $10 building fund tax."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used a $15,700 standard deduction instead of $16,100 and the old 5.8% rate instead of 5.3%. It applied no zero-rate band and never subtracted the $2,080 of health insurance premiums. It also omitted the $10 permanent building fund tax."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said disability income was taxable for Idaho, but Idaho subtracts all Social Security included in federal AGI. The $1,582 result is consistent with leaving Social Security in the base. The correct base is $35,280 − $2,080 − $16,100 = $17,100, taxed at 5.3% above $4,811, plus $10."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model's $1,246 implies about $21,900 taxed at 5.695%, or about $23,500 taxed at 5.3%, which means it skipped some Idaho deductions. It missed the $2,080 health-premium subtraction and the $4,811 zero-rate band. It also omitted the $10 building fund tax. The correct taxable income is $17,100."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model subtracted only $13,450 for the standard deduction plus a personal exemption, which Idaho no longer has. The correct standard deduction is $16,100. The model also used the 5.695% rate instead of 5.3% above the $4,811 zero-rate band and skipped the $2,080 health-premium subtraction and the $10 building fund tax."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model gave no derivation. Its $3,371 is consistent with taxing Social Security and the full pension with almost no deductions. Idaho subtracts the $13,784 of taxable Social Security and the $2,080 of health premiums, which leaves $17,100 of taxable income and $661.32 of tax."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model's $1,115.08 equals 5.695% × $19,580, so it used a $15,700 standard deduction instead of $16,100 and the repealed rate instead of 5.3%. It never applied the $4,811 zero-rate band or the $2,080 health-premium subtraction. It also omitted the $10 building fund tax."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model's explanation calculates 5.695% × $19,180 = $1,092.30, but it submitted $1,894, so its answer contradicts its own reasoning. Even the explanation's method skips the $2,080 health-premium subtraction and the $4,811 zero-rate band, and it uses the old 5.695% rate instead of 5.3%. It also leaves out the $10 building fund tax."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used a $15,350 standard deduction instead of $16,100 and the old 5.8% rate instead of 5.3%. It applied no zero-rate band and skipped the $2,080 health-premium subtraction. It also omitted the $10 permanent building fund tax."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly subtracted the $2,080 of health premiums. It then used a $14,600 standard deduction instead of $16,100 and the 5.695% rate with a $4,673 band instead of 5.3% above $4,811. It also omitted the $10 permanent building fund tax."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used Idaho's retirement benefits deduction to wipe out the $35,280 private pension. That deduction applies only to qualifying civil service, military, and police/fire retirement, not private pensions, so the pension stays taxable. Idaho taxable income is $17,100."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly added the $10 permanent building fund tax. It used the $15,750 standard deduction instead of the 2026 $16,100 and skipped the $2,080 health-premium subtraction. It also taxed from the first dollar, with no $4,811 zero-rate band."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said deductions fully offset income, but the $35,280 private pension stays in the Idaho base. Only Social Security is excluded. After the $2,080 health-premium subtraction and the $16,100 standard deduction, $17,100 is taxable, giving $651.32 of tax plus the $10 building fund tax."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model gave $0 with no calculation. The $35,280 private pension is taxable in Idaho, and after the $2,080 health-premium subtraction and $16,100 standard deduction, $17,100 is taxable. That gives 5.3% above $4,811 plus $10, or $661.32."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used a $5,000 zero-rate band instead of $4,811 and never subtracted the $2,080 of health insurance premiums. It also left out the $10 permanent building fund tax."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model's $1,885 equals 5.3% × ($51,672 − $16,100), so it treated 85% of Social Security as taxable federally and never applied Idaho's Social Security subtraction. Idaho removes all federally taxable Social Security and the $2,080 of health premiums. That leaves $17,100 of taxable income, with tax at 5.3% above $4,811."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model taxed $19,180 at 5.3% from the first dollar. It skipped the $2,080 health-premium subtraction and the $4,811 zero-rate band. It also omitted the $10 permanent building fund tax."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model's $1,759.89 equals 5.3% × ($49,305.53 − $16,100), so it taxed federal taxable income without Idaho's subtraction for Social Security included in federal AGI. It also missed the $2,080 health-premium subtraction, the $4,811 zero-rate band, and the $10 building fund tax."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly computed $651.32 of Idaho income tax on $17,100 of taxable income. It left out the $10 permanent building fund tax, which Idaho charges every filer with an income tax liability and which counts in state income tax before refundable credits."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used $35,572 of taxable income, which is $51,672 of AGI (85% of Social Security taxable) minus $16,100. It never applied Idaho's full Social Security subtraction or the $2,080 health-premium subtraction. It also skipped the $4,811 zero-rate band and the $10 building fund tax."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used a $4,990 zero-rate band instead of $4,811 and never subtracted the $2,080 of health insurance premiums. It also omitted the $10 permanent building fund tax."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model got the rate, zero-rate band, and standard deduction right. It missed Idaho's subtraction for the $2,080 of health insurance premiums paid, which overstated tax by $110.24. It also left out the $10 permanent building fund tax."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model's $1,477 implies roughly $26,000–$28,000 of taxable income, so it used a pre-TCJA-size standard deduction instead of the conforming $16,100. It also skipped the $2,080 health-premium subtraction and the $4,811 zero-rate band. The correct taxable income is $17,100, giving $661.32."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used an $8,535 standard deduction, which assumes the TCJA sunset, instead of the $16,100 Idaho conforms to. It used the repealed 5.695% rate with no zero-rate band and skipped the $2,080 health-premium subtraction and the $10 building fund tax."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used a standard deduction of about $8,477, a pre-TCJA amount, instead of $16,100. It taxed $26,803 at the old 5.695% rate with no $4,811 zero-rate band. It also skipped the $2,080 health-premium subtraction and the $10 building fund tax."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model assumed the TCJA standard deduction sunsets to $8,550, but the 2026 amount Idaho conforms to is $16,100. It also skipped the $2,080 health-premium subtraction, the $4,811 zero-rate band, and the $10 permanent building fund tax."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model taxed $36,252, which means it never applied Idaho's full subtraction of federally taxable Social Security. It used a $15,420 standard deduction and the old 5.8% rate instead of 5.3% above $4,811. It also skipped the $2,080 health-premium subtraction and the $10 building fund tax."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model taxed $32,964, which is federal AGI minus $16,100, without Idaho's subtraction of the $13,784 of taxable Social Security. It also skipped the $2,080 health-premium subtraction, the $4,811 zero-rate band, and the $10 building fund tax."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no value or explanation for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there is no answer to score."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used a $2,500 zero bracket instead of $4,811 and an incorrect $13,600 deduction. These happened to net to $19,180 taxed at 5.3%. It never subtracted the $2,080 of health insurance premiums and omitted the $10 permanent building fund tax."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed Idaho has no individual income tax, which is false. Idaho taxes income at a flat 5.3% above a zero-rate band. Here that applies to $17,100 of taxable income, plus the $10 building fund tax."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model taxed about $34,814, which shows it kept federally taxable Social Security in the Idaho base instead of applying the full Social Security subtraction. It also skipped the $2,080 health-premium subtraction, the $4,811 zero-rate band, and the $10 building fund tax."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model taxed $19,180 at 5.3% from the first dollar. It never subtracted the $2,080 of health insurance premiums and never applied the $4,811 zero-rate band. It also omitted the $10 permanent building fund tax."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model taxed $19,180 at a flat 5.3% with no $4,811 zero-rate band. It skipped Idaho's $2,080 subtraction for health insurance premiums. It also omitted the $10 permanent building fund tax."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted 100% of Social Security in federal AGI and never applied Idaho's Social Security subtraction. It used the old 5.8% rate and treated the refundable grocery credit as nonrefundable. It then adjusted to $1,707.48 with no stated basis."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model deducted twice, subtracting a $5,200 'Idaho standard deduction' from a base that already had the federal standard deduction removed. It then applied graduated brackets that Idaho replaced with a flat 5.3% rate above $4,811. It also never subtracted the $2,080 of health premiums or added the $10 building fund tax."
+us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly identified the refundable Idaho Grocery Credit for a single under-65 filer, but it used the old $120 per-person amount. For 2026 the amount is $155."
+us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model claimed Idaho has no refundable individual income tax credits and missed the Grocery Credit. That credit is refundable and pays this full-year resident $155 for 2026.
+us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no refundable state credits apply and left out Idaho's refundable Grocery Credit. That credit gives this full-year resident, who receives no SNAP, $155 for 2026."
+us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's reasoning cites the old $120 under-65 amount, yet it submitted $140, which was the old 65+ amount. Neither figure is the 2026 Grocery Credit amount of $155 per person."
+us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model wrongly treated the Idaho Grocery Credit as nonrefundable when claimed on the income tax return. The credit is refundable on Form 40, so the $155 2026 credit counts in full as a refundable state credit."
+us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model recognized the Grocery Credit but then classified it as a nonrefundable or other item and gave $0. The $155 credit is a refundable Idaho income tax credit and belongs in state refundable credits.
+us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model concluded the Grocery Credit is nonrefundable whenever the filer has tax liability and is absorbed by tax, so it reported $0. The credit is fully refundable whatever the tax liability, and it is $155 for 2026, not $120."
+us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated the Idaho Grocery Credit as nonrefundable against tax liability. The credit is refundable, and this household gets $155 for 2026."
+us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model correctly treated the Grocery Credit as refundable but used the old $120 per-person amount. The 2026 amount is $155.
+us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model applied an income phaseout of about $22,500 that doesn't exist. The Idaho Grocery Credit has no income limit, and the only monthly disqualifiers are things like SNAP receipt or incarceration. The head therefore gets the full $155."
+us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model used the old $120 Grocery Credit amount for one person instead of the 2026 amount of $155.
+us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used $100, the Grocery Credit amount from before 2023. The 2026 per-person amount is $155."
+us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model applied the outdated $100 Grocery Credit amount instead of the 2026 amount of $155 per person.
+us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model used the old $120 per-person Grocery Credit. For 2026 the credit is $155 per qualifying person.
+us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model said the household qualifies for no refundable Idaho credits and missed the refundable Grocery Credit. That credit pays $155 to a full-year resident who receives no SNAP.
+us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model got eligibility right (under 65, no SNAP), but it used the superseded $120 amount instead of the 2026 Grocery Credit of $155."
+us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model applied the old $120 single-filer Grocery Credit amount. The 2026 amount is $155.
+us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model gave $0 without considering Idaho's refundable Grocery Credit. That credit pays this full-year resident $155 for 2026.
+us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model identified the refundable Grocery Credit but used the old $120 amount. The 2026 per-resident amount is $155.
+us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model applied the outdated $120 Grocery Credit amount instead of the 2026 amount of $155.
+us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model used the $100 amount from before 2023. The 2026 Idaho Grocery Credit is $155 per person.
+us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly found the head eligible as a single filer under 65, but it used the old $120 amount instead of the 2026 credit of $155."
+us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model wrongly claimed Idaho repealed the Grocery Credit. The credit is still in force, it is refundable, and for 2026 it was raised to $155 per person."
+us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly saw that income doesn't limit the credit, but it used the outdated $100 amount instead of the 2026 Grocery Credit of $155."
+us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no Idaho refundable credits are indicated and overlooked the Grocery Credit. That credit needs only full-year residency and no SNAP receipt, and it pays $155."
+us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model looked for explicit qualifying conditions in the facts and missed that Idaho's Grocery Credit applies automatically to resident filers. It pays $155 for 2026.
+us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model assumed the Idaho Grocery Credit phases out by income. The credit has no income test, so the head receives the full $155."
+us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no Idaho refundable credits apply and missed the refundable Grocery Credit, which pays $155 for this household."
+us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model used the $100 Grocery Credit amount from before 2023 instead of the 2026 amount of $155 for a full-year resident under 65.
+us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model applied the outdated $100 refundable Grocery Credit. The 2026 per-person amount is $155.
+us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model correctly identified the refundable Grocery Credit for one full-year resident but used the old $120 amount instead of $155.
+us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no state refundable credits apply and left out Idaho's refundable Grocery Credit, which is $155 for this resident."
+us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model submitted no value for state_refundable_credits, so there was no answer to score against the $155 Idaho Grocery Credit."
+us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model used the superseded $120 Grocery Credit amount for a person under 65 instead of the 2026 amount of $155.
+us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model wrongly asserted that Idaho has no state income tax. Idaho does levy an income tax, and it pays a refundable Grocery Credit of $155 per person for 2026."
+us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model correctly treated the Grocery Credit as refundable but used the old $120 amount instead of the 2026 amount of $155.
+us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model guessed an inflation-adjusted figure of about $140. The 2026 Grocery Credit is a fixed statutory $155 per person, set by the 2025 increase."
+us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no significant refundable Idaho credits apply and overlooked the refundable Grocery Credit, which pays this household $155."
+us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model found no Idaho refundable credits and missed the Grocery Credit. That credit is refundable to every qualifying full-year resident and pays $155 for 2026.
us,scenario_008,child1_chip_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model applied only NJ's upper CHIP ceiling (""well below NJ CHIP income limit (350% FPL)"") and never tested the lower Medicaid children's threshold that CHIP sits above. At ~$30,915 for a household of eight, the 17-year-old falls in the OLDER_CHILD Medicaid category, and Medicaid eligibility precludes CHIP, so the correct answer is 0."
us,scenario_008,child1_chip_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model reasoned that ""very low income"" plus age under 19 establishes CHIP eligibility, inverting the actual rule: income far below the Medicaid children's limit routes the child to Medicaid, and CHIP covers only children who do not qualify for Medicaid. Child1 is Medicaid-eligible under the OLDER_CHILD category, so CHIP eligibility is 0."
us,scenario_008,child1_chip_eligible,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model built its entire test around the 350% FPL CHIP ceiling ($205,240 for a family of eight) and concluded eligibility because $30,915 fell under it, treating the absence of listed coverage as the only other condition. It omitted the Medicaid screen that runs first: a 17-year-old at roughly 54% FPL qualifies for NJ Medicaid in the OLDER_CHILD category, which by construction makes is_chip_eligible False."
@@ -546,49 +561,51 @@ us,scenario_008,child6_early_head_start_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categori
us,scenario_008,child6_head_start_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model incorrectly treated age 1 as within the preschool-age Head Start range. A one-year-old falls under Early Head Start rather than Head Start, and age alone does not establish income eligibility."
us,scenario_008,child6_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model incorrectly required a separate explicit Medicaid-triggering fact and failed to apply the age-based YOUNG_CHILD pathway. Child 6 is age 1 and a dependent, and the household's MAGI of 0.55 times FPL satisfies the New Jersey income test for that category."
us,scenario_008,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model assumed the joint-filer EITC phase-out starts near $30,050 and cut the EITC to $8,173. AGI of $30,632 is below the 2026 threshold, so the full $8,231 applies. It also built ACTC on 0.9235 × SE income ($4,199) instead of SE income minus half the SE tax ($4,202.61), then reported $12,130, which does not even match its own $12,372 sum."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model put the EITC at only $1,395, but a 3+-child joint filer with about $30.5k of earned income gets the full $8,231. It also computed ACTC as $4,245, then used an unexplained $1,305 in the total instead of the correct $4,202.61."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model admitted the EITC is positive but still reported zero refundable credits. This working joint-filer household with six children gets the full $8,231 EITC plus $4,202.61 of ACTC (15% of $28,017.41)."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,other,False,"The model's ACTC of $4,202 used the correct earned income ($30,517) and was right, and its EITC was close (it used an $8,267 maximum instead of $8,231). It then inflated its own $12,469 subtotal to $13,167 with an unexplained 'adjustment' instead of reporting $8,231 + $4,202.61."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model added a $1,000 refundable AOTC, but qualified education expenses are zero, so the AOTC is $0. It also cut ACTC to $388 on a mistaken assumption that nonrefundable use absorbs it. With zero tax liability, the full ACTC of 15% × ($30,517.41 − $2,500) = $4,202.61 is refundable."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model cut the EITC to about $7,700, but AGI is below the 2026 joint-filer phase-out start, so the full $8,231 applies. It computed ACTC on gross $30,800 instead of earned income net of the half-SE-tax deduction ($30,517.41), and it added a $355 AOTC even though qualified expenses are zero."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model used 2025 parameters with a $26,511 phase-out start and an $8,046 maximum, giving a reduced EITC of $7,178. The 2026 3+-child maximum is $8,231, and the joint-filer phase-out begins above AGI of $30,632, so no reduction applies. Its ACTC used 0.9235 × SE income ($4,199) instead of SE income minus half the SE tax ($4,202.61)."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model applied an EITC phase-out that does not apply (giving $7,856 instead of $8,231). It added a $1,000 AOTC even though education expenses are zero. It also first treated ACTC as the $8,500 per-child cap even though the binding limit is 15% × ($30,517.41 − $2,500) = $4,202.61, then picked an unsupported $12,900."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model computed ACTC on gross earned income of $30,800 ($4,245) without subtracting the $282.59 half-SE-tax deduction, which gives $4,202.61. It also reduced the EITC to $8,021 through a phase-out that does not apply, instead of the full $8,231."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the pre-TCJA $3,000 ACTC earned-income threshold instead of the $2,500 threshold in force for 2026, and it applied that threshold to gross $30,800. It also understated the EITC at $7,787 instead of the full $8,231 maximum."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's ACTC of $4,124 equals 15% × ($30,494 − $3,000), so it used the expired $3,000 threshold instead of $2,500 and the wrong earned income ($30,494 instead of $30,517.41). Its EITC of $8,190 also falls short of the full $8,231 maximum."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model counted SE earnings as 0.9235 × $4,000 ($30,494 total) instead of $4,000 minus the $282.59 half-SE-tax deduction ($30,517.41), which put ACTC at $4,199.10 instead of $4,202.61. It also overstated the 3+-child EITC maximum as $8,247 instead of $8,231."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model cut the EITC to $7,691 even though AGI of $30,632 is below the 2026 joint-filer phase-out start, so the full $8,231 applies. Its ACTC used $30,494 of earned income (0.9235 factor) instead of $30,517.41, giving $4,199 instead of $4,202.61."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model claimed the maximum EITC plus the CTC but reported $11,400 with no computation. The correct figures are $8,231 of EITC plus ACTC of 15% × ($30,517.41 − $2,500) = $4,202.61, so the model understated the total by about $1,034."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's ACTC of $4,124 corresponds to the expired $3,000 threshold applied to $30,494, instead of 15% × ($30,517.41 − $2,500) = $4,202.61. It also rounded the EITC down to about $8,200 instead of $8,231."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model reduced the EITC to $7,128 with a phase-out that does not apply at AGI of $30,632; the full $8,231 maximum applies. Its ACTC of $4,128 reflects a $3,000 threshold instead of $2,500 on $30,517.41 of earned income ($4,202.61)."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model gave $9,750 with no breakdown, which is $2,684 below the correct $8,231 EITC plus $4,202.61 ACTC. That shortfall means it undercounted either the full 3+-child EITC maximum or the 15%-of-earnings-over-$2,500 ACTC."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's ACTC of $4,203 was correct, but it used the 2025 3+-child EITC maximum of $8,046 instead of the 2026 maximum of $8,231."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model gave only a $11,940 total, $494 short of $8,231 EITC plus $4,202.61 ACTC. That shortfall is consistent with reducing the EITC below its full maximum even though AGI of $30,632 is below the 2026 joint-filer phase-out start."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's ACTC of $4,128 reflects a $3,000 threshold, or understated earned income, instead of 15% × ($30,517.41 − $2,500) = $4,202.61. It also used $8,233 instead of $8,231 for the EITC."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No answer or explanation was returned for federal_refundable_credits, so nothing could be scored."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model overstated the 2026 3+-child EITC maximum as $8,360 instead of $8,231. Its ACTC used 0.9235 × SE income ($30,494 of earned income), giving $4,199 instead of $4,202.61 computed on SE income minus the half-SE-tax deduction."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model claimed the facts did not establish qualifying children. Six resident children ages 1–17 are listed, so the household qualifies for the full $8,231 EITC and $4,202.61 of ACTC."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model reported zero despite about $30.5k of earned income and six qualifying children. These facts produce an $8,231 EITC plus $4,202.61 of refundable ACTC."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's EITC of $8,231 was correct, but it computed ACTC on gross earned income of $30,800 ($4,245). Earned income must exclude the $282.59 half-SE-tax deduction, giving $30,517.41 and an ACTC of $4,202.61."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 2025 EITC maximum of $8,046 instead of the 2026 maximum of $8,231. It also computed ACTC on gross $30,800 ($4,245) instead of earned income net of the half-SE-tax deduction ($30,517.41 → $4,202.61)."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's EITC of $8,231 was correct, but its ACTC of $4,245 is 15% of gross $30,800 minus $2,500. Earned income has to subtract the $282.59 half-SE-tax deduction, which gives $4,202.61."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's $12,476 equals $8,231 of EITC plus a $4,245 ACTC computed on gross $30,800 of earnings. That skips subtracting the $282.59 half-SE-tax deduction from SE income, which gives an ACTC of $4,202.61."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model computed ACTC on gross $30,800 ($4,245) instead of earned income net of the half-SE-tax deduction ($30,517.41 → $4,202.61). It also put the EITC at $8,162 instead of the full $8,231 maximum."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's ACTC of $4,203 was correct, but it overstated the 2026 3+-child EITC maximum as $8,342 instead of $8,231."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated refundable credits as inapplicable because net tax was already zero. Refundable credits are paid out regardless of tax liability, so the household receives $8,231 of EITC and $4,202.61 of ACTC."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the pre-TCJA ACTC rules, a $3,000 threshold and $1,000 per child, but the 2026 rules use a $2,500 threshold and a $1,700 refundable cap. That gave $4,124 instead of $4,202.61. It also used $8,247 instead of $8,231 for the EITC."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the expired $3,000 ACTC threshold instead of $2,500, giving $4,124 instead of 15% × ($30,517.41 − $2,500) = $4,202.61. It also rounded the EITC to $8,250 instead of $8,231."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's EITC of $8,231 was correct, but it assumed the TCJA sunset and used a $3,000 ACTC threshold. The 2026 threshold is $2,500. It also used 0.9235 × SE income ($30,494) instead of SE income minus half the SE tax ($30,517.41), yielding $4,124.10 instead of $4,202.61."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model applied an EITC phase-out at AGI of $30,632 and got $7,901, but that AGI is below the 2026 joint-filer phase-out start, so the full $8,231 applies. Its ACTC also used $30,494 of earned income ($4,199) instead of $30,517.41 ($4,202.61)."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model computed ACTC on gross $30,800 ($4,245) without subtracting the half-SE-tax deduction, which gives $4,202.61. It also overstated the 2026 EITC maximum as $8,271 instead of $8,231."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No answer or explanation was returned for federal_refundable_credits, so nothing could be scored."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's EITC of $8,231 was correct, but it computed ACTC as 15% of gross $30,800 minus $2,500 ($4,245). It ignored the $282.59 half-SE-tax deduction that reduces earned income to $30,517.41 and ACTC to $4,202.61."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a $7,152 maximum and a $28,120 phase-out start, which produced a $6,588 EITC. The 2026 3+-child maximum is $8,231, and no phase-out applies at AGI of $30,632. Its ACTC used gross $30,800 ($4,245) instead of $30,517.41 ($4,202.61)."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 2025 EITC maximum of $8,046 instead of the 2026 maximum of $8,231. Its ACTC used $30,494 of earned income ($4,199) instead of $30,517.41 net of the half-SE-tax deduction ($4,202.61)."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model computed ACTC on gross $30,800 ($4,245) instead of earned income reduced by the $282.59 half-SE-tax deduction ($4,202.61). It also overstated the EITC maximum as $8,262 instead of $8,231."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model added a $1,000 refundable AOTC even though qualified education expenses are zero. It also applied an EITC phase-out from a $26,210 threshold, getting $7,144 instead of the full $8,231. Its ACTC used $30,494 of earned income ($4,199) instead of $30,517.41 ($4,202.61)."
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model capped ACTC at $1,600 based on 'remaining tax liability room', but ACTC is limited only by 15% of earned income over $2,500 ($4,202.61) and the per-child cap. It understated the EITC at $6,801 instead of $8,231, and its total of $6,586 does not equal its own components."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It assumed an MFJ phase-out start of about $30,050 and cut the EITC to $8,173. But AGI of about $30,632 is below the 2026 MFJ threshold, so the full $8,231 applies. It also measured SE earnings as 0.9235 × $4,000 instead of $4,000 minus the $282.59 half-SE-tax deduction, and then submitted $12,130, which does not match its own $12,372 sum."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It computed a $4,245 ACTC and then used an unexplained $1,305 instead. It also put the EITC at $1,395, when a three-or-more-child family with about $30,500 of earned income is on the plateau and gets the full $8,231. The correct total is $8,231 plus $4,202.61 of ACTC."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It acknowledged that the EITC is positive and still returned $0. It dropped both the $8,231 maximum three-plus-child EITC and the $4,202.61 refundable CTC, which equals 15% of earned income above $2,500."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its ACTC of $4,202 was correct, but it overstated the 2026 three-plus-child EITC maximum at $8,267 instead of $8,231. It then inflated its own $12,469 sum to $13,167 with no basis."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,other,False,"It added a $1,000 refundable AOTC even though no qualified education expenses are listed, so the AOTC is $0. It also cut the ACTC to an arbitrary $388, when with zero tax liability the full 15% × ($30,517.41 − $2,500) = $4,202.61 is refundable."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It reduced the EITC to about $7,700 even though AGI is below the 2026 MFJ phase-out start, so the full $8,231 applies. It based the ACTC on gross $30,800 instead of earned income net of the half-SE-tax deduction ($30,517.41), and it added a $355 AOTC despite there being no qualified expenses."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 maximum of $8,046 and a phase-out start of $26,511, which is not the MFJ threshold. That left an EITC of $7,178 instead of the full 2026 $8,231. It also measured SE earnings as 0.9235 × $4,000 instead of $4,000 minus half of SE tax, which gave $4,199 instead of $4,202.61."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It applied an EITC phase-out from about $29,600 on top of the 2025 $8,046 maximum, when the full 2026 $8,231 applies. It argued that most of the CTC flows through as ACTC even though the 15%-of-earnings limit caps it at $4,202.61. It also added a $1,000 AOTC with no qualified expenses and settled on an arbitrary $12,900."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It cut the EITC to $8,021 with a phase-out that does not bind at this AGI, so the full $8,231 applies. It also based the ACTC on gross earnings of $30,800 instead of $30,517.41 after subtracting the half-SE-tax deduction, giving $4,245 instead of $4,202.61."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It cut the EITC to $7,787 even though AGI is below the 2026 MFJ phase-out start, so the full $8,231 applies. It also used the pre-TCJA $3,000 ACTC threshold on gross $30,800 instead of $2,500 on earned income of $30,517.41."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $4,124 ACTC equals 15% × ($30,494 − $3,000). That uses the expired $3,000 threshold instead of the permanent $2,500, and 0.9235 × SE earnings instead of SE income minus half of SE tax. Its $8,190 EITC also falls short of the full $8,231 maximum."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It overstated the 2026 three-plus-child EITC maximum at $8,247 instead of $8,231. It also measured SE earned income as 0.9235 × $4,000, giving $30,494 instead of $30,517.41, which put the ACTC at $4,199.10 instead of $4,202.61."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It reduced the EITC to $7,691, but AGI of about $30,632 is below the 2026 MFJ phase-out start, so the full $8,231 applies. Its ACTC of $4,199 used 0.9235 × SE earnings instead of $4,000 minus the half-SE-tax deduction, which gives $4,202.61."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,other,False,"It claimed the maximum EITC plus the full CTC but gave $11,400, which matches neither. The correct sum is the $8,231 maximum EITC plus a $4,202.61 refundable CTC limited by earnings, $12,433.61 in total."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It computed the ACTC as $4,124, which corresponds to the expired $3,000 earned-income threshold. The $2,500 threshold applies, giving 15% × ($30,517.41 − $2,500) = $4,202.61. It also rounded the EITC to $8,200 instead of the full $8,231."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It reduced the EITC to $7,128 by applying a phase-out, when AGI is below the 2026 MFJ threshold and the full $8,231 applies. Its $4,128 ACTC used the old $3,000 threshold instead of $2,500, which gives $4,202.61."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,other,False,"It gave no computation, and its $9,750 is about $2,700 below the correct sum: the $8,231 maximum three-plus-child EITC plus a $4,202.61 refundable CTC (15% of the $30,517.41 of earned income above $2,500)."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its ACTC of $4,203 was correct, but it used the 2025 three-plus-child EITC maximum of $8,046 instead of the 2026 maximum of $8,231."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave no breakdown, and its $11,940 is about $494 short of the $8,231 full EITC plus $4,202.61 ACTC. That gap fits an EITC reduced by a phase-out that does not apply below the 2026 MFJ threshold, or an outdated maximum."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $4,128 ACTC corresponds to the expired $3,000 earned-income threshold. The $2,500 threshold applies, giving $4,202.61. Its EITC of $8,233 is also slightly above the $8,231 maximum."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It explicitly used a $3,000 threshold, computing 15% × ($30,517.41 − $3,000) = $4,127.61. The $2,500 threshold applies and gives $4,202.61. It also overstated the EITC maximum at $8,268 instead of $8,231."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,The model returned no answer and no explanation for federal_refundable_credits.
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It overstated the 2026 three-plus-child EITC maximum at $8,360 instead of $8,231. It also measured SE earnings as 0.9235 × $4,000 instead of $4,000 minus half of SE tax, which gave $4,199 instead of $4,202.61."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly concluded that the facts do not establish qualifying children. The six listed children, all living in the household, qualify for the EITC, and the five under 17 qualify for the CTC. That yields $8,231 of EITC and $4,202.61 of refundable CTC."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It returned $0 despite $30,517.41 of earned income and six qualifying children. It missed both the $8,231 maximum EITC and the $4,202.61 refundable CTC."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The EITC of $8,231 was correct, but it based the ACTC on gross $30,800. Earned income for the ACTC counts net SE earnings after subtracting the $282.59 deductible half of SE tax, which gives $30,517.41 and an ACTC of $4,202.61."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 EITC maximum of $8,046 instead of the 2026 maximum of $8,231. It also based the ACTC on gross $30,800 without subtracting the half-SE-tax deduction, giving $4,245 instead of $4,202.61."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The EITC of $8,231 was correct, but the $4,245 ACTC came from gross $30,800 of earnings. Earned income is $4,000 of SE income minus the $282.59 half-SE-tax deduction plus wages, $30,517.41, which gives $4,202.61."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $12,476 equals the $8,231 EITC plus 15% × ($30,800 − $2,500). That bases the ACTC on gross SE income instead of SE income reduced by the $282.59 deductible half of SE tax, which gives $4,202.61."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It understated the EITC at $8,162 instead of the full $8,231, since AGI is below the 2026 MFJ phase-out start. It also based the ACTC on gross $30,800, giving $4,245 instead of $4,202.61 on earned income net of the half-SE-tax deduction."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its ACTC of $4,203 was correct, but it overstated the 2026 three-plus-child EITC maximum at $8,342 instead of $8,231."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,other,False,"It treated refundable credits as inapplicable because net income tax was already zero. That reverses how refundability works: the EITC ($8,231) and ACTC ($4,202.61) are paid out precisely because there is no tax liability to offset."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied pre-TCJA ACTC rules with a $3,000 threshold, which gave $4,124. OBBBA made the $2,500 threshold permanent, so the ACTC is $4,202.61. It also overstated the EITC maximum at $8,247 instead of $8,231."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the expired $3,000 ACTC earned-income threshold, which gave $4,124 instead of $4,202.61 under the permanent $2,500 threshold. It also rounded the EITC maximum up to $8,250 instead of $8,231."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The EITC of $8,231 was correct, but it assumed a post-sunset $3,000 ACTC threshold and 0.9235 × SE earnings, which gave $4,124.10. The $2,500 threshold remains in force, and earned income net of half of SE tax is $30,517.41, so the ACTC is $4,202.61."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It phased the EITC down to $7,901 at an AGI of $30,632, but that is below the 2026 MFJ phase-out start, so the full $8,231 applies. Its $4,199 ACTC used 0.9235 × SE earnings instead of SE income minus half of SE tax, which gives $4,202.61."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It overstated the EITC maximum at $8,271 instead of $8,231. It also computed the ACTC on gross $30,800 instead of $30,517.41 after the half-SE-tax deduction, giving $4,245 instead of $4,202.61."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,The model returned no answer and no explanation for federal_refundable_credits.
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The EITC of $8,231 was correct, but it applied the 15% ACTC rate to gross earnings of $30,800. SE earned income must be reduced by the $282.59 deductible half of SE tax, leaving $30,517.41 and an ACTC of $4,202.61."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an outdated EITC maximum of $7,152 and phased it out from $28,120, leaving $6,588, when the full 2026 maximum of $8,231 applies below the MFJ threshold. Its ACTC used gross $30,800 instead of earnings net of half of SE tax, giving $4,245 instead of $4,202.61."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It understated the EITC at about $7,800 instead of the full $8,231 three-plus-child maximum, which applies because AGI is below the phase-out start. It also based the ACTC on gross $30,800, giving $4,245 instead of $4,202.61."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 EITC maximum of $8,046 instead of the 2026 maximum of $8,231. It also measured SE earnings as 0.9235 × $4,000 instead of $4,000 minus half of SE tax, giving $4,199 instead of $4,202.61."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It overstated the 2026 EITC maximum at $8,262 instead of $8,231. It also computed the ACTC on gross $30,800 without subtracting the $282.59 half-SE-tax deduction, giving $4,245 instead of $4,202.61."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It added a $1,000 refundable AOTC even though qualified education expenses are $0, so the AOTC is $0. It also applied an EITC phase-out from $26,210 to the 2025 $8,046 maximum, when the full 2026 $8,231 applies below the MFJ threshold."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,other,False,"It wrongly capped the ACTC at $1,600 by tying it to tax-liability room. The refundable CTC is 15% of earned income above $2,500, which is $4,202.61, regardless of liability. It also understated the EITC at $6,801 instead of $8,231, and its stated sum ($6,801 + $1,600 = $6,586) is arithmetically wrong."
us,scenario_008,free_school_meals_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,The model incorrectly required a separately provided school-meals eligibility indicator and treated housing assistance as the only relevant benefit fact. It failed to compute the income-based free tier at 55% of the federal poverty guideline and also missed categorical eligibility through the household's computed SNAP eligibility.
us,scenario_008,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated the head as ineligible because they are a non-disabled adult. It ignored NJ's ACA expansion pathway, which covers any adult under 65 with MAGI at or below 138% FPL. The head's 8-person household MAGI is 0.55× FPL, so they qualify in the ADULT category."
us,scenario_008,head_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model said income exceeds NJ guidelines, but it never compared household MAGI (about $30.8k) with 138% FPL for an 8-person household (about $77k). The household is at 0.55× FPL, far below the expansion limit, so the head is eligible."
@@ -598,104 +615,108 @@ us,scenario_008,head_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibilit
us,scenario_008,head_medicaid_eligible,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model correctly found the head in the expansion category with income below 138% FPL. It then applied a made-up rule that receiving housing assistance disqualifies adults from Medicaid. No such exclusion exists, so the head's ACA adult expansion eligibility at 0.55× FPL stands."
us,scenario_008,head_wic_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model explicitly transferred the infant's categorical eligibility to the Head through household membership. WIC requires the applicant personally to be a pregnant, postpartum, or breastfeeding woman, infant, or child under age 5; the 42-year-old Head meets none of those categories and is therefore ineligible despite household income below the limit."
us,scenario_008,local_income_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It correctly included NJ UI (0.3825%, $102.51) and the workforce fund (0.0425%, $11.39). However, it set the TDI employee rate to 0% instead of 0.19% ($50.92) and used 0.09% for FLI instead of 0.23% ($61.64). It also added its own components wrong: $102.51 + $24.12 + $11.39 is $138.02, not the $128.65 it reported."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It computed only federal FICA ($2,050.20) and left out NJ's mandatory employee contributions on the $26,800 of wages. Those are UI $102.51, workforce fund $11.39, TDI $50.92 and FLI $61.64, totaling $226.46."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It added an invented $2.12 NJ 'minimum assessment' to FICA. It should have applied NJ's employee rates to $26,800: UI 0.3825%, workforce fund 0.0425%, TDI 0.19% and FLI 0.23%, which come to $226.46."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It stopped at federal FICA of $2,050.20. It left out the $226.46 of mandatory NJ employee UI, workforce-fund, TDI and FLI contributions that the output definition explicitly includes."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It identified NJ UI, SDI and FLI but dropped them over rate uncertainty, and it wrongly assumed a 0% 2026 TDI rate. The 2026 employee rates are TDI 0.19%, FLI 0.23%, UI 0.3825% and workforce fund 0.0425%, which add $226.46 to FICA."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly treated NJ UI, SDI and FLI employee contributions as not modeled and set them to $0. These mandatory employee state payroll taxes total $226.46 on $26,800 of wages."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It explicitly excluded NJ employee UI, TDI and FLI, even though the output definition counts mandatory employee state payroll taxes, so it missed $226.46. It also rounded FICA down to $2,050."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied only the 7.65% federal FICA rate. It left out NJ's 0.845% combined employee contribution (UI, workforce fund, TDI and FLI), which is $226.46."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly claimed that NJ TDI is employer-funded with a 0% employee rate, and it treated FLI as not a payroll tax. NJ withholds employee TDI at 0.19%, FLI at 0.23%, UI at 0.3825% and the workforce fund at 0.0425%, which total $226.46."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It estimated about $201 of NJ employee UI/DI/FLI contributions but then set them to $0 citing cap uncertainty. The wages are below every NJ wage base, so the full $226.46 applies."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly asserted that NJ employee payroll taxes are not modeled. That omitted the $226.46 of UI, workforce-fund, TDI and FLI contributions on the spouse's wages."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only Social Security and Medicare and left out NJ's mandatory employee contributions of $226.46. It also rounded $2,050.20 down to $2,050."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It included only NJ TDI and FLI, at understated rates of 0.10% and 0.09% instead of 0.19% and 0.23%. It also left out NJ employee UI (0.3825%, $102.51) and the workforce fund (0.0425%, $11.39)."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It put NJ employee payroll taxes at $154.10, about 0.575% of wages. The correct combined rate is 0.845%: UI 0.3825%, workforce fund 0.0425%, TDI 0.19% and FLI 0.23%, totaling $226.46."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It computed only federal FICA and left out the $226.46 of mandatory NJ employee UI, workforce-fund, TDI and FLI contributions."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its 0.515% NJ rate covers UI plus the workforce fund (0.425%) plus FLI at 0.09%. That omits the 0.19% TDI employee contribution and understates FLI, which is 0.23%. It also rounded the total to $2,188."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied only the 7.65% FICA rate (rounded to $2,050). It left out the $226.46 of NJ employee UI, workforce-fund, TDI and FLI contributions."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It estimated NJ contributions at about $138, which matches UI plus the workforce fund plus FLI at 0.09% with no TDI. The correct figure adds TDI at 0.19% and uses FLI at 0.23%, for $226.46."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only NJ UI/FLI at $123.80. That left out the 0.19% TDI contribution ($50.92) and the 0.0425% workforce fund ($11.39), and it understated FLI, which is 0.23% ($61.64)."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,It applied 7.65% FICA only and left out NJ's mandatory employee contributions of $226.46.
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its $138.02 of NJ SUI/FLI equals UI $102.51 plus the workforce fund $11.39 plus FLI at 0.09% ($24.12). It omitted TDI at 0.19% ($50.92) and understated FLI, which is 0.23% ($61.64)."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It included only NJ FLI, SUI and the workforce fund, about $139.32, and left out the 0.19% TDI employee contribution. It also understated FLI, which is 0.23%, so it fell short of the $226.46 NJ total."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only Social Security and Medicare and left out the $226.46 of mandatory NJ employee UI, workforce-fund, TDI and FLI contributions."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No payroll_tax value or explanation was returned, so there is no answer to score."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It explicitly treated the NJ employee state payroll tax as not modeled. That omitted UI $102.51, workforce fund $11.39, TDI $50.92 and FLI $61.64."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly computed $1,661.60 and $388.60 in FICA, then reported an unrelated $4,097, roughly double its own FICA sum. It also left out NJ's $226.46 of employee contributions."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $1,525 is about 5.7% of wages, below even the 7.65% employee FICA rate of $2,050.20. It also left out the $226.46 of NJ employee UI, workforce-fund, TDI and FLI contributions."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied a 0.9425% combined NJ employee rate, which overstates the TDI and FLI rates. The correct combined rate is 0.845% (UI 0.3825%, workforce fund 0.0425%, TDI 0.19%, FLI 0.23%), which gives $226.46 rather than $252.59."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its $253.26 of NJ contributions implies about 0.945% of wages. That overstates the 2026 TDI (0.19%) and FLI (0.23%) employee rates, which together with UI and the workforce fund total 0.845%, or $226.46."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its $263.98 is 0.985% of wages, which corresponds to TDI at 0.23% and FLI at 0.33%. The correct 2026 rates are 0.19% and 0.23%, so the NJ total is $226.46."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its NJ estimate of $202.34 (about 0.755%) understates the combined employee rate. The correct rate is 0.845%: UI 0.3825%, workforce fund 0.0425%, TDI 0.19% and FLI 0.23%, totaling $226.46."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its $263.98 of NJ contributions (0.985%) uses outdated TDI 0.23% and FLI 0.33% rates instead of the 2026 rates of 0.19% and 0.23%. That overstates the NJ total, which is $226.46."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,Its $215.07 NJ total falls short by exactly the $11.39 workforce-fund contribution. That is consistent with treating the 0.3825% UI rate as already including the separate 0.0425% workforce fund.
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied only the 7.65% FICA rate and rounded it to $2,050. It left out NJ's mandatory employee UI, workforce-fund, TDI and FLI contributions of $226.46."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It included only NJ TDI plus FLI, at a combined 0.18% instead of 0.42% (0.19% + 0.23%). It also omitted NJ employee UI (0.3825%) and the workforce fund (0.0425%)."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It estimated NJ UI plus TDI/FLI at about $178 and never applied the 0.0425% workforce fund. It also underestimated TDI (0.19%) and FLI (0.23%), so it fell short of the $226.46 NJ total."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,It used TDI 0.23% and FLI 0.33% instead of the 2026 employee rates of 0.19% and 0.23%. That overstated NJ contributions at $263.98 instead of $226.46.
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It explicitly said there were no state payroll taxes. NJ requires employee UI, workforce-fund, TDI and FLI contributions of $226.46 on these wages, and the model also rounded FICA to $2,050."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only NJ UI and FLI, with FLI at 0.09%, for about $127. It omitted TDI at 0.19% ($50.92) and the workforce fund at 0.0425% ($11.39), and understated FLI, which is 0.23% ($61.64)."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No payroll_tax value or explanation was returned, so there is no answer to score."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,Its $257.95 of NJ contributions (about 0.9625%) overstates the TDI and FLI employee rates. The correct 0.845% combined rate gives $226.46.
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It computed only Social Security and Medicare, rounded to $2,050. It never added NJ's mandatory employee UI, workforce-fund, TDI and FLI contributions of $226.46."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It estimated about $241 of NJ unemployment, disability and family-leave contributions, which overstates the 0.845% combined employee rate. The correct NJ amount is $226.46, and the model also rounded FICA."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly treated the NJ employee payroll tax as not modeled. That omitted $226.46 of UI, workforce-fund, TDI and FLI contributions on the spouse's $26,800."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It included only NJ UI at 0.3825% and set TDI and FLI to 0% based on outdated rates. In 2026 they are 0.19% ($50.92) and 0.23% ($61.64), and the model also omitted the 0.0425% workforce fund ($11.39)."
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied 7.65% FICA only and left out the $226.46 of mandatory NJ employee UI, workforce-fund, TDI and FLI contributions."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It got NJ UI ($102.51) and workforce fund ($11.39) right, but it used 0.09% for FLI ($24.12) instead of 0.23% ($61.64). It also set the employee TDI rate to 0% instead of 0.19% ($50.92), so its New Jersey total was $128.65 instead of $226.46."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It reported only federal FICA ($2,050.20) and left out the $226.46 of mandatory New Jersey employee contributions (TDI 0.19%, FLI 0.23%, UI 0.3825%, WF 0.0425%), even though the question explicitly counts state employee payroll taxes."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It dropped its own NJ UI estimate and added a made-up $2.12 'minimum assessment' instead. The actual New Jersey employee contributions are $226.46: TDI $50.92, FLI $61.64, UI $102.51, and WF $11.39."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only Social Security and Medicare ($2,050.20) and never added New Jersey's mandatory employee TDI, FLI, UI, and workforce fund contributions, which total $226.46 on $26,800 of wages."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It identified New Jersey's employee UI, SDI, and FLI contributions, then left them out entirely and reported FICA alone. Those contributions add $226.46: TDI 0.19%, FLI 0.23%, UI 0.3825%, and WF 0.0425%."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly assumed New Jersey employee UI/SDI/FLI contributions are not modeled and set them to $0. PolicyEngine counts $226.46 of NJ employee TDI, FLI, UI, and workforce fund contributions on the $26,800 of wages."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It explicitly left out New Jersey employee UI/TDI/FLI, even though the measure includes mandatory state employee payroll taxes, and it rounded FICA down to $2,050. The correct total adds $226.46 of NJ contributions to $2,050.20 of FICA."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied only the 7.65% FICA rate and left out the 0.845% combined New Jersey employee rate (TDI, FLI, UI, WF), which adds $226.46."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly said NJ TDI is entirely employer-funded and that NJ employee contributions fall outside the definition, so it reported FICA only. In 2026, New Jersey workers pay TDI at 0.19%, FLI at 0.23%, UI at 0.3825%, and WF at 0.0425%, which adds $226.46."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It estimated about $201 of NJ employee UI/DI/FLI and then set it to $0 over a wage-cap concern that does not apply, since $26,800 is below every NJ cap. The full $226.46 of NJ contributions belongs in the total."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly assumed New Jersey employee payroll taxes are not modeled and reported FICA alone. PolicyEngine adds $226.46 of NJ employee TDI, FLI, UI, and workforce fund contributions."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only federal FICA, rounded it to $2,050, and left out the $226.46 of mandatory New Jersey employee TDI, FLI, UI, and workforce fund contributions."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used outdated TDI (0.10%) and FLI (0.09%) rates instead of the 2026 rates of 0.19% and 0.23%. It also left out NJ employee UI ($102.51) and the workforce fund ($11.39) entirely, so its NJ total was $50.92 instead of $226.46."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its NJ total of $154.10 (0.575% of wages) matches UI/WF at 0.425% plus only 0.15% for TDI and FLI combined. The 2026 rates are TDI 0.19% and FLI 0.23% (0.42% combined), which brings the NJ total to $226.46."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only Social Security and Medicare and left out the $226.46 of mandatory New Jersey employee TDI, FLI, UI, and workforce fund contributions."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its 0.515% NJ rate ($138.02) covers only UI/WF and an outdated 0.09% FLI. It left out employee TDI at 0.19% ($50.92) and understated FLI, which is 0.23% ($61.64)."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied only the 7.65% FICA rate, rounded to $2,050, and left out the $226.46 of mandatory New Jersey employee contributions."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its NJ estimate of about $138 matches UI/WF plus a 0.09% FLI with no TDI. The 2026 rates are TDI 0.19% ($50.92) and FLI 0.23% ($61.64), which brings the NJ total to $226.46."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only NJ UI and FLI ($123.80), left out the 0.19% TDI contribution ($50.92), and understated FLI and the workforce fund. The NJ total is $226.46."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied only the 7.65% FICA rate and left out New Jersey's mandatory employee TDI, FLI, UI, and workforce fund contributions, which total $226.46."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its NJ amount of $138.02 (0.515%) includes only UI/WF and a 0.09% FLI. It left out employee TDI at 0.19% ($50.92) and understated FLI, which is 0.23% ($61.64)."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its NJ amount of $139.32 covers only FLI, SUI, and WF, with an outdated low FLI rate. It left out the 0.19% employee TDI contribution ($50.92) and used less than the 0.23% FLI rate ($61.64)."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,It counted only Social Security and Medicare and left out the $226.46 of mandatory New Jersey employee contributions.
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied only the 7.65% FICA rate and never added New Jersey's employee TDI, FLI, UI, and workforce fund contributions, which total $226.46."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It gave no payroll_tax value or explanation, so there was no answer to score."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly assumed New Jersey employee payroll taxes are not modeled and reported FICA alone. The NJ TDI, FLI, UI, and workforce fund contributions add $226.46."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly computed $1,661.60 plus $388.60 and then submitted $4,097, roughly double that sum, which its own components do not support. It also left out the $226.46 of New Jersey employee contributions."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"Its $1,525 is below even the federal FICA on $26,800, which is $2,050.20 at 7.65%, so it misapplied the standard employee rates. It also left out the $226.46 of New Jersey employee contributions."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used a combined NJ employee rate of 0.9425% ($252.59) instead of 0.845% ($226.46), overstating TDI and FLI. The 2026 rates are TDI 0.19% and FLI 0.23%, alongside UI at 0.3825% and WF at 0.0425%."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It overstated New Jersey employee contributions at $253.26 instead of $226.46. The 2026 rates are TDI 0.19% ($50.92), FLI 0.23% ($61.64), UI 0.3825% ($102.51), and WF 0.0425% ($11.39)."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its NJ amount of $263.98 (0.985%) uses the 2025 rates of TDI 0.23% and FLI 0.33%. The 2026 rates are TDI 0.19% and FLI 0.23%, which gives an NJ total of $226.46."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It understated New Jersey employee contributions at $202.34 (0.755%) instead of $226.46 (0.845%). It used only 0.33% for TDI and FLI combined, while the 2026 rates are TDI 0.19% plus FLI 0.23%."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,Its NJ amount of $263.98 (0.985%) uses the 2025 rates of TDI 0.23% and FLI 0.33% instead of the 2026 rates of 0.19% and 0.23%. The correct NJ total is $226.46.
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its NJ total of $215.07 is short by exactly $11.39, which is the 0.0425% workforce/supplemental fund contribution. That shortfall matches treating 0.3825% as the full UI/WF rate. The full NJ amount is $226.46."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied only the 7.65% FICA rate, rounded to $2,050, and left out the $226.46 of mandatory New Jersey employee contributions."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,It counted NJ TDI and FLI at a combined 0.18% ($48.24) instead of the 2026 combined 0.42% ($112.56). It also left out NJ employee UI ($102.51) and the workforce fund ($11.39) entirely.
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its rough NJ add-on of $178 includes UI at 0.3825% but understates TDI and FLI (about $75 against the correct $112.56) and leaves out the 0.0425% workforce fund. It also rounded FICA to $2,050. The NJ total is $226.46."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used the 2025 NJ rates of TDI 0.23% and FLI 0.33%, for a 0.985% total ($263.98). The 2026 rates are TDI 0.19% and FLI 0.23%, which gives a 0.845% total ($226.46)."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly said no state payroll taxes apply. New Jersey requires employee TDI, FLI, UI, and workforce fund contributions, which total $226.46 on $26,800 of wages."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only NJ UI (0.3825%) and an outdated 0.09% FLI, for about $127. It left out employee TDI at 0.19% ($50.92) and the workforce fund at 0.0425% ($11.39), and it understated FLI, which is 0.23% ($61.64)."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It gave no payroll_tax value or explanation, so there was no answer to score."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,It overstated New Jersey employee contributions at $257.95 instead of $226.46 by using TDI/FLI rates above the 2026 values of 0.19% and 0.23%. The other two pieces are UI at 0.3825% and WF at 0.0425%.
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only federal FICA, rounded it to $2,050, and left out the $226.46 of mandatory New Jersey employee TDI, FLI, UI, and workforce fund contributions."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It estimated NJ UI/TDI/FLI at about $241 (roughly 0.9%) instead of 0.845% ($226.46), and it rounded FICA to $2,050. The 2026 TDI and FLI rates are 0.19% and 0.23%."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It estimated New Jersey employee contributions at about $241 instead of $226.46, overstating the combined TDI/FLI rate (0.19% plus 0.23% in 2026), and it rounded the FICA components."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly assumed New Jersey employee payroll taxes are not modeled and reported FICA alone. The NJ TDI, FLI, UI, and workforce fund contributions add $226.46."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It set NJ employee TDI and FLI to 0% using 2024-era assumptions and counted only UI at 0.3825% ($102.51). The 2026 rates are TDI 0.19% ($50.92) and FLI 0.23% ($61.64), and it also left out the 0.0425% workforce fund ($11.39)."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied only the 7.65% FICA rate and left out New Jersey's mandatory employee TDI, FLI, UI, and workforce fund contributions, which total $226.46."
us,scenario_008,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated income below the reduced-price ceiling and housing assistance as sufficient for reduced-price support, without applying the mutually exclusive free-meals tier. At 55% of the federal poverty guideline and with categorical eligibility through SNAP/TANF, the household qualifies for free meals, which makes reduced-price eligibility false."
us,scenario_008,self_employment_tax,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model supplied no self_employment_tax output, so its response failed the required output contract."
us,scenario_008,self_employment_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model returned $306, exactly 7.65% of $4,000, despite stating that it applied 15.3%. It effectively used only half the combined Social Security and Medicare self-employment tax rate and also failed to apply the 92.35% statutory earnings factor, instead of calculating $4,000 × 0.9235 × 0.153 = $565.18."
us,scenario_008,self_employment_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model supplied no self_employment_tax output, so its response failed the required output contract."
us,scenario_008,self_employment_tax,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model correctly calculated gross self-employment tax of $565.18, then incorrectly subtracted a supposed deduction from that tax liability. The deductible half of self-employment tax reduces adjusted gross income for income-tax purposes; it is not a credit against self-employment tax, so the liability remains $565.18."
-us,scenario_008,snap,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the FY2025 maximum allotment of $1,756 and a $258 standard deduction instead of $1,789 and $299. It then threw out its own $1,214/month result for an unsupported $687/month figure. The correct path is $1,789 minus a $530 contribution, which gives $1,259/month."
-us,scenario_008,snap,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $302 standard deduction instead of $299, which gives net income of $1,760.92 instead of $1,763.92. It also skipped the rounding steps: net income rounds to $1,764 and the 30% contribution rounds up to $530. That left it with a fractional $1,260.72/month instead of $1,259."
-us,scenario_008,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It left out the 20% earned income deduction ($513.33/month) and used a $227 standard deduction instead of $299. It also used an invented 8-person maximum allotment of $1,164 instead of $1,789, which roughly halved the benefit."
-us,scenario_008,snap,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"It applied a SNAP resource limit to the $69,500 in bank assets. The household is categorically eligible through New Jersey's TANF non-cash BBCE, which removes the asset test. With gross income at 57% of the poverty guideline, the household receives $1,259/month."
-us,scenario_008,snap,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,period_annualization,False,"It subtracted the roughly $280 monthly standard deduction once from annual income, which overstated monthly net income at about $2,040 instead of $1,764. It also used the FY2025 $1,756 maximum allotment instead of $1,789. It then reported $13,620, which doesn't match its own $13,728."
-us,scenario_008,snap,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,period_annualization,False,"It subtracted the $258 monthly standard deduction once from $30,915 of annual income instead of $299 each month, which inflated net income to about $2,041/month. It used the stale $1,756 maximum allotment. It then cut its own $13,728 result to an unexplained $11,352."
-us,scenario_008,snap,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an $1,802 maximum allotment instead of $1,789. It also stated a $1,040/month benefit that its own inputs don't support: $1,802 minus 30% of $1,700 is about $1,292. The correct figure is $1,789 minus $530, or $1,259/month."
-us,scenario_008,snap,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"Its inputs were right ($299 standard deduction, $513.33 earned income deduction, $1,789 maximum), but it skipped SNAP's rounding steps. Net income of $1,763.92 rounds to $1,764, and the $529.20 contribution rounds up to $530. That gives $1,259/month, not the fractional $1,259.82 it used."
-us,scenario_008,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an 8-person maximum allotment of $1,536 instead of $1,789. It also used a $258 standard deduction instead of the $299 that applies to households of 6 or more. This raised net income to $1,805 and lowered the benefit to $995/month."
-us,scenario_008,snap,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It made up an excess shelter deduction with a utility allowance, even though no utilities are listed and the $579 rent is below half of adjusted income. It also used a $204 standard deduction and a $1,691 maximum. Its net income of about $8,800/year is far below the correct $1,764/month."
-us,scenario_008,snap,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"It had the right $1,764 net income and $1,789 maximum, but it rounded the 30% contribution ($529.20) down to $529. SNAP rounds the contribution up to $530, so the benefit is $1,259/month, not $1,260."
-us,scenario_008,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It reached net income of about $1,830 instead of $1,764, which means it understated the $299 standard deduction even while claiming a shelter deduction that doesn't apply. It also used a maximum allotment of about $1,780 instead of $1,789."
-us,scenario_008,snap,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an 8-person maximum allotment of about $1,900 instead of $1,789, and a $302 standard deduction instead of $299. That inflated the benefit to $1,371/month."
-us,scenario_008,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the FY2025 maximum allotment of $1,756 instead of the FY2026 figure of $1,789. Its $1,783.92 net income implies a $279 standard deduction instead of $299."
-us,scenario_008,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a maximum allotment of $1,800 instead of $1,789. Its net income of $1,752.92 implies a $310 standard deduction instead of $299. It also skipped rounding net income to the dollar and rounding the contribution up."
-us,scenario_008,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It said it applied a shelter deduction, which this household doesn't get: rent of $579/month is below half of adjusted income and no utilities are listed. Its $1,275/month is about $16 too high. The correct figure is $1,789 minus a $530 contribution, or $1,259."
-us,scenario_008,snap,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave no calculation, and its $16,400 (about $1,367/month) is above what the rules allow. With net income of $1,764 and a $530 contribution, the benefit is $1,789 − $530 = $1,259/month. Its number is consistent with an overstated maximum allotment or unsupported extra deductions."
-us,scenario_008,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $1,307/month is $48 too high. Correct parameters give $1,789 minus $530 ($1,764 net income × 30%, rounded up), or $1,259. The overstatement is consistent with a maximum allotment near $1,836 or overstated deductions."
-us,scenario_008,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied an excess shelter deduction using actual rent plus New Jersey's standard utility allowance. No utility costs are listed, and the $579 rent is below half of the $1,764 adjusted income, so the shelter deduction is $0. That pushed its benefit above $1,259/month."
-us,scenario_008,snap,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave no calculation, and its $14,500 (about $1,208/month) is $51/month short of $1,259. That shortfall matches using the stale $1,756 FY2025 maximum allotment instead of the FY2026 figure of $1,789."
-us,scenario_008,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $287 standard deduction instead of $299, and the FY2025 maximum allotment of $1,756 instead of $1,789. That gave $1,223/month instead of $1,259."
-us,scenario_008,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave no calculation, and its $1,404/month is $145 above the correct $1,259 ($1,789 minus a $530 contribution on $1,764 net income). That is consistent with a maximum allotment near $1,934 or an unsupported deduction."
-us,scenario_008,snap,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It said it applied a shelter deduction, but rent of $579/month is below half of adjusted income and no utilities are listed, so the shelter deduction is $0. Its $1,317/month overstates the correct $1,259."
-us,scenario_008,snap,glm-5.2,llm_error,period_annualization,False,"It subtracted a $198 monthly standard deduction once from annual income instead of $299 every month, which inflated net income to $24,557/year. It also used a $1,748 maximum allotment instead of $1,789."
-us,scenario_008,snap,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $210 standard deduction instead of $299, which raised net income to $1,853. It also used a $1,797 maximum allotment instead of $1,789. That gave $1,241/month instead of $1,259."
-us,scenario_008,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It returned $0 without doing any calculation. Gross income is 57% of the poverty guideline, the household is BBCE-eligible, and net income of $1,764 leaves a $1,259/month benefit against the $1,789 maximum for 8 people."
-us,scenario_008,snap,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It returned $0 because it said there weren't enough inputs, but every needed input (household size, wages, self-employment income, interest) was given. The standard and earned income deductions give $1,764 net income and a $1,259/month benefit."
-us,scenario_008,snap,gpt-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"It used the right deductions and maximum but didn't round the 30% contribution on $1,764 net income up from $529.20 to $530. That gave $1,260/month instead of $1,259."
-us,scenario_008,snap,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $1,139/month is $120 short of $1,259, even though it said it applied a shelter deduction. That points to a maximum allotment well below the FY2026 $1,789. The correct result is $1,789 minus a $530 contribution, with no shelter deduction."
-us,scenario_008,snap,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $1,262/month is $3 above the correct $1,259. That matches a slightly overstated standard deduction or maximum allotment, plus skipping the rule that rounds the 30% contribution up to $530."
-us,scenario_008,snap,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $1,284/month is $25 above the correct $1,259 ($1,789 maximum minus a $530 contribution on $1,764 net income). That is consistent with an overstated maximum allotment or standard deduction."
-us,scenario_008,snap,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,other,False,"It computed on annual totals ($21,468 − 0.3 × $21,167) instead of monthly with rounding. The rules round net income to $1,764 and the contribution up to $530 each month, which gives $1,259/month and $15,108/year, not $15,117.90."
-us,scenario_008,snap,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $1,288/month is $29 above the correct $1,259. That is consistent with an 8-person maximum allotment above the FY2026 $1,789 or an overstated standard deduction."
-us,scenario_008,snap,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,other,False,"It had the right $1,763 net income and $1,789 maximum, but it rounded the 30% contribution down to $529. Net income rounds to $1,764, and the $529.20 contribution rounds up to $530, which gives $1,259/month."
-us,scenario_008,snap,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated receiving housing assistance as disqualifying for SNAP. Housing assistance only affects the shelter deduction, which is $0 here anyway, so the household receives $1,259/month."
-us,scenario_008,snap,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied an excess medical deduction for the disabled spouse, but $300/year in over-the-counter costs is $25/month, below the $35 threshold. It also used a maximum allotment of about $1,822.50/month instead of $1,789."
-us,scenario_008,snap,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $1,772 net income implies a $291 standard deduction instead of $299. It also used a $1,759 maximum allotment instead of $1,789, which gave $1,227/month instead of $1,259."
-us,scenario_008,snap,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It explicitly used FY2025 parameters: a $1,756 maximum allotment and a $291 standard deduction. The FY2026 values are $1,789 and $299. It also worked on annual totals and skipped rounding the contribution up each month."
-us,scenario_008,snap,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"It applied the $4,250 resource limit for households with a disabled member. New Jersey's TANF non-cash BBCE makes the household categorically eligible and removes the asset test, so the $69,500 in bank assets doesn't count."
-us,scenario_008,snap,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an 8-person maximum allotment of $1,806 instead of $1,789, and a $529 contribution instead of $530 (30% of $1,764, rounded up). That gave $1,276/month instead of $1,259."
-us,scenario_008,snap,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It gave no SNAP value and no explanation, so there was nothing to score."
-us,scenario_008,snap,kimi-k3,llm_error,other,False,"It had the right $299 standard deduction, $513.33 earned income deduction and $1,789 maximum, but it skipped rounding. Net income rounds to $1,764 and the contribution rounds up to $530, which gives $1,259/month, not the fractional $1,259.825."
-us,scenario_008,snap,minimax-m3,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"It applied a $3,750 asset limit for households with a disabled member. The household is categorically eligible through New Jersey's TANF non-cash BBCE, so there is no asset test and it receives $1,259/month."
-us,scenario_008,snap,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an 8-person maximum allotment of $1,695 instead of $1,789. Its $1,772 net income implies about a $291 standard deduction instead of $299."
-us,scenario_008,snap,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $1,795 maximum allotment instead of $1,789, and a $297 standard deduction instead of $299. That gave $1,265/month instead of $1,259."
-us,scenario_008,snap,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $202 standard deduction instead of $299 and an $1,838 maximum instead of $1,789. It also left out interest income and then cut its own result without a stated reason because of housing assistance, which doesn't reduce SNAP here."
-us,scenario_008,snap,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It claimed $2,567/month exceeds 130% of the poverty guideline for 8 people. That limit is about $5,900/month, and gross income of $2,576 is only 57% of the guideline, so the household passes and receives $1,259/month."
+us,scenario_008,snap,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $258 standard deduction instead of $299 and a $1,756 maximum allotment instead of $1,789, and reached $1,214 a month. It then replaced that with an unsupported $687 a month that its own arithmetic does not produce. The correct chain is net income of $1,764, a $530 contribution, and $1,789 − $530 = $1,259 a month."
+us,scenario_008,snap,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $302 standard deduction instead of the $299 that applies to households of six or more. It also took 30% of unrounded net income instead of rounding net income to $1,764 and rounding the 30% contribution up to $530. That gave $1,260.72 a month instead of $1,259."
+us,scenario_008,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It left out the 20% earned income deduction ($513.33), used a $227 standard deduction instead of $299, and used a $1,164 maximum allotment for 8 instead of $1,789. Its stated $583 a month also does not follow from its own inputs."
+us,scenario_008,snap,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It disqualified the household on the $69,500 of bank assets. New Jersey grants broad-based categorical eligibility through TANF non-cash eligibility, which removes the SNAP asset test, so the household gets $1,259 a month."
+us,scenario_008,snap,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,period_annualization,False,"It subtracted a monthly standard deduction (~$280) only once from annual income, which inflated monthly net income to $2,040 instead of $1,764. It also used a $1,756 maximum allotment instead of $1,789, and its final $13,620 does not match its own $13,728."
+us,scenario_008,snap,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,period_annualization,False,"It subtracted a monthly $258 standard deduction only once from annual income, which gave net income of $2,041 a month instead of $1,764. It used the $1,756 maximum allotment instead of $1,789, then cut its $13,728 result to $11,352 for an 'adjustment' with no basis."
+us,scenario_008,snap,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $1,802 maximum allotment instead of $1,789 and assumed a shelter deduction that does not exist, because rent is below half of net income. Its $1,040 a month also contradicts its own arithmetic ($1,802 − 30% × $1,700 ≈ $1,292)."
+us,scenario_008,snap,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"It applied 30% to unrounded net income of $1,763.92. SNAP rounds net income to $1,764 and rounds the 30% contribution up to $530, which gives $1,259 a month, not $1,259.82."
+us,scenario_008,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $1,536 maximum allotment for 8 people instead of the FY2026 figure of $1,789. It also used a $258 standard deduction instead of $299, which overstated net income at $1,805 and gave $995 a month."
+us,scenario_008,snap,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It invented a capped excess shelter deduction with an unlisted utility allowance, which pushed net income down to about $733 a month. In fact $579 of rent is below half of $1,764, so there is no shelter deduction. It also used a $204 standard deduction and a $1,691 maximum allotment instead of $299 and $1,789."
+us,scenario_008,snap,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"It rounded the 30% contribution (0.3 × $1,764 = $529.20) down to $529. SNAP rounds it up to $530, so the benefit is $1,259 a month, not $1,260."
+us,scenario_008,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It overstated net income at about $1,830 by understating the $299 standard deduction, and used a maximum allotment of about $1,780 instead of $1,789. That gave $1,225 a month instead of $1,259."
+us,scenario_008,snap,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $1,900 maximum allotment for 8 people instead of $1,789 and a $302 standard deduction instead of $299. That inflated the benefit to $1,371 a month."
+us,scenario_008,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the outdated $1,756 maximum allotment for 8 people instead of FY2026's $1,789. Its net income of $1,783.92 implies a $279 standard deduction instead of $299."
+us,scenario_008,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $1,800 maximum allotment instead of $1,789. Its net income of $1,752.92 implies a $310 standard deduction instead of $299, and it skipped rounding the contribution up to $530."
+us,scenario_008,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed a shelter deduction even though $579 of rent is below half of net income, and its $15,300 ($1,275 a month) overstates the benefit. The correct result is $1,789 − $530 = $1,259 a month, based on $1,764 of net income."
+us,scenario_008,snap,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave no computation. Its $16,400 (about $1,367 a month) implies a maximum allotment or deductions well above the correct values. The right chain is $1,789 − 30% of $1,764 (rounded up to $530) = $1,259 a month."
+us,scenario_008,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $1,307 a month implies a maximum allotment of about $1,836 or net income of about $1,607. The correct figures are a $1,789 maximum and $1,764 of net income, which give $1,259 a month."
+us,scenario_008,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied an excess shelter deduction using New Jersey's standard utility allowance, but the household has no listed utility costs. Rent alone ($579) is below half of net income ($882), so the shelter deduction is $0 and the benefit is $1,259 a month, not about $1,400."
+us,scenario_008,snap,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave no derivation. Its $14,500 (about $1,208 a month) understates the benefit, which is consistent with an outdated maximum allotment near $1,756. The correct calculation is $1,789 − $530 = $1,259 a month."
+us,scenario_008,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $287 standard deduction instead of $299 and the outdated $1,756 maximum allotment instead of $1,789. That gave $1,223 a month instead of $1,259."
+us,scenario_008,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $16,848 ($1,404 a month) is about $145 a month too high, which implies an inflated maximum allotment or an invented shelter deduction. With a $1,789 maximum and $1,764 of net income, the benefit is $1,259."
+us,scenario_008,snap,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It included a shelter deduction even though $579 of rent is below half of net income, so none applies. That inflated the benefit to about $1,317 a month instead of $1,259."
+us,scenario_008,snap,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,other,False,"Its $15,144 ($1,262 a month) is $3 a month too high, which implies it understated the 30% contribution. Net income rounds to $1,764, and 30% of that rounds up to a $530 contribution, so the benefit is $1,259."
+us,scenario_008,snap,glm-5.2,llm_error,period_annualization,False,"It subtracted a $198 standard deduction once from annual income instead of $299 × 12. It also used a $1,748 maximum allotment instead of $1,789, which overstated net income and understated the benefit."
+us,scenario_008,snap,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $210 standard deduction instead of $299, which inflated net income to $1,853. It also used a $1,797 maximum allotment instead of $1,789, giving $1,241 a month instead of $1,259."
+us,scenario_008,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It returned $0 without doing a computation. The household's gross income is only 57% of the poverty guideline and it qualifies through New Jersey BBCE, so it receives $1,789 − $530 = $1,259 a month."
+us,scenario_008,snap,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It returned $0 on the claim that the inputs were missing. The facts give everything needed: 8 people, $2,576.25 of monthly gross income, the standard and 20% earned income deductions, and net income of $1,764. Those yield $1,259 a month."
+us,scenario_008,snap,gpt-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"It reached about $1,260 a month by not rounding the 30% contribution up. 0.3 × $1,764 = $529.20 rounds up to $530, so the benefit is $1,259 a month ($15,108 a year)."
+us,scenario_008,snap,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It claimed a shelter deduction that does not apply and still got only $1,139 a month. That figure is consistent with a maximum allotment well below $1,789. The correct benefit is $1,789 − $530 = $1,259."
+us,scenario_008,snap,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,other,False,"Its $15,144 ($1,262 a month) understates the contribution. Net income rounds to $1,764, and 30% of that rounds up to $530, so the benefit is $1,259 a month."
+us,scenario_008,snap,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $1,284 a month implies a maximum allotment of about $1,813 instead of $1,789. It also left out the rounding of net income to $1,764 and of the contribution up to $530."
+us,scenario_008,snap,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,other,False,"It applied 30% to unrounded annualized net income (12 × $1,763.92) instead of rounding monthly net income to $1,764 and rounding the contribution up to $530. That gave $15,117.90 instead of 12 × $1,259."
+us,scenario_008,snap,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $1,288 a month implies a maximum allotment above $1,789 or net income below $1,764. The correct contribution is $530, which gives $1,259 a month."
+us,scenario_008,snap,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,other,False,"It rounded the contribution of 0.3 × $1,763 down to $529. SNAP rounds net income to $1,764 and rounds the 30% contribution up to $530, so the benefit is $1,259 a month, not $1,260."
+us,scenario_008,snap,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated housing assistance as eliminating SNAP. Receiving housing assistance only affects the shelter deduction and does not disqualify the household, which receives $1,259 a month."
+us,scenario_008,snap,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied an excess medical deduction from over-the-counter expenses. The spouse's $25 a month is below the $35 threshold, so no medical deduction applies. It also used a maximum allotment of about $1,822 a month instead of $1,789."
+us,scenario_008,snap,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $1,759 maximum allotment instead of $1,789. Its $1,772 of net income implies a standard deduction of about $291 instead of $299, which gave $1,227 a month instead of $1,259."
+us,scenario_008,snap,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It explicitly used FY2025 parameters: a $1,756 maximum allotment and a $291 standard deduction. The 2026 values are $1,789 and $299, which give $1,259 a month."
+us,scenario_008,snap,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the $4,250 asset limit for households with a disabled member to the $69,500 bank balance. New Jersey's BBCE, through TANF non-cash eligibility, removes the asset test entirely."
+us,scenario_008,snap,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $1,806 maximum allotment for 8 people instead of $1,789 and a $529 contribution instead of the rounded-up $530. That gave $1,276 a month instead of $1,259."
+us,scenario_008,snap,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no SNAP value or explanation, so there was no answer to score. The correct derivation gives $1,259 a month, or $15,108 a year."
+us,scenario_008,snap,kimi-k3,llm_error,other,False,"It took 30% of unrounded net income ($1,763.92) and kept the fractional benefit of $1,259.825. SNAP rounds net income to $1,764 and rounds the contribution up to $530, which gives $1,259 a month."
+us,scenario_008,snap,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied a $3,750 asset limit and disqualified the household. New Jersey BBCE, through TANF non-cash eligibility, waives the SNAP resource test, so the assets do not count."
+us,scenario_008,snap,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It stated about $1,300 a month without a derivation. That overstates the benefit, which is $1,789 − $530 = $1,259 based on $1,764 of net income."
+us,scenario_008,snap,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $1,695 maximum allotment instead of $1,789. Its $1,772 of net income implies a standard deduction of about $291 instead of $299, which gave $1,163 a month."
+us,scenario_008,snap,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $297 standard deduction instead of $299 and a $1,795 maximum allotment instead of $1,789. It also annualized $1,265 as $15,183 instead of $15,180."
+us,scenario_008,snap,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $202 standard deduction instead of $299 and a $1,838 maximum allotment instead of $1,789. It then made an unexplained cut for housing assistance, even though there is no shelter deduction to limit."
+us,scenario_008,snap,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It claimed $2,567 a month exceeds 130% of the poverty line for 8 people. That limit is about $5,870 a month, and this household's gross income is only 57% of the poverty guideline, so it passes both income tests."
us,scenario_008,spouse_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Declared the spouse ineligible ""under adult NJ rules"" without running New Jersey's ACA expansion income test, which covers adults 19-64 up to 138% FPL and requires no categorical hook such as pregnancy or caretaker status. Household MAGI of about $30,900 against the eight-person FPL is 0.55 x FPL, far inside that limit; the bare denial is consistent with comparing the spouse's own $26,800 of wages to a one- or two-person 138% FPL line (roughly $22,600 to $30,700) instead of household MAGI over a family size of eight."
us,scenario_008,spouse_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Defaulted to 0 by treating Medicaid eligibility as something requiring an affirmative listed trigger fact, extending the prompt's ""treat unlisted inputs as false"" rule to the computed output itself. Every input the determination needs was supplied - age 41, non-dependent, New Jersey, household income - and the MAGI adult-expansion test it never ran places household MAGI at 0.55 x FPL against the 138% FPL threshold, which returns eligible."
us,scenario_008,spouse_medicaid_eligible,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Ran the MAGI test correctly - about $31,420 of household income against the roughly $73,637 138%-FPL line for eight people - then reversed its own correct result with a fabricated rule that receipt of housing assistance disqualifies adults from Medicaid. Housing assistance is excluded from MAGI and disqualifies no one from any Medicaid category, and the MAGI adult category applies no resource test, so neither the housing subsidy nor the $69,500 in bank accounts affects eligibility."
@@ -710,131 +731,137 @@ us,scenario_008,spouse_wic_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,categorical_eligib
us,scenario_008,spouse_wic_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model inferred breastfeeding or postpartum status and nutritional risk solely from the presence of a one-year-old, despite the prompt requiring unlisted statuses to be false. With neither pregnancy, breastfeeding, nor postpartum status listed, the spouse fails WIC's categorical test regardless of income."
us,scenario_008,spouse_wic_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model incorrectly used disability as a WIC categorical qualifier. Disability and income eligibility do not establish WIC eligibility for an adult who is not pregnant, breastfeeding, or postpartum."
us,scenario_008,ssi,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Gave the spouse two separate $1,000 exemptions for blindness and disability, but NJ allows one per blind-or-disabled person. This made exemptions $13,000 instead of $12,000. It also subtracted an 18%-of-rent tenant property-tax deduction ($1,251), which does not apply here, ending at $16,664 taxable instead of $18,915."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Exemptions of $12,000 were correct. It then also subtracted a $1,250.82 renter property-tax deduction (18% of $6,949 rent), which is not available to this housing-assisted household. Taxable income came out at $17,664 instead of $18,915, giving $247.30 instead of $264.81."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied the federal American Opportunity Credit and an unspecified NJ exclusion to reach zero, but NJ has no AOC. The only reductions are $12,000 of exemptions, which leave $18,915 taxable at 1.4% = $264.81."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Claimed exemptions eliminate the tax, but NJ exemptions here total only $12,000 against $30,915 of gross income. That leaves $18,915 taxable and $264.81 of tax."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Computed about $251 after double-counting the spouse's blind and disabled exemptions ($13,000 total instead of $12,000), then rounded to $0 citing unnamed credits. No nonrefundable NJ credit applies, so the tax on $18,915 stays at $264.81."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Called $30,900 of gross income 'below' the $20,000 MFJ filing threshold, which is backwards. The household is over the threshold, and after $12,000 of exemptions it owes 1.4% on $18,915 = $264.81."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used $1,500 personal exemptions for each spouse ($3,000), but NJ's regular exemption is $1,000 per taxpayer ($2,000 for MFJ). This overstated exemptions by $1,000 and gave $17,915 taxable instead of $18,915."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Double-counted the spouse's blind and disabled exemptions ($13,000 total instead of $12,000) and got about $251. It then invented a low-income phase-in that zeroes the liability, but NJ has no such provision above the $20,000 MFJ threshold."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied an 'NJ MFJ standard deduction' that does not exist. NJ uses only exemptions, which total $12,000 here and leave $18,915 taxable."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Started from federal AGI of $30,632, which subtracts half of SE tax, but NJ gross income allows no such adjustment and is $30,915. It also used only $9,000 of exemptions, valuing dependents at $1,000 instead of $1,500, which pushed taxable income into the 1.75% bracket."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Exemptions were correct at $12,000, but it subtracted a $181.70 medical deduction built from over-the-counter health spending. OTC expenses are not qualifying NJ medical expenses, so taxable income stays at $18,915."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used $11,000 of exemptions and left out the $1,000 blind-or-disabled exemption the spouse qualifies for. Taxable income came out at $19,915 instead of $18,915."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Correctly reached $265 on $18,915, then subtracted the $50 NJ tenant property-tax credit as nonrefundable. That credit is refundable (and not applied to this housing-assisted household), so it cannot reduce tax before refundable credits."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Asserted that exemptions eliminate the tax without computing it. $12,000 of exemptions against $30,915 leaves $18,915 taxable, or $264.81 at 1.4%."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its preliminary $251 reflects $13,000 of exemptions, so it double-counted the spouse's blind and disabled exemptions. It then subtracted the $50 tenant property-tax credit, which is refundable and excluded from this output."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Claimed $14,000 of exemptions. It used $1,500 per spouse instead of $1,000 ($3,000 vs $2,000) and gave separate blind and disabled exemptions ($2,000 vs $1,000), so it overstated exemptions by $2,000."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Reported zero with no computation. NJ gross income of $30,915 minus $12,000 of exemptions leaves $18,915 taxable at 1.4% = $264.81."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Correctly got $264.81 on $18,915, then subtracted the $50 NJ property-tax credit. That credit is refundable (and not available to this housing-assisted household), so it does not reduce tax before refundable credits."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used $13,000 of exemptions by giving the spouse separate $1,000 exemptions for blindness and disability. NJ allows one blind-or-disabled exemption per person, so taxable income is $18,915, not $17,915."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Gave no value or reasoning for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there is no answer to score."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Valued dependents at $1,000 instead of $1,500 ($9,000 of exemptions instead of $12,000) and subtracted a $4,000 MFJ standard deduction that NJ does not have. It also took an 18%-of-rent property-tax deduction that does not apply to this household."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Assumed exemptions and credits erase the tax without computing it. $12,000 of exemptions leaves $18,915 taxable at 1.4%, and no nonrefundable NJ credit applies."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Estimated zero without computing. NJ gross income of $30,915 less $12,000 of exemptions gives $18,915 taxable and $264.81 of tax."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Exemptions were correct at $12,000, but it subtracted a $181.70 medical deduction from over-the-counter health spending. That spending does not qualify for the NJ medical deduction, which lowered taxable income below the correct $18,915."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used the NJ Child Tax Credit to offset the tax, but that credit is refundable and belongs outside this pre-refundable output. Tax before refundable credits is $264.81."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Subtracted a medical deduction built from OTC health spending, which is not a qualifying NJ medical expense. It then took off the $50 renter property-tax credit, which is refundable and excluded here."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $250.81 equals 1.4% of $17,915, which means it gave separate blindness and disability exemptions ($13,000 total). NJ allows one $1,000 blind-or-disabled exemption per person, so the total is $12,000."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Exemptions were correct at $12,000, but it subtracted an estimated $181.70 medical deduction from over-the-counter health spending. That spending does not count toward the NJ medical deduction, so taxable income is $18,915."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Correctly reached $264.81 on $18,915, then subtracted a $50 renter property-tax credit. That credit is refundable (and not applied to this housing-assisted household), so it does not belong in tax before refundable credits."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied an NJ standard deduction that does not exist. NJ allows only exemptions, which total $12,000 here and leave $18,915 taxable."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used federal AGI of $30,632, which subtracts half of SE tax, instead of NJ gross income of $30,915. It also valued dependents at $1,000 instead of $1,500 ($9,000 of exemptions instead of $12,000), which wrongly pushed income into the 1.75% bracket."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Correctly got $265 on $18,915, then subtracted the $50 renter property-tax credit as nonrefundable. That credit is refundable (and not applied to this housing-assisted household), so pre-refundable tax stays at $264.81."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Exemptions were correct at $12,000, but it treated the $800 of over-the-counter health spending as deductible medical expense above 2% of income ($181.70). OTC spending does not qualify for the NJ medical deduction."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Left out the spouse's $1,000 blind-or-disabled exemption ($11,000 instead of $12,000). It then applied 1.75% to all of $19,915, but the MFJ schedule taxes the first $20,000 at 1.4%."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used only $10,000 of exemptions, undercounting the $1,500-per-dependent amount (the correct total is $12,000). It also subtracted a $1,251 renter property-tax deduction that does not apply to this housing-assisted household."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Gave no value or reasoning for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there is no answer to score."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Correctly computed $264.81 on $18,915, then subtracted the $50 renter property-tax credit. That credit is refundable (and not applied to this housing-assisted household), so it does not reduce tax before refundable credits."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used federal AGI of $30,632, which subtracts half of SE tax that NJ does not allow, instead of NJ gross income of $30,915. It also left out the spouse's $1,000 blind-or-disabled exemption, using $11,000 instead of $12,000."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used $13,000 of exemptions by counting the spouse's blindness and disability as two separate $1,000 exemptions. NJ allows only one blind-or-disabled exemption per person, so taxable income is $18,915, not $17,915."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Subtracted a $181.70 medical deduction from OTC health spending, which is not a qualifying NJ medical expense. It then took off the $50 renter property-tax credit, which is refundable and excluded from tax before refundable credits."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Valued dependents at $1,000 instead of $1,500, understating exemptions. It then invented a 'nonrefundable exemption reduction' that zeroes the tax, but no such NJ provision exists; correct exemptions of $12,000 leave $18,915 taxable."
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Claimed NJ taxable income is zero, but exemptions total only $12,000 against $30,915 of gross income. That leaves $18,915 taxable at 1.4% = $264.81."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Cut the federal EITC to about $6,110 even though earned income sits at the phase-out start; the full $8,231 applies, so the NJ EITC is $3,292.40. It gave $400 per child under 6 by testing gross income, but NJ taxable income after exemptions is under $30,000, and the 2026 schedule pays $2,500 for the two children. It also left out the $50 property tax credit."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The $3,292.40 EITC is correct, but the NJ CTC used the old $1,000-per-child amount instead of the June 30, 2026 schedule, which pays $2,500 for the two children age 5 and under. It also left out the $50 NJ property tax credit that renters get, even though $6,949 in rent is listed."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Claimed New Jersey has no refundable credits. In fact the NJ EITC (40% of federal, $3,292.40), the NJ Child Tax Credit ($2,500) and the $50 property tax credit are all refundable and all apply to this family."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Reported zero, missing the refundable NJ EITC ($3,292.40 = 40% of the $8,231 federal EITC), the $2,500 NJ CTC for the two children age 5 and under, and the $50 property tax credit."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its own pieces add up to about $3,880 ($2,880 EITC plus $1,000 CTC), yet it submitted an unexplained $9,492. It also understated the federal EITC (the full $8,231 applies), counted only the age-1 child for the CTC when the age-5 child also qualifies, and left out the $50 property tax credit."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The EITC is correct, but it tested the NJ CTC against gross income near $30,500 and gave $600 per child. NJ taxable income after exemptions is under $30,000, and the 2026 schedule pays $2,500 total. It then padded the total with about $892 of unspecified 'minor amounts' instead of the $50 property tax credit."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Said the NJ CTC does not apply at this income, but NJ taxable income is under $30,000 and the two children age 5 and under get $2,500. It also used a federal EITC of about $7,700 instead of the full $8,231 and left out the $50 property tax credit."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The EITC ($3,292.40) and the $50 property tax credit are correct. The only miss is the CTC: it applied the old $1,000-per-child schedule instead of the schedule enacted June 30, 2026 for tax years 2026–2028, which pays $2,500 for the two children under 6."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Used outdated EITC figures (a $7,830 maximum and a phase-out starting near $25,500–$26,149) and reduced the federal credit to $6,716. The 2026 maximum of $8,231 applies in full here. It also used the outdated $500-per-child NJ CTC instead of the $2,500 total under the 2026 schedule and left out the $50 property tax credit."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Overstated the federal EITC as $8,000–$9,000 and the NJ EITC as about $3,800; the correct figures are $8,231 and $3,292.40. It applied the old $1,000-per-child CTC ($2,000) instead of $2,500 under the 2026 schedule and left out the $50 property tax credit. Its total comes near the reference only because these errors partly cancel."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The EITC is correct, but it put the household in the $30,001–$40,000 NJ CTC bracket based on gross income. NJ taxable income after the personal and $1,500-per-dependent exemptions is under $30,000, and the 2026 schedule pays $2,500. It also left out the $50 property tax credit."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Counted only the NJ EITC, using an understated $8,021 federal EITC instead of $8,231. It left out the refundable $2,500 NJ Child Tax Credit for the two children age 5 and under and the $50 property tax credit."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Counted only the NJ EITC, using an understated $7,787 federal EITC (the correct figure is $8,231, giving $3,292.40). It left out the $2,500 refundable NJ Child Tax Credit and the $50 property tax credit."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Used a federal EITC of $8,190 instead of $8,231 and applied the old $1,000-per-child NJ CTC ($2,000) instead of $2,500 under the 2026 schedule. It also left out the $50 property tax credit."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied the old $1,000-per-child NJ CTC ($2,000) instead of $2,500 under the 2026 schedule. It also replaced the $50 NJ property tax credit with a nonexistent $75 'renters' credit' and used a federal EITC of $8,247 instead of $8,231."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Understated the federal EITC at $7,691 (the full $8,231 applies) and put the CTC in the $800 bracket by testing gross income instead of NJ taxable income, which is under $30,000. That missed the $2,500 under the 2026 schedule, and it also left out the $50 property tax credit."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Found no NJ refundable credits, missing the NJ EITC ($3,292.40), the $2,500 NJ Child Tax Credit for the two children age 5 and under, and the $50 property tax credit."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Gave $800 per child under 6 by testing gross income against the $30,000 cutoff. NJ taxable income after exemptions is under $30,000, and the 2026 schedule pays $2,500. It also left out the $50 property tax credit and slightly understated the EITC ($3,280 vs $3,292.40)."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Reduced the federal EITC to $7,128 when the full $8,231 applies, giving an NJ EITC of $2,851 instead of $3,292.40. It used the $800 CTC bracket instead of $2,500 under the 2026 schedule for taxable income under $30,000 and left out the $50 property tax credit."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Submitted $1,200 with no calculation. That is less than the NJ EITC alone (40% × $8,231 = $3,292.40), and it leaves out the $2,500 NJ CTC and the $50 property tax credit."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Understated the NJ EITC at $3,219.60 instead of $3,292.40 and gave the CTC at the $800-per-child bracket ($1,600) instead of $2,500 under the 2026 schedule for taxable income under $30,000. It also left out the $50 property tax credit."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its $4,776 matches an understated NJ EITC plus a $1,600 CTC at the $800 bracket. The correct figures are a $3,292.40 EITC, a $2,500 CTC under the 2026 schedule for taxable income under $30,000, and the $50 property tax credit."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The EITC and the $50 property tax credit are correct, but it put the CTC in the $800 bracket by testing gross income. NJ taxable income after exemptions is under $30,000, so the 2026 schedule pays $2,500 rather than $1,600."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Gave no parseable value for state_refundable_credits. The correct total is $3,292.40 NJ EITC + $2,500 NJ CTC + $50 property tax credit."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Counted only one child under 6, but the NJ CTC covers children age 5 and under, so both the 5-year-old and the 1-year-old qualify. It used an outdated $500 amount instead of the 2026 schedule ($2,500 total), overstated the federal EITC at $8,360, and left out the $50 property tax credit."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Reported zero, missing the refundable NJ EITC ($3,292.40 = 40% of the $8,231 federal EITC for three or more children), the $2,500 NJ CTC, and the $50 property tax credit."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Reported zero, but the low-income working family with six children qualifies for the NJ EITC ($3,292.40), the $2,500 NJ Child Tax Credit for the two children under 6, and the $50 property tax credit."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The EITC is correct, but it applied the old $1,000-per-child NJ CTC instead of the June 30, 2026 schedule ($2,500 for the two children under 6). It also left out the $50 property tax credit that renters get, even though $6,949 in rent is listed."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Counted only the NJ EITC, using an understated $8,046 federal EITC instead of $8,231. It left out the refundable $2,500 NJ Child Tax Credit and the $50 property tax credit."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The EITC is correct, but it gave only $1,600 in CTC ($800 per child), a bracket that applies above $30,000 of income. NJ taxable income after exemptions is under $30,000, and the 2026 schedule pays $2,500. It also left out the $50 property tax credit."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its $4,892.40 combines the correct $3,292.40 EITC with a $1,600 CTC from the $800 bracket. The household's NJ taxable income is under $30,000, so the 2026 schedule pays $2,500, and it also left out the $50 property tax credit."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The EITC and the $50 property tax credit are correct, but it gave a $1,600 CTC from the $800 bracket. NJ taxable income after the $1,500-per-dependent exemptions is under $30,000, and the 2026 schedule pays $2,500."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied a 50% NJ EITC rate, but the statutory rate is 40%, so the credit is $3,292.40 rather than $4,081. It used the old $1,000-per-child CTC instead of $2,500 under the 2026 schedule and left out the $50 property tax credit."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Overstated the NJ EITC at $3,337 instead of $3,292.40 and gave $800 per child from the bracket above $30,000. NJ taxable income is under $30,000, so the 2026 schedule pays $2,500. It also left out the $50 property tax credit."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The EITC ($3,292.40) and the $50 property tax credit are correct. The only miss is the CTC: it used the old $1,000-per-child amount instead of the schedule enacted June 30, 2026, which pays $2,500 for the two children under 6."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Said no NJ refundable credits apply, missing the NJ EITC ($3,292.40), the $2,500 NJ Child Tax Credit and the $50 property tax credit."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Put the household in the $30,001–$40,000 CTC bracket based on gross income and paid only $400 per child. NJ taxable income after exemptions is under $30,000, and the 2026 schedule pays $2,500. It also left out the $50 property tax credit and slightly overstated the EITC ($3,299)."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Used an outdated $500-per-child NJ CTC instead of the 2026 schedule, which pays $2,500 for the two children under 6. It also left out the $50 property tax credit."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied the old $1,000-per-child CTC instead of the June 30, 2026 schedule ($2,500 total). It also excluded the $50 property tax credit, saying rent was not given, when the spouse's $6,949 rent is listed."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Said there are no other state refundable credits, leaving out the $2,500 NJ Child Tax Credit for the two children age 5 and under and the $50 property tax credit. It also understated the federal EITC at $7,901 instead of $8,231."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Counted only the NJ EITC, using $8,271 instead of the $8,231 federal maximum. It left out the $2,500 refundable NJ Child Tax Credit and the $50 property tax credit."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Gave no parseable value for state_refundable_credits. The correct total is $3,292.40 NJ EITC + $2,500 NJ CTC + $50 property tax credit."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The EITC is correct, but it applied the old $1,000-per-child CTC instead of the 2026 schedule, which pays $2,500 for the two children under 6. It also left out the $50 property tax credit that renters get, even though rent is listed."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Reported zero, missing the NJ EITC ($3,292.40), the $2,500 NJ Child Tax Credit and the $50 property tax credit, all of which are refundable and apply to this family."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Understated the federal EITC at $8,046 instead of $8,231 and applied the old $1,000-per-child CTC instead of $2,500 under the 2026 schedule. It also left out the $50 property tax credit."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Reduced the CTC with an invented linear phase-down based on $915 of gross income above $30,000. The NJ CTC uses NJ taxable income, which is under $30,000 after exemptions, and the 2026 schedule pays $2,500. It also left out the $50 property tax credit and overstated the federal EITC at $8,262."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Claimed the federal EITC phases out to about $0 at $30,800 of earned income. For married filing jointly with three or more children, that income is at the phase-out start, so the full $8,231 applies and the NJ EITC is $3,292.40. It also dropped the $2,500 NJ CTC and the $50 property tax credit, wrongly treating housing assistance as cancelling them."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Invented a separate NJ EITC phase-out and a $100 minimum credit. The NJ EITC is simply 40% of the full $8,231 federal EITC ($3,292.40). It also left out the $2,500 NJ CTC and the $50 property tax credit."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It gave $13,000 in exemptions by allowing separate blind and disabled exemptions, but the spouse gets only one $1,000 blind-or-disabled exemption. It also took the $1,251 renter property-tax deduction (18% of rent), which the reference does not apply. Taxable income is $18,915, not $16,664."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The $12,000 exemption total was correct, but it then subtracted a $1,250.82 renter property-tax deduction. The reference applies no property-tax deduction: at a 1.4% rate the deduction is worth only $17.51, less than the $50 property tax credit, and that credit is refundable and outside this output. Taxable income stays at $18,915, for $264.81."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It claimed that the American Opportunity Credit, a pension exclusion and a property tax deduction bring NJ tax to zero. NJ has no AOC, and no pension income exists here. Only $12,000 in exemptions apply, which leaves $18,915 taxed at 1.4%, for $264.81."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It asserted that exemptions wipe out NJ tax but did no calculation. The $12,000 in exemptions leaves $18,915 of the $30,915 gross income taxable, and 1.4% of that is $264.81."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It computed about $251 using $13,000 in exemptions, counting the spouse's blindness and disability as separate $1,000 exemptions instead of one. It then rounded the tax to $0 based on unnamed nonrefundable credits. No NJ nonrefundable credit applies here, so the tax is 1.4% of $18,915, or $264.81."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It treated $30,915 of gross income as falling under the $20,000 MFJ filing threshold, but the income is well above it. The $12,000 in exemptions leaves $18,915 taxable at 1.4%."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used a $1,500 regular exemption for each spouse ($3,000 total), but NJ's regular exemption is $1,000 per spouse, or $2,000 for a joint return. That overstated total exemptions at $13,000 instead of $12,000, so it taxed $17,915 instead of $18,915."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted the spouse's blindness and disability as two exemptions ($13,000 total) and calculated about $251. It then invented a low-income phase-in that cuts the tax to $0. NJ has no such provision above the $20,000 filing threshold, so 1.4% of $18,915 ($264.81) stands."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied an 'NJ MFJ standard deduction' larger than income. NJ has no standard deduction; it allows only personal exemptions, which total $12,000 here and leave $18,915 taxable."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It started from the federal-style AGI of $30,632, which subtracts half of self-employment tax, but NJ gross income includes the full $4,000 of net self-employment profit, giving $30,915. It also allowed only $9,000 in exemptions, using $1,000 per dependent instead of $1,500. The result was $21,632 taxable instead of $18,915."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The $12,000 exemption total was correct, but it subtracted a $181.70 medical expense deduction based on over-the-counter health spending. OTC expenses do not count toward the NJ medical expense deduction, so taxable income stays at $18,915."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It took only $11,000 in exemptions and left out the $1,000 blind-or-disabled exemption the spouse qualifies for. That overstated taxable income at $19,915 instead of $18,915."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It correctly arrived at $18,915 taxable and $265 of tax, then subtracted the $50 NJ tenant property tax credit. That credit is refundable, so it does not reduce tax before refundable credits."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It asserted that exemptions zero out the tax without any calculation. The $12,000 in exemptions leaves $18,915 taxable at 1.4%, for $264.81."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its preliminary tax of about $251 reflects $13,000 in exemptions, which counts the spouse's blindness and disability twice instead of as one $1,000 exemption. It then subtracted the $50 tenant property tax credit, which is refundable and excluded from this output."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It claimed $14,000 in exemptions, using $3,000 for a joint return instead of $2,000 ($1,000 per spouse) and $2,000 for blind plus disabled instead of one $1,000 exemption. That understated taxable income at $16,915 instead of $18,915."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave $0 with no calculation. NJ gross income of $30,915 minus $12,000 in exemptions leaves $18,915, taxed at 1.4% for $264.81."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It correctly computed $264.81 on $18,915 of taxable income, then subtracted the $50 NJ property tax credit. That credit is refundable and is excluded from tax before refundable credits."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It claimed separate $1,000 exemptions for the spouse's blindness and disability, but NJ allows one $1,000 blind-or-disabled exemption per person. That brought exemptions to $13,000 and taxable income to $17,915 instead of $18,915."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted the spouse's blindness and disability twice ($13,000 in exemptions instead of $12,000). It also subtracted a $1,250.82 renter property-tax deduction that the reference does not apply. Taxable income is $18,915, not $16,664."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,It submitted no value or explanation for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits.
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It invented a $4,000 MFJ standard deduction, which NJ does not have, and used $1,000 per dependent instead of $1,500. It also subtracted the 18%-of-rent property-tax deduction, which the reference does not apply. The correct base is $30,915 minus $12,000 in exemptions, or $18,915."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed exemptions and credits eliminate the tax without computing anything. The $12,000 in exemptions leaves $18,915 taxable, no nonrefundable NJ credit applies, and the tax is $264.81."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It asserted a $0 tax with no calculation. NJ gross income of $30,915 minus $12,000 in exemptions leaves $18,915 taxed at 1.4%, for $264.81."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The $12,000 exemption total was correct, but it subtracted a $181.70 medical deduction based on over-the-counter health expenses. OTC spending does not count for the NJ medical expense deduction, so taxable income is $18,915, not $18,733.30."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It offset the tax with the NJ Child Tax Credit, but that credit is refundable and falls outside tax before refundable credits. Tax on $18,915 at 1.4% is $264.81, with no nonrefundable offset."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It took a medical deduction based on OTC health expenses, which do not qualify. It also subtracted the $50 renter property tax credit as if it were nonrefundable, but that credit is refundable. Neither belongs in this figure, which is 1.4% of $18,915, or $264.81."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It took separate exemptions for blindness and disability, but the spouse gets one $1,000 blind-or-disabled exemption. That inflated total exemptions to $13,000, so it taxed $17,915 instead of $18,915."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted an estimated $181.70 medical deduction based on OTC health expenses, which do not count toward the NJ medical expense deduction. Taxable income is $18,915 after the $12,000 in exemptions, not $18,733.30."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It computed the correct $264.81, then subtracted the $50 renter property tax credit. That credit is refundable and does not reduce tax before refundable credits."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied an NJ standard deduction, which does not exist; NJ allows only personal and dependent exemptions. Those total $12,000 and leave $18,915 taxable at 1.4%."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used the federal AGI of $30,632, which subtracts half of SE tax, instead of NJ gross income of $30,915, which includes the full $4,000 business profit. It also used $1,000 per dependent instead of $1,500, giving $9,000 in exemptions instead of $12,000. That pushed taxable income to $21,632 and into the 1.75% bracket."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It reached the correct $18,915 taxable and $265 of tax, then subtracted the $50 renter property tax credit as if it were nonrefundable. NJ's property tax credit is refundable and excluded from this output."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated $800 of over-the-counter health expenses as qualifying for the NJ medical expense deduction and subtracted $181.70. OTC expenses do not qualify, so taxable income stays at $18,915."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It left out the spouse's $1,000 blind-or-disabled exemption, using $11,000 instead of $12,000. It also applied 1.75% to all of taxable income, but the first $20,000 of joint taxable income is taxed at 1.4%."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It understated exemptions at $10,000 instead of $12,000; dependents get $1,500 each, which totals $9,000. It also subtracted the $1,251 renter property-tax deduction, which the reference does not apply."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,It submitted no value or explanation for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits.
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It correctly computed $264.81 on $18,915, then subtracted the $50 renter property tax credit. That credit is refundable and is excluded from tax before refundable credits."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It started from the federal AGI of $30,632, which reflects the half-SE-tax adjustment NJ does not allow, instead of NJ gross income of $30,915. It also left out the spouse's $1,000 blind-or-disabled exemption, giving $11,000 in exemptions instead of $12,000."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It took only $11,000 in exemptions and left out the spouse's $1,000 blind-or-disabled exemption. That overstated taxable income at $19,915 instead of $18,915."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It counted separate $1,000 exemptions for the spouse's blindness and disability, but NJ allows a single blind-or-disabled exemption per person. That gave $13,000 in exemptions instead of $12,000, and it taxed $17,915 instead of $18,915."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It subtracted a $181.70 medical deduction based on OTC health expenses, which do not qualify for the NJ medical expense deduction. It then subtracted the $50 renter credit, which is refundable and excluded from tax before refundable credits."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used $1,000 per dependent instead of $1,500, which understated exemptions. It then invented a 'nonrefundable exemption reduction' that brings the tax to $0. The correct $12,000 in exemptions leaves $18,915 taxed at 1.4%, for $264.81."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed exemptions and deductions reduce taxable income to zero, but the $12,000 in exemptions leaves $18,915 of the $30,915 gross income taxable. At 1.4% the tax is $264.81."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model phased the federal EITC down to about $6,110, but AGI of about $30,632 is below the MFJ phase-out start, so the full $8,231 applies and the NJ EITC is $3,292.40, not $2,444. It also used a $400-per-child CTC tier based on gross income instead of the lowest NJ taxable-income tier ($1,250 each under the 2026 schedule, $2,500 total), and it left out the $50 renter property tax credit."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The NJ EITC of $3,292.40 is right, but the model used the old $1,000-per-child CTC instead of the June 30, 2026 schedule, which pays $1,250 per child under 6 ($2,500 total). It also left out the $50 refundable renter property tax credit, even though $6,949 of rent is listed."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed NJ has no refundable state credits. NJ's EITC (40% of the federal EITC, $3,292.40), its child tax credit ($2,500 for two children under 6) and its $50 property tax credit are all refundable."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no NJ refundable credits apply. This family qualifies for the NJ EITC ($3,292.40), the NJ child tax credit ($2,500 for the children aged 5 and 1) and the $50 renter property tax credit, which total $5,842.40."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model's own components ($2,880 EITC plus $1,000 CTC) add up to about $3,880, yet it submitted $9,492, which does not follow from its reasoning. It also phased down an EITC that should be the full $8,231, counted only the age-1 child for the CTC and missed the age-5 child, and left out the $50 property tax credit."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The EITC of $3,292 is right, but the model set the CTC at $600 per child based on income near $30,500. The CTC tier depends on NJ taxable income, which is well under $30,000 after exemptions, and the 2026 schedule pays $1,250 per child ($2,500 total). Its submitted $5,384 also does not equal its own $4,492 subtotal, and it left out the $50 property tax credit."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said the NJ child tax credit does not apply at this income and dropped it. In fact the two children aged 5 and 1 qualify for $2,500 at the lowest NJ taxable-income tier. It also understated the federal EITC as about $7,700 instead of the full $8,231, and it left out the $50 property tax credit."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly calculated the EITC ($3,292.40) and the $50 property tax credit under pre-2026 law, but it used the old $1,000-per-child CTC. The schedule enacted June 30, 2026 pays $1,250 per child under 6 at this income level ($2,500 total), which explains the $500 gap."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used a stale $7,830 maximum and a $25,511 phase-out start, which wrongly reduced the federal EITC to $6,716. The correct federal EITC is the full $8,231 (NJ EITC $3,292.40), because the 2026 MFJ phase-out starts above this AGI. It also used $500 per child for the CTC instead of $1,250 each, and it left out the $50 property tax credit."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model guessed a NJ EITC of about $3,800, which is above the cap: 40% of the $8,231 maximum is $3,292.40. It used the old $1,000-per-child CTC instead of $1,250, and it left out the $50 property tax credit. Its total being near the reference comes from offsetting errors."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model put the family in the $30,001–$40,000 CTC bracket ($800 per child) based on gross income. NJ taxable income is well under $30,000 after the personal, dependent and blind/disabled exemptions, and that tier pays $1,250 per child under the 2026 schedule. It also left out the $50 property tax credit."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted only the NJ EITC, using an understated federal EITC of $8,021 instead of $8,231. It left out the refundable NJ child tax credit ($2,500 for the children aged 5 and 1) and the $50 property tax credit."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted only the NJ EITC, based on a phased-down federal EITC of $7,787, when the full $8,231 applies. It left out the $2,500 NJ child tax credit and the $50 property tax credit."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used a federal EITC of $8,190 instead of $8,231 and the old $1,000-per-child CTC instead of $1,250 per child ($2,500 total). It also left out the $50 renter property tax credit."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used a federal EITC of $8,247 instead of $8,231 and the old $1,000-per-child CTC instead of $1,250 per child. It also gave a $75 renter credit instead of the $50 NJ property tax credit."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model phased the federal EITC down to $7,691 instead of the full $8,231. It also used the $800 CTC tier based on gross income, when NJ taxable income is under $30,000 and pays $1,250 per child. It left out the $50 property tax credit."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model found no NJ refundable credits. The family qualifies for the NJ EITC ($3,292.40), the NJ child tax credit ($2,500) and the $50 property tax credit."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used the $800-per-child CTC tier, which applies to taxable income above $30,000. NJ taxable income is well under $30,000 after exemptions, and that tier pays $1,250 per child under the 2026 schedule. It also slightly understated the EITC and left out the $50 property tax credit."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model phased the federal EITC down to $7,128, but AGI is below the MFJ phase-out start, so the full $8,231 applies (NJ EITC $3,292.40). It also used the $800 CTC tier instead of $1,250 per child, and it left out the $50 property tax credit."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model gave no calculation. Its $1,200 is below the NJ EITC alone, which is $3,292.40 (40% of $8,231), and it is missing the $2,500 child tax credit and the $50 property tax credit."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model calculated the NJ EITC from a 2025-level federal EITC of about $8,049 instead of the 2026 $8,231. It used the $800 CTC tier instead of the under-$30,000 taxable-income tier ($1,250 each), and it left out the $50 property tax credit."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model's $4,776 matches a slightly understated EITC plus a $1,600 CTC at the $800-per-child tier. The correct values are an NJ EITC of $3,292.40, a CTC of $2,500 ($1,250 for each child under 6 at the lowest NJ taxable-income tier), and a $50 property tax credit."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly included the EITC and the $50 property tax credit, but it used the $800-per-child CTC tier. NJ taxable income is under $30,000, and the 2026 schedule pays $1,250 for each of the two children under 6 ($2,500)."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model overstated the federal EITC as $8,268, when the cap is $8,231. It applied the old $1,000-per-child CTC instead of $1,250 per child, and it left out the $50 property tax credit."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,The model did not return a value for state_refundable_credits.
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model overstated the federal EITC as $8,360 instead of $8,231. It counted only one child under 6 at $500, missing the age-5 child and the $1,250-per-child amount ($2,500 total), and it left out the $50 property tax credit."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no NJ refundable credit applies. This low-income family of eight qualifies for the NJ EITC ($3,292.40), the NJ child tax credit ($2,500) and the $50 property tax credit."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model returned $0, even though NJ's EITC, child tax credit and property tax credit are all refundable and this household qualifies for each. The total is $5,842.40."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The EITC of $3,292.40 is right, but the model used the old $1,000-per-child CTC instead of the June 30, 2026 schedule's $1,250 per child ($2,500). It also left out the $50 renter property tax credit, even though rent is listed."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted only the NJ EITC, calculated from the 2025 federal maximum of $8,046 instead of the 2026 $8,231. It left out the $2,500 NJ child tax credit and the $50 property tax credit."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used the $800-per-child CTC tier, but NJ taxable income is under $30,000 after exemptions, which qualifies for $1,250 per child under the 2026 schedule ($2,500). It also left out the $50 property tax credit."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model gave the two children under 6 a $1,600 CTC at the $800 tier instead of $2,500 at the lowest NJ taxable-income tier. It also left out the $50 property tax credit."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The EITC and the $50 property tax credit are right, but the model used the $800-per-child CTC tier. NJ taxable income is under $30,000, and the 2026 schedule pays $1,250 per child under 6 ($2,500)."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied a 50% NJ EITC rate. The NJ rate is 40% of the federal EITC, which gives $3,292.40. It also used the old $1,000-per-child CTC instead of $1,250, and it left out the $50 property tax credit."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model's NJ EITC of $3,337 implies a federal EITC above the $8,231 cap. It also used the $800 CTC tier instead of the under-$30,000 taxable-income tier ($1,250 each), and it left out the $50 property tax credit."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly calculated the EITC ($3,292.40) and the $50 property tax credit, but it used the pre-2026 CTC of $1,000 per child. The schedule enacted June 30, 2026 pays $1,250 per child under 6 at this income level, which explains the $500 shortfall."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no state refundable credits apply. The household qualifies for the NJ EITC, the NJ child tax credit and the property tax credit, which total $5,842.40."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used a $400-per-child CTC based on gross income in the $30,001–$40,000 bracket. The bracket is set by NJ taxable income, which is under $30,000 after exemptions and pays $1,250 per child. It also used a federal EITC of $8,247 instead of $8,231 and left out the $50 property tax credit."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used $500 per child for the NJ CTC instead of $1,250 for each child under 6 at the lowest NJ taxable-income tier ($2,500 total). It also slightly overstated the federal EITC as $8,250 and left out the $50 property tax credit."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model skipped the $50 property tax credit, saying no rent should be inferred, but $6,949 of rent is listed for the spouse. It also used the old $1,000-per-child CTC instead of $1,250 per child ($2,500)."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted only the NJ EITC, based on an understated $7,901 federal EITC instead of $8,231. It explicitly excluded the $2,500 NJ child tax credit and the $50 property tax credit."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted only the NJ EITC, based on an overstated $8,271 federal EITC instead of $8,231. It left out the refundable NJ child tax credit ($2,500) and the $50 property tax credit."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,The model did not return a value for state_refundable_credits.
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The EITC of $3,292.40 is right, but the model used the old $1,000-per-child CTC instead of the 2026 schedule's $1,250 per child under 6. It also left out the $50 renter property tax credit."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model returned $0 and missed the NJ EITC ($3,292.40), the NJ child tax credit ($2,500) and the $50 property tax credit, all of which are refundable."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used a phased-down federal EITC of about $7,800 instead of the full $8,231, and a CTC of about $500 per child instead of $1,250 per child. It also left out the $50 property tax credit."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model calculated the NJ EITC from the 2025 federal maximum of $8,046 instead of the 2026 $8,231. It used the old $1,000-per-child CTC instead of $1,250, and it left out the $50 property tax credit."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model reduced the CTC by a continuous phase-out on gross income above $30,000. The NJ CTC uses fixed tiers based on NJ taxable income, which is under $30,000 here, and the 2026 schedule pays $1,250 per child. It also overstated the federal EITC as $8,262 and left out the $50 property tax credit."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed the federal 3+-child EITC phases out to about $0 at $30,800 for MFJ filers. In fact AGI is below the MFJ phase-out start, so the full $8,231 is paid and the NJ EITC is $3,292.40. It also wrongly assumed housing assistance reduces refundable credits."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model invented an NJ EITC income phase-out and a $100 minimum credit. The NJ EITC is simply 40% of the full $8,231 federal EITC ($3,292.40), and the model also left out the $2,500 child tax credit and the $50 property tax credit."
us,scenario_008,tanf,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model submitted a bare number with no derivation; the correct derivation applies New Jersey's WFNJ eligibility standard and yields $0, because countable income of about $2,576/month exceeds the family-of-eight standard (roughly $770/month) even after the 50% earned-income disregard, and $69,500 in bank assets exceeds the $2,000 TANF resource limit. Its $5,800 figure (about $483/month) is consistent with pulling a large-family NJ grant-schedule amount and shading it down for earnings — treating TANF as a residual gap-filler for a household with six children — while never running the income eligibility gate or the asset test at all."
-us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its reasoning got exactly the right result: AGI $105,900, minus the $32,200 standard deduction, gives $73,700, taxed at $2,480 + $5,868 = $8,348. It then submitted 3,455, a number that doesn't follow from any of its own work, so the error is an output mismatch rather than a tax-rule error."
-us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $8,139 ESI premium from wages that are already gross W-2 income. It also counted all $30,000 of Social Security rather than the $25,500 taxable under the 85% cap, and used the 2025 $30,000 standard deduction instead of the 2026 $32,200. Its own estimate was about $8,600, yet it submitted $2,950 with no derivation."
-us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It guessed taxable Social Security at about $13,000. With provisional income of $95,400 well above the $44,000 MFJ threshold, the 85% cap of $25,500 applies. It also reported $2,300 of tax on roughly $70,000 of taxable income, which contradicts the 10%/12% brackets: $73,700 of taxable income is taxed at $8,348."
-us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,other,False,"It got AGI right at $105,900 and computed $8,336 using a $32,300 standard deduction, which should have been $32,200. It then submitted 4,880, a value disconnected from its own calculation."
-us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,other,False,"It computed $8,349 from AGI of $105,900, though with a $32,300 standard deduction and a $24,150 bracket where the 2026 figures are $32,200 and $24,800. It then drifted to 'roughly $8,000' and submitted 5,732, which doesn't follow from any step it showed."
-us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"It used the correct 2026 brackets (10% to $24,800) and AGI of $105,900. It overstated the standard deduction at $32,600 instead of $32,200, which gave about $8,300, and then submitted 4,989, a number unrelated to its own computation."
-us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It inflated the 2025 $30,000 standard deduction to $30,700 and used a $24,450 10% bracket. Under OBBBA the 2026 MFJ figures are $32,200 and $24,800. That overstated taxable income at $75,200 instead of $73,700, giving $8,535."
-us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It said taxable Social Security was '85% inclusion' but put it at about $16,150, when 85% of $30,000 is $25,500. That understated AGI at $96,550 instead of $105,900. It also used a $32,600 standard deduction instead of $32,200, then cut the result further for 'credit adjustments' even though no nonrefundable credits apply."
-us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got AGI right at $105,900 but used inflation-projected pre-OBBBA parameters: a $30,750 standard deduction and a $24,500 10% bracket. The OBBBA 2026 MFJ figures are $32,200 and $24,800, so its taxable income was $75,150 instead of $73,700 and its tax $8,528."
-us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $8,139 ESI premium from wages already given as gross income, which lowered AGI to $97,761 instead of $105,900. It also used a $30,600 standard deduction and a $24,400 bracket where the 2026 figures are $32,200 and $24,800."
-us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed TCJA expired for 2026 and used a $16,600 standard deduction, $10,600 of personal exemptions and a 15% bracket. OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent, so 2026 has a $32,200 MFJ standard deduction, no exemptions, and 10%/12% brackets that tax $73,700 at $8,348."
-us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used pre-TCJA sunset rules: a $16,000 standard deduction, $10,000 of personal exemptions and a 15% bracket. OBBBA kept the TCJA framework for 2026, with a $32,200 standard deduction and the 12% rate on income above $24,800."
-us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed TCJA expired, applying personal exemptions and a 15% bracket. It also subtracted the ESI premium from gross wages and invented $14,640 of mortgage interest even though no interest amount was given. Actual itemized deductions are $3,208, below the $32,200 OBBBA standard deduction, which applies to $105,900 of AGI."
-us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It skipped the Social Security taxability formula and counted the full $30,000 instead of the $25,500 cap. It used a $10,040 deduction unrelated to the 2026 $32,200 MFJ standard deduction, and its own arithmetic is wrong ($110,400 − $10,040 is not $80,360)."
-us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed TCJA expired and used about $27,600 of pre-TCJA deductions and exemptions with a 15% bracket. It also subtracted the $8,139 ESI premium from gross wages, cutting AGI to $97,761 instead of $105,900. Under OBBBA the $32,200 standard deduction and 10%/12% brackets apply."
-us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used reverted pre-TCJA 2026 parameters: a $16,256 standard deduction, $10,368 of exemptions and a 15% bracket above $23,872. It also subtracted the ESI premium from wages that are already gross. OBBBA made the $32,200 MFJ standard deduction and 12% bracket permanent, and AGI is $105,900."
-us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation. The correct path is AGI $105,900 minus the $32,200 standard deduction, giving $73,700 and $8,348 of tax. Its $6,715 matches understating taxable income by about $13,600 in the 12% bracket, for example by under-including taxable Social Security or wrongly deducting premiums."
-us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the $8,139 ESI premium as a pre-tax reduction of wages already reported as gross $60,000, which put AGI at $97,761 instead of $105,900. Its $7,558.32 also implies a standard deduction below the 2026 MFJ $32,200."
-us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got AGI right at $105,900 but applied personal exemptions and pre-TCJA 2026 brackets. OBBBA eliminated exemptions permanently and set a $32,200 MFJ standard deduction with a 12% bracket above $24,800, giving $8,348."
-us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used 2025 parameters for 2026: a $30,000 standard deduction and a $23,850 10% bracket. The 2026 MFJ figures are $32,200 and $24,800, so its taxable income was $75,900 instead of $73,700 and its tax $8,631."
-us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got AGI right at $105,900 but used an inflation-projected $30,750 standard deduction and a $24,450 bracket. The 2026 OBBBA figures are $32,200 and $24,800, so it overstated taxable income at $75,150 and produced $8,529."
-us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It overstated the 2026 MFJ standard deduction at $33,300 instead of $32,200 and used the 2025 10% bracket top of $23,850 instead of $24,800. Taxable income came out at $72,600 and tax at $8,235."
-us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the household's income was below the taxable threshold. In fact AGI of $105,900 (including $25,500 of taxable Social Security) exceeds the $32,200 standard deduction by $73,700, which produces $8,348 of tax."
-us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reduced tax using itemized health deductions. Deductible medical costs of about $1,600 are far below the 7.5% of AGI floor ($7,943), and total itemized deductions of $3,208 are below the $32,200 standard deduction, so the standard deduction applies and tax is $8,348."
-us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,other,False,"Its reasoning cites $26,150 of tax before credits but it submitted 3,922, so the two contradict each other. Neither number comes from the correct $73,700 of taxable income (AGI $105,900 minus the $32,200 standard deduction), which is taxed at $8,348."
-us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got AGI right at $105,900 but assumed TCJA expired, applying a $17,018 standard deduction, $10,854 of exemptions and a 15% bracket. OBBBA kept the $32,200 MFJ standard deduction and 10%/12% brackets for 2026."
-us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used post-sunset 2026 rules: a $16,550 standard deduction, $10,600 of exemptions and a 15% bracket above $24,325. OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent, so taxable income is $73,700 under the 12% rate."
-us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed TCJA's individual provisions expired, using $10,600 of exemptions, a $16,600 standard deduction and a 15% bracket. OBBBA kept the TCJA framework, so the 2026 MFJ standard deduction is $32,200 and the rate above $24,800 is 12%."
-us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied pre-TCJA rules for 2026: a $15,700 standard deduction, $10,100 of exemptions and a 15% bracket. OBBBA made the TCJA parameters permanent, so 2026 has a $32,200 standard deduction and 10%/12% brackets."
-us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the correct $32,200 standard deduction but subtracted the $8,139 ESI premium from wages already given as gross, making AGI $97,761 instead of $105,900. That understated taxable income at $65,561 instead of $73,700."
-us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got AGI right at $105,900 but used an estimated $30,600 standard deduction and a $24,400 bracket. The OBBBA 2026 MFJ figures are $32,200 and $24,800, so its taxable income was $75,300 and its tax $8,548."
-us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got AGI right at $105,900 but used a $30,900 standard deduction and a $24,500 bracket instead of the 2026 figures of $32,200 and $24,800. Taxable income came out at $75,000 and tax at $8,510."
-us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a projected $30,450 standard deduction and the 2025 $23,850 bracket instead of the 2026 OBBBA figures of $32,200 and $24,800, which produced $8,577. It then submitted 8,077.50, which doesn't match even its own total."
-us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It computed taxable Social Security as $4,000 instead of the $25,500 cap. It also invented a $1,050 CDCC even though there are no dependents or care expenses, and added it to tax rather than subtracting. The final $12,110.90 contradicts its own $5,930.25 tax figure."
+us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its reasoning reached exactly $8,348: AGI $105,900, minus the $32,200 standard deduction, gives $73,700 taxed at 10% up to $24,800 and 12% above. It then submitted $3,455 anyway, a value with no basis in its own work."
+us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It included the full $30,000 of Social Security instead of the 85% cap of $25,500. It also subtracted the spouse's $8,139 ESI premiums from wages and used a $30,000 standard deduction instead of $32,200. Its final $2,950 doesn't even match its own estimate of about $8,600 in tax."
+us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It treated only about $13,000 of Social Security as taxable. With provisional income of $95,400, far above the $44,000 MFJ threshold, the full 85% cap of $25,500 is taxable. Its $2,300 is also far below the 10%/12% tax on the roughly $70,000 of taxable income it described itself."
+us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It computed $8,336 using a $32,300 standard deduction ($100 too high; 2026 MFJ is $32,200), then submitted $4,880, which contradicts its own derivation. With the correct deduction, $73,700 of taxable income gives $8,348."
+us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It reached about $8,349 using a $32,300 deduction and 2025-style brackets, which should be $32,200 and a 10% bracket ending at $24,800. It then submitted $5,732, a value its reasoning never supports."
+us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It overstated the 2026 MFJ standard deduction at $32,600 (the correct figure is $32,200) and got about $8,300. It then submitted $4,989, which contradicts its own correct bracket calculation."
+us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It inflated the pre-OBBBA 2025 $30,000 deduction to a guessed $30,700 and used a 10% bracket ending at $24,450. The OBBBA 2026 values are a $32,200 deduction and a 10% bracket ending at $24,800. That overstated taxable income at $75,200 instead of $73,700."
+us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It counted only $16,150 of Social Security as taxable, even though 85% of $30,000 is $25,500, so AGI came out at $96,550 instead of $105,900. It then cut its own $7,178 result to $6,350 with made-up credit adjustments, although no nonrefundable credits apply."
+us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"AGI was correct at $105,900, but it used a guessed $30,750 standard deduction and a 10% bracket ending at $24,500. The 2026 OBBBA values are $32,200 and $24,800, so it taxed $75,150 instead of $73,700."
+us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It subtracted the spouse's $8,139 ESI premiums from the $60,000 gross wages, giving an AGI of $97,761 instead of $105,900. It also used a $30,600 deduction and $24,400 bracket edge instead of $32,200 and $24,800."
+us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA had expired for 2026 and applied a $16,600 standard deduction, $10,600 of personal exemptions and a 15% bracket. OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent, so 2026 uses a $32,200 deduction, no exemptions, and 10%/12% brackets."
+us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied pre-TCJA 2026 rules: a $16,000 deduction, $10,000 of personal exemptions and a 15% second bracket. Under OBBBA the 2026 MFJ deduction is $32,200 with no exemptions, and $73,700 of taxable income is taxed at 10%/12%."
+us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It subtracted the ESI premiums from wages and invented $14,640 of mortgage interest from the loan balance, although no interest was given. It then itemized and added personal exemptions under an assumed TCJA sunset. In fact itemized deductions are only $3,208, so the $32,200 standard deduction applies to the full $105,900 AGI, with no exemptions and 10%/12% brackets."
+us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It counted all $30,000 of Social Security instead of the 85% cap of $25,500 and used a nonexistent $10,040 deduction instead of the $32,200 MFJ standard deduction. Its stated $80,360 figure doesn't even match its own inputs."
+us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It reduced wages by the $8,139 ESI premiums, giving an AGI of $97,761 instead of $105,900. It also assumed the TCJA expired, applying exemptions and a 15% bracket, when 2026 uses the $32,200 OBBBA deduction and 10%/12% brackets."
+us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It treated the spouse's $8,139 ESI premium as a wage exclusion, giving an AGI of $97,761. It also applied a reverted pre-TCJA deduction, exemptions and a 15% bracket. The correct base is $105,900 AGI minus the $32,200 OBBBA standard deduction, taxed at 10%/12%."
+us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"With no usable reasoning, its $6,715 corresponds to about $60,000 of taxable income in the 10%/12% brackets. That is roughly $13,600 below the correct $73,700 ($105,900 AGI, including $25,500 of taxable Social Security, minus $32,200), so it either under-counted taxable Social Security or overstated deductions."
+us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It subtracted the spouse's $8,139 ESI premiums from wages, giving an AGI of $97,761. The engine counts the full $60,000 of gross wages, so AGI is $105,900 and taxable income after the $32,200 deduction is $73,700."
+us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its AGI of $105,900 was correct, but it subtracted personal exemptions and used the higher pre-TCJA brackets, assuming the 2026 sunset. OBBBA made the TCJA permanent, so the only reduction is the $32,200 standard deduction and $73,700 is taxed at 10%/12%."
+us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the pre-OBBBA 2025 MFJ standard deduction of $30,000 and the 2025 10% bracket edge of $23,850. The 2026 values are $32,200 and $24,800, so it taxed $75,900 instead of $73,700."
+us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its AGI of $105,900 was correct, but it subtracted personal exemptions as if the TCJA had expired. Under OBBBA, 2026 has no exemptions; the $32,200 standard deduction leaves $73,700 taxed at 10%/12%, which gives $8,348."
+us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It guessed a $30,750 standard deduction and a 10% bracket ending at $24,450. The 2026 OBBBA values are $32,200 and $24,800, so it overstated taxable income at $75,150 instead of $73,700."
+us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It overstated the standard deduction at $33,300 (the 2026 MFJ figure is $32,200) and used the 2025 10% bracket edge of $23,850 instead of $24,800. That gave taxable income of $72,600 and tax of $8,235."
+us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It claimed the household had no taxable income, but AGI is $105,900 including $25,500 of taxable Social Security. After the $32,200 standard deduction, $73,700 is taxable, which gives $8,348 in tax."
+us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It reduced tax with itemized health deductions, but the $1,600 of qualifying medical costs is below the 7.5%-of-AGI floor of $7,943. Total itemized deductions are only $3,208, so the $32,200 standard deduction applies. Its $2,757 implies far less taxable income than the correct $73,700."
+us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its reasoning is self-contradictory: it states $26,150 of tax before credits and then submits $3,922. The correct calculation is $105,900 AGI minus the $32,200 deduction, leaving $73,700 taxed at 10% up to $24,800 and 12% above, which gives $8,348."
+us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA had expired and used a $17,018 deduction, $10,854 of exemptions and a 15% bracket. OBBBA made the TCJA permanent, so 2026 uses the $32,200 MFJ deduction with no exemptions and 10%/12% brackets on $73,700."
+us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied post-sunset law: a $16,550 deduction, $10,600 of exemptions and a 15% bracket above $24,325. Under OBBBA's permanent extension, 2026 uses a $32,200 deduction with no exemptions, and the 12% bracket runs from $24,800 to $100,800."
+us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It treated the TCJA's individual provisions as expired for 2026, using a $16,600 deduction, $5,300 per person in exemptions and a 15% bracket. OBBBA made them permanent, so taxable income is $105,900 − $32,200 = $73,700, taxed at 10%/12%."
+us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied pre-TCJA rules: a $15,700 deduction, $10,100 of exemptions and a 15% bracket. 2026 law under OBBBA keeps the TCJA structure: a $32,200 MFJ deduction, no exemptions, and 10%/12% brackets on $73,700."
+us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the correct $32,200 deduction but subtracted the spouse's ESI premiums from wages, giving an AGI of $97,761 instead of $105,900. That understated taxable income by $8,139 ($65,561 instead of $73,700)."
+us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"AGI was correct at $105,900, but it estimated a $30,600 deduction and a 10% bracket edge of $24,400. The 2026 OBBBA values are $32,200 and $24,800, so it taxed $75,300 instead of $73,700."
+us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It guessed a $30,900 standard deduction and a 10% bracket ending at $24,500. The 2026 values are $32,200 and $24,800, so it overstated taxable income at $75,000 instead of $73,700."
+us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $8,391 corresponds to taxable income of $73,900 with the 2025 10% bracket edge of $23,850, which implies a $32,000 deduction. The 2026 values are a $32,200 deduction (taxable income $73,700) and a 10% bracket ending at $24,800."
+us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a guessed $30,450 deduction and the 2025 $23,850 bracket edge instead of $32,200 and $24,800, and computed $8,577. It then submitted $8,077.50, which doesn't match its own total."
+us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It counted only $4,000 of Social Security as taxable instead of the 85% cap of $25,500. It also invented a $1,050 child and dependent care credit for a household with no dependents or care costs, then added it to tax instead of subtracting it, ending at $12,110.90."
us,scenario_009,free_school_meals_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_009,head_medicare_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model improperly inferred SSDI and disability-based Medicare eligibility from Social Security retirement income despite the instruction that unlisted statuses are false. At age 57 with no disability, ESRD, or ALS stated, the Head does not satisfy either the age pathway or an under-65 Medicare pathway."
us,scenario_009,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,other,False,"The model's reasoning correctly concluded that the 57-year-old Head is not Medicare eligible, but it submitted value = 1, which denotes eligible. This is an answer-value inversion: its stated conclusion required value = 0."
@@ -896,44 +923,46 @@ us,scenario_012,child1_wic_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,age_disability,False,
us,scenario_012,child1_wic_eligible,grok-4.3,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model based eligibility only on household income being under the WIC limit and skipped the categorical requirement. A child qualifies for WIC only before the 5th birthday, so a 10-year-old is ineligible."
us,scenario_012,child1_wic_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model wrongly said that age 10 is within WIC's age limit. WIC child eligibility ends at the 5th birthday, so Child 1 fails the categorical test even though household income is below the income limit (185% of the federal poverty line)."
us,scenario_012,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly derived EITC $4,427 + ACTC $1,700 = $6,127. It then added an unsupported extra $966, labeled as a 'projected adjustment', and reported $7,093. No refundable credit makes up that $966."
-us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It counted 3 qualifying children, including the pregnant spouse/unborn child, although only the 10-year-old qualifies. It used an outdated $3,995 EITC figure instead of the 2026 one-child maximum of $4,427. It also left out the $1,700 refundable ACTC."
-us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It claimed the EITC is roughly $0 for an MFJ one-child family at $22,000. That earnings level is past the phase-in end and below the phase-out start, so the full $4,427 applies. It also wrongly dropped the $1,700 ACTC, which is refundable precisely because tax liability is zero."
-us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It started from the 2025 one-child EITC maximum of $4,328 and then made an arbitrary upward 'inflation' change to reach $6,172. The 2026 maximum is $4,427, so the total should be $4,427 + $1,700 = $6,127."
-us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It replaced its own roughly $4,400 EITC estimate with an invented '2026 refined' maximum of $4,731. The 2026 one-child maximum is $4,427, so the EITC was overstated by $304. The $1,700 ACTC was correct."
-us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It capped the ACTC at $1,800 per child, but the 2026 refundable limit is $1,700. It also used $4,367 for the EITC instead of the 2026 one-child maximum of $4,427."
-us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It treated the full $2,000 CTC as refundable ACTC, but the ACTC is capped at the $1,700 refundable limit. It also used the 2025 EITC maximum of $4,328 instead of the 2026 maximum of $4,427."
-us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Its reasoning flips between several approaches: it uses an outdated $3,995 plateau, wrongly puts $22,000 in the phase-out range, and then picks an arbitrary $5,500 EITC. The one-child EITC at $22,000 MFJ is the full 2026 maximum of $4,427, which with the $1,700 ACTC gives $6,127, not $7,200."
-us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The structure was right (full one-child EITC plus $1,700 ACTC), but it used $4,404 for the 2026 maximum EITC instead of $4,427 (34% × $13,020 earned-income amount)."
-us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used post-TCJA-sunset ACTC rules (a $1,000 cap and a $3,000 threshold), but OBBBA made the TCJA CTC permanent, with a $1,700 refundable cap and a $2,500 threshold in 2026. It also used a $4,355 EITC instead of $4,427."
-us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the pre-TCJA $1,000 ACTC, but the 2026 refundable CTC is $1,700 per child. It also overstated the one-child EITC at $4,442; the correct figure is $4,427."
-us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It inflated both parameters. It used $4,454 for the EITC instead of the 2026 one-child maximum of $4,427, and $1,749 for the ACTC instead of the 2026 refundable cap of $1,700."
-us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the $1,000 post-sunset refundable CTC instead of the 2026 ACTC cap of $1,700 under the permanent TCJA/OBBBA rules. It also put the EITC at $4,423 instead of $4,427."
-us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It overstated the one-child EITC at $5,571; the 2026 maximum is $4,427. It also used a $1,000 refundable CTC instead of the $1,700 ACTC cap."
-us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a rounded $4,500 EITC instead of the 2026 one-child maximum of $4,427. It also applied the $1,000 post-sunset refundable CTC instead of the 2026 ACTC cap of $1,700."
-us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used roughly 2025-level EITC figures ($4,320) instead of the 2026 one-child maximum of $4,427. It also applied a $1,000 refundable CTC instead of the $1,700 ACTC cap."
-us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave no breakdown. The correct total is the $4,427 maximum one-child EITC plus the $1,700 ACTC. Its $4,050 is short by $2,077, which is consistent with counting only an understated EITC and leaving out the refundable ACTC."
-us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 one-child EITC maximum of $4,328 instead of the 2026 inflation-adjusted maximum of $4,427. Its $1,700 ACTC was correct."
-us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 one-child EITC maximum of $4,328 instead of the 2026 maximum of $4,427. Its $1,700 ACTC was correct."
-us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 EITC maximum of $4,328 instead of the 2026 maximum of $4,427. It also used a $1,000 ACTC instead of the 2026 refundable cap of $1,700."
-us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It reduced the EITC to $2,591, but $22,000 is below the MFJ one-child phase-out start, so the full $4,427 applies. It set the ACTC to $0 because there was no tax liability, which reverses the rule: with zero liability the ACTC is min($1,700, 15% × ($22,000 − $2,500)) = $1,700."
-us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It treated the full $2,200 CTC as refundable, but the 2026 refundable portion is capped at $1,700 per child. It also used a slightly low EITC of $4,420 instead of $4,427."
-us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It ruled out the EITC because the spouse is 18. For a joint filer with a qualifying child there is no minimum-age test, so the full $4,427 one-child EITC applies. Its $2,524 ACTC also exceeds the $1,700 per-child refundable cap."
-us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It returned $0, saying filing status and earned income were not specified. The facts give $22,000 of wages, a joint household, and a 10-year-old qualifying child, which produce a $4,427 EITC and a $1,700 ACTC."
-us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It overstated the 2026 one-child EITC at $4,526 instead of $4,427. It also used an $1,800 ACTC cap instead of the 2026 refundable limit of $1,700."
-us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $4,427 EITC was correct, but it used an $1,800 refundable CTC. The 2026 ACTC cap is $1,700 per child, so the total is $6,127."
-us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It applied phase-out and cut the EITC to $2,479, but $22,000 is below the 2026 MFJ one-child phase-out start, so the full $4,427 applies. It also left out the $1,700 refundable ACTC."
-us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used post-sunset ACTC rules ($1,000 cap, $3,000 threshold), but OBBBA made the TCJA CTC permanent, with a $1,700 refundable cap in 2026. It also used $4,318 for the EITC instead of the 2026 maximum of $4,427."
-us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA sunset and capped the ACTC at $1,000, but the 2026 refundable CTC is $1,700 under OBBBA. It also put the EITC at $4,436 instead of $4,427."
-us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The structure and the $1,700 ACTC were right, but it used $4,437 for the 2026 one-child EITC maximum. The correct figure is $4,427 (34% × $13,020)."
-us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the pre-TCJA $1,000 refundable CTC instead of the 2026 ACTC cap of $1,700. It also inflated the 2025 EITC to $4,436 instead of the 2026 maximum of $4,427."
-us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It gave no answer or reasoning. The correct derivation is a $4,427 one-child EITC plus a $1,700 ACTC, for $6,127."
-us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $1,700 ACTC was correct, but it used $4,401 for the 2026 one-child EITC maximum instead of $4,427."
-us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It returned $0 with no computation. At $22,000 of earnings with one qualifying child, the household gets the full $4,427 EITC plus a $1,700 refundable ACTC, and these are both added to refundable credits rather than offsetting each other."
-us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $4,427 EITC was correct, but it used an $1,800 refundable CTC. The 2026 ACTC cap is $1,700 per child."
-us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The method was right (full EITC plus $1,700 ACTC), but it approximated the 2026 one-child EITC maximum as $4,425. The correct figure is $4,427 (34% × $13,020 earned-income amount, rounded)."
-us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It counted the unborn child as a second qualifying child, but only the 10-year-old qualifies. That doubled the ACTC to $3,400 and used a $7,830 multi-child EITC instead of the $4,427 one-child maximum."
-us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It said the CTC was fully used against regular tax, but $22,000 of AGI is below the MFJ standard deduction, so liability is zero and the full $1,700 ACTC is refundable. Its $6,936 EITC also exceeds the one-child maximum of $4,427."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"The model correctly added the $4,427 EITC and the $1,700 ACTC to get $6,127. It then added an unexplained $966 to reach $7,093, even though no other refundable credit applies."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model counted the pregnant spouse/unborn child as qualifying children (3 in total), but only the 10-year-old qualifies. It also used an old one-child EITC maximum ($3,995) instead of the 2026 figure of $4,427, and left out the $1,700 refundable ACTC."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model claimed the EITC is about $0 at $22,000. In fact $22,000 is past the 34% phase-in (which ends at $13,020) and below the joint-filer phase-out start, so the full $4,427 applies. It also wrongly dropped the $1,700 ACTC, which is refundable because tax liability is zero."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly started from EITC plus a $1,700 ACTC, but used the 2025 one-child EITC maximum ($4,328). It then applied an arbitrary inflation bump that implies a $4,472 EITC, instead of the actual 2026 maximum of $4,427."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's ACTC of $1,700 is correct, but it replaced its own ~$4,400 EITC with an unsupported 'refined' $4,731. The 2026 one-child EITC maximum is $4,427 (34% × $13,020)."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model capped the ACTC at $1,800 per child, but the 2026 refundable cap is $1,700. It also understated the EITC at $4,367 instead of the full $4,427: $22,000 is below the joint-filer phase-out, so no early phase-out applies."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model treated the whole $2,000 CTC as refundable. Under 2026 law the CTC is $2,200 per child, but the refundable ACTC is capped at $1,700. It also used the 2025 EITC maximum ($4,328) instead of the 2026 indexed $4,427."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model went back and forth between figures and settled on an unsupported ~$5,500 EITC. The one-child EITC is the $4,427 maximum with no phase-out at $22,000 for a joint return. Only the $1,700 ACTC component was right."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's structure was correct (full one-child EITC plus $1,700 ACTC), but it used $4,404 as the 2026 one-child EITC maximum instead of $4,427 (34% × $13,020)."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied TCJA-sunset ACTC rules ($3,000 earnings floor, $1,000 cap). OBBBA kept a $2,200 CTC for 2026 with a $1,700 refundable cap and a $2,500 floor. It also understated the EITC at $4,355 instead of $4,427."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model limited the ACTC to the pre-TCJA $1,000, but the 2026 refundable cap under OBBBA is $1,700. It also overstated the one-child EITC maximum as $4,442 instead of $4,427."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used guessed parameters for both credits: a $4,454 EITC instead of the 2026 one-child maximum of $4,427, and a $1,749 ACTC instead of the fixed $1,700 refundable cap."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the TCJA-sunset $1,000 refundable CTC instead of the 2026 OBBBA refundable cap of $1,700. Its EITC of $4,423 is also slightly below the 2026 maximum of $4,427."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model overstated the one-child EITC at $5,571, while the 2026 maximum is $4,427. It also used a $1,000 refundable CTC instead of the 2026 cap of $1,700."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model rounded the EITC to ~$4,500 instead of the 2026 one-child maximum of $4,427. It also used the TCJA-sunset $1,000 refundable CTC instead of the $1,700 ACTC cap in force for 2026."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used an unindexed ~$4,320 EITC instead of the 2026 maximum of $4,427. It also used a $1,000 refundable CTC instead of the 2026 ACTC cap of $1,700."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The $4,050 total is less than the EITC alone ($4,427). That means the model understated the full one-child EITC and failed to add the $1,700 refundable ACTC."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 2025 one-child EITC maximum ($4,328) instead of the 2026 inflation-indexed maximum of $4,427, which understates the total by $99. The $1,700 ACTC was correct."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 2025 one-child EITC maximum ($4,328) instead of the 2026 indexed maximum of $4,427. Its $1,700 ACTC was correct."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 2025 EITC maximum ($4,328) instead of the 2026 figure of $4,427. It also applied a $1,000 ACTC instead of the 2026 OBBBA refundable cap of $1,700."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's EITC of $4,427 is correct, but it limited the ACTC to $1,000 under TCJA-sunset rules. OBBBA set the 2026 CTC at $2,200 with a $1,700 refundable portion, and the household's earnings fully support that cap."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model put the household in the EITC phase-out ($2,591), but $22,000 is below the joint-filer phase-out start, so the full $4,427 applies. It also set the refundable CTC to $0 because the household has no tax liability. Zero liability is exactly the case where the ACTC pays out, here the $1,700 cap."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model treated the full $2,200 CTC as refundable, ignoring the 2026 ACTC cap of $1,700 per child. Its EITC of $4,420 is also slightly below the $4,427 maximum."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model wrongly denied the EITC because the spouse is 18. The age 25–64 test applies only to the childless EITC; a joint return with a qualifying child gets the full $4,427. Its $2,524 refundable CTC also exceeds the $1,700 per-child ACTC cap."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model claimed the inputs were insufficient and returned $0. In fact $22,000 of wages, a joint return and a 10-year-old qualifying child fully determine a $4,427 EITC and a $1,700 ACTC."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model overstated both parameters: it used a $4,526 one-child EITC instead of $4,427, and an $1,800 ACTC instead of the 2026 refundable cap of $1,700."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's EITC of $4,427 is correct, but it used $1,800 as the refundable CTC. The 2026 ACTC cap is $1,700 per child."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model applied phase-out reductions that bring the EITC down to $2,479, but $22,000 is below the joint-filer phase-out start, so the full $4,427 applies. It also left out the $1,700 refundable ACTC entirely."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied post-sunset ACTC rules ($1,000 cap, $3,000 floor), but OBBBA kept a $1,700 refundable cap for 2026. Its EITC of $4,318 is also below the 2026 maximum of $4,427."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model assumed TCJA had sunset and capped the ACTC at $1,000 instead of the 2026 OBBBA refundable cap of $1,700. It also projected the EITC at $4,436 instead of $4,427."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's structure and $1,700 ACTC are correct, but it set the 2026 one-child EITC maximum at $4,437 instead of $4,427 (34% × $13,020), which overstates the total by $10."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the TCJA-sunset $1,000 refundable CTC with a $3,000 floor instead of the 2026 OBBBA $1,700 cap. It also inflated the 2025 EITC to $4,436 instead of the published 2026 maximum of $4,427."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no value or explanation for federal_refundable_credits, so no answer could be scored."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's structure and $1,700 ACTC are correct, but it used $4,401 as the 2026 one-child EITC maximum instead of $4,427."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"The model returned $0 without computing either credit. At $22,000 of earnings with one qualifying child, the household gets the full $4,427 EITC plus the $1,700 ACTC."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 2025 one-child EITC maximum ($4,328) instead of the 2026 indexed $4,427. Its $1,700 ACTC was correct."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's EITC of $4,427 is correct, but it used an $1,800 refundable CTC. The 2026 ACTC cap is $1,700 per child."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's method is correct, but it rounded the 2026 one-child EITC maximum to ~$4,425 instead of the exact $4,427 (34% × $13,020), which leaves the total $2 short."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model counted the unborn child as a second qualifying child. An unborn child is not a qualifying child for the EITC or CTC, so this inflated the EITC to the two-child $7,830 and doubled the ACTC to $3,400. The correct figures are one child's $4,427 EITC and $1,700 ACTC."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model gave a $6,936 EITC, which exceeds the one-child maximum of $4,427. It also set the ACTC to $0 on the claim that the CTC offsets regular tax, but taxable income is zero after the standard deduction, so the full $1,700 ACTC is refunded."
us,scenario_012,free_school_meals_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said the facts did not support eligibility and never ran either qualifying test. At $22,000 for a family of three, income is 81% of the poverty guideline, under the 130% free-meal limit. The household's SNAP receipt of about $407.90 a month separately makes the child categorically eligible, so the correct tier is FREE (1), not 0."
us,scenario_012,free_school_meals_eligible,grok-4.7,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model applied the rule that unlisted booleans are false to K-12 enrollment and set it to false. PolicyEngine does not take enrollment as an input here; it derives it from age, so a 10-year-old counts as a K-12 student. With enrollment in place, SNAP categorical eligibility and income at 81% of the poverty guideline both put the child in the FREE tier."
us,scenario_012,free_school_meals_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model claimed income was above 130% of the poverty guideline, but $22,000 for a three-person household is only 81% of the guideline, well below the roughly $35,000 limit for that size. It also missed that SNAP receipt of about $407.90 a month makes the child categorically eligible for free meals whatever the income."
@@ -949,53 +978,55 @@ us,scenario_012,local_income_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output
us,scenario_012,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_012,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated income below the reduced-price ceiling as sufficient for reduced-price eligibility without first assigning the household to the free-meals tier. The household's 0.81 FPG ratio and categorical eligibility produce FREE status, which makes reduced-price eligibility false."
us,scenario_012,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model correctly stated that income below 130% FPG places the child in the free-meal range and that reduced-price support applies only from 130% through 185%, but then submitted 1 contrary to its own derivation. FREE-tier classification, independently reinforced by categorical eligibility, makes the reduced-price output 0."
-us,scenario_012,snap,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It wrongly gave the household a roughly $400 SUA because of the energy subsidy, which created an excess shelter deduction. Its final $378/month is exactly the household's expected contribution (30% of $1,258, rounded up), not the allotment. The allotment is $785 − $378 = $407."
-us,scenario_012,snap,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,other,False,"Its deductions, household size, and maximum allotment were all correct. It skipped SNAP's rounding rule: 30% of net income ($377.40) rounds up to $378. That makes the benefit $407/month, not $407.70, so the annual total is $4,884 rather than $4,892."
-us,scenario_012,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It left out the 20% earned income deduction entirely. It also used a $256 standard deduction and an outdated $694 maximum allotment instead of $209 and $785. It then treated the energy subsidy as an adjustment to net income, giving $84/month instead of $407."
-us,scenario_012,snap,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It counted four people and declared the household ineligible. Gross income of $1,833/month is far below 130% of the $2,220.83 monthly poverty guideline for three people, and net income of $1,258 passes the net test. The household gets $407/month."
-us,scenario_012,snap,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It reached about $412/month using a $224 standard deduction instead of $209. It then dropped that result and moved to $601/month with no deduction to support it. The correct figure is net income $1,258, contribution $378, and benefit $407."
-us,scenario_012,snap,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly found that no shelter deduction applies and got about $406/month, using a $204 standard deduction instead of $209. It then inflated the result to $514/month by reintroducing a shelter deduction that does not exist."
-us,scenario_012,snap,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its $378/month is exactly the expected household contribution (30% of $1,258 net income, rounded up). It reported that contribution as the benefit instead of subtracting it from the $785 maximum, which gives $407."
-us,scenario_012,snap,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the energy subsidy as qualifying the household for a roughly $395 SUA and took a $216 excess shelter deduction. Under the 2026 rules, energy assistance confers the SUA only on households with an elderly or disabled member. With rent alone ($450) below half of net income ($629), there is no shelter deduction."
-us,scenario_012,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It counted the unborn child as a fourth SNAP member, which PolicyEngine does not do. That gave it the four-person $973 maximum allotment. It also added an SUA because of the energy subsidy, and it submitted $5,136 even though its own reasoning reached $7,968."
-us,scenario_012,snap,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It used a household size of 4 for the pregnancy and a roughly $994 maximum allotment, when the SNAP unit is three people with a $785 maximum. It also added a utility allowance tied to the energy subsidy, although no shelter deduction applies."
-us,scenario_012,snap,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"Its structure was correct ($1,258 net income, no shelter deduction, $785 maximum). It did not round the 30% contribution up to $378, so it got about $408/month and $4,890 instead of $407/month and $4,884."
-us,scenario_012,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $211 standard deduction and a $786 maximum allotment instead of the FY2026 three-person values of $209 and $785. It also left net income unrounded, giving $409/month instead of $407."
-us,scenario_012,snap,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added a $500 SUA to rent and took a $316.67 excess shelter deduction. The household has no utility expenses, and the energy subsidy does not confer the SUA on a household with no elderly or disabled member. It also used a $200 standard deduction instead of $209."
-us,scenario_012,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the FY2025 values, a $768 maximum allotment and a $204 standard deduction, instead of FY2026's $785 and $209. That produced $389.20/month instead of $407."
-us,scenario_012,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It counted the unborn child as a member, making the SNAP household four people and inflating the maximum allotment. The unit has three members with a $785 maximum, which gives $407/month."
-us,scenario_012,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied a standard utility allowance that it said the energy subsidy triggered, which created an excess shelter deduction and a benefit of about $482/month. Under 2026 rules, energy assistance does not confer the SUA on a household with no elderly or disabled member. Rent of $450 is below half of the $1,258 net income."
-us,scenario_012,snap,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $446/month means it counted about $130 less net income than the correct $1,258, which matches a shelter deduction that does not apply. The correct path is $1,833.33 − $209 − $366.67 = $1,258 net income, a $378 contribution, and a $407 benefit."
-us,scenario_012,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took an excess shelter deduction based on rent plus the standard utility allowance. The energy subsidy does not qualify this non-elderly, non-disabled household for the SUA. With rent alone, shelter costs are below half of net income and no deduction applies."
-us,scenario_012,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied a shelter deduction that cut net income below $1,258 and produced $457/month. Rent of $450 is below half of net income ($629), and no utility allowance applies. The benefit is $407/month."
-us,scenario_012,snap,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,other,False,"It gave no derivation. $1,450/year is about $121/month, which is consistent with skipping the 20% earned income deduction or using a far smaller maximum allotment. The correct calculation is $1,258 net income and $785 − $378 = $407/month."
-us,scenario_012,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It explicitly took an excess shelter deduction, which produced $453/month. Shelter costs are rent alone ($450), below half of net income ($629), so there is no deduction and the benefit is $407/month."
-us,scenario_012,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted shelter costs as a deduction, which lowered net income and raised the benefit to about $472/month. With no utility allowance and rent below half of net income, no excess shelter deduction applies."
-us,scenario_012,snap,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $200/month standard deduction and the FY2025 $768 maximum allotment ($9,216/year) instead of FY2026's $209 and $785. It also skipped monthly rounding, giving $4,656 instead of $4,884."
-us,scenario_012,snap,glm-5.2,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It made the household four people by adding the pregnancy, then used a $975 maximum and a $238 standard deduction. It also gave the household an SUA because of the energy subsidy. The unit has three people, the maximum is $785, and no shelter deduction applies."
-us,scenario_012,snap,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added a utility allowance based on the energy subsidy and took a shelter deduction, cutting net income to about $1,044. It also used about $780 and $204 instead of the $785 maximum and $209 standard deduction. Net income is $1,258 with no shelter deduction."
-us,scenario_012,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It cited housing and utility costs. $497/month is consistent with an SUA-based excess shelter deduction that does not apply, because the household has no utility expenses and gets no SUA from the energy subsidy. The benefit is $407/month."
-us,scenario_012,snap,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It returned 0, saying SNAP eligibility inputs were missing. All three members meet the work and immigration requirements, assets are $2, and income passes the gross and net tests. The household is eligible for $407/month."
-us,scenario_012,snap,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It said the energy subsidy qualifies the unit for the heating/cooling utility allowance and took an excess shelter deduction. Under 2026 rules, energy assistance confers the SUA only on households with an elderly or disabled member, so net income stays at $1,258 and the benefit is $407/month."
-us,scenario_012,snap,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly applied no utility allowance and no shelter deduction, but got $408/month. It did not round the 30% contribution ($377.40) up to $378, which gives $407/month."
-us,scenario_012,snap,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied a heating/cooling utility deduction, which produced $478/month. The energy subsidy does not confer the SUA on this household, and rent alone is below half of net income, so there is no shelter deduction."
-us,scenario_012,snap,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,other,False,"It got $408/month instead of $407 because it did not round 30% of the $1,258 net income ($377.40) up to $378 before subtracting it from the $785 maximum."
-us,scenario_012,snap,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,period_annualization,False,"It correctly rejected the SUA but computed annually: $9,420 − 0.3 × $15,092. This skipped the monthly rounding steps. Net income rounds to $1,258, the contribution rounds up to $378, and the allotment is a whole-dollar $407/month."
-us,scenario_012,snap,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"$406.20/month implies net income of $1,262.67, which comes from the FY2025 $204 standard deduction instead of FY2026's $209. It also skipped rounding net income and rounding the contribution up."
-us,scenario_012,snap,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It included a shelter deduction, which produced $504/month. Rent of $450 is below half of the $1,258 net income, and no utility allowance applies, so the deduction is zero and the benefit is $407/month."
-us,scenario_012,snap,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added a $433 heating utility allowance that it said the energy subsidy triggered. Under the 2026 rules, energy assistance does not confer the SUA on a household with no elderly or disabled member, so no excess shelter deduction applies."
-us,scenario_012,snap,grok-4.3,llm_error,other,False,"It gave no derivation. $300/month falls well short of the correct $785 − 0.3 × $1,258 (rounded up to $378) = $407/month, which shows it did not apply the FY2026 maximum allotment to the correctly computed net income."
-us,scenario_012,snap,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used outdated parameters, a $198 standard deduction and a $766 maximum allotment, instead of FY2026's $209 and $785. That gave $385/month instead of $407."
-us,scenario_012,snap,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took an excess shelter deduction that included a LIHEAP-triggered SUA. Under 2026 rules, LIHEAP confers the SUA only on households with an elderly or disabled member, so this household gets no shelter deduction and $407/month."
-us,scenario_012,snap,grok-4.7,llm_error,period_annualization,False,"It computed the benefit on annual totals ($9,420 − 0.3 × $15,092) and skipped the monthly rounding steps. Net income rounds to $1,258, the contribution rounds up to $378, and the benefit is $407/month, or $4,884."
-us,scenario_012,snap,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,period_annualization,False,"It subtracted the monthly standard deduction ($210) from annual income once instead of $209 × 12 = $2,508. This overstated annual net income by about $2,300, and it then used a projected $9,422 maximum allotment."
-us,scenario_012,snap,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It submitted no SNAP value and no explanation, so there was no answer to score against the $4,884 reference."
-us,scenario_012,snap,kimi-k3,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly got $1,257.67 net income with no shelter deduction, but did not round net income to $1,258 or round the 30% contribution up to $378. That gave $407.70/month instead of $407."
-us,scenario_012,snap,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It returned 0 without doing the calculation. The household passes the gross and net income tests with $1,258 net income, which yields $785 − $378 = $407/month."
-us,scenario_012,snap,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the FY2025 three-person maximum allotment of $768 instead of FY2026's $785, so it got about $391/month instead of $407."
-us,scenario_012,snap,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added a roughly $470 LIHEAP-funded SUA to rent and took about a $290 excess shelter deduction. Under 2026 rules, LIHEAP does not confer the SUA on a household with no elderly or disabled member. It also used a $204 standard deduction instead of $209."
-us,scenario_012,snap,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted the $411 energy subsidy as unearned income, but that subsidy is excluded from SNAP income. It also used an outdated $198 standard deduction and $768 maximum, then gave an unsupported $426/month."
-us,scenario_012,snap,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It set net income equal to gross earnings, leaving out the 20% earned income deduction and the $209 standard deduction. That made the household fail the net income test, when its net income is actually $1,258/month, well under the poverty guideline."
+us,scenario_012,snap,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave the household an SUA (~$400) because of the energy subsidy and claimed a $222 excess shelter deduction, but in 2026 the subsidy does not create a utility allowance for a household with no elderly or disabled member. It also used a $1,023 maximum allotment and then reported $378/month. That is the household's 30% contribution, not the allotment, which is $785 − $378 = $407."
+us,scenario_012,snap,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,other,False,"Its deductions and the absence of a shelter deduction match the reference. However, it did not round 30% of net income ($377.40) up to $378, so it got $407.70/month ($4,892) instead of $407/month ($4,884)."
+us,scenario_012,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the 20% earned-income deduction ($366.67), used a $256 standard deduction instead of $209, and used a $694 maximum allotment instead of $785. It also cut the benefit further by treating the energy subsidy as reducing the allotment, which led to $84/month instead of $407."
+us,scenario_012,snap,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It treated the unit as four people and found it ineligible. In fact, gross income of $1,833/month is under 130% of FPL, and net income of $1,258 is under the $2,220.83 poverty guideline, so the three-person household qualifies for $407/month."
+us,scenario_012,snap,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,other,False,"It got close to the right structure with ~$412/month, using a $224 standard deduction instead of $209 and no rounding. It then dropped that result and swapped in an unsupported $601/month figure. The correct calculation is net income of $1,258, a $378 contribution, and $407/month."
+us,scenario_012,snap,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly found no shelter deduction and ~$406/month. It then 're-estimated with shelter' to $514/month, which adds a utility-allowance shelter deduction this household does not get, since its $450 rent is below half of the $1,258 net income."
+us,scenario_012,snap,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"It reported $378/month as the SNAP benefit. $378 is the household's expected contribution (30% of the $1,258 net income, rounded up). The allotment is the $785 maximum minus that contribution, or $407/month."
+us,scenario_012,snap,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the energy subsidy to give the household a ~$395 SUA and a $216 excess shelter deduction. Under the 2026 rule, energy assistance creates a utility allowance only for households with an elderly or disabled member. Without it, the $450 rent is below half of net income, there is no shelter deduction, and the benefit is $407/month."
+us,scenario_012,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It counted the unborn child as a fourth SNAP member and used the $973 four-person maximum. It also applied a LIHEAP-triggered MS SUA to create an excess shelter deduction, and its submitted $5,136 does not match its own $7,968 working. The SNAP unit has three people, gets no utility allowance, and receives $785 − $378 = $407/month."
+us,scenario_012,snap,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It counted the pregnancy as a fourth member, used a ~$994 four-person maximum allotment, and added a utility allowance because of the energy subsidy. SNAP counts only the three people born. With no utility allowance and no shelter deduction, the benefit is $407/month."
+us,scenario_012,snap,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"Its net income ($1,258) and lack of a shelter deduction were correct. It took the contribution as ~$377 instead of rounding 30% of net income up to $378, which gave ~$408/month ($4,890) instead of $407/month ($4,884)."
+us,scenario_012,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $211 standard deduction and a $786 maximum allotment instead of the FY2026 figures of $209 and $785. It also did not round net income to $1,258 or round the 30% contribution up to $378, so it got $409/month instead of $407."
+us,scenario_012,snap,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added a $500 SUA to the rent and claimed a $316.67 excess shelter deduction. This household gets no utility allowance under the 2026 rule because it has no elderly or disabled member, and its $450 rent is below half of net income. It also used a $200 standard deduction instead of $209."
+us,scenario_012,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the FY2025 standard deduction of $204 and maximum allotment of $768 instead of the FY2026 figures of $209 and $785, and it did not round the contribution up. The correct result is net income of $1,258, a $378 contribution, and $407/month."
+us,scenario_012,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It counted the unborn child as a fourth SNAP member and used the four-person maximum allotment. The SNAP unit has three people, with a $785 maximum, so the benefit is $407/month."
+us,scenario_012,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It said the energy subsidy triggered a standard utility allowance and claimed an excess shelter deduction, giving $482/month. Under the 2026 rule, energy assistance does not create an SUA for a household with no elderly or disabled member. Rent of $450 alone is below half of net income, so there is no shelter deduction."
+us,scenario_012,snap,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $446/month implies net income of about $1,130, which means it took roughly $128 of extra deductions beyond the standard and earned-income deductions. No shelter or utility deduction applies here, so net income is $1,258 and the benefit is $407/month."
+us,scenario_012,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed an excess shelter deduction built on a standard utility allowance. This household does not get an SUA from its energy subsidy because it has no elderly or disabled member, and $450 rent is below half of the $1,258 net income, so the benefit is $407/month, not ~$497."
+us,scenario_012,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied an excess shelter deduction to reach $457/month. No utility allowance applies to this household, and its $450 rent is below half of the $1,258 net income, so the shelter deduction is zero and the benefit is $407/month."
+us,scenario_012,snap,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,other,False,"It gave no derivation for $1,450/year (~$121/month). The correct calculation, $785 minus 30% of the $1,258 net income rounded up to $378, gives $407/month, so its number does not match any correct application of the standard and earned-income deductions."
+us,scenario_012,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It included an excess shelter deduction that does not apply. With no utility allowance, the $450 rent is below half of net income, so net income stays at $1,258 and the benefit is $407/month, not $453."
+us,scenario_012,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted shelter costs as reducing net income and got ~$472/month. This household has no utility allowance, so the $450 rent alone falls below half of the $1,258 net income, there is no shelter deduction, and the benefit is $407/month."
+us,scenario_012,snap,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $200/month standard deduction and a $768/month maximum allotment ($9,216/year) instead of the FY2026 figures of $209 and $785. It also computed on an annual basis, skipping the monthly rounding that gives a $378 contribution and a $407 allotment."
+us,scenario_012,snap,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave the household a LIHEAP-triggered standard utility allowance and the resulting excess shelter deduction, reaching $479/month. Under the 2026 rule, energy assistance confers an SUA only on households with an elderly or disabled member, so this household has no shelter deduction and receives $407/month."
+us,scenario_012,snap,glm-5.2,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It counted the pregnancy as a fourth member, used four-person standard deduction ($238) and maximum allotment ($975) figures, and added a ~$360 SUA because of the energy subsidy. The unit has three people, with a $209 standard deduction, no utility allowance, and a $785 maximum, which gives $407/month."
+us,scenario_012,snap,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added a utility allowance based on the $411 energy subsidy and claimed an excess shelter deduction. It also used $204/$780 instead of the FY2026 figures of $209/$785. With no utility allowance, net income is $1,258 and the benefit is $407/month."
+us,scenario_012,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It cited 'housing/utility costs' to reach $497/month, which counts a utility allowance and shelter deduction this household does not get. The rent-only shelter cost of $450 is below half of the $1,258 net income, so the benefit is $407/month."
+us,scenario_012,snap,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It returned $0 because SNAP eligibility flags were not listed. The prompt tells it to assume take-up, and the household passes the gross and net income tests, so the benefit is $407/month."
+us,scenario_012,snap,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the energy subsidy as qualifying the household for the heating/cooling utility allowance and claimed excess shelter costs. Under the 2026 rule, that pathway is limited to households with an elderly or disabled member, so there is no shelter deduction and the benefit is $407/month, not $483."
+us,scenario_012,snap,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly applied no utility allowance. However, it rounded the benefit to $408 instead of rounding 30% of net income ($377.40) up to $378, which gives $785 − $378 = $407/month."
+us,scenario_012,snap,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took a heating/cooling utility deduction because of the energy subsidy and reached $478/month. This household with no elderly or disabled member gets no utility allowance in 2026, so it has no shelter deduction and receives $407/month."
+us,scenario_012,snap,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,other,False,"It got $408/month, which comes from subtracting an unrounded $377.40 contribution. SNAP rounds 30% of net income up to $378, so the allotment is $407/month."
+us,scenario_012,snap,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,period_annualization,False,"It correctly ruled out the energy-assistance utility allowance. However, it computed the benefit annually ($9,420 − 30% × $15,092) and skipped the monthly rounding: net income rounded to $1,258 and the contribution rounded up to $378. That rounding gives $407/month, or $4,884."
+us,scenario_012,snap,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $406.20/month corresponds to net income of $1,262.67, which uses the FY2025 $204 standard deduction instead of the FY2026 $209. It also skipped rounding the contribution up, which yields $1,258 net income, a $378 contribution, and $407/month."
+us,scenario_012,snap,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It included a shelter deduction to reach $504/month. This household has no utility allowance, and its $450 rent is below half of net income, so the shelter deduction is zero and the benefit is $407/month."
+us,scenario_012,snap,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $785 maximum and $209 standard deduction were correct, but it added a $433 heating utility allowance triggered by the energy subsidy. Under the 2026 rule, that applies only to households with an elderly or disabled member, so the excess shelter deduction is zero and the benefit is $407/month."
+us,scenario_012,snap,grok-4.3,llm_error,other,False,"Its $300/month figure is not derived from the SNAP formula. Gross income minus the $209 standard and $366.67 earned-income deductions is $1,258, and $785 minus the rounded-up $378 contribution is $407/month."
+us,scenario_012,snap,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an outdated $198 standard deduction and $766 maximum allotment instead of the FY2026 figures of $209 and $785. That gave net income of $1,269 and $385/month instead of $1,258 and $407/month."
+us,scenario_012,snap,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added a LIHEAP-triggered SUA to shelter costs and claimed an excess shelter deduction, reaching $456/month. In 2026, energy assistance confers the SUA only on households with an elderly or disabled member, so this household has no shelter deduction and receives $407/month."
+us,scenario_012,snap,grok-4.7,llm_error,period_annualization,False,"It computed the benefit on annual totals ($9,420 − 30% × $15,092) and skipped the monthly rounding: net income rounded to $1,258 and the contribution rounded up to $378. That rounding gives $407/month and $4,884/year."
+us,scenario_012,snap,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,period_annualization,False,"It subtracted the $210 monthly standard deduction from annual income as if it were an annual amount, which left $17,390 instead of $15,092. It also used a $9,422 annual maximum. The correct monthly calculation is $1,258 net income, a $378 contribution, and $407/month."
+us,scenario_012,snap,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It submitted no SNAP value and no explanation, so there was no answer to score."
+us,scenario_012,snap,kimi-k3,llm_error,other,False,"Its deductions and the absence of a shelter deduction were correct. It used net income of $1,257.67 without rounding to $1,258 and did not round 30% of it up to $378, so it got $407.70/month instead of $407."
+us,scenario_012,snap,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It returned $0 without doing any calculation. The household passes the gross income test ($1,833 < 130% FPL) and the net income test ($1,258 < $2,220.83), so it qualifies for $407/month."
+us,scenario_012,snap,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied an SUA based on the $411 energy subsidy and claimed a shelter deduction, reaching $440/month. Under the 2026 rule, this household with no elderly or disabled member gets no utility allowance from energy assistance, so the benefit is $407/month."
+us,scenario_012,snap,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the FY2025 three-person maximum allotment of $768 instead of the FY2026 figure of $785. Subtracting the $378 contribution from $785 gives $407/month, not $391."
+us,scenario_012,snap,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added a ~$470 LIHEAP-funded SUA to rent and claimed a ~$290 excess shelter deduction. Energy assistance no longer confers the SUA on households with no elderly or disabled member, so net income stays at $1,258 and the benefit is $407/month."
+us,scenario_012,snap,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It counted the $411 energy subsidy as unearned income and used an outdated $198 standard deduction and $768 maximum allotment. It then moved to an unsupported $426/month. The correct calculation uses $209 and $785, giving $407/month."
+us,scenario_012,snap,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It set net income equal to the full $22,000 of earnings, leaving out the 20% earned-income deduction and the $209 standard deduction. Net income is actually $1,258/month, well under the $2,220.83 monthly poverty guideline, so the household receives $407/month."
us,scenario_012,spouse_chip_eligible,claude-fable-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated pregnancy and income below a pregnancy-coverage threshold as sufficient for CHIP. It omitted the prior Medicaid screen: the 18-year-old spouse qualifies for Medicaid under the OLDER_CHILD category, which makes her ineligible for CHIP."
us,scenario_012,spouse_chip_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,The model incorrectly asserted that pregnancy creates CHIP eligibility regardless of age once income requirements are met. It failed to apply the rule excluding anyone already Medicaid-eligible; this spouse is Medicaid-eligible as an OLDER_CHILD.
us,scenario_012,spouse_chip_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model classified low-income pregnancy coverage as CHIP-funded coverage without first testing Medicaid eligibility. The spouse's Medicaid eligibility under the OLDER_CHILD category precludes CHIP, irrespective of household size adjustments for the unborn child or pregnancy income limits."
@@ -1006,143 +1037,150 @@ us,scenario_012,spouse_chip_eligible,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibil
us,scenario_012,spouse_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model failed to classify the 18-year-old spouse under Mississippi's OLDER_CHILD Medicaid category and therefore never applied that category's MAGI income test. At 0.67 times FPL, the spouse satisfies the income condition and is eligible."
us,scenario_012,spouse_wic_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model ignored the spouse's explicitly listed pregnancy, which places her in a WIC categorical group, and failed to apply the WIC income limit to the household's $22,000 income. Those facts establish her eligibility; the presence of a young child is not needed for her pregnancy-based pathway."
us,scenario_012,ssi,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_012,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted only the $4,600 MFJ standard deduction and left out the $12,000 MFJ personal exemption and the $1,500 dependent exemption, which reduce taxable income to $3,900. It then applied 4% to all $17,400 and ignored Mississippi's 0% bracket on the first $10,000 of taxable income. $3,900 falls entirely inside that bracket, so the tax is $0."
-us,scenario_012,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got taxable income right at $3,900 but applied the old 3% low bracket to it. Current Mississippi law taxes the first $10,000 of taxable income at 0% and charges the flat rate only above $10,000, so $3,900 produces $0 tax."
-us,scenario_012,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It computed $3,900 of taxable income correctly and then applied the 4.0% rate from the first dollar. Mississippi's first $10,000 of taxable income is taxed at 0%, so none of the $3,900 is taxed and the liability is $0."
-us,scenario_012,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It derived the $3,900 taxable income correctly but taxed all of it at a flat 3.9%. That rate is also not Mississippi's 2026 rate of 4.0%. Its main error is missing the 0% bracket on the first $10,000 of taxable income, which makes the tax $0 at any rate."
-us,scenario_012,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly reduced AGI to $3,900 of taxable income and then applied the 4% rate to the whole amount. Mississippi exempts the first $10,000 of taxable income with a 0% bracket, so the tax is $0."
-us,scenario_012,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $6,000 personal exemption for a joint couple instead of Mississippi's $12,000 MFJ exemption and dropped the $1,500 dependent exemption for the child, which overstated taxable income at $11,400 instead of $3,900. It also used the 2025 rate of 4.4% instead of 4.0% and taxed from the first dollar, ignoring the 0% bracket on the first $10,000. Together these turned a $0 liability into $502."
-us,scenario_012,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It replaced Mississippi's exemptions ($12,000 for the MFJ couple plus $1,500 per dependent, $13,500 in total) with a made-up $2,300 per person ($6,900 in total), which overstated taxable income at $10,500 instead of $3,900. It then applied 4% to all of it without the 0% bracket on the first $10,000, so it reported $420 instead of $0."
-us,scenario_012,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its own reasoning reached $0 because deductions and exemptions exceeded the $22,000 of income. It then dropped that result over stated uncertainty and submitted $340, which is 5% of an assumed $6,800 of taxable income with no derivation. The correct $4,600 standard deduction, $12,000 personal exemption, and $1,500 dependent exemption (not the $6,000 it used) leave $3,900. That amount falls inside Mississippi's 0% bracket on the first $10,000, so the tax is $0."
-us,scenario_012,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used a tax structure that is not Mississippi's: a $7,400 standard deduction instead of the $4,600 MFJ amount, a $1,500 spouse exemption instead of the $12,000 MFJ personal exemption, graduated 5% and 3% brackets, and a $970 family credit that Mississippi does not have. Mississippi's actual rules give $3,900 of taxable income, taxed at 0% because it is under the $10,000 zero bracket, so the liability is $0."
+us,scenario_012,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model left out the $12,000 MFJ personal exemption and the $1,500 dependent exemption, so its taxable income was $17,400 instead of $3,900. It then applied 4% to the full amount, missing Mississippi's 0% rate on the first $10,000. The correct $3,900 taxable income falls entirely in that 0% band, so the tax is $0."
+us,scenario_012,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model got taxable income right at $3,900. It then taxed it at a flat 3% from the first dollar, which ignores Mississippi's 0% rate on the first $10,000 of taxable income. It also used the wrong 2026 rate, which is 4%. Since $3,900 is below the $10,000 band, the tax is $0."
+us,scenario_012,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model got the $3,900 taxable income right but applied 4% to all of it. Mississippi taxes the first $10,000 of taxable income at 0% and charges 4% only above that, so $3,900 produces $0 of tax."
+us,scenario_012,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model got the $3,900 taxable income right but applied a flat rate from the first dollar. It also used 3.9% instead of the 2026 rate of 4%. Mississippi's first $10,000 of taxable income is taxed at 0%, so $3,900 produces $0 of tax."
+us,scenario_012,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the correct deductions and exemptions to reach $3,900 of taxable income. It then taxed all of it at 4%, missing that Mississippi's 4% rate applies only to taxable income above $10,000. The tax is $0."
+us,scenario_012,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used only $6,000 of personal exemption for a married couple instead of $12,000, and it left out the $1,500 dependent exemption. It also applied the 2025 rate of 4.4% instead of the 2026 rate of 4%, and it taxed all of the $11,400 with no 0% band on the first $10,000. The correct taxable income is $3,900, which owes $0."
+us,scenario_012,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model gave each of the three people a $2,300 exemption, totaling $6,900. Mississippi actually allows $12,000 for a married couple plus $1,500 per dependent, totaling $13,500. The model then taxed $10,500 at 4% from the first dollar, ignoring the 0% band on the first $10,000. Correct taxable income is $3,900, which owes $0."
+us,scenario_012,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model left out the $4,600 MFJ standard deduction, so its taxable income was $8,500 instead of $3,900. It then applied the 2025 rate of 4.4% to all of it, with no 0% band on the first $10,000. Either taxable income figure is under $10,000, so the tax is $0."
+us,scenario_012,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Partway through, the model correctly concluded that deductions and exemptions eliminate taxable income and that the tax is $0. It then dropped that conclusion and invented a figure of about $6,800 of taxable income taxed at 5%. It used the wrong 2026 rate, which is 4%, never applied the 0% band on the first $10,000, and overstated the dependent exemption as $6,000 when it is $1,500."
+us,scenario_012,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model invented a $7,400 standard deduction (the real figure is $4,600) and replaced the $12,000 MFJ personal exemption with a $1,500 spouse exemption. It used a made-up bracket structure of 5% on the first $10,000 and 3% above, which is the reverse of Mississippi's actual 0% on the first $10,000 and 4% above. It then subtracted a nonexistent 'family credit.' Correct taxable income is $3,900, which owes $0."
us,scenario_013,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"GLM-5.3 included roughly 11.4% of the $23,736 Social Security benefit in income and reported AGI of $8,270, but provisional income here is $11,868 (half of benefits) + $6,720 pension + $16 dividends + $72 capital gain = $18,676, below the $25,000 single base amount, so $0 of Social Security is taxable and AGI is $6,808; it compounded this by reading the $16 as qualified dividends and double-counting the $72 as both non-qualified dividends and non-Sch-D capital gains. It then submitted -$3 for a quantity that is floored at zero — nonrefundable credits, including the $250 it invented, cannot reduce liability below zero — directly contradicting its own statement that taxable income after the standard deduction was effectively 0."
us,scenario_013,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model asserted that income was ""near SSI/FPL-based aged-disabled standards"" but never compared it to a limit. The head's countable income is about $30,5xx: $23,736 of Social Security plus the $6,720 pension and $88 of dividends and capital gains, less the $20 general disregard. That is about 1.9x FPL, well above the 100% FPL aged/disabled income standard and the SSI benefit rate. SSI is 0, so no SSI-linked pathway applies, and at age 80 the head is outside the MAGI adult group."
us,scenario_013,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model said Social Security is ""mostly excluded via SSI methodology"" and cut it to $10,196 countable. SSI methodology counts Social Security in full as unearned income, minus only the $20 general disregard, so countable income is about $30,5xx, or 1.9x FPL, above the aged/disabled standard. The model also applied the ALTCS 300%-of-SSI limit, which requires an institutional level-of-care need this household does not have. It then deducted health premiums and OTC costs as a spend-down, which does not create eligibility here, and it ignored its own finding that the $58,700 in assets exceeds the $2,000 limit."
us,scenario_013,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model tested AGI of $6,808 against 138% FPL. MAGI adds back the $23,736 of nontaxable Social Security, which puts income at about $30,544, or 1.91x FPL. The 138% FPL adult expansion group also covers only ages 19-64, so it cannot apply to an 80-year-old. The aged/disabled pathway counts total income including Social Security, and that income is far above its limit."
-us,scenario_013,snap,claude-fable-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the ordinary 100% FPL net income test and a $4,500 elderly/disabled asset limit, and never considered Arizona's BBCE. From March 2026, BBCE at 200% FPL ($2,608.33/month) deems both tests met for this $2,539.33 gross income. It therefore missed the $24 monthly minimum for one-person households in March–December ($240 a year)."
-us,scenario_013,snap,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It ruled the household out with the 100% FPL net income test and never applied Arizona's 200% FPL BBCE, which starts in March 2026. BBCE makes this household (gross $2,539.33 < $2,608.33) categorically eligible, so it gets the $24 one-person minimum allotment for 10 months even though the benefit formula comes out negative."
-us,scenario_013,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied a 130% FPL gross income limit, which elderly/disabled households are exempt from, and a $2,500 asset limit. It missed that Arizona's 200% FPL BBCE (from March 2026) deems both the income and asset tests met for $2,539.33 gross monthly income. That leaves the household with the $24 monthly minimum for March–December."
-us,scenario_013,snap,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the ordinary aged/disabled income and asset tests and ignored Arizona's broad-based categorical eligibility. At 200% FPL from March 2026, BBCE waives both tests for this household. The one-person $24 minimum allotment then applies for ten months, totaling $240."
-us,scenario_013,snap,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It stopped at the 100% FPL net income test (net about $2,265) and never checked Arizona's BBCE. BBCE's 200% FPL gross limit ($2,608.33 from March 2026) treats the net income test as met. The household should have gotten the $24 one-person minimum for March–December."
-us,scenario_013,snap,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"It disqualified the household for exceeding the $4,500 elderly/disabled resource limit. It missed that Arizona's BBCE (200% FPL gross limit from March 2026, met at $2,539.33/month) removes the asset test entirely, which leaves a $24 monthly minimum allotment for ten months."
-us,scenario_013,snap,claude-opus-5,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"It treated the $58,700 in bank assets as disqualifying under the federal resource limit. Arizona's BBCE at 200% FPL, effective March 2026, makes this household categorically eligible and waives the asset test. The household then gets the $24 one-person minimum for March–December."
-us,scenario_013,snap,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the 100% FPL net income limit and stopped there. It never applied Arizona's 200% FPL BBCE (from March 2026), under which the household's $2,539.33 gross income makes it categorically eligible. A categorically eligible one-person household gets the $24 minimum allotment even when the formula comes out negative."
-us,scenario_013,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the ordinary net income limit and a $4,500 resource limit, and never considered Arizona's broad-based categorical eligibility. From March 2026, BBCE at 200% FPL ($2,608.33/month) deems both tests met for $2,539.33 gross income. That entitles the household to the $24 one-person minimum for ten months."
-us,scenario_013,snap,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It recognized a 200% FPL gross limit but put it at about $2,510/month; the correct figure is $2,608.33 ($2,660 from October). It also counted the $72 capital gains as income. With the right threshold, gross income of $2,539.33 qualifies for BBCE, which waives the asset test and yields the $24 minimum for March–December."
-us,scenario_013,snap,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It ran the $298 minus 30%-of-net-income formula and stopped at zero. It missed that Arizona's 200% FPL BBCE makes the household categorically eligible from March 2026, and that eligible one-person households get the $24 minimum allotment, for $240 a year."
-us,scenario_013,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"It disqualified the household on the elderly/disabled asset limit. Arizona's BBCE (200% FPL gross limit from March 2026, met at $2,539.33/month) eliminates the asset test, so the household gets the $24 one-person minimum for ten months."
-us,scenario_013,snap,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"It applied the $4,250 elderly/disabled resource limit as decisive. From March 2026, Arizona's 200% FPL BBCE deems the asset test met for this household (gross $2,539.33 < $2,608.33), which produces the $24 monthly minimum for March–December."
-us,scenario_013,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the ordinary net income limit and the elderly/disabled resource limit. It never considered Arizona's 200% FPL BBCE from March 2026, which treats both tests as met, and so it missed the $24 one-person minimum allotment for ten months."
-us,scenario_013,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It ruled the household ineligible on the ordinary net income and asset limits, and never applied Arizona's BBCE at 200% FPL (effective March 2026). BBCE makes the household categorically eligible, and the $24 minimum allotment then applies for March–December."
-us,scenario_013,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a 185% FPL gross limit of about $2,321/month. From March 2026, Arizona's BBCE limit is 200% FPL ($2,608.33/month), which the household's $2,539.33 gross income meets. Categorical eligibility then gives the $24 one-person minimum for ten months, even though the formula comes out negative."
-us,scenario_013,snap,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the ordinary resource limit and net income test. It missed Arizona's 200% FPL BBCE from March 2026, which waives both for this household and yields the $24 one-person minimum allotment for March–December."
-us,scenario_013,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the elderly net income limit and stopped. From March 2026, Arizona's BBCE at 200% FPL ($2,608.33/month) treats the net income test as met for $2,539.33 gross income, so the household gets the $24 minimum for ten months."
-us,scenario_013,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used Arizona's old 185% FPL BBCE limit and applied the $4,250 asset test. From March 2026, Arizona's BBCE limit is 200% FPL ($2,608.33/month), which the household's $2,539.33 gross income meets. The asset test is then waived and the $24 one-person minimum applies for March–December."
-us,scenario_013,snap,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It disqualified the household on ordinary income and asset limits. It missed that Arizona's 200% FPL BBCE (from March 2026) deems both met for $2,539.33 gross monthly income, which yields the $24 minimum allotment for ten months."
-us,scenario_013,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It claimed gross income exceeds Arizona's SNAP threshold, which matches the old 185% FPL BBCE limit. From March 2026, the limit is 200% FPL ($2,608.33/month), which $2,539.33 gross income satisfies. That makes the household categorically eligible for the $24 minimum for March–December."
-us,scenario_013,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the net income limit and let the benefit formula zero out the benefit. It missed that Arizona's 200% FPL BBCE makes the household categorically eligible from March 2026, and that eligible one-person households receive the $24 minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_013,snap,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used Arizona's old 185% FPL BBCE limit and then applied the federal elderly asset test. Arizona raised BBCE to 200% FPL ($2,608.33/month) in March 2026, so gross income of $2,539.33 qualifies, the asset test is waived, and the household gets $24 a month for ten months."
-us,scenario_013,snap,glm-5.2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied only the 100% FPL net income limit for elderly households. It never applied Arizona's 200% FPL BBCE from March 2026, which deems income eligibility met at $2,539.33 gross monthly income, and so it missed the $24 one-person minimum for March–December."
-us,scenario_013,snap,glm-5.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It compared net income to the ordinary gross and net limits. It ignored Arizona's 200% FPL BBCE (from March 2026), which makes the household categorically eligible despite failing those tests. The benefit is therefore the $24 one-person minimum for ten months, not zero."
-us,scenario_013,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It judged Social Security plus pension income too high under the ordinary rules. It missed that Arizona's 200% FPL BBCE ($2,608.33/month from March 2026) covers this $2,539.33 gross income and guarantees the $24 one-person minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_013,snap,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It gave no substantive derivation and assumed no positive SNAP benefit was possible. In fact, Arizona's 200% FPL BBCE from March 2026 makes this household categorically eligible, which yields the $24 one-person minimum for ten months ($240)."
-us,scenario_013,snap,gpt-5.5,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"It disqualified the household for exceeding the elderly/disabled resource limit. Arizona's BBCE at 200% FPL, effective March 2026 and met at $2,539.33/month, waives the asset test, so the household gets the $24 minimum for March–December."
-us,scenario_013,snap,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It took the formula's zero allotment as final. It missed that Arizona's 200% FPL BBCE makes the household categorically eligible from March 2026, and that eligible one-person households get the $24 minimum benefit even when the formula comes out negative."
-us,scenario_013,snap,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It concluded that income left no positive allotment after deductions. It never applied Arizona's 200% FPL BBCE (from March 2026), under which the household is categorically eligible and receives the $24 one-person minimum for ten months."
-us,scenario_013,snap,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the ordinary net income limit. Arizona's 200% FPL BBCE, effective March 2026, deems that test met for gross income of $2,539.33 (under $2,608.33), which yields the $24 minimum allotment for March–December."
-us,scenario_013,snap,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It found income above Arizona's categorical eligibility limit, which reflects the old 185% FPL threshold. From March 2026 the limit is 200% FPL ($2,608.33/month, $2,660 from October), which the household's $2,539.33 gross income meets. The resource limit is then waived and the household gets $24 a month for ten months."
-us,scenario_013,snap,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It stopped at the formula result of zero. It missed that Arizona's 200% FPL BBCE makes the household categorically eligible from March 2026, so the $24 one-person minimum allotment applies for ten months."
-us,scenario_013,snap,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated the zero computed allotment as the answer. It never applied Arizona's 200% FPL BBCE from March 2026, which makes the household eligible and entitles it to the $24 minimum benefit for one-person households."
-us,scenario_013,snap,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It found income above Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility limit by using the old 185% FPL threshold. From March 2026 the limit is 200% FPL ($2,608.33/month), which the household's $2,539.33 gross income meets. The asset test is then waived and the $24 minimum applies for March–December."
-us,scenario_013,snap,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the ordinary income and asset limits. It missed that Arizona's 200% FPL BBCE from March 2026 deems both met for $2,539.33 gross monthly income, which yields the $24 one-person minimum for ten months."
-us,scenario_013,snap,grok-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the 100% FPL net income limit. It never considered Arizona's 200% FPL BBCE (effective March 2026), which treats the net income test as met and gives the household the $24 minimum allotment for March–December."
-us,scenario_013,snap,grok-4.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the ordinary net income limit and the elderly/disabled resource limit. It missed Arizona's 200% FPL BBCE from March 2026, which deems both met for this household and yields the $24 one-person minimum for ten months."
-us,scenario_013,snap,grok-4.7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It correctly found that 30% of net income exceeds the $298 maximum, but it stopped there. It missed that Arizona's 200% FPL BBCE makes the household categorically eligible from March 2026, so the $24 one-person minimum allotment applies for ten months."
-us,scenario_013,snap,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"It disqualified the household on the $4,250 elderly/disabled resource limit. Arizona's BBCE at 200% FPL, effective March 2026 and met at $2,539.33/month, eliminates the asset test, so the household gets the $24 minimum for March–December."
-us,scenario_013,snap,inkling,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the 100% FPL net income limit with no shelter costs and stopped. It never applied Arizona's 200% FPL BBCE from March 2026, which makes the household categorically eligible and entitles it to the $24 one-person minimum for ten months."
-us,scenario_013,snap,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the federal elderly/disabled resource limit and the 100% FPL net income test. It missed that Arizona's 200% FPL BBCE (from March 2026) waives both for $2,539.33 gross monthly income, which yields $24 a month for March–December."
-us,scenario_013,snap,kimi-k3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It ruled the household out on the net income limit. It never applied Arizona's 200% FPL BBCE (effective March 2026), under which the household is categorically eligible and receives the $24 one-person minimum allotment for ten months."
-us,scenario_013,snap,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the ordinary income and asset thresholds. It missed that Arizona's 200% FPL BBCE from March 2026 deems both tests met for this household, which produces the $24 minimum allotment for March–December."
-us,scenario_013,snap,muse-wonder,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the ordinary net income limit and treated the $58,700 in bank assets as disqualifying. Arizona's 200% FPL BBCE, effective March 2026, waives both tests for $2,539.33 gross income and yields the $24 one-person minimum for ten months."
-us,scenario_013,snap,ox-alpha,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the 100% FPL net income limit to an elderly/disabled household and stopped. It missed Arizona's 200% FPL BBCE from March 2026, which makes the household categorically eligible for the $24 one-person minimum allotment for March–December."
-us,scenario_013,snap,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied a 130% FPL gross income test, which elderly/disabled households are exempt from. It also missed Arizona's 200% FPL BBCE from March 2026, which makes this $2,539.33/month household categorically eligible for the $24 minimum for ten months."
-us,scenario_013,snap,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It invented a rule that SNAP excludes members aged 60 or older. In fact, elderly households are eligible under special rules, and under Arizona's 200% FPL BBCE from March 2026 this household is categorically eligible for the $24 one-person minimum for ten months."
+us,scenario_013,snap,claude-fable-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied only the regular elderly/disabled tests: net income against 100% of poverty and assets against a $4,500 limit. It never applied Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility at 200% of poverty from March 2026. That route covers the $2,539 monthly gross income, waives both tests, and pays the $24 minimum for one person for ten months ($240)."
+us,scenario_013,snap,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Stopped at the net income test (net about $2,322 against a limit of about $1,305). It missed that Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility at 200% of poverty ($2,608.33 a month) from March 2026 treats that test as met. The one-person household therefore gets the $24 minimum for March through December, $240 in total."
+us,scenario_013,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied the 130%-of-poverty gross income test, which does not apply to elderly/disabled households, and a $2,500 asset limit. It missed Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility at 200% of poverty from March 2026. The $2,539 monthly income passes that limit, which waives the asset test and gives the $24 one-person minimum for ten months ($240)."
+us,scenario_013,snap,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied the regular aged/disabled income and asset tests and concluded the household was ineligible. Under Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility at 200% of poverty from March 2026, the $2,539 monthly gross income qualifies and both tests count as met. The result is the $24 minimum for March through December ($240)."
+us,scenario_013,snap,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Treated the 100%-of-poverty net income test as decisive for an elderly/disabled household. Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility (gross income up to 200% of poverty, $2,608.33 a month, from March 2026) bypasses that test. As a one-person categorically eligible household it gets the $24 minimum for ten months, $240."
+us,scenario_013,snap,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Disqualified the household because $58,700 exceeds the $4,500 resource limit. Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility at 200% of poverty from March 2026 removes the asset test for a household with $2,539 a month in gross income. The household gets the $24 minimum for March through December ($240)."
+us,scenario_013,snap,claude-opus-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied the federal resource limit to the $58,700 in bank assets. It missed that Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility (gross income at or below 200% of poverty from March 2026) waives the asset test entirely. That makes the household eligible for the $24 one-person minimum for ten months, $240."
+us,scenario_013,snap,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Ruled the household out because net income of about $2,330 exceeds 100% of poverty. It skipped Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility at 200% of poverty ($2,608.33 a month) from March 2026, which counts the net income test as met. The household then gets the $24 minimum each month from March through December ($240)."
+us,scenario_013,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Concluded the household fails both the 100%-of-poverty net income test and the $4,500 asset limit. It never considered Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility at 200% of poverty from March 2026, which the $2,538 monthly gross income satisfies and which waives both tests. That gives the $24 one-person minimum for ten months ($240)."
+us,scenario_013,snap,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Recognised a 200%-of-poverty expanded categorical eligibility limit but put it at about $2,510 a month. The correct figure is $2,608.33 (and $2,660 from October). It also counted the $72 of capital gains to reach $2,545, while countable gross income is $2,539.33, which passes. Passing that limit makes the household categorically eligible for the $24 minimum for March through December ($240)."
+us,scenario_013,snap,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Took the zero result from the formula ($298 minus 30% of net income) as the final answer. It missed that the household is categorically eligible from March 2026 under Arizona's 200%-of-poverty expanded categorical eligibility, and an eligible one-person household gets the $24 minimum even when the formula gives zero. The total is $24 × 10 = $240."
+us,scenario_013,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Disqualified the household on the elderly/disabled asset limit. Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility (gross income up to 200% of poverty, from March 2026) treats the asset test as met. The household therefore gets the $24 one-person minimum for ten months, $240."
+us,scenario_013,snap,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied the $4,250 elderly/disabled resource limit to the $58,700 in assets. Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility at 200% of poverty from March 2026 removes the asset test for this household, whose gross income is $2,539 a month. It qualifies for the $24 minimum for March through December ($240)."
+us,scenario_013,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied the regular net income limit and elderly/disabled resource limit. It missed Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility at 200% of poverty ($2,608.33 a month) from March 2026, which the $2,539 monthly gross income satisfies and which waives both tests. That gives the $24 one-person minimum for ten months ($240)."
+us,scenario_013,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied the regular net income and asset tests. It never used Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility at 200% of poverty from March 2026, under which the $30,472 annual gross income ($2,539 a month) qualifies and both tests count as met. The result is the $24 minimum for ten months, $240."
+us,scenario_013,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Used 185% of poverty (about $2,321 a month) as Arizona's gross income limit. From March 2026 Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility limit is 200% of poverty, $2,608.33 a month, which the household's $2,539 passes. It also missed that categorically eligible one-person households receive the $24 minimum even when the formula gives zero, so the answer is $240."
+us,scenario_013,snap,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied the regular resource limit and net income test. It missed that Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility at 200% of poverty from March 2026 covers this household's $2,539 monthly gross income and treats both tests as met. That yields the $24 one-person minimum for ten months ($240)."
+us,scenario_013,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Ruled the household out on the elderly net income limit alone. Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility at 200% of poverty ($2,608.33 a month) from March 2026 counts the net income test as met. The household then gets the $24 one-person minimum for March through December, $240."
+us,scenario_013,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied a 185%-of-poverty expanded categorical eligibility limit and so fell back to the $4,250 asset test. From March 2026 Arizona's limit is 200% of poverty, $2,608.33 a month. The $2,539 monthly gross income passes it, so the asset test is waived and the household gets the $24 minimum for ten months ($240)."
+us,scenario_013,snap,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied the regular income and asset limits. It missed Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility at 200% of poverty from March 2026, which the household's $2,539 monthly gross income satisfies and which waives those tests. That gives the $24 one-person minimum for ten months ($240)."
+us,scenario_013,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Asserted that gross income exceeds Arizona's limit. From March 2026 the limit is 200% of poverty ($2,608.33 a month), and the household's $2,539.33 is below it. That confers categorical eligibility and the $24 one-person minimum for ten months, $240."
+us,scenario_013,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied the net income limit and took the zero formula result as final. From March 2026 the household is categorically eligible under Arizona's 200%-of-poverty expanded categorical eligibility, which waives the net income test. An eligible one-person household gets the $24 minimum even when the formula gives zero, so the total is $240."
+us,scenario_013,snap,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Used a 185%-of-poverty limit for Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility and then applied the federal elderly asset limit. From March 2026 Arizona's limit is 200% of poverty ($2,608.33 a month). The $2,539 monthly gross income passes it, so the asset test is waived and the household gets the $24 minimum for ten months ($240)."
+us,scenario_013,snap,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied the elderly/disabled asset limit and the net income limit. Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility at 200% of poverty from March 2026 treats both as met for this household's $2,539 monthly gross income. The result is the $24 one-person minimum for ten months, $240."
+us,scenario_013,snap,glm-5.2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Compared income only with the 100%-of-poverty net income limit for elderly/disabled households. It missed Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility at 200% of poverty from March 2026, which the $30,472 annual gross income meets and which waives that limit. That yields the $24 minimum for March through December ($240)."
+us,scenario_013,snap,glm-5.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Calculated net income and applied the regular gross and net income limits, even though elderly/disabled households are exempt from the gross test. It never applied Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility at 200% of poverty from March 2026, which counts the income tests as met. The one-person household gets the $24 minimum for ten months ($240)."
+us,scenario_013,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Called the Social Security and pension income too high without testing Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility limit. That limit is 200% of poverty ($2,608.33 a month) from March 2026, and the household's $2,539.33 is below it. As a categorically eligible one-person household it gets the $24 minimum for ten months ($240)."
+us,scenario_013,snap,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Claimed the facts given do not support a positive benefit. Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility at 200% of poverty from March 2026 makes this household eligible: gross income is $2,539.33 against a $2,608.33 limit. A one-person eligible household receives the $24 minimum, $240 over March through December."
+us,scenario_013,snap,gpt-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Disqualified the household on the elderly/disabled resource limit. Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility (gross income at or below 200% of poverty, from March 2026) waives the asset test for this household. It receives the $24 one-person minimum for ten months, $240."
+us,scenario_013,snap,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Took the zero allotment from the formula as final. It missed that the household is categorically eligible from March 2026 under Arizona's 200%-of-poverty expanded categorical eligibility, and that eligible one-person households receive the $24 minimum. The total is $24 × 10 = $240."
+us,scenario_013,snap,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,Concluded no positive allotment results after deductions. It skipped the rule that one-person households made categorically eligible by Arizona's 200%-of-poverty expanded categorical eligibility (from March 2026) receive the $24 minimum even when the formula gives zero. That totals $240 for March through December.
+us,scenario_013,snap,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied the net income limit to the elderly/disabled household. Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility at 200% of poverty from March 2026 counts the net income test as met for this household's $2,539 monthly gross income. It then gets the $24 one-person minimum for ten months ($240)."
+us,scenario_013,snap,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Asserted that income exceeds Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility limit. From March 2026 that limit is 200% of poverty, $2,608.33 a month (and $2,660 from October), and the household's gross income of $2,539.33 is below it. The asset test is therefore waived and the household gets the $24 minimum for ten months ($240)."
+us,scenario_013,snap,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,Stopped at a zero allotment from the formula. It missed that categorical eligibility under Arizona's 200%-of-poverty expanded categorical eligibility (from March 2026) gives a one-person household the $24 minimum regardless of the formula result. The total is $240.
+us,scenario_013,snap,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Concluded the income produces no allotment for one person. Because Arizona's 200%-of-poverty expanded categorical eligibility from March 2026 makes the household eligible, it is entitled to the $24 one-person minimum, not $0. That gives $240 for March through December."
+us,scenario_013,snap,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Asserted that income exceeds Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility limit and then applied the regular resource limit. From March 2026 the limit is 200% of poverty ($2,608.33 a month), which the household's $2,539.33 meets. The asset test is therefore waived and the household gets the $24 minimum for ten months ($240)."
+us,scenario_013,snap,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied the regular income and asset limits. It missed Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility at 200% of poverty from March 2026, which this household's $2,539 monthly gross income satisfies and which waives both tests. That yields the $24 one-person minimum for ten months ($240)."
+us,scenario_013,snap,grok-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Treated the 100%-of-poverty net income test as controlling. Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility at 200% of poverty from March 2026 counts that test as met. The one-person household receives the $24 minimum for March through December, $240."
+us,scenario_013,snap,grok-4.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied the regular net income limit and the elderly/disabled resource limit. It missed that Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility (gross income up to 200% of poverty, $2,608.33 a month, from March 2026) waives both for this household. That yields the $24 minimum for ten months ($240)."
+us,scenario_013,snap,grok-4.7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Correctly found that 30% of net income exceeds the $298 maximum, but stopped at zero. Under Arizona's 200%-of-poverty expanded categorical eligibility from March 2026 the household is eligible, and eligible one-person households get the $24 minimum. The total is $24 × 10 = $240."
+us,scenario_013,snap,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Disqualified the household on the $4,250 elderly/disabled resource limit. Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility at 200% of poverty from March 2026 waives the asset test for this household, whose gross income is $2,539 a month. It receives the $24 minimum for ten months ($240)."
+us,scenario_013,snap,inkling,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Compared net income of about $2,310 with the 100%-of-poverty net limit. It never applied Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility at 200% of poverty from March 2026, which treats that test as met. That gives the $24 one-person minimum for March through December, $240."
+us,scenario_013,snap,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied the federal elderly/disabled resource limit and the 100%-of-poverty net income test. Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility at 200% of poverty from March 2026 covers the $2,539 monthly gross income and waives both. The household gets the $24 one-person minimum for ten months ($240)."
+us,scenario_013,snap,kimi-k3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied the one-person net income limit to net income of about $2,305. It missed that Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility at 200% of poverty ($2,608.33 a month) from March 2026 counts that test as met. The household is owed the $24 minimum for ten months, $240."
+us,scenario_013,snap,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied the regular income and asset thresholds for elderly households. It missed Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility at 200% of poverty from March 2026, which the $2,539 monthly gross income satisfies and which waives both thresholds. That yields the $24 one-person minimum for ten months ($240)."
+us,scenario_013,snap,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Disqualified the household on the $4,250 elderly/disabled asset limit. Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility at 200% of poverty from March 2026 removes the asset test for this household. It receives the $24 minimum for March through December ($240)."
+us,scenario_013,snap,muse-wonder,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied the net income limit and the resource limit to the $58,700 in bank assets. Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility at 200% of poverty from March 2026 covers the $2,539 monthly gross income and treats both tests as met. That gives the $24 one-person minimum for ten months ($240)."
+us,scenario_013,snap,ox-alpha,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Correctly exempted the household from the gross income test but then applied the 100%-of-poverty net income test. It missed that Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility at 200% of poverty from March 2026 counts the net test as met. The household receives the $24 one-person minimum for ten months, $240."
+us,scenario_013,snap,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied the 130%-of-poverty gross income test, which does not apply to an elderly/disabled household. It also missed that Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility at 200% of poverty from March 2026 covers this household's $2,539 monthly gross income. The household is categorically eligible for the $24 minimum for ten months ($240)."
+us,scenario_013,snap,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Invented a rule that households made up only of members aged 60 or older are ineligible for SNAP. In fact elderly households get favourable treatment, and from March 2026 this household is categorically eligible under Arizona's 200%-of-poverty expanded categorical eligibility. It receives the $24 one-person minimum for ten months ($240)."
us,scenario_013,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied Arizona’s 2.5% rate to $88 of dividends and capital gains without subtracting the Arizona standard deduction, which reduces taxable income to zero. It also violated its own computation by submitting $744.10 after its explanation calculated $2.20."
-us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Arizona offers no refundable individual income tax credits. It missed the refundable Credit for Increased Excise Taxes, which pays $25 per tax-unit member to single filers with Arizona AGI at or below $12,500. This filer's Arizona AGI of about $6,736 qualifies for $25."
-us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no Arizona refundable credit applies and never considered the refundable Credit for Increased Excise Taxes. With Social Security excluded, Arizona AGI is about $6,736, under the $12,500 single limit, so the one-person unit gets $25."
-us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model checked only the Family Income Tax Credit and the Property Tax Credit, which need dependents or rent/property tax. It skipped the refundable Credit for Increased Excise Taxes, which needs none of those: $25 per person for single filers with Arizona AGI at or below $12,500. Here Arizona AGI is about $6,736, so the credit is $25."
-us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model named the increased excise tax credit and found that Arizona taxable income was very low, but still said its conditions were not met. The only test is Arizona AGI at or below $12,500 for a single filer, with no rent, property tax, or dependent requirement. Arizona AGI of about $6,736 passes, so the filer gets $25."
-us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said the increased excise tax credit pays nothing to a single filer with no dependents and no tax liability. The credit is refundable and pays $25 for the taxpayer alone whenever Arizona AGI is at or below $12,500. Liability and dependents do not matter, so this filer gets $25."
-us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model found the right credit and correctly put Arizona AGI well under the limit. It then multiplied $25 by three exemptions: personal, age 65+, and disability. The Credit for Increased Excise Taxes counts only the taxpayer, spouse, and dependents, not age or disability exemptions, so a single filer gets $25, not $75. The model also used a $25,000 single-filer limit; the actual limit is $12,500."
-us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model looked only at the family income tax credit and the property tax credit and concluded nothing applied. It missed the refundable Credit for Increased Excise Taxes, which pays $25 to a single filer with Arizona AGI at or below $12,500. At about $6,736, this filer gets $25."
-us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model ruled out only the property tax credit (no rent or property tax) and the family credit (no dependents). It skipped the refundable Credit for Increased Excise Taxes, which needs neither and pays $25 to a single filer with Arizona AGI of about $6,736."
-us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model cited zero state tax liability and no dependents as reasons for $0. The refundable Credit for Increased Excise Taxes depends on neither: it pays $25 for the taxpayer alone when Arizona AGI is at or below $12,500, as this filer's $6,736 is."
-us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated having no dependents as disqualifying. The Credit for Increased Excise Taxes pays $25 per tax-unit member, including a single taxpayer with no dependents, when Arizona AGI is at or below $12,500. Here that gives $25."
-us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model required dependents, donations, or property tax/rent. The refundable Credit for Increased Excise Taxes requires none of these and is based only on Arizona AGI at or below $12,500 for single filers. This filer's AGI of about $6,736 gives $25."
-us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated Arizona's refundable credits as depending on earned income, like an EITC. The Credit for Increased Excise Taxes has no earned-income requirement: unearned pension and investment income count toward Arizona AGI, and at about $6,736 that AGI qualifies for $25."
-us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no Arizona refundable credit applies and missed the Credit for Increased Excise Taxes. Arizona AGI of about $6,736 is under the $12,500 single-filer limit, so the one-person unit gets $25."
-us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no state refundable credits apply and missed Arizona's refundable Credit for Increased Excise Taxes. That credit pays $25 to a single filer whose Arizona AGI, about $6,736 here, is at or below $12,500."
-us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said the household qualifies for no state refundable credits. It missed the Credit for Increased Excise Taxes, which pays $25 because this single filer's Arizona AGI of about $6,736 is under the $12,500 limit."
-us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said the household qualifies for no Arizona refundable credit and overlooked the Credit for Increased Excise Taxes. The credit pays $25 per tax-unit member to single filers with Arizona AGI at or below $12,500; this filer is at about $6,736."
-us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Arizona has no major refundable credit this filer qualifies for. The refundable Credit for Increased Excise Taxes applies to a single filer with Arizona AGI of about $6,736 and pays $25."
-us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model said household income exceeds the limits for Arizona refundable credits. The limit applies to Arizona AGI, not gross income. Social Security is excluded (none is federally taxable at provisional income of about $18,676, and Arizona exempts it anyway), so Arizona AGI is about $6,736, under the $12,500 excise-credit limit, which gives $25."
-us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no Arizona refundable credit is available and missed the Credit for Increased Excise Taxes. That credit pays $25 to this single filer because Arizona AGI of about $6,736 is at or below $12,500."
-us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no Arizona refundable credit applies and overlooked the Credit for Increased Excise Taxes. The credit gives $25 to a one-person unit with Arizona AGI at or below $12,500; here Arizona AGI is about $6,736."
-us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no Arizona refundable credit is triggered. The Credit for Increased Excise Taxes is triggered by low Arizona AGI alone, and this single filer's AGI of about $6,736 is under $12,500, so the credit is $25."
-us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model looked for dependents or earned income as triggers. The Credit for Increased Excise Taxes requires neither: it pays $25 for the taxpayer when Arizona AGI is at or below $12,500, as this filer's $6,736 is."
-us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model found no supported Arizona refundable credit. The facts given (single filer, Social Security excluded, pension and investment income of about $6,736) are enough to qualify for the $25 Credit for Increased Excise Taxes under the $12,500 Arizona AGI limit."
-us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model required property tax, rent, dependents, or other credit-generating facts. The Credit for Increased Excise Taxes needs only Arizona AGI at or below $12,500 for a single filer, and this filer's $6,736 gives $25."
-us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model found no refundable credit eligibility for a one-person elderly household. A one-person unit with Arizona AGI of about $6,736 qualifies for the Credit for Increased Excise Taxes at $25 per person, so the credit is $25."
-us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model found no supported Arizona refundable credit and missed the Credit for Increased Excise Taxes. With Social Security excluded, this single filer's Arizona AGI is about $6,736, under the $12,500 limit, so the credit is $25."
-us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated earnings, dependents, or expenses as required. The Credit for Increased Excise Taxes is based only on Arizona AGI at or below $12,500 for a single filer and pays $25 per tax-unit member, so this filer gets $25."
-us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model checked only the Working Poor Tax Credit, which is a nonrefundable donation credit. It missed the refundable Credit for Increased Excise Taxes, which pays $25 to a single filer with Arizona AGI of about $6,736, under the $12,500 limit."
-us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model looked only at the property tax credit, which needs property tax or rent. It ignored the refundable Credit for Increased Excise Taxes, which needs no expenses and pays $25 to a single filer with Arizona AGI of about $6,736."
-us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said household composition and income level rule out state refundable credits. A one-person unit with Arizona AGI of about $6,736 is exactly who the $25 Credit for Increased Excise Taxes covers, since the single-filer limit is $12,500."
-us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model cited zero taxable income and no qualifying dependents as reasons for $0. The Credit for Increased Excise Taxes is refundable, needs no tax liability or dependents, and pays $25 to a single filer with Arizona AGI at or below $12,500, as here."
-us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model looked for a refundable EITC or property tax credit and stopped there. Arizona's refundable Credit for Increased Excise Taxes has no earned-income or expense requirement and pays $25 to this single filer, whose Arizona AGI is about $6,736."
-us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model tested the excise credit against total income of $30,544, which includes $23,736 of Social Security. The test uses Arizona AGI. Social Security is not federally taxable at provisional income of about $18,676 and is exempt in Arizona anyway, so Arizona AGI is about $6,736. That is under the single-filer limit (actually $12,500, not the $25,000 the model cited) and gives $25."
-us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated having no dependents as disqualifying. The Credit for Increased Excise Taxes pays $25 for the taxpayer alone when Arizona AGI is at or below $12,500, so this single filer with about $6,736 of Arizona AGI gets $25."
-us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model required qualifying children or earned income. The Credit for Increased Excise Taxes requires neither and pays $25 to a single filer whose Arizona AGI, here about $6,736 of pension and investment income, is at or below $12,500."
-us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model tested only the property tax refund credit, using gross income of $30,544. It missed the separate refundable Credit for Increased Excise Taxes, which uses Arizona AGI. Social Security is excluded, leaving about $6,736, under the $12,500 single limit, which gives $25."
-us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model required qualifying children or earned income and checked only an EITC and family credit. The Credit for Increased Excise Taxes pays $25 per tax-unit member, including a lone taxpayer with only unearned income, when Arizona AGI is at or below $12,500, as this filer's $6,736 is."
-us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model reasoned that with no Arizona tax liability there was nothing to offset. The Credit for Increased Excise Taxes is refundable and paid regardless of liability: a single filer with Arizona AGI of about $6,736, under the $12,500 limit, gets $25."
-us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $14,717 ESI premiums from the gross wage input, which cut AGI to $74,211 instead of $88,927.65. It then submitted $5,647, which matches neither its own $4,545 calculation nor the correct $56,727.65 × 2026 bracket result of $6,311.32."
-us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a $28,000 standard deduction instead of the 2026 MFJ amount of $32,200. It also taxed all of its taxable income at 12% and skipped the 10% bracket on the first $24,800. Finally, it replaced its own $7,311 result with an unexplained $6,819."
-us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model gave a rough '12% bracket' estimate of $6,900 and never actually ran the brackets. The correct calculation subtracts the $32,200 standard deduction, takes 10% of the first $24,800, and takes 12% of the remaining $31,927.65, for $6,311.32."
-us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used an outdated 10% bracket ceiling of $24,150 instead of the 2026 MFJ figure of $24,800, which gave $6,324. It then dropped even that figure for an unsupported $5,235."
-us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,other,False,"The model's own bracket calculation reached about $6,311, essentially the correct answer, but it submitted $7,466. Nothing in its reasoning supports that number."
-us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"The model applied the correct $32,200 standard deduction and the $24,800 10% bracket ceiling and arrived at $6,311. It then replaced that with an unsupported $6,712, citing 'estimated bracket thresholds'."
-us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the pre-OBBBA 2025 values: a $30,000 standard deduction and a $23,850 10% bracket ceiling. The 2026 MFJ values are a $32,200 deduction and a $24,800 ceiling, so the model overstated taxable income by $2,200 and produced $6,594."
-us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model guessed a $32,600 standard deduction and a $24,000 10% bracket ceiling, which gave $6,279. It then submitted an unsupported $8,079 instead of the correct $6,311.32 from the $32,200 deduction and $24,800 ceiling."
-us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a $30,600 standard deduction and a $24,400 10% bracket ceiling. The correct 2026 MFJ values are $32,200 and $24,800, so its taxable income was $1,600 too high and its tax came to $6,511."
-us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model assumed the TCJA expired in 2026 and applied a $15,400 standard deduction, personal exemptions, and a 15% bracket. OBBBA made the $32,200 MFJ deduction and the 10%/12% brackets permanent. The model also subtracted the $14,717 ESI premiums from the gross wage input."
-us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied TCJA-sunset rules: a $16,600 standard deduction, $10,600 in personal exemptions, and a 15% second bracket. Under OBBBA, 2026 law has a $32,200 deduction, no exemptions, and a 12% bracket. The model also wrongly cut wages by the $14,717 ESI premiums."
-us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 2025 OBBBA standard deduction of $31,500 instead of the inflation-adjusted 2026 MFJ amount of $32,200. That overstated taxable income by $700 and tax by $84, giving $6,395.36."
-us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model assumed the TCJA sunset and applied a $15,850 standard deduction, $10,100 in exemptions, and a 15% bracket. 2026 law instead has a $32,200 deduction and 10%/12% brackets. The model also subtracted the $14,717 ESI premiums, which reduced AGI to $74,211."
-us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's $13,915 is more than double the correct tax and is consistent with a much smaller deduction or higher rates. The correct calculation is $88,927.65 minus the $32,200 deduction, giving $56,727.65 of taxable income, with only 10% and 12% brackets applying, for $6,311.32."
-us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model assumed the TCJA expired and used pre-TCJA deductions, exemptions totaling about $27,500, and pre-TCJA brackets. It also subtracted the $14,717 ESI premiums from wages. In fact, 2026 law has a $32,200 standard deduction and 10%/12% brackets applied to $88,927.65 of AGI."
-us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model assumed a TCJA sunset and used a $16,000 standard deduction, a 10% bracket of only $16,800, and a 15% rate. It also subtracted the ESI premiums from wages. The 2026 MFJ values are a $32,200 deduction, a $24,800 10% bracket, and a 12% rate on wages of $88,927.65."
-us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model claimed the standard deduction reduces tax to zero, but $32,200 leaves $56,727.65 of taxable income from the $88,927.65 in wages. That produces $6,311.32 in tax, and no nonrefundable credits apply to offset it."
-us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model subtracted the $14,717 ESI premiums, which reduced AGI to $74,211. It also applied personal exemptions and TCJA-sunset rules, even though OBBBA set 2026 law at a $32,200 standard deduction with no exemptions and 10%/12% brackets."
-us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied TCJA-sunset rules: a $16,100 standard deduction, $10,600 in exemptions, and a 15% bracket above $23,200. It also subtracted the $14,717 ESI premiums. 2026 law instead has a $32,200 deduction and 10%/12% brackets applied to $88,927.65 of wages."
-us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the pre-OBBBA 2025 values: a $30,000 standard deduction and a $23,850 10% bracket ceiling. The correct 2026 MFJ values are $32,200 and $24,800, so its taxable income was $2,200 too high and its result was $6,594.36."
-us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a $30,000 standard deduction and a $24,000 10% bracket ceiling instead of the 2026 MFJ values of $32,200 and $24,800. As a result, it computed tax on $58,928 rather than $56,727.65."
-us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,other,False,"The model invented facts that are not in the household data: both spouses over 65, a Kentucky rate of 5.3%, Form 8814 child income, and state family-size and elderly credits. It never computed federal tax on the $56,727.65 of taxable income left after the $32,200 MFJ standard deduction."
-us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's $10,458 is far above the correct figure and is consistent with too small a deduction or too high a marginal rate. The correct result applies the 2026 $32,200 MFJ deduction to $88,927.65 of wages, then 10% up to $24,800 and 12% on the remainder, for $6,311.32."
-us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model claimed nonrefundable credits or the standard deduction eliminate the tax. The household has no dependents or qualifying expenses, so there are no nonrefundable credits, and $56,727.65 of taxable income remains after the $32,200 deduction."
-us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied 'scheduled post-TCJA' parameters: a smaller standard deduction plus two personal exemptions, which gave about $61,828 of taxable income, along with a 15% bracket. OBBBA made the $32,200 MFJ deduction and the 10%/12% brackets permanent for 2026."
-us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model asserted that the standard deduction offsets all $88,928 of wages. The 2026 MFJ deduction is only $32,200, which leaves $56,727.65 of taxable income and $6,311.32 of tax."
-us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model assumed a TCJA sunset and used a $17,018 standard deduction, $10,854 in personal exemptions, and a 15% second bracket. 2026 law under OBBBA has a $32,200 deduction, no exemptions, and a 12% bracket up to $100,800."
-us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model restored personal exemptions and the pre-TCJA standard deduction and taxed $61,928 at 10%/15% rates. OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent, so the correct calculation uses the $32,200 deduction and 10%/12% brackets."
-us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model treated 2026 as a TCJA-sunset year, with a $16,600 standard deduction, $10,600 in exemptions, and a 15% bracket. Under OBBBA, the MFJ deduction is $32,200, there are no exemptions, and the second bracket is 12%."
-us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $14,717 ESI premiums from the gross wage input, which cut AGI to $74,211 instead of $88,927.65. It also used an understated $30,840 standard deduction and a $24,520 10% bracket instead of the 2026 values of $32,200 and $24,800."
-us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied pre-TCJA rules: a standard deduction of about $16,700, two exemptions of about $5,300 each, and a 15% bracket. 2026 law has a $32,200 MFJ deduction with 10%/12% brackets, which yields $6,311.32."
-us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no value or explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was no answer to score."
-us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model claimed the standard deduction and a personal exemption reduce the wages to near zero. 2026 law has no personal exemption, and the $32,200 MFJ deduction leaves $56,727.65 of taxable income and $6,311.32 of tax."
-us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model included the spouse's $18,480 of veterans benefits in AGI, even though VA benefits are fully excluded. It also used a $32,600 deduction and invented two children to claim a $4,000 CTC, then submitted a negative $-17,600 that contradicts its own $4,616.80."
-us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model applied CTC/ODC to wipe out the tax, but the household has no children or other dependents, so neither credit exists. It also wrongly claimed the standard deduction zeroes out $88,927.65 of wages."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said Arizona offers no refundable individual credits. It overlooked the refundable Increased Excise Tax Credit, which pays $25 to a single filer with federal AGI at or below $12,500. This filer's AGI is $6,736, so they qualify."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model concluded that no Arizona refundable credit applies and never tested the Increased Excise Tax Credit. That credit gives $25 to a single filer with federal AGI at or below $12,500, and this filer's AGI is $6,736."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model checked only the Family Income Tax Credit and the Property Tax Credit, which need dependents or rent/property tax. It missed the refundable Increased Excise Tax Credit, which has no such requirement and pays $25 to a single filer with federal AGI of $6,736."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model named the Increased Excise Tax Credit but treated it as needing rent or property tax payments. The only income test is federal AGI at or below $12,500 for a single filer. With AGI of $6,736, the filer gets $25, and the model's own finding of very low income supports eligibility."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model assumed the Increased Excise Tax Credit pays nothing to a single filer with no dependents and no tax liability. The credit is refundable and includes $25 for the filer, so it is paid in full at federal AGI of $6,736, below the $12,500 single limit."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model found the Increased Excise Tax Credit but multiplied $25 by three exemptions: personal, age 65+, and disability. The credit is $25 per person in the tax unit (the filer plus dependents), not per age or disability exemption. A one-person unit gets $25, not $75."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model looked only at the family income tax credit and the property tax credit. It missed the refundable Increased Excise Tax Credit, which pays $25 to a single filer with federal AGI at or below $12,500 and needs no dependents. This filer's AGI is $6,736."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model ruled out credits that need rent, property tax or dependents. It never applied the refundable Increased Excise Tax Credit, which gives $25 to a single filer with federal AGI at or below $12,500, here $6,736."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated zero state tax liability and no dependents as ruling out refundable credits. The Increased Excise Tax Credit is refundable regardless of liability and pays $25 for the filer at federal AGI of $6,736."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model assumed Arizona's refundable credits require dependents. The Increased Excise Tax Credit includes $25 for the filer, so a single filer with federal AGI of $6,736 (below $12,500) gets $25."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model required dependents, donations, or property tax/rent facts and missed the Increased Excise Tax Credit, which has none of these conditions. That credit pays $25 to a single filer with federal AGI at or below $12,500, here $6,736."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model looked for an Arizona EITC, which does not exist, and used the lack of earned income to zero out the credits. The refundable Increased Excise Tax Credit needs no earnings and pays $25 to a single filer with federal AGI of $6,736."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said no refundable credit applies and never evaluated the Increased Excise Tax Credit. It pays $25 to a single filer with federal AGI at or below $12,500, and this filer's AGI is $6,736."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model asserted there are no state-specific refundable credits and missed Arizona's refundable Increased Excise Tax Credit. That credit gives $25 to a single filer with federal AGI of $6,736, below the $12,500 limit."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model concluded no refundable credit applies without testing the Increased Excise Tax Credit. That credit pays $25 per tax-unit member to single filers with federal AGI at or below $12,500, and this filer's AGI is $6,736."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said the household qualifies for no refundable credits and overlooked the Increased Excise Tax Credit. That credit pays $25 to a single filer whose federal AGI ($6,736) is below the $12,500 limit."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model dismissed Arizona's refundable credits as not applicable and missed the Increased Excise Tax Credit. It pays $25 to a single filer with federal AGI of $6,736, below the $12,500 threshold."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model claimed the household's income exceeds the limits. The Increased Excise Tax Credit tests federal AGI against $12,500 for a single filer. Nontaxable Social Security is excluded, so AGI is only $6,736, and the full $25 is allowed."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a nonexistent $5,500 single-filer AGI limit for the Increased Excise Tax Credit. The actual limit is $12,500, and federal AGI of $6,736 is under it, so the credit is $25."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said no Arizona refundable credits are available and never applied the Increased Excise Tax Credit. That credit pays $25 to a single filer with federal AGI at or below $12,500, here $6,736."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model concluded no refundable credit applies and missed the Increased Excise Tax Credit. That credit gives $25 to a single filer whose federal AGI ($6,736) is below $12,500."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model found no triggering facts. The only facts the Increased Excise Tax Credit needs are Arizona residence and federal AGI at or below $12,500 for a single filer, and both are met at $6,736, giving $25."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model looked for dependents or earned income to trigger a refundable credit. The Increased Excise Tax Credit needs neither and pays $25 to a single filer with federal AGI of $6,736."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model found no supported refundable credit and missed the Increased Excise Tax Credit. Its only test is federal AGI at or below $12,500 for a single filer, which is met at $6,736, giving $25."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model required property tax, rent, or dependents and missed the Increased Excise Tax Credit, which needs none of these. That credit pays $25 to a single filer with federal AGI of $6,736."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model found no refundable credit for a one-person elderly household. The Increased Excise Tax Credit pays $25 for the filer when federal AGI is at or below $12,500, and this filer's AGI is $6,736."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model concluded no refundable Arizona credit is supported and overlooked the Increased Excise Tax Credit. That credit gives $25 to a single filer whose federal AGI ($6,736) is under $12,500."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model required earnings, dependents, or expenses. The refundable Increased Excise Tax Credit needs only federal AGI at or below $12,500 for a single filer and pays $25 here at AGI of $6,736."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model tested the Working Poor Tax Credit, which is a nonrefundable credit for donations, and missed the refundable Increased Excise Tax Credit. That credit pays $25 to a single filer with federal AGI of $6,736."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model checked only the property tax credit and missed the Increased Excise Tax Credit. That credit needs no property tax or other expenses and pays $25 to a single filer with federal AGI at or below $12,500, here $6,736."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said no refundable credits apply for this household and income. A single filer with federal AGI of $6,736, below $12,500, qualifies for the $25 Increased Excise Tax Credit."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated zero taxable income and no dependents as ruling out refundable credits. The Increased Excise Tax Credit is refundable regardless of liability and pays $25 for the filer at federal AGI of $6,736."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model looked for a refundable Arizona EITC or property tax credit and used the lack of earned income to conclude zero. The Increased Excise Tax Credit needs no earnings or property tax and pays $25 at federal AGI of $6,736."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model measured income as $30,544, which includes nontaxable Social Security, and used a $25,000 single limit. The credit tests federal AGI ($6,736, excluding nontaxable Social Security) against a $12,500 single limit. The filer qualifies for $25."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model assumed refundable credits require dependents. The Increased Excise Tax Credit includes $25 for the filer, so a single filer with federal AGI of $6,736 gets $25."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said no Arizona refundable credit qualifies at this income. The Increased Excise Tax Credit allows federal AGI up to $12,500 for a single filer, and this filer's AGI of $6,736 gives $25."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model required qualifying children or earned income. The Increased Excise Tax Credit needs neither and pays $25 to a single filer with federal AGI of $6,736."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model tested only the property tax credit's income limit against $30,544 of total income including Social Security. It missed the separate Increased Excise Tax Credit, which tests federal AGI ($6,736) against $12,500 and pays $25."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model looked for an Arizona EITC or family credit that needs children or earnings. The Increased Excise Tax Credit needs neither and pays $25 to a single filer with federal AGI of $6,736."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model tied refundable credits to having tax liability to offset. The Increased Excise Tax Credit is refundable regardless of liability and pays $25 to a single filer with federal AGI of $6,736."
+us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $14,717 ESI premium from wages as a pre-tax cafeteria deduction, which gave AGI of $74,211. The listed gross wages of $88,928 are the AGI base. It then submitted $5,647, which does not even match its own $4,545 computation. With the correct $32,200 deduction and 10%/12% brackets, AGI of $88,927.65 gives $6,311.32."
+us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $28,000 standard deduction instead of the 2026 MFJ amount of $32,200, and it taxed all of the resulting $60,928 at 12%, skipping the 10% bracket on the first $24,800. It then replaced its own $7,311 with an unexplained $6,819."
+us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave a rounded guess of about $6,900 instead of computing $2,480 + 12% × ($56,727.65 − $24,800) = $6,311.32. Its number implies taxable income of about $61,600, meaning a deduction roughly $5,000 below the 2026 MFJ standard deduction of $32,200."
+us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,other,False,"It used the correct $32,200 deduction and $56,728 taxable income but ended the 10% bracket at $24,150 instead of the 2026 MFJ figure of $24,800, which gave $6,324. It then dropped that figure for an unsupported $5,235."
+us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,other,False,"Its own reasoning reached about $6,311 from roughly $56,628 of taxable income taxed at 10% and 12%. It then submitted $7,466, which contradicts that calculation and has no basis in the facts."
+us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"It used the correct 2026 parameters ($32,200 deduction, 10% to $24,800) and arrived at $6,311. It then submitted $6,712 citing vague 'estimated bracket thresholds', abandoning its correct result."
+us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the pre-OBBBA 2025 $30,000 MFJ standard deduction and the 2025 10% bracket top of $23,850, instead of the 2026 figures of $32,200 and $24,800. That inflated taxable income to $58,928 and tax to $6,594."
+us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,other,False,"It estimated a $32,600 deduction and a 10% bracket ending at $24,000, which gave about $6,279. It then submitted $8,079 with no supporting step, contradicting its own arithmetic. The correct 2026 parameters give $6,311.32."
+us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $30,600 MFJ standard deduction and a 10% bracket ending at $24,400, instead of the 2026 figures of $32,200 and $24,800. That overstated taxable income at $58,328 and tax at $6,511."
+us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired in 2026 and applied a $15,400 deduction, $10,000 of personal exemptions and a 15% bracket. The OBBBA made the $32,200 MFJ deduction and the 12% bracket permanent, with no exemptions. It also wrongly subtracted the $14,717 ESI premium from wages."
+us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset rules: a $16,600 deduction, $10,600 of personal exemptions and a 15% second bracket. 2026 law has a $32,200 MFJ deduction, no exemptions and a 12% bracket up to $100,800. It also reduced wages by the $14,717 ESI premium, which does not lower the listed gross wages."
+us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 OBBBA MFJ standard deduction of $31,500 instead of the 2026 inflation-adjusted $32,200. Taxable income was $700 too high, so the tax was $84 too high at $6,395.36 instead of $6,311.32."
+us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA sunset and used a $15,850 deduction, $10,100 of exemptions and a 15% bracket. 2026 law has a $32,200 MFJ deduction with 10%/12% brackets. It also subtracted the $14,717 ESI premium from the $88,928 gross wages."
+us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $13,915 is more than double the correct figure, $2,480 + 12% × $31,927.65 = $6,311.32 on $56,727.65 of taxable income. It even exceeds the 10%/12% tax on all $88,928 with no deduction ($10,175), so it applied rates above 12% and did not properly apply the $32,200 standard deduction."
+us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired and used about $27,500 of combined standard deduction and personal exemptions with pre-TCJA 15% brackets. 2026 law has a $32,200 MFJ deduction and a 12% bracket. It also wrongly subtracted the $14,717 ESI premium from wages."
+us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA sunset and used a $16,000 deduction, a 10% bracket ending at $16,800 and 15% above that. 2026 law has a $32,200 deduction, 10% up to $24,800 and 12% above. It also reduced wages by the $14,717 ESI premium."
+us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the standard deduction wipes out the spouse's $88,928 in wages. The 2026 MFJ standard deduction is only $32,200, which leaves $56,727.65 taxable and $6,311.32 of tax, with no credits to offset it."
+us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It subtracted the $14,717 ESI premium to get AGI of $74,211, then applied TCJA-sunset personal exemptions and a pre-TCJA standard deduction. The correct base is $88,927.65 less the 2026 MFJ standard deduction of $32,200, taxed at 10%/12%."
+us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset law: a $16,100 deduction, $10,600 of exemptions and a 15% bracket. It also started from an AGI of $74,211 that wrongly excluded the $14,717 ESI premium. 2026 law has a $32,200 deduction, no exemptions and a 12% second bracket, applied to $88,927.65 of wages."
+us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the pre-OBBBA 2025 $30,000 MFJ standard deduction and the $23,850 10% bracket top, instead of the 2026 figures of $32,200 and $24,800. That overstated taxable income at $58,928 and tax at $6,594.36."
+us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $8,019.20 matches a TCJA-sunset calculation: a roughly $16,600 deduction plus two personal exemptions, leaving about $61,700 taxed at 10%/15%. The correct 2026 calculation is $56,727.65 after the $32,200 deduction, taxed at 10%/12%, for $6,311.32."
+us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $30,000 MFJ standard deduction and a 10% bracket ending at $24,000, instead of the 2026 figures of $32,200 and $24,800. That overstated taxable income at $58,928 and tax at $6,591.36."
+us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,other,False,"It invented facts: it treated both spouses as 65 or older (they are 41 and 38), applied Kentucky's 5.3% rate and Kentucky family-size and elderly credits to a West Virginia household's federal tax, and added Form 8814 child income that does not exist. The federal liability is 10%/12% tax on $56,727.65, which is $6,311.32."
+us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $10,458 exceeds even the 10%/12% tax on all $88,928 with no deduction ($10,175), so it did not properly apply the $32,200 2026 MFJ standard deduction and used rates above 12%. The correct taxable income of $56,727.65 sits entirely within the 10% and 12% brackets, for $6,311.32."
+us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed nonrefundable credits or the standard deduction eliminate the liability. The household has no dependents or qualifying expenses, so there are no nonrefundable credits, and the $32,200 deduction leaves $56,727.65 taxable, producing $6,311.32."
+us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied 'scheduled post-TCJA' parameters (a pre-TCJA standard deduction plus two personal exemptions, a 15% bracket), which gave $61,828 of taxable income and $8,062. The OBBBA made the $32,200 MFJ deduction and the 12% bracket permanent for 2026."
+us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the standard deduction offsets all of the spouse's $88,928 in wages. The 2026 MFJ standard deduction is $32,200, leaving $56,727.65 taxable at 10%/12% for $6,311.32."
+us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA sunset, using a $17,018 deduction, $10,854 of personal exemptions and a 15% bracket above $24,991. 2026 law has a $32,200 MFJ deduction, no exemptions and 12% up to $100,800, which gives $6,311.32."
+us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied 'current-law sunset' personal exemptions and the pre-TCJA standard deduction, which gave $61,928 of taxable income taxed at 10%/15%. The OBBBA kept the $32,200 MFJ deduction and the 12% bracket for 2026."
+us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired, using a $16,600 deduction, $10,600 of exemptions and 15% above $24,850, which gave $8,016.70. 2026 law has a $32,200 deduction and 12% above $24,800, for $6,311.32."
+us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $14,717 ESI premium from the listed gross wages, which cut AGI to $74,211. It also used a guessed $30,840 deduction and a $24,520 10% bracket top instead of the 2026 figures of $32,200 and $24,800."
+us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used pre-TCJA rules: a roughly $16,700 deduction, two roughly $5,300 personal exemptions and a 15% bracket. 2026 law has a $32,200 MFJ deduction, no exemptions and 12% up to $100,800."
+us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No value or explanation was returned for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so nothing could be scored. The correct calculation is $56,727.65 of taxable income at 2026 MFJ rates, which is $6,311.32."
+us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the standard deduction and a personal exemption reduce $88,928 of wages to near zero. 2026 law has no personal exemption, and the $32,200 MFJ deduction leaves $56,727.65 taxable, producing $6,311.32."
+us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It estimated the 2026 MFJ standard deduction at $32,382 instead of the actual $32,200, which understated taxable income at about $56,546. Its rounded tax of $6,295 falls short of $6,311.32."
+us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,other,False,"It counted the spouse's $18,480 in VA benefits as taxable, although all VA benefits are excluded from gross income. It also invented two children to claim a $4,000 CTC that no listed fact supports. It then submitted −$17,600, a negative number unrelated to its own $4,616.80 result; a tax before refundable credits cannot be negative."
+us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It claimed the standard deduction and the CTC/ODC eliminate the tax. The household has no dependents, so no CTC or ODC is available, and the $32,200 deduction leaves $56,727.65 taxable, which is $6,311.32."
us,scenario_014,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no usable value or explanation for federal_refundable_credits, so its answer was missing rather than a wrong calculation. The correct result is $0 because the household has no children, and its $88,928 in wages is far above the income limit for the childless EITC."
-us,scenario_014,federal_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model counted a refundable Child Tax Credit even though the household has no qualifying children, so refundable CTC is $0. It also gave an EITC, but $88,928 of wages for a joint filer with no children is far above the childless EITC phase-out end of about $26,820. Its $3,067 total comes from credits this household is not eligible for."
+us,scenario_014,federal_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model counted a refundable Child Tax Credit even though the household has no qualifying children, so refundable CTC is $0. It also gave an EITC, but $88,928 of wages for a joint filer with no children is far above the childless EITC phase-out end of about $26,000. Its $3,067 total comes from credits this household is not eligible for."
us,scenario_014,head_medicaid_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model treated the head's lack of earned income as though Medicaid were tested on the head's income alone, omitting the spouse's wages and other amounts included in household tax-unit MAGI. The resulting MAGI is 4.11 times FPL, above the West Virginia adult limit, and the head has no pregnancy, disability, dependent-child, SSI, or other categorical eligibility pathway."
us,scenario_014,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model got the right Social Security figure on the spouse's $88,928. It then miscomputed Medicare as $1,289.56 instead of $1,289.46. It also added a made-up $6.21 '0.2% state tax' for West Virginia, right after saying WV has no mandatory employee state payroll tax. That extra state tax and the Medicare slip raised the total from $6,802.99 to $6,809.31."
us,scenario_014,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model subtracted the spouse's $14,717 in employer-sponsored insurance premiums from her wages as if they were pre-tax cafeteria-plan deductions. It then applied FICA to $74,211, but the facts give no salary-reduction arrangement, so the full $88,928 is the base. The correct 7.65% of $88,928 is $6,802.99, not $5,677."
@@ -1160,147 +1198,153 @@ us,scenario_014,payroll_tax,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The
us,scenario_014,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no payroll_tax value and no explanation, so there is no answer to grade. The correct derivation is 7.65% of the spouse's $88,928 wages, about $6,803."
us,scenario_014,payroll_tax,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"The model's explanation computes $5,513.54 Social Security plus $1,289.46 Medicare, about $6,803, on the spouse's $88,928 wages. It then submitted 'value = 6581', a number that contradicts its own sum."
us,scenario_014,payroll_tax,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,other,False,"The model stated the correct components, $5,513.54 Social Security and $1,289.46 Medicare on $88,928 with no Additional Medicare Tax. It then submitted $8,075.02 instead of their $6,802.99 sum, adding about $1,272 that its own explanation never supports."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly found $84,928 of taxable income but applied the 2025 WV rates (2.22–4.82%), getting about $3,256. It then raised that to $3,374 for no stated reason. The 2026 schedule (2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58%) gives $3,092.19."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The taxable income of $84,928 was right, but the rates it assumed (2.13/2.84/3.20/4.26/4.63%) reflect only about a 4% cut from 2025. The 2026 law cut a full 5%, to 2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58%, which gives $3,092.19, not $3,125.17."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $14,717 ESI premium from wages, and its arithmetic was also wrong ($74,411 instead of $74,211). It never took the two $2,000 WV personal exemptions and applied a made-up ~4.5% average rate instead of the graduated schedule. The correct base is $84,927.65, taxed at 2.11–4.58%."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave a rounded $2,700 guess with no calculation. The correct path, $88,927.65 AGI minus $4,000 in exemptions = $84,927.65 taxed under the 2026 WV MFJ brackets (2.11–4.58%), gives $3,092.19. So $2,700 understates the tax at the right rates."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It computed $3,255 using the 2025 rates (2.22–4.82%) instead of the 2026 rates (2.11–4.58%). It then subtracted about $378 for nonrefundable credits that it had already said do not apply, ending at $2,877."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a mix of rates (2.2%, 2.96%, 3.33%, 4.07%, 4.625%) that matches no enacted WV schedule, totaling $3,130. It then applied an arbitrary further cut to reach $2,849. The 2026 schedule of 2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58% on $84,927.65 gives $3,092.19."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The $84,928 taxable income was right, but $1,655 is roughly half the tax that the 2026 brackets produce on that amount. The model misapplied the rate schedule; 2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58% across the $10k/$25k/$40k/$60k breakpoints gives $3,092.19."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the 2025 WV rates (2.22–4.82%) to the correct $84,928 base, producing $3,255.03. It missed the further 5% rate cut for 2026, to 2.11–4.58%, which gives $3,092.19."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a four-bracket schedule (2.36–4.72%) with no $60k breakpoint and got $3,360. It then reported $1,919 by assuming unexplained credits and further cuts, even though it had said no credits apply. The 2026 schedule (2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58%) on $84,927.65 gives $3,092.19."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The $84,928 base was right, but it estimated the tax with a vague blend of rates (2.36% to a 4.82–5.12% top rate) rather than the 2026 schedule of 2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58%. That overstated the tax at about $3,200 instead of $3,092.19."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It explicitly assumed the 2024 rates (2.36/3.15/3.54/4.72/5.12%) still apply in 2026. It missed both the 2025 cut and the further 2026 cut to 2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58%, which gives $3,092.19 instead of $3,459.80."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It invented a $4,000 WV standard deduction and $6,000 exemptions per person. WV has no standard deduction and allows $2,000 per exemption, so taxable income is $84,927.65, not $72,928. It also used outdated, distorted rates (2.36–5.16%) instead of the 2026 schedule of 2.11–4.58%."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started from $74,211 by subtracting the ESI premium, which is not deducted again, so AGI is $88,927.65. It then subtracted a nonexistent $15,400 WV standard deduction instead of two $2,000 exemptions, and used a made-up three-rate schedule topping out at 5.12%."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It cut AGI to $74,211 by subtracting the $14,717 ESI premium and added a nonexistent $4,000 WV standard deduction, giving $66,211 instead of $84,927.65. Its rates (2.18–4.72%) were also slightly above the 2026 schedule of 2.11–4.58%."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It subtracted $8,000 of deductions and exemptions, but WV allows only $4,000 in exemptions, so taxable income is $84,927.65. It also applied rates (1.69–4.29%) well below the 2026 schedule of 2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58%."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $14,717 ESI premium to get $74,211 AGI, but AGI is the full $88,927.65, which makes taxable income $84,927.65, not $70,211. It also used the 2024 rates topping out at 5.12% instead of the 2026 rates of 2.11–4.58%."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave $4,125 with no calculation, which implies an effective rate of about 4.9% on $84,928, consistent with a flat top-bracket rate. WV taxes in graduated brackets of 2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58% in 2026, which gives $3,092.19."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the ESI premium from wages to get $74,211 and taxed $70,211. AGI is $88,927.65, so taxable income is $84,927.65. Its $2,706 also reflects the 2024 rates (2.36–5.12%), not the 2026 rates of 2.11–4.58%."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reduced AGI to $74,211 by subtracting the $14,717 ESI premium, giving taxable income of $70,211 instead of $84,927.65. It also applied the 2024 rate schedule (top rate 5.12%) rather than the 2026 rates of 2.11–4.58%."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed standard deductions and exemptions wipe out the tax. WV has no standard deduction and allows only $4,000 in exemptions here, leaving $84,927.65 taxable, which produces $3,092.19 at the 2026 rates."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started from $74,211 by subtracting the ESI premium, so it taxed $70,211 instead of $84,927.65. Its $2,706.30 matches the 2024 schedule (2.36–5.12%), not the 2026 schedule of 2.11–4.58%."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $14,717 ESI premium to get $74,211 AGI and $70,211 taxable income. The correct base is $88,927.65 − $4,000 = $84,927.65, taxed at 2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58% for $3,092.19."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The $84,928 base was right, but it applied the 2024 rates (2.36/3.15/3.54/4.72/5.12%). It missed the 2025 and 2026 cuts down to 2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58%, which give $3,092.19."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It invented an $8,000 WV standard deduction, which does not exist, and applied the 4.82% top rate flat to all of taxable income instead of using graduated brackets. The correct calculation taxes $84,927.65 through the 2026 brackets of 2.11–4.58%."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It computed Kentucky income tax with a Kentucky family size credit, using an unrelated $25,050 taxable income, for a West Virginia household. WV taxes $84,927.65 at the 2026 rates of 2.11–4.58%, which gives $3,092.19."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave $2,331 with no calculation, which understates the tax on $84,927.65 under the 2026 WV MFJ brackets (2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58%). Those brackets give $3,092.19."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed deductions and nonrefundable items eliminate the tax. WV allows only two $2,000 exemptions and no standard deduction, and no nonrefundable credit applies at this income, so $84,927.65 is taxable and produces $3,092.19."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the 2025 WV rates (2.22/2.96/3.33/4.44/4.82%) to the correct $84,928 base, giving $3,255.03. It missed the further 5% cut for 2026, to 2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58%, which gives $3,092.19."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The $84,928 taxable income was right, but its $3,217.53 comes from a rate schedule above the 2026 WV rates. The 2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58% schedule gives $3,092.19."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $3,255.03 is the 2025 schedule (2.22–4.82%) applied to $84,928. It did not apply the 2026 5% rate cut to 2.11–4.58%, which gives $3,092.19."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $3,255 equals the 2025 WV rates (2.22–4.82%) on $84,928 of taxable income. The 2026 rates of 2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58% give $3,092.19."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It explicitly used the 2025 rates of 2.22/2.96/3.33/4.44/4.82% on $84,928. It missed the 2026 cut to 2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58%, which gives $3,092.19."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The $84,928 base was right, but its $3,192.03 reflects rates partway between the 2025 and 2026 schedules. The full 2026 schedule of 2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58% gives $3,092.19."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the 2025 joint rates of 2.22/2.96/3.33/4.44/4.82% to $84,928, giving $3,255.03. The 2026 rates, cut another 5% to 2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58%, give $3,092.19."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The $84,928 base was right, but its $2,952.20 implies rates below the 2026 WV schedule. The 2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58% brackets on $84,927.65 give $3,092.19."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied a standard deduction that WV does not have and concluded the tax is zero. Only $4,000 in exemptions comes off $88,927.65 AGI, leaving $84,927.65 taxable and $3,092.19 of tax."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the 2024 brackets (2.36/3.15/3.54/4.72/5.12%) are still the 2026 baseline. It missed the 2025 and 2026 cuts to 2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58%, which give $3,092.19 instead of $3,460."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted about $20,600 of made-up deductions and exemptions. WV allows only two $2,000 exemptions, for $84,927.65 of taxable income. It also used the outdated 2.36–5.12% rates instead of the 2026 rates of 2.11–4.58%."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It carried rates of 2.27/3.02/3.40/4.53/4.92% into 2026. Those are the 2024 rates cut 4%, not the 2026 schedule of 2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58%, which gives $3,092.19 rather than $3,322.46."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the ESI premium to get $74,211 AGI and then took the federal standard deduction of $30,840, which WV does not allow. It also used made-up 2/3/4/5% rates. WV taxable income is $84,927.65 after only $4,000 in exemptions, taxed at 2.11–4.58%."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It had about $84,900 of taxable income, correctly, but its $3,422 implies the pre-2025 rate schedule (top rate near 5.12%). The 2026 rates of 2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58% give $3,092.19."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It subtracted the $14,717 ESI premium from wages and invented an $8,000 WV standard deduction, ending at $62,211 instead of $84,927.65. It then applied a flat 4.5% rate, but WV still uses graduated brackets (2.11–4.58% in 2026)."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the 2024 brackets, $2,183.50 plus 5.12% above $60k, to $84,928. The 2026 brackets of 2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58% produce $1,950.50 plus 4.58% of the excess over $60k, for $3,092.19."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the personal exemption reduces taxable wages to zero. The WV exemption is only $2,000 per person ($4,000 total), leaving $84,927.65 taxable and $3,092.19 of tax."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 schedule with a 4.82% top rate on $84,928, giving $3,255.03. The 2026 schedule caps at 4.58% (2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58%) and gives $3,092.19."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used inconsistent bracket amounts ($222, $438, $552, $854) with a 4.82% top rate. Neither matches the 2026 schedule, which gives $211 + $421.50 + $474 + $844 + 4.58% × $24,927.65 = $3,092.19."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It subtracted the ESI premium to get $74,211 AGI and used a made-up rate schedule that runs backwards, from 4.80% down to 2.88%. It then applied a 4% family tax credit that does not apply at this income. The correct calculation taxes $84,927.65 at 2.11% rising to 4.58%."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the federal standard deduction, which WV does not allow, and assumed nonrefundable credits wipe out the tax. WV taxable income is $84,927.65 after $4,000 in exemptions, and no nonrefundable credit applies, so the tax is $3,092.19."
-us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its reasoning matches the reference exactly: AGI $42,909, taxable income $26,809, and tax of about $2,969 at 10% to $12,400 and 12% above. It then submitted $3,103 with no derivation. That $134 overstatement is a transcription error, not a different rule."
-us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It counted the $960 of nontaxable workers' compensation as income and deducted the full $4,510 capital loss instead of the $3,000 cap. It also used the 2024 single standard deduction ($14,600) and 2024 10% bracket ($11,600) instead of the 2026 values ($16,100 and $12,400). It then dropped its own $3,094 result and submitted an unexplained $3,509."
-us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied 'preferential capital gain treatment' even though the net capital result is a loss, capped at $3,000 against ordinary income, so every dollar of the $26,809 taxable income is taxed at ordinary rates. Applying 10%/12% to that amount gives $2,969. The $2,900 answer reflects understated income or misapplied rates."
-us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It reached the correct $26,809 taxable income but put the 10% bracket top at $12,150 instead of the 2026 value of $12,400, which gave $2,974. It then submitted an unexplained $3,268 that does not follow from its own calculation."
-us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It said the $1,042 traditional 401(k) deferral was already excluded from wages but still started from the full $45,000. That left AGI at $43,951 instead of $42,909 and taxable income at $27,851 instead of $26,809, which overstates tax by about $125."
-us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the full $4,510 capital loss as deductible, wrongly calling it 'under the $3,000 limit'. It also left the $1,042 401(k) deferral in wages and used a $16,700 standard deduction instead of $16,100. It then threw out its own $2,841 calculation and submitted an unexplained $4,172."
-us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"It reached the correct $26,809 taxable income but reported only the 12% bracket piece ($14,409 × 12% = $1,729.08). It left out the $1,240 of tax on the first $12,400 in the 10% bracket, which brings the total to $2,969."
-us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It computed the correct $42,909 AGI but used 2025 parameters for 2026: a $15,000 standard deduction instead of $16,100 and a $11,925 10% bracket top instead of $12,400. That produced taxable income of $27,909 and tax of $3,111."
-us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It used the 2025 $15,750 standard deduction instead of $16,100. It also applied a Saver's Credit even though AGI of $42,909 is above the single Saver's Credit AGI limit, and it counted Roth contributions toward that credit. It then made further unexplained 'adjustments' down to $1,750, which no rule supports."
-us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized using $13,800 of mortgage interest it made up from the loan balance (no interest paid was listed, so it is $0). It also counted the $2,080 premium twice in medical expenses and estimated a SALT amount. With no mortgage interest, itemized deductions fall below the $16,100 standard deduction, so taxable income is $26,809, not $20,891. It also used the 2025 $11,925 10% bracket."
-us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $2,080 health premium from wages as a pre-tax deduction, but the facts give $45,000 as gross wages and nothing says the premium was paid pre-tax, so AGI is $42,909. It also used a $15,000 standard deduction and the 2024 $11,600 10% bracket instead of the 2026 $16,100 and $12,400."
-us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA had expired for 2026 and applied an $8,250 standard deduction, a $5,250 personal exemption and a 15% bracket. The OBBBA kept the TCJA structure, so 2026 has a $16,100 standard deduction, no exemption, and 10%/12% brackets that give $2,969."
-us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $2,080 health premium from wages as pre-tax, which the facts do not support, so it understated AGI at $40,829 instead of $42,909. It also used the 2025 $15,750 standard deduction instead of the 2026 $16,100."
-us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA had expired and used an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,050 personal exemption and a 15% second bracket. The 2026 law (OBBBA) keeps the $16,100 standard deduction, no exemption, and the 10%/12% brackets, which give $2,969."
-us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of about $44,000 leaves out the $1,042 401(k) deferral and the $49 IRA deduction, so it should be $42,909. Its $1,541 answer also implies nonrefundable credits this filer does not have. With no credits available, $26,809 of taxable income produces $2,969."
-us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It subtracted the $2,080 health premium as a pre-tax deduction without support and assumed the TCJA had expired, applying a standard deduction plus personal exemption. Under 2026 OBBBA law the $16,100 standard deduction with no exemption gives taxable income of $26,809 and tax of $2,969."
-us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It computed the correct $42,909 AGI but used a $15,000 standard deduction and the 2024 $11,600 10% bracket top instead of the 2026 $16,100 and $12,400. Taxable income came out $1,100 too high at $27,909, and the 10% bracket was too narrow."
-us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"With the $1,042 401(k) and $49 IRA deductions and the $16,100 2026 standard deduction, taxable income is $26,809 and tax is $2,969.13. The model's $3,046 is about $77 higher, which matches roughly $640 of extra taxable income from using a pre-2026 standard deduction or 10% bracket edge."
-us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the $2,080 health premium as a pre-tax wage reduction, which pushed AGI down to $40,829 instead of $42,909. It also used a $15,700 standard deduction instead of $16,100, and its bracket arithmetic on its own $25,129 taxable income gives $2,767.48, not the $2,776.98 it reported."
-us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its AGI of $42,909 was correct, but it applied the 'standard deduction and personal exemption under 2026 law' as if the TCJA had expired. The OBBBA made the $16,100 standard deduction, no personal exemption and the 10%/12% brackets permanent, which gives $2,969 instead of $3,788.85."
-us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its AGI of $42,909 was correct, but $3,111 is exactly what 2025 parameters produce: a $15,000 standard deduction and an $11,925 10% bracket. The 2026 $16,100 deduction and $12,400 bracket edge give $2,969."
-us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It estimated the 2026 standard deduction at $15,400 and the 10% bracket top at $12,247. The actual 2026 values are $16,100 and $12,400, so its taxable income was $700 too high at $27,509 and its tax was $3,056.14."
-us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 OBBBA single standard deduction of $15,750 instead of the 2026 inflation-adjusted $16,100. That made taxable income $27,159 instead of $26,809 and added $42 of tax at 12%."
-us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,other,False,"It assumed the standard deduction and nonrefundable credits would wipe out the tax. In fact, AGI of $42,909 less the $16,100 standard deduction leaves $26,809 taxable, and this filer qualifies for no nonrefundable credits (no dependents, above the Saver's Credit limit, elderly/disabled credit phased out), so tax is $2,969."
-us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed a child support deduction, but child support paid is not deductible. Its $5,199 is also far above what any 10%/12% calculation on the correct $26,809 of taxable income produces ($2,969). The number does not follow from AGI of $42,909 and the $16,100 standard deduction."
-us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"It reached the correct taxable income ($26,809) and brackets (10% on $12,400, 12% on $14,409), but added them up wrong. $1,240 + $1,729.08 = $2,969.08, not the $3,211.08 it reported."
-us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted all $1,351 of retirement contributions, including the Roth 401(k) and Roth IRA amounts, which are after-tax and not deductible. It also subtracted the full $4,510 capital loss instead of the $3,000 cap. Its $3,200 answer does not follow from the $26,809 of taxable income that the correct deductions produce."
-us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It explicitly used 'pre-TCJA rules' for 2026: an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,300 personal exemption and a 15% bracket. The OBBBA kept the TCJA framework, so the $16,100 standard deduction and 10%/12% brackets give $2,969."
-us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $27,159 taxable income implies it used the 2025 $15,750 standard deduction instead of the 2026 $16,100. That overstated taxable income by $350 and tax by $42."
-us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It estimated the 2026 standard deduction at $15,400 and the 10% bracket top at $12,250 instead of $16,100 and $12,400. As a result it taxed $27,509 instead of $26,809."
-us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA had expired for 2026 and applied the pre-2018 standard deduction plus personal exemption with a 15% bracket. The 2026 law (OBBBA) uses the $16,100 standard deduction with no exemption and the 10%/12% brackets, giving $2,969."
-us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized using $13,800 of mortgage interest made up from the $230,000 balance, although no interest paid was listed and unlisted inputs are $0. It also counted the $2,080 premium twice in medical expenses. Without the invented interest, itemized deductions fall below the $16,100 standard deduction, so taxable income is $26,809, not $20,891."
-us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value and no explanation for this output, so there was no answer to score."
-us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"It assumed the standard deduction and unnamed credits would bring tax to zero. In fact, $26,809 of taxable income remains after the $16,100 standard deduction, and the filer has no nonrefundable credits, so tax is $2,969."
-us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $960 of workers' compensation to AGI, but workers' compensation is excluded from gross income. It also skipped the $49 IRA deduction and used a $15,750 standard deduction and a $12,150 bracket edge, which gave $3,137.16. It then submitted an unrelated $2,104."
-us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It filed the single, childless head as married filing jointly with MFJ brackets and subtracted a credit for other dependents and child-related credits for dependents who do not exist. It also skipped the 401(k) and IRA deductions and then added an unexplained $2,071.61. A single filer with $26,809 of taxable income and no credits owes $2,969."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model had the right $84,928 base but applied the 2025 rates (2.22–4.82%) instead of the 2026 schedule (2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58%). It then raised its own $3,256 result to $3,374 with no stated reason. The 2026 schedule gives $3,092.19."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used rates of 2.13/2.84/3.20/4.26/4.63%, which is a 4% cut from 2025. The actual 2026 cut is 5%, giving 2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58%. Its base of $84,928 was correct, so the error is entirely in the rates ($3,125.17 vs $3,092.19)."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $14,717 ESI premiums from wages and never subtracted the $4,000 WV personal exemptions. It also applied a made-up ~4.5% average rate instead of the graduated 2026 MFJ brackets. The correct calculation is $88,927.65 − $4,000 = $84,927.65 taxed at 2.11–4.58%."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model gave no derivation. Its $2,700 is too low for $84,927.65 of taxable income taxed at the 2026 MFJ rates of 2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58%, which yields $3,092.19. The figure matches a guessed effective rate, not a bracket calculation."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model computed $3,255 with the 2025 rates (2.22–4.82%) instead of the 2026 rates (2.11–4.58%). It then cut the result to $2,877 for unnamed nonrefundable credits, even though it said none applied. Applying the 2026 rates directly gives $3,092.19, with no credit reduction."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model mixed rates from different years (2.2/2.96/3.33/4.07/4.625%) to reach $3,130. It then applied an invented extra cut to get $2,849. The 2026 schedule is 2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58% on the $84,928 base, which yields $3,092.19."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model had the right $84,928 base, but its $1,655 is roughly half the correct bracket result. It never worked through the 2026 brackets (2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58%), which give $3,092.19, and it subtracted nonrefundable credits that don't exist for this household."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the 2025 MFJ rates (2.22/2.96/3.33/4.44/4.82%) to the correct $84,928 base. For 2026 those rates were cut another 5%, to 2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58%, which produces $3,092.19 rather than $3,255.03."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used outdated rates (2.36–4.72%) and a broken four-bracket structure to compute about $3,360. It then cut that to $1,919 for 'additional triggers' and credits it admitted don't apply. The 2026 schedule (2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58%) on $84,928 gives $3,092.19."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model had the right $84,928 base but estimated $3,200 using a 4.82% top rate, which is the 2025 rate. The 2026 top rate is 4.58%, and the lower brackets are 2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22%, which together give $3,092.19."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model assumed the 2023 rates (2.36/3.15/3.54/4.72/5.12%) still apply in 2026. It missed the later trigger cuts, which bring the 2026 rates to 2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58% and the tax to $3,092.19."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model invented a $4,000 WV standard deduction and $6,000 per-person exemptions. WV has no standard deduction and allows $2,000 per exemption, so taxable income is $84,927.65, not $72,928. It also used made-up rates (2.36–5.16%) instead of the 2026 schedule of 2.11–4.58%."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model cut AGI to $74,211 by subtracting the ESI premiums. It then subtracted a $15,400 standard deduction that doesn't exist in WV instead of the $4,000 personal exemptions, and used a made-up three-rate schedule instead of the 2026 MFJ brackets (2.11–4.58%)."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $14,717 ESI premiums from wages, giving an AGI of $74,211, and added a $4,000 WV standard deduction that doesn't exist. Taxable income should be $88,927.65 − $4,000 = $84,927.65. Its rates (2.18–4.72%) are also off from the 2026 schedule (2.11–4.58%)."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted $8,000 instead of the $4,000 allowed (two $2,000 exemptions, no standard deduction). It also used rates that are too low (1.69–4.29%) instead of the 2026 MFJ schedule of 2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58%."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $14,717 ESI premiums from the spouse's gross wages, giving an AGI of $74,211 instead of $88,927.65. It also used the outdated 2.36–5.12% rates instead of the 2026 schedule (2.11–4.58%) on $84,927.65 of taxable income."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model gave no derivation. Its $4,125 matches a flat ~4.6% rate on the gross wages, with no $4,000 exemption and no graduated brackets. The 2026 MFJ schedule (2.11–4.58%) on $84,927.65 gives $3,092.19."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model started from an AGI of $74,211, which subtracts the $14,717 ESI premiums from the spouse's gross wages. PolicyEngine's AGI is $88,927.65, so taxable income is $84,927.65 and the 2026 brackets (2.11–4.58%) give $3,092.19."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the ESI premiums to get an AGI of $74,211 and taxable income of $70,211. The correct figures are an AGI of $88,927.65 and taxable income of $84,927.65, which the 2026 MFJ rates (2.11–4.58%) turn into $3,092.19."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model claimed deductions and exemptions eliminate all liability. WV allows only $4,000 in personal exemptions and no standard deduction, which leaves $84,927.65 of taxable wages and $3,092.19 of tax at the 2026 rates."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model reduced AGI to $74,211 by subtracting the spouse's ESI premiums from gross wages. That understates the WV base by $14,717: the correct taxable income is $84,927.65, which the 2026 brackets turn into $3,092.19."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model started from an AGI of $74,211 that excludes the ESI premiums, getting $70,211 taxable instead of $84,927.65. It then applied a rate schedule heavier than the 2026 MFJ rates (2.11–4.58%)."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the 2023 rates (2.36/3.15/3.54/4.72/5.12%) to the correct $84,928 base. It missed the 2024–2026 rate cuts, which bring the 2026 rates to 2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58% and the tax to $3,092.19."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's $3,459.81 is the 2023 rate schedule (2.36–5.12%) applied to $84,928. The 2026 schedule after the trigger cuts is 2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58%, which gives $3,092.19."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model invented an $8,000 WV standard deduction, but WV allows only the $4,000 in personal exemptions. It also taxed the whole base at a flat 4.82% instead of running it through the graduated 2026 MFJ brackets (2.11–4.58%)."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model computed Kentucky income tax and a Kentucky family size tax credit for a West Virginia household. WV tax on $84,927.65 at the 2026 MFJ rates is $3,092.19, with no credit offset."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model gave no derivation. Its $2,331 is far below what the 2026 MFJ brackets (2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58%) give on $84,927.65 of taxable income ($88,927.65 AGI less the $4,000 exemptions), which is $3,092.19."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model assumed deductions and credits wipe out WV tax. WV allows only $4,000 in exemptions against $88,927.65 of wage AGI, and no nonrefundable credit applies, so liability is $3,092.19."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 2025 MFJ rates (2.22/2.96/3.33/4.44/4.82%) on the correct $84,928 base. For 2026 each rate was cut a further 5%, to 2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58%, which gives $3,092.19 instead of $3,255.03."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model had the right $84,928 base but used a rate schedule only slightly below the 2025 rates. It missed the full 5% cut to 2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58% for 2026, which gives $3,092.19, not $3,217.53."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's $3,255.03 is the 2025 schedule (2.22–4.82%) applied to $84,928. The 2026 rates are 2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58%, which yield $3,092.19."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's $3,255 reflects the 2025 WV rates (top rate 4.82%) on $84,928. It did not apply the 2026 5% cut to 2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58%, which gives $3,092.19."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model explicitly used the 2025 rates (2.22/2.96/3.33/4.44/4.82%) as its 2026 estimate. The 2026 schedule is 5% lower (2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58%), giving $3,092.19."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model had the right $84,928 base but used rates higher than the 2026 MFJ schedule. Applying 2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58% gives $3,092.19, about $100 below its $3,192.03."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the 2025 joint rates (2.22–4.82%) to $84,928. It missed the 2026 reduction to 2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58%, which gives $3,092.19."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model had the right $84,928 base, but the rates it used were below the actual 2026 MFJ schedule. That schedule (2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58%) gives $3,092.19, not $2,952.20."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied a standard deduction that WV doesn't have and concluded the liability is zero. Only the $4,000 personal exemptions come off the $88,927.65 AGI, leaving $84,927.65 taxed at 2.11–4.58% for $3,092.19."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model assumed the 2.36–5.12% schedule is still the 2026 baseline. The 2024, 2025 and 2026 cuts bring the rates to 2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58%, so tax on $84,928 is $3,092.19, not $3,460."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted about $20,600 in made-up deductions and exemptions. WV allows only two $2,000 exemptions, so taxable income is $84,927.65. It also used the outdated 2.36–5.12% rate range instead of the 2026 rates of 2.11–4.58%."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model carried the 2024 rates (2.27/3.02/3.40/4.53/4.92%) into 2026. It missed both the 2025 2% cut and the 2026 5% cut, which together give 2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58% and $3,092.19 of tax."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the ESI premiums from AGI and also subtracted the $30,840 federal standard deduction. WV has no standard deduction and allows only $4,000 in exemptions, so taxable income is $84,927.65. It also used made-up 2/3/4/5% rates instead of the 2026 schedule (2.11–4.58%)."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model had the right ~$84,900 base, but its $3,422 matches the pre-cut rates (around 2.36–5.12%). The 2026 MFJ schedule of 2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58% gives $3,092.19."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the ESI premiums to get an AGI of $74,211 and invented an $8,000 WV standard deduction. It then applied a flat 4.5% rate. WV uses graduated 2026 MFJ brackets (2.11–4.58%) on $84,927.65 of taxable income."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the 2023 schedule ($2,183.50 on the first $60k plus 5.12% above) to $84,928. The 2026 rates (2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58%) give $1,950.50 on the first $60k plus 4.58% above, for a total of $3,092.19."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model claimed the WV personal exemption reduces taxable wages to zero. The exemption is only $2,000 per person ($4,000 total), which leaves $84,927.65 taxable and $3,092.19 of tax."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model combined a 2.36% bottom rate (2023) with a 4.82% top rate (2025), so it was not using any single year's schedule. The 2026 MFJ rates are 2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22/4.58% and give $3,092.19 on $84,928."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's $3,255.03 comes from the 2025 schedule topping out at 4.82%. The 2026 schedule tops out at 4.58%, with lower brackets at 2.11/2.81/3.16/4.22%, giving $3,092.19."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's bracket amounts (222 + 438 + 552 + 854) match no actual WV schedule, and its 4.82% top rate is the 2025 rate. The 2026 brackets give 211 + 421.50 + 474 + 844 + 4.58% × $24,927.65, for a total of $3,092.19."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model subtracted the ESI premiums to get an AGI of $74,211. It then used an inverted schedule, with rates falling from 4.80% to 2.88% as income rises, and applied a made-up 4% family tax credit. The correct calculation is $84,927.65 run through rising 2026 rates (2.11–4.58%), with no credit."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied the federal standard deduction and invented nonrefundable credits to get zero. WV allows only $4,000 in personal exemptions against $88,927.65 of AGI, and no nonrefundable credit applies at this income, so tax is $3,092.19."
+us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly derived AGI of $42,909, taxable income of $26,809, and tax of about $2,969 using the $12,400 10% bracket. It then dropped that result and submitted $3,103, a figure with no supporting calculation."
+us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2024 standard deduction ($14,600) and 10% bracket ($11,600) instead of the 2026 values ($16,100 / $12,400). It also counted nontaxable workers' comp and deducted the full $4,510 capital loss instead of the $3,000 cap. It then raised its own $3,094 result to $3,509 without any calculation."
+us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"It gave no figures and cited 'preferential capital gain treatment', which doesn't apply because net capital is a $4,510 loss limited to a $3,000 ordinary deduction. The correct path is $26,809 taxable income taxed at 10%/12%, or $2,969. Its rounded $2,900 matches no actual bracket calculation."
+us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It reached the correct taxable income of $26,809 but used a $12,150 top for the 10% bracket instead of the 2026 $12,400, which gave $2,974. It then submitted $3,268, which doesn't follow from its own work."
+us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It said the $1,042 traditional 401(k) deferral was already excluded from wages, then built AGI from the full $45,000. That double-counted the deferral, giving AGI of $43,951 instead of $42,909 and taxable income of $27,851 instead of $26,809."
+us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted the full $4,510 capital loss, wrongly claiming it was under the $3,000 limit. It also skipped the 401(k) exclusion and used a $16,700 standard deduction instead of $16,100. It then submitted $4,172, contradicting its own $2,841 calculation."
+us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly found taxable income of $26,809 but reported only the 12% slice ($14,409 × 12% = $1,729.08). It left out the $1,240 of tax on the first $12,400 at 10%, so the total should have been $2,969.08."
+us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its final answer used the 2025 pre-OBBBA $15,000 standard deduction and $11,925 10% bracket in place of the 2026 values of $16,100 and $12,400. That inflated taxable income to $27,909 and tax to $3,111."
+us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It subtracted a $135 Saver's Credit even though AGI of $42,909 is above the 2026 single Saver's Credit AGI limit, so the credit is zero. It also used a $15,750 standard deduction instead of $16,100, then cut the result to $1,750 for reasons with no basis."
+us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized using made-up mortgage interest of $13,800, but only a mortgage balance was given and unlisted interest is $0. It also counted the $2,080 premium twice in medical expenses. Real itemized deductions (medical over the 7.5% floor plus SALT) are below the $16,100 standard deduction, so taxable income is $26,809, not $20,891."
+us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $2,080 health insurance premium as a pre-tax wage exclusion, but no such exclusion applies to the stated $45,000 gross wages. It also used the outdated $15,000 standard deduction and $11,600 10% bracket instead of 2026's $16,100 and $12,400."
+us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired, applying an $8,250 standard deduction, a $5,250 personal exemption, and a 15% bracket. The TCJA rules continue in 2026, with a $16,100 single standard deduction, no exemption, and 10%/12% brackets."
+us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the $2,080 health premium out of wages as pre-tax, lowering AGI to $40,829 instead of $42,909. It also used the $15,750 standard deduction instead of the 2026 $16,100."
+us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired in 2026 and applied an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,050 personal exemption, and a 15% second bracket. The TCJA structure continues, with a $16,100 standard deduction and 10%/12% brackets, which gives $2,969."
+us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used AGI of about $44,000, leaving out the $1,042 401(k) exclusion and the $49 IRA deduction. Its $1,541 result also implies deductions or credits well above the $16,100 standard deduction, and this filer has none of those."
+us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired and applied a pre-2018 standard deduction plus personal exemption with a 15% bracket, instead of the 2026 $16,100 standard deduction and 10%/12% brackets. It also wrongly took the $2,080 ESI premium out of wages."
+us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"With the correct AGI of $42,909, it used the outdated $15,000 standard deduction and $11,600 10% bracket instead of 2026's $16,100 and $12,400. That overstated taxable income at $27,909."
+us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $3,046 implies taxable income of about $27,450, which is a standard deduction of roughly $15,450 on the correct $42,909 AGI. It understated the 2026 single standard deduction of $16,100."
+us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the $2,080 health insurance premium out of wages as pre-tax, lowering AGI to $40,829. It also used a $15,700 standard deduction instead of $16,100, and its bracket arithmetic on $25,129 is wrong as well."
+us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied post-TCJA-sunset rules (personal exemption plus a smaller standard deduction and a 15% bracket) to the correct $42,909 AGI. The 2026 law keeps the $16,100 standard deduction and 10%/12% brackets."
+us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"With the correct $42,909 AGI, its $3,111 matches the 2025 pre-OBBBA $15,000 standard deduction and $11,925 10% bracket. It should have used 2026's $16,100 and $12,400."
+us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired, applying a personal exemption and a 15% bracket to $42,909 AGI. Under 2026 law the $16,100 standard deduction and 10%/12% brackets give $2,969."
+us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It estimated the 2026 standard deduction at $15,400 and the 10% bracket at $12,247, instead of the actual $16,100 and $12,400. That overstated taxable income at $27,509."
+us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 OBBBA standard deduction of $15,750 instead of the inflation-adjusted 2026 amount of $16,100. That put taxable income at $27,159 instead of $26,809."
+us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,other,False,"It assumed nonrefundable credits wipe out the tax, but this childless single filer with $42,909 AGI qualifies for none (Saver's Credit and the elderly/disabled credit are both phased out). The $26,809 taxable income carries $2,969 of tax."
+us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated child support paid as a deduction, which it is not, and gave no bracket calculation. Its $5,199 is far above the $2,969 from $26,809 taxable income at 2026 10%/12% rates."
+us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly set up taxable income of $26,809, taxed as 10% × $12,400 plus 12% × $14,409. It then summed $1,240 and $1,729.08 as $3,211.08 instead of $2,969.08."
+us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It netted all $1,351 of retirement contributions, including the after-tax Roth 401(k) and Roth IRA amounts, and the full $4,510 loss instead of the $3,000 cap. Its round $3,200 doesn't follow even from those inputs."
+us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed pre-TCJA rules for 2026, with an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,300 exemption, and a 15% bracket. 2026 law keeps the $16,100 standard deduction and 10%/12% brackets."
+us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 $15,750 standard deduction, which put taxable income at $27,159. The 2026 single standard deduction is $16,100, giving $26,809."
+us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It estimated the 2026 standard deduction at $15,400 and the 10% bracket at $12,250, instead of the actual $16,100 and $12,400. That overstated taxable income at $27,509."
+us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired and inflated pre-2018 parameters (standard deduction plus exemption of about $14,131, a 15% bracket). 2026 law keeps the $16,100 standard deduction and 10%/12% brackets."
+us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized using made-up mortgage interest of $13,800, but only the loan balance was given and unlisted interest is $0. It also double-counted the premium in medical expenses. Without the invented interest, itemized deductions are below the $16,100 standard deduction."
+us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It submitted no value or explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was nothing to score against $2,969.13."
+us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"It assumed deductions and credits bring tax to zero. After the $16,100 standard deduction, $26,809 of taxable income remains, and no nonrefundable credit applies to this childless single filer with $42,909 AGI."
+us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"With the correct $42,909 AGI, its $3,021 implies about $15,750 of standard deduction (the 2025 figure) instead of the 2026 $16,100. That overstated taxable income by about $350."
+us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $960 of workers' comp to AGI even though workers' comp is excluded from gross income. It also used a $15,750 standard deduction and $12,150 10% bracket, and then submitted $2,104, contradicting its own $3,137 calculation."
+us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It treated this single, childless filer as married filing jointly and invented a $500 credit for other dependents. It also left out the 401(k) and IRA reductions and assembled a final figure with no coherent arithmetic."
us,scenario_015,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no value or reasoning for federal_refundable_credits, so the answer was missing. Done correctly, the result is $0: a childless single filer with $45,000 in wages is far above the childless EITC phase-out, gets no CTC without a child, and claims no AOTC without education expenses."
-us,scenario_015,federal_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model claimed a $1,000 refundable additional child tax credit even though the household has no qualifying child, and the ACTC cannot exist without one. It also gave a $1,735.80 EITC, but the childless EITC phases out completely at about $19–20k of earned income/AGI, so it is $0 at $45,000 in wages. The EITC figure does not fit the childless schedule."
+us,scenario_015,federal_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model claimed a $1,000 refundable additional child tax credit even though the household has no qualifying child, and the ACTC cannot exist without one. It also gave a $1,735.80 EITC, but the childless EITC phases out completely at about $19–20k of earned income/AGI, so it is $0 at $45,000 in wages. The EITC figure only fits the with-children phase-out schedule."
us,scenario_015,head_chip_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,other,False,"The model applied the governing rule correctly — CHIP's categorical scope is limited to children under 19 (plus pregnant women at state option), so a 36-year-old head fails the age gate before any income screen — and its explanation ends ""Head is 36 years old, so CHIP eligibility is false. value = 0"". Its submitted numeric value for head_chip_eligible was nevertheless 1, contradicting its own explanation and violating the prompt's rule that a 1 be submitted only when the explanation says eligible. The defect is in the emitted binary, not in the derivation: the stated reasoning matches the reference's chip_category = 3 / is_chip_eligible = False."
-us,scenario_015,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said $45,000 of earnings was 'well below' the SSI-related disability threshold, which is false. Those earnings, $3,750 a month, exceed SSI's substantial gainful activity limit of $1,690 a month, so PolicyEngine does not count the head as disabled, and $584,850 in bank and stock assets is far above the $2,000 resource cap. The model then based eligibility on Indiana's MED Works buy-in for workers with disabilities, but PolicyEngine does not model that pathway. Its MAGI ratio of 2.69x FPL also exceeds the 138% expansion limit, so no category applies."
-us,scenario_015,head_medicaid_eligible,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model treated 'disabled' plus Indiana's expansion status as automatic eligibility and never applied an income test. Indiana's expansion-adult category caps MAGI at 138% FPL, and the head is at 2.69x FPL. In Indiana the disability pathway needs the head to be disabled under SSI's rules, countable income within 100% of the poverty guideline and resources under $2,000, but the head's earnings of $45,000 exceed SSI's substantial gainful activity limit and about $585,000 in assets exceeds the cap, so no Medicaid category applies."
+us,scenario_015,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said $45,000 of earnings was 'well below' the SSI-related disability threshold, which is false. Those earnings, plus $584,850 in bank and stock assets, are far above the aged/blind/disabled income limit and its roughly $2,000 resource cap. The model then based eligibility on Indiana's MED Works buy-in for workers with disabilities, but PolicyEngine does not model that pathway. Its MAGI ratio of 2.69x FPL also exceeds the 138% expansion limit, so no category applies."
+us,scenario_015,head_medicaid_eligible,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model treated 'disabled' plus Indiana's expansion status as automatic eligibility and never applied an income test. Indiana's expansion-adult category caps MAGI at 138% FPL, and the head is at 2.69x FPL. The disability pathway needs SSI-level income and resources, but the head has $45,000 in wages and about $585,000 in assets, so no Medicaid category applies."
us,scenario_015,head_medicare_eligible,claude-fable-5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model said Medicare eligibility applies to anyone who is 65+ or disabled. That is wrong: under-65 disability eligibility requires 24 months of SSDI entitlement, or ESRD or ALS status. The head is 36 and receives no Social Security disability benefits, so the disability pathway doesn't apply and the answer should be 0."
us,scenario_015,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model decided that being disabled qualifies an adult under 65 for Medicare. That skips the requirement of 24 months of Social Security Disability Insurance entitlement. The 36-year-old head has no SSDI income and no ESRD or ALS status, so they are not Medicare eligible."
us,scenario_015,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model based eligibility only on the head being listed as disabled. Disability-based Medicare requires 24 months of SSDI benefit receipt, and a disability flag alone doesn't meet that. The head is 36 and gets no Social Security disability benefits, so the answer is not eligible (0)."
us,scenario_015,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model treated the head's disabled status as enough for Medicare. Under-65 eligibility requires 24 months of SSDI entitlement, or ESRD or ALS status. The head is 36 and has none of these, so Medicare eligibility is 0."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model read the prompt's list of four cities as the full scope of the output, so it left out the Indiana county income tax that PolicyEngine counts in local_income_tax. Using the default Adams County rate of 1.6% on Indiana AGI of $41,909.38 gives $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model ruled Indiana county taxes outside the output's scope because the prompt lists only NYC, Philadelphia, Kansas City and St. Louis. PolicyEngine's local_income_tax does include the Indiana county tax: 1.6% (Adams County default) × $41,909.38 Indiana AGI = $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Indiana has no local income tax. That is wrong: all 92 Indiana counties levy a county income tax on Indiana AGI. PolicyEngine applies the Adams County default rate of 1.6% to $41,909.38, giving $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Based on the prompt's four-city list, the model ruled Indiana county income tax out of scope. PolicyEngine's local_income_tax includes it: 1.6% (Adams County default) × $41,909.38 Indiana AGI = $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model limited the output to the four listed cities and never applied the Indiana county income tax, which PolicyEngine includes in local_income_tax. That tax is 1.6% (Adams County default) × $41,909.38 = $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated the output as covering only NYC, Philadelphia, Kansas City and St. Louis. PolicyEngine also puts Indiana county income tax in local_income_tax: 1.6% (Adams County default) on Indiana AGI of $41,909.38, or $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model left Indiana county income tax out because the prompt lists only four city taxes. PolicyEngine reports that county tax in local_income_tax: 1.6% (Adams County default) × $41,909.38 = $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied only the jurisdictions the prompt listed and missed the Indiana county income tax that PolicyEngine includes in local_income_tax. That tax is the Adams County default rate of 1.6% × Indiana AGI of $41,909.38 = $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model checked only the four listed city taxes and never considered the Indiana county income tax, which PolicyEngine counts in local_income_tax. That tax is 1.6% (Adams County default) × $41,909.38 Indiana AGI = $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model read the four enumerated city taxes as the full scope of the output and left out the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine includes it at the Adams County default rate of 1.6% on $41,909.38, giving $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model ruled Indiana out because it is not among the four listed jurisdictions. PolicyEngine's local_income_tax still includes Indiana county income tax: 1.6% (Adams County default) × $41,909.38 = $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model checked only the four enumerated city taxes and left out the Indiana county income tax that PolicyEngine includes in local_income_tax. That tax is 1.6% (Adams County default) × $41,909.38 Indiana AGI = $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated the four listed cities as the only jurisdictions in scope and never applied the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine computes that tax at 1.6% (Adams County default) on Indiana AGI of $41,909.38, giving $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model looked only at the four listed city earnings taxes and missed the Indiana county income tax that PolicyEngine includes in local_income_tax. That tax is 1.6% (Adams County default) × $41,909.38 = $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no local income tax applies in Indiana. That is wrong: every Indiana county levies a county income tax on Indiana AGI. PolicyEngine applies the Adams County default rate of 1.6% to $41,909.38, giving $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model knew Indiana has county income taxes but excluded them because the prompt lists only four cities. PolicyEngine reports the county tax in local_income_tax: 1.6% (Adams County default) × $41,909.38 = $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model gave no local tax because it relied on the prompt's four-city definition and never applied the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine includes that tax at 1.6% (Adams County default) on $41,909.38 Indiana AGI, giving $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model limited the output to NYC, Philadelphia, Kansas City and St. Louis and left out the Indiana county income tax that PolicyEngine counts in local_income_tax. That tax is 1.6% (Adams County default) × $41,909.38 = $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model checked only the four enumerated city taxes and missed the Indiana county income tax that PolicyEngine includes. That tax is 1.6% (Adams County default) × $41,909.38 Indiana AGI = $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said there is no local income tax in this jurisdiction and never applied the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine includes that tax in local_income_tax: 1.6% (Adams County default) × $41,909.38 = $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model limited the output to the four listed city jurisdictions and left out the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine computes that tax at the Adams County default rate of 1.6% on $41,909.38, giving $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said only NYC, Philadelphia, Kansas City and St. Louis are modeled. PolicyEngine's local_income_tax also models Indiana county income tax: 1.6% (Adams County default) × $41,909.38 Indiana AGI = $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied only the four listed localities and never applied the Indiana county income tax that PolicyEngine includes in local_income_tax. That tax is 1.6% (Adams County default) × $41,909.38 = $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated the four specified city taxes as the full scope of the output and left out the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine computes that tax at 1.6% (Adams County default) on Indiana AGI of $41,909.38, giving $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model checked only the four listed city taxes and missed the Indiana county income tax that PolicyEngine includes in local_income_tax. That tax is 1.6% (Adams County default) × $41,909.38 = $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model ruled out local tax because Indiana is not one of the listed city jurisdictions, so it never applied the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine computes that tax at 1.6% (Adams County default) × $41,909.38 = $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model set local tax to 0 because no locality was given. PolicyEngine falls back to a default county, Adams County, and applies its 1.6% county income tax to Indiana AGI of $41,909.38, giving $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model limited the output to NYC, Philadelphia, Kansas City and St. Louis and left out the Indiana county income tax that PolicyEngine includes. That tax is 1.6% (Adams County default) × $41,909.38 = $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model ruled Indiana out of the output's listed jurisdictions and never applied the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine computes that tax with no county input by using the Adams County default rate: 1.6% × $41,909.38 = $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said only the four city taxes are modeled separately. PolicyEngine's local_income_tax also includes Indiana county income tax: 1.6% (Adams County default) × $41,909.38 Indiana AGI = $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Indiana has no listed local tax and left out the Indiana county income tax that PolicyEngine includes in local_income_tax. That tax is 1.6% (Adams County default) × $41,909.38 = $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model limited the output to the four listed cities and never applied the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine computes that tax at 1.6% (Adams County default) on Indiana AGI of $41,909.38, giving $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model checked only for the four enumerated city taxes and missed the Indiana county income tax that PolicyEngine counts in local_income_tax. That tax is 1.6% (Adams County default) × $41,909.38 = $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model ruled out local tax because the household is not in NYC, Philadelphia, Kansas City or St. Louis, so it never applied the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine computes that tax at 1.6% (Adams County default) × $41,909.38 = $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated the four listed cities as the full scope of the output and left out the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine includes that tax at the Adams County default rate of 1.6% on $41,909.38, giving $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no Indiana local income tax applies and never applied the county income tax that PolicyEngine includes in local_income_tax. That tax is 1.6% (Adams County default) × $41,909.38 Indiana AGI = $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model checked only the four listed city taxes and missed the Indiana county income tax that PolicyEngine includes. That tax is 1.6% (Adams County default) × $41,909.38 = $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model limited the output to NYC, Philadelphia, Kansas City and St. Louis and left out the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine computes that tax at 1.6% (Adams County default) on Indiana AGI of $41,909.38, giving $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model ruled out local tax because the household is not in any of the four listed cities, so it never applied the Indiana county income tax that PolicyEngine includes. That tax is 1.6% (Adams County default) × $41,909.38 = $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated the four listed categories as the full scope of the output and left out the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine computes that tax at 1.6% (Adams County default) × $41,909.38 Indiana AGI = $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model checked only the four enumerated city taxes and never applied the Indiana county income tax that PolicyEngine counts in local_income_tax. That tax is 1.6% (Adams County default) × $41,909.38 = $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,kimi-k2.6,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model limited the output to the four listed city taxes and left out the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine includes that tax at the Adams County default rate of 1.6% on Indiana AGI of $41,909.38, giving $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model ruled Indiana county taxes outside the output's scope because the prompt lists only four cities. PolicyEngine reports that county tax in local_income_tax: 1.6% (Adams County default) × $41,909.38 = $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said PolicyEngine's local output covers only NYC, Philadelphia, Kansas City and St. Louis. PolicyEngine's local_income_tax also includes Indiana county income tax: 1.6% (Adams County default) × $41,909.38 = $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model checked only the four listed city taxes and missed the Indiana county income tax that PolicyEngine includes in local_income_tax. That tax is 1.6% (Adams County default) × $41,909.38 Indiana AGI = $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model excluded Indiana county income tax as out of scope and because no county was given. PolicyEngine includes the county tax in local_income_tax and uses the Adams County default when no county is specified: 1.6% × $41,909.38 = $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model limited the output to the four listed jurisdictions and never applied the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine computes that tax at 1.6% (Adams County default) on Indiana AGI of $41,909.38, giving $670.55."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model checked only for the four enumerated city taxes and left out the Indiana county income tax that PolicyEngine includes in local_income_tax. That tax is 1.6% (Adams County default) × $41,909.38 = $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Read the four named cities as the complete scope of the output and left out the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine includes that tax, applying Adams County's 1.6% rate to Indiana AGI of $41,909.38 to get $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Said outright that Indiana county taxes fall outside this output. PolicyEngine puts the Indiana county income tax into local_income_tax: 1.6% (default Adams County) of Indiana AGI $41,909.38 = $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Claimed that Indiana has no local income tax. In fact all 92 Indiana counties levy a county income tax on Indiana AGI after exemptions, and PolicyEngine applies Adams County's 1.6% rate to $41,909.38 to get $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Treated the Indiana county income tax as outside the output's scope because the prompt names only four cities. PolicyEngine's local_income_tax includes the county tax: 1.6% × $41,909.38 Indiana AGI = $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Limited the output to NYC, Philadelphia, Kansas City and St. Louis and ignored the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine computes that tax at Adams County's 1.6% on Indiana AGI of $41,909.38, giving $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Read the four-city list as exhaustive and returned $0. PolicyEngine's output also covers the Indiana county income tax, which it computes as 1.6% of Indiana AGI ($42,909.38 federal AGI minus the $1,000 exemption), or $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Explicitly put the Indiana county income tax outside this output. PolicyEngine includes it, using the default Adams County rate of 1.6% on $41,909.38 to get $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Considered only the named city taxes and left out the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine levies that tax at 1.6% (Adams County default) on Indiana AGI of $41,909.38, giving $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Checked only whether the household lives in the four named cities and never applied the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine includes that tax at 1.6% of $41,909.38 Indiana AGI = $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Read the output as covering only special city taxes in NY, PA and MO, and skipped the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine computes that tax at Adams County's 1.6% on Indiana AGI of $41,909.38, giving $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Treated the four named jurisdictions as the full list and left out the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine applies a 1.6% county rate to Indiana AGI of $41,909.38, giving $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Limited the output to the four named cities and never computed the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine computes that tax at 1.6% of $41,909.38 Indiana AGI = $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Read the named-city list as exhaustive and left out the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine applies the default Adams County rate of 1.6% to Indiana AGI of $41,909.38, giving $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Checked only the NYC, Philadelphia, Kansas City and St. Louis taxes and skipped the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine includes that tax at 1.6% × $41,909.38 = $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Claimed that no local income tax applies in Indiana. Every Indiana county levies a county income tax on Indiana AGI after exemptions, and PolicyEngine computes it at Adams County's 1.6% on $41,909.38, giving $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Recognized that Indiana has county income taxes but left them out because the prompt names only four cities. PolicyEngine's local_income_tax includes the county tax: 1.6% of Indiana AGI $41,909.38 = $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Returned $0 without applying the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine includes that tax at Adams County's 1.6% rate on Indiana AGI of $41,909.38, giving $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Read the separate local output as covering only the four named cities and left out the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine computes that tax at 1.6% × $41,909.38 = $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Checked only the four named city taxes and never applied the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine includes that tax at 1.6% of $41,909.38 Indiana AGI = $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Concluded that no local tax applies in this jurisdiction and skipped the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine applies that tax with the default Adams County rate of 1.6% on Indiana AGI of $41,909.38, giving $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Treated the four named cities as the only jurisdictions in the output and left out the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine computes that tax at 1.6% × $41,909.38 = $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Asserted that PolicyEngine models only NYC, Philadelphia, Kansas City and St. Louis. PolicyEngine also models Indiana county income tax in local_income_tax, here 1.6% of Indiana AGI $41,909.38 = $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Read the output as limited to the four named cities and left out the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine levies that tax at Adams County's 1.6% on $41,909.38, giving $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,gemini-4-argon,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Looked only for qualifying city taxes and left out the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine includes that tax at 1.6% of Indiana AGI ($42,909.38 federal AGI minus the $1,000 exemption), or $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Treated the four specified city taxes as the full scope and never applied the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine computes that tax at 1.6% × $41,909.38 = $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Correctly noted that none of the four listed city taxes apply, but left out the Indiana county income tax, which PolicyEngine includes in this output. That tax is 1.6% (Adams County) of $41,909.38 = $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Concluded that Indiana has no listed local tax jurisdiction and returned $0. PolicyEngine applies the Indiana county income tax at the default Adams County rate of 1.6% on Indiana AGI of $41,909.38, giving $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Returned $0 because no locality was given. PolicyEngine falls back to a default Indiana county (Adams County, 1.6%) and applies the county income tax to Indiana AGI of $41,909.38, giving $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Limited the output to the four requested city taxes and left out the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine computes that tax at 1.6% × $41,909.38 = $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Treated Indiana as outside the output's scope and noted that no locality was given. PolicyEngine defaults to Adams County and applies its 1.6% county income tax to Indiana AGI of $41,909.38, giving $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Considered only the four separately modeled city taxes and left out the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine includes that tax at 1.6% of $41,909.38 = $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Concluded that Indiana has no listed local tax and skipped the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine computes that tax at Adams County's 1.6% on Indiana AGI of $41,909.38, giving $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Checked only city residence against the four named cities and never applied the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine includes that tax at 1.6% × $41,909.38 = $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Required a location in one of the four named cities and left out the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine applies that tax with the default Adams County rate of 1.6% on $41,909.38, giving $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Read the four-city list as exhaustive and returned $0. PolicyEngine's output includes the Indiana county income tax: 1.6% of Indiana AGI $41,909.38 = $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Restricted the output to the four named cities and left out the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine computes that tax at 1.6% × $41,909.38 = $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Concluded that no Indiana local income tax applies and never computed the county income tax. PolicyEngine levies it at Adams County's 1.6% on Indiana AGI of $41,909.38, giving $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Checked only the four named city taxes and left out the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine includes that tax at 1.6% of $41,909.38 = $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Treated the separate local output as covering only NYC, Philadelphia, Kansas City and St. Louis, and left out the Indiana county income tax. That tax is 1.6% × $41,909.38 = $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Read the four-city list as exhaustive and never applied the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine computes that tax with the default Adams County rate of 1.6% on Indiana AGI of $41,909.38, giving $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Limited the output to the four specified categories and left out the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine includes that tax at 1.6% × $41,909.38 = $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Treated the four named cities as the full scope and left out the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine computes that tax at 1.6% of Indiana AGI $41,909.38 = $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,kimi-k2.6,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Checked the household only against the four listed city taxes and never applied the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine includes that tax at Adams County's 1.6% on $41,909.38, giving $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Explicitly ruled Indiana county taxes outside this output's scope. PolicyEngine's local_income_tax includes them: 1.6% × $41,909.38 Indiana AGI = $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Asserted that PolicyEngine's local output covers only NYC, Philadelphia, Kansas City and St. Louis. PolicyEngine also computes the Indiana county income tax there, at 1.6% of $41,909.38 = $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,muse-spark-1.3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Checked only the four named city taxes and left out the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine includes that tax with the default Adams County rate of 1.6% on Indiana AGI of $41,909.38, giving $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Read the listed jurisdictions as exhaustive and never applied the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine computes that tax at 1.6% × $41,909.38 = $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Left out the Indiana county income tax, both because the output names only four cities and because no county was given. PolicyEngine defaults to Adams County and applies its 1.6% rate to Indiana AGI of $41,909.38, giving $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Limited the output to the four listed city taxes and left out the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine includes that tax at 1.6% of $41,909.38 = $670.55."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Treated the four named city taxes as the complete scope and never applied the Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine computes that tax at Adams County's 1.6% on Indiana AGI of $41,909.38, giving $670.55."
us,scenario_015,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It subtracted the $2,080 health insurance premiums from wages as a pre-tax cafeteria-plan exclusion and applied 7.65% to $42,920. The FICA base here is the full $45,000 of gross wages, since the listed premiums are not a Section 125 salary reduction. The correct total is $2,790 + $652.50 = $3,442.50."
us,scenario_015,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It lowered FICA wages to $42,920 by treating the $2,080 health insurance premiums as a pre-tax payroll deduction. Employee Social Security and Medicare tax apply to the full $45,000 of gross wages, which gives $3,442.50 rather than $3,283."
us,scenario_015,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It assumed the $2,080 employer-sponsored insurance premiums were pre-tax and cut FICA wages to $42,920. The 6.2% and 1.45% employee rates apply to the full $45,000 of gross wages, giving $2,790 + $652.50 = $3,442.50."
@@ -1310,39 +1354,40 @@ us,scenario_015,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"It found the cor
us,scenario_015,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no parseable value and no explanation for payroll_tax. The correct derivation is 7.65% of $45,000 in wages: $2,790 Social Security plus $652.50 Medicare, or $3,442.50."
us,scenario_015,payroll_tax,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It correctly reached $3,442.50 from $2,790 Social Security and $652.50 Medicare, then raised it to $3,495 for made-up 'Indiana county tax adjustments'. Indiana county taxes are local income taxes, not employee payroll taxes, and Indiana has no mandatory employee state payroll tax. Nothing should be added to the FICA total."
us,scenario_015,payroll_tax,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It subtracted the $1,042 traditional 401(k) deferral from the FICA base. Under IRC 3121(v)(1)(A), elective 401(k) deferrals remain subject to Social Security and Medicare tax, so the base stays at the full $45,000. It then submitted $3,425.67, which does not match its own computed total of $3,362.79. The correct amount is $3,442.50."
-us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"The model got the correct base ($41,909) and rate (2.95%) and arrived at about $1,236. It then cut the answer to $1,234, citing 'minor rounding in exemption computation'. No such rounding exists, because Indiana's exemption is exactly $1,000."
-us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's AGI was wrong in two ways: it included nontaxable workers' compensation, and it deducted the full $4,510 capital loss instead of the $3,000 cap. It never subtracted the $1,000 Indiana exemption and used an outdated 3.15% rate. It then applied an unexplained 'disability' adjustment to reach $1,255."
-us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a 3.05% rate instead of Indiana's 2026 rate of 2.95%. It also never computed a figure, submitting a round $1,000 instead of applying the rate to the $41,909 base, which gives $1,236."
-us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model added a $500 disabled exemption that Indiana does not grant to a non-blind taxpayer under 65, and used 3.05% instead of the 2026 rate of 2.95%. Its submitted $1,352 does not even match its own $1,263 calculation."
-us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model did not exclude the $1,042 traditional 401(k) deferral from wages, which put AGI at $43,951 instead of $42,909. It then dropped its correct 2.95% calculation and inflated the answer to $1,392 using a 3.05% 'adjustment'."
-us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used 2.85% instead of Indiana's 2026 rate of 2.95%. Its AGI of $42,441 also deducts the full $4,510 capital loss instead of the $3,000 cap and skips the $1,042 401(k) exclusion."
-us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's rate (2.95%) and AGI ($42,909) were right, but it subtracted two deductions that do not apply: a $1,000 'disability exemption', which Indiana does not grant a non-blind taxpayer under 65, and a $2,080 health insurance premium deduction, which Indiana does not offer. That cut taxable income to $38,829 instead of $41,909."
-us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used 3.05% instead of 2.95% and added a $1,000 disability exemption that does not apply to this taxpayer. It then raised its own $1,248 result to $1,350 with no stated basis."
-us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The rate (2.95%) and AGI were right, but the model subtracted an extra $1,000 'disability' exemption. Indiana's additional $1,000 exemptions apply only to taxpayers who are 65 or older or blind, so only the $1,000 personal exemption applies."
-us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model started from an AGI of $40,829, which means it wrongly subtracted the $2,080 health insurance premiums from the $42,909 federal AGI. It also used 3.05% instead of Indiana's 2026 rate of 2.95%."
-us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $2,080 premiums from AGI and invented a $1,000 'standard' deduction (Indiana has none). It also claimed a $1,000 disabled exemption that does not apply to a non-blind taxpayer under 65, leaving $37,829 instead of $41,909."
-us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model invented a $3,000 child support deduction (Indiana has none) and a $1,500 disabled exemption for the taxpayer. It also used a 3.0% rate instead of 2.95%. The correct taxable base is $42,909 minus only the $1,000 personal exemption."
-us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a 2.79% rate instead of 2.95%. Its $1,256 implies a base of about $45,000, so it taxed gross wages without the 401(k), IRA, capital-loss, and exemption adjustments that bring the base to $41,909."
-us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model began from an AGI of $40,829, which means it wrongly subtracted the $2,080 health insurance premiums. Applied to the correct $42,909 AGI minus the $1,000 exemption, its 2.95% rate would have given $1,236."
-us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's $41,909 base was correct, but it used 3.05% instead of Indiana's 2026 rate of 2.95%."
-us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used 3.05% instead of 2.95% and wrongly said it was adding county taxes, which belong in local tax, not state tax. Its $1,373 implies a base of about $45,000, so it skipped the AGI adjustments and the $1,000 exemption."
-us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used an AGI of $40,829, which means it wrongly subtracted the $2,080 health premiums from the $42,909 federal AGI. It also used 3.0% instead of the 2026 rate of 2.95%."
-us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's $41,909 base was correct, but it used 3.0% instead of Indiana's 2026 rate of 2.95%."
-us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's $41,909 base was correct, but it used 3.0% instead of Indiana's 2026 rate of 2.95%."
-us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used 3.0% instead of 2.95%. Its AGI of $42,490 also deducts the full $4,510 capital loss instead of the $3,000 cap and ignores the $1,042 401(k) exclusion and the $49 IRA deduction."
-us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's $41,909 base was correct, but it used 2.90% instead of Indiana's 2026 rate of 2.95%."
-us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied 'standard deductions', but Indiana has no standard deduction; it allows only the $1,000 personal exemption from the $42,909 federal AGI. Its $1,018 is consistent with taxing about $34,500, which understates the $41,909 base."
-us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"The model reported zero by assuming that deductions and credits wipe out the tax. No nonrefundable Indiana credit applies, so 2.95% of $41,909 gives $1,236 owed."
-us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's $41,909 base was correct, but it used 3.025% instead of Indiana's 2026 rate of 2.95%."
-us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted an invented $1,000 'Indiana deduction' on top of the $1,000 personal exemption, cutting the base to $40,909. Indiana allows only the single $1,000 exemption for this filer, which leaves $41,909."
-us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied a 'standard deduction' that Indiana does not have and worked from $45,000 of wages instead of the $42,909 federal AGI. Its $1,400 implies a base above AGI at 2.95%, so it overstated either the base or the rate."
-us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's $41,909 base was correct, but it used 3% instead of Indiana's 2026 rate of 2.95%."
-us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's $41,909 base was correct, but it used 2.85% instead of Indiana's 2026 rate of 2.95%."
-us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no value or reasoning for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so its answer is missing."
-us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used 3.05% instead of 2.95%. Its $1,230 implies a base of about $40,300 instead of the correct $41,909, which is $42,909 federal AGI minus the $1,000 exemption."
-us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's $41,909 base was correct, but it used 2.97% instead of Indiana's 2026 rate of 2.95%."
-us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used 3.05% instead of 2.95%. It also omitted the $1,000 personal exemption, counted nontaxable workers' compensation in AGI, and deducted the full $4,510 capital loss instead of the $3,000 cap."
-us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied the tax to federal taxable income of $30,860, which is after the federal standard deduction. Indiana's base is federal AGI ($42,909) minus the $1,000 exemption. It also used 3.05% instead of 2.95%."
+us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly computed $41,909 × 2.95% ≈ $1,236. It then cut the answer to $1,234 for an unspecified 'rounding in exemption computation', even though the $1,000 exemption is exact and needs no rounding."
+us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It built AGI incorrectly in two ways. It included the $960 of workers' compensation, which is excludable, and it deducted the full $4,510 capital loss instead of the $3,000 cap. It also skipped the $1,000 exemption, applied a 3.15% rate instead of 2.95%, and then lowered the result by an invented disability adjustment."
+us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used 3.05% instead of the 2026 rate of 2.95%. Its $1,000 answer matches no computation, because even its own rate on the $41,909 base gives about $1,278. The correct result is $41,909.38 × 2.95% = $1,236.33."
+us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It subtracted an extra $500 'disabled' exemption. Indiana has no additional exemption for a disabled filer under 65, so only the $1,000 personal exemption applies. It also used 3.05% instead of 2.95%, then submitted $1,352, which does not match its own $1,263 calculation."
+us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It never subtracted the $1,042 traditional 401(k) deferral from wages, which overstated AGI at $43,951 instead of $42,909. It then dropped its own 2.95% figure and inflated the answer to $1,392 using a vague 3.05% rate."
+us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a 2.85% rate instead of Indiana's 2026 flat rate of 2.95%. Its AGI of $42,441 also does not reconcile with the correct federal AGI of $42,909."
+us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the correct 2.95% rate but subtracted two deductions that do not apply here: a $1,000 disability exemption for a filer under 65 and a $2,080 health-insurance-premium deduction. That shrank the base to $38,829 instead of $41,909.38."
+us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used 3.05% instead of 2.95% and added a $1,000 disability exemption that does not apply. It then raised its own $1,248 result to $1,350 with no stated basis."
+us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It correctly used 2.95% on $42,909 AGI but subtracted an extra $1,000 disability exemption. Only the single $1,000 personal exemption applies to this filer, so the base is $41,909, not $40,909."
+us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started from $40,829, which means it took the $2,080 of health insurance premiums off the correct $42,909 AGI, although they are not an above-the-line deduction. It then used 3.05% instead of the 2026 rate of 2.95%."
+us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It cut AGI to $40,829 by subtracting the $2,080 premiums. It then took an Indiana 'standard' deduction that does not exist, plus a disability exemption, for $3,000 in total reductions instead of the single $1,000 exemption."
+us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted $3,000 of child support paid, which Indiana does not allow, and added a $1,500 disability exemption that does not apply. It also used a 3.0% rate instead of 2.95%."
+us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a 2.79% rate to a base of about $45,000, essentially gross wages. The correct calculation is 2.95% on federal AGI minus the $1,000 exemption, which is $41,909.38."
+us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the correct 2.95% rate but started from an AGI of $40,829. That figure wrongly subtracts the $2,080 of health insurance premiums from the correct $42,909 federal AGI."
+us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $41,909 base is correct, but it applied 3.05% instead of Indiana's 2026 flat rate of 2.95%."
+us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied 3.05% to roughly gross wages of $45,000 and folded in county taxes, which are excluded from this output. It skipped the AGI adjustments and the $1,000 exemption and did not use the 2.95% rate."
+us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started from an AGI of $40,829, wrongly subtracting the $2,080 of health insurance premiums, and used a 3.0% rate instead of 2.95%."
+us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $41,909 base is correct, but it applied the 2025 rate of 3.0% instead of the 2026 rate of 2.95%."
+us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $41,909 base is correct, but it applied the 2025 rate of 3.0% instead of the 2026 rate of 2.95%."
+us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted the full $4,510 capital loss instead of the $3,000 cap and never subtracted the $1,042 401(k) deferral or the $49 IRA deduction, which gave an AGI of $42,490. It also applied 3.0% instead of 2.95%."
+us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $41,909 base is correct, but it applied 2.90% instead of Indiana's 2026 flat rate of 2.95%."
+us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied 'standard deductions', but Indiana has no standard deduction. Its $1,018 implies a base of about $34,500, while the correct base is $41,909.38, federal AGI minus the $1,000 exemption, taxed at 2.95%."
+us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed deductions and credits wiped out the liability. In fact, no nonrefundable credits apply, and $41,909.38 of taxable income at 2.95% gives positive tax."
+us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $41,909 base is correct, but it applied a made-up 3.025% rate instead of Indiana's 2026 flat rate of 2.95%."
+us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the correct 2.95% rate but subtracted a made-up $1,000 'Indiana deduction' on top of the $1,000 personal exemption. Indiana allows only the single $1,000 exemption here."
+us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied a standard deduction, which Indiana does not have, to $45,000 of wages and gave no real calculation. The correct base is federal AGI of $42,909.38 minus the $1,000 exemption, taxed at 2.95%."
+us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $41,909 base is correct, but it applied the 2025 rate of 3.0% instead of the 2026 rate of 2.95%."
+us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $41,909 base is correct, but it applied 2.85% instead of Indiana's 2026 flat rate of 2.95%."
+us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no answer or explanation for this variable, so there is no submitted value to score."
+us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied 3.05% instead of the 2026 rate of 2.95%. Its $1,230 implies a base of about $40,300 rather than the correct $41,909.38, federal AGI minus the $1,000 exemption."
+us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $41,909 base is correct, but it applied the 2025 rate of 3.0% instead of the 2026 rate of 2.95%."
+us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $41,909 base is correct, but it applied 2.97% instead of Indiana's 2026 flat rate of 2.95%."
+us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It included the $960 of excludable workers' compensation in AGI and deducted the full $4,510 capital loss instead of the $3,000 cap. It also omitted the $1,000 personal exemption entirely and used 3.05% instead of 2.95%."
+us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It taxed federal taxable income of $30,860, which is after the federal standard deduction. Indiana starts from federal AGI of $42,909.38 and subtracts only the $1,000 exemption. It also used 3.05% instead of 2.95%."
us,scenario_015,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_016,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly derived that itemizing the medical expenses against the 7.5%-of-AGI floor ($2,410) drives taxable income to zero and stated ""tax = 0,"" then discarded that result on an invented benchmark convention that a wage earner's self-paid premiums are pre-tax and therefore not itemizable. Having reverted to the standard deduction it computed $1,677 ($12,400 at 10% plus $3,638 at 12%), yet submitted $1,523, a figure that matches neither the itemized nor the standard-deduction branch of its own work."
us,scenario_016,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It never compared itemized deductions against the standard deduction, missing the roughly $44,590 net medical expense deduction ($47,000 of premiums, other medical, and OTC expenses less the $2,410 7.5%-of-AGI floor) that exceeds AGI and zeroes taxable income. It compounded this by deducting the full $3,000 of student loan interest instead of the $2,500 statutory cap, using a $15,000 standard deduction, fabricating $600 of mortgage interest from a $20,000 balance, and awarding a $575 Saver's Credit even though no retirement contributions are listed and unlisted inputs are zero."
@@ -1373,45 +1418,47 @@ us,scenario_016,ssi,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wron
us,scenario_016,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_016,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_016,tanf,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model got AGI, the $16,100 standard deduction and the 2026 brackets right, but also subtracted $1,625 for the OBBBA car-loan interest deduction. That deduction requires a loan taken out after 2024 for a new, U.S.-assembled vehicle, and the facts show no such vehicle (household vehicles are worth $4,690). Without that subtraction, taxable income is $45,492.09 and tax is $5,211.05."
-us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted a $6,760 overtime-premium deduction and a $1,625 car-loan interest deduction that don't apply. Listed wages of $68,005 are about $26 × 50 hrs × 52, which is straight-time pay with no qualified overtime premium, and no qualifying new vehicle loan is shown. Taxable income is $45,492.09, not $37,107."
-us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 2024 standard deduction of $14,600 instead of the 2026 figure of $16,100. It also made up a bracket breakpoint (12% only up to $46,225) and then reported $4,903, which doesn't match its own $5,716. With the correct figures, taxable income is $45,492.09 and tax is 1,240 + 12% × 33,092.09 = $5,211.05."
-us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted health premiums from wages, but no pre-tax premium exclusion is listed, so AGI is $61,592.09. It then guessed taxable income at about $50,000, and its $4,700 answer is even lower than the tax on that guess (about $5,752). The correct taxable income of $45,492.09 gives $5,211.05."
-us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,other,False,"The model correctly worked out $1,240 + $3,971 = $5,211 on taxable income of $45,492. It then replaced that with an unsupported $6,754 as an 'adjustment with rounded brackets', throwing away the correct result."
-us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"The model correctly found taxable income of $45,492 and the bracket pieces $1,240 and $3,971, but reported a total of $6,033 instead of their sum, $5,211. This is an arithmetic error in the final step."
-us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model assumed the job was FLSA non-exempt and deducted a $6,760 overtime premium, plus $1,625 of car-loan interest. Wages of $68,005 equal straight-time pay of $26 × 50 × 52, so they contain no time-and-a-half premium, and the facts show no qualifying new U.S.-assembled vehicle loan. Neither deduction applies, so taxable income is $45,492.09."
-us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the pre-OBBBA 2025 standard deduction of $15,000 and the 2025 10% bracket ceiling of $11,925 instead of 2026's $16,100 and $12,400. It also took a $200 Saver's Credit using a made-up $64,000 single-filer limit. The real single limit is about $40,250, so at $61,592 AGI there is no Saver's Credit."
-us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"After getting taxable income of $45,492 right, the model used a 10% bracket ceiling of $12,150 instead of $12,400. It then subtracted an unexplained $303 credit even though it had just said the Saver's Credit was phased out. At $61,592 AGI a single filer gets no Saver's Credit, so the answer is the full $5,211.05."
-us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model counted the same $9,000 premium twice ($18,000) and included $1,500 of over-the-counter costs, which aren't deductible medical expenses. That pushed itemized deductions above a $15,400 standard deduction that is itself too low. Correctly measured, medical expenses after the 7.5% floor plus Arizona tax total about $6,000, well under $16,100, so the standard deduction applies."
-us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model assumed TCJA expired in 2026 and applied a $7,700 standard deduction, a personal exemption and a 15% bracket. OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent, so 2026 has a $16,100 standard deduction, no exemption, and 10%/12% brackets. It also wrongly cut AGI by $9,000 of health premiums; AGI is $61,592.09."
-us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a $15,650 standard deduction and a $12,450 10% bracket ceiling. The 2026 figures are $16,100 and $12,400, which give taxable income of $45,492.09 and tax of $5,211.05."
-us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model assumed TCJA expired and applied an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,300 personal exemption and 15%/25% brackets. Under OBBBA, 2026 has a $16,100 standard deduction, no personal exemption, and 10%/12% brackets on taxable income of $45,492.09."
-us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 2024 standard deduction of $14,600 instead of $16,100 and left out the $289 IRA deduction and the $50 of interest. Its $4,724 is also below the tax on its own $47,231 taxable income (about $5,420 under 2026 brackets). The correct taxable income of $45,492.09 gives $5,211.05."
-us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied pre-TCJA 2026 rules, with a combined $13,790 standard deduction and personal exemption plus higher brackets. OBBBA kept the TCJA structure: a $16,100 standard deduction with 10%/12% brackets, giving $5,211.05."
-us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model assumed TCJA expired (an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,300 exemption and a 15% bracket) and also took $9,000 of health premiums out of AGI. Under current law, AGI is $61,592.09, the standard deduction is $16,100, and taxable income of $45,492.09 is taxed at 10%/12%."
-us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model gave no derivation. Its $5,304 matches a standard deduction of about $15,350–$15,400 instead of the 2026 figure of $16,100, which raises taxable income by roughly $750. The correct taxable income of $45,492.09 gives $5,211.05."
-us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a $15,700 standard deduction and a $12,275 10% bracket ceiling instead of 2026's $16,100 and $12,400. As a result it overstated taxable income at $45,892 instead of $45,492.09."
-us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model assumed TCJA expired and applied a personal exemption, a smaller standard deduction and a 15% bracket. OBBBA permanently set the 2026 single standard deduction at $16,100 with 10%/12% brackets, which gives $5,211.05."
-us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the pre-OBBBA 2025 standard deduction of $15,000 and the 2025 10% bracket ceiling of $11,925 instead of 2026's $16,100 and $12,400. That inflated taxable income to $46,592."
-us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used an estimated $15,400 standard deduction and a $12,260 10% bracket ceiling instead of 2026's $16,100 and $12,400. That overstated taxable income by $700."
-us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a $15,000 standard deduction (the 2025 pre-OBBBA figure) and a $12,300 10% bracket ceiling instead of 2026's $16,100 and $12,400. That inflated taxable income to $46,592."
-us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model subtracted a nonrefundable Child Tax Credit for 'one qualifying child', but the household is a single 53-year-old filer with no dependents. With no credits, tax on $45,492.09 of taxable income is $5,211.05."
-us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"The model claimed there was no positive tax liability without computing anything. AGI of $61,592.09 minus the $16,100 standard deduction leaves $45,492.09 of taxable income, which produces $5,211.05 of tax, and no nonrefundable credit offsets it."
-us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted a $6,760 qualified overtime deduction, but wages of $68,005 are straight-time pay ($26 × 50 × 52) and contain no time-and-a-half premium to deduct. Taxable income is $45,492.09, not $38,732."
-us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly found taxable income of $45,492, but its $5,220.54 matches using the 2025 10% bracket ceiling of $11,925 instead of the 2026 ceiling of $12,400. That puts $475 more income in the 12% bracket."
-us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted a $6,760 overtime-premium deduction (10 hrs × $13 × 52). The listed $68,005 in wages equals $26 × 50 × 52 straight time, so no qualified overtime premium was paid. Taxable income stays at $45,492.09."
-us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted a $6,760 qualified overtime deduction that doesn't apply. The $68,005 in wages is straight-time pay ($26 × 50 × 52) with no overtime premium in it, so taxable income is $45,492.09 and tax is $5,211.05."
-us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,other,False,"The model mixed up AGI (about $61k) with taxable income and gave a rounded $5,200 instead of working through the brackets. The exact figure is 10% × $12,400 + 12% × $33,092.09 = $5,211.05."
-us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied expired-TCJA rules (a $5,300 personal exemption and a 15% bracket). It also counted the same $9,000 premium twice to reach $18,000 of premiums in its itemized deductions. Under OBBBA, the $16,100 standard deduction is larger than the correctly measured itemized deductions, and the 10%/12% brackets apply."
-us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a $15,400 standard deduction and a $12,250 10% bracket ceiling instead of 2026's $16,100 and $12,400. That overstated taxable income at $46,192."
-us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly found taxable income of $45,492, but used a 10% bracket ceiling of $12,200 instead of the 2026 ceiling of $12,400. That gives $5,215.04 instead of $5,211.05."
-us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a $15,375 standard deduction instead of the 2026 figure of $16,100. That produced taxable income of $46,217 instead of $45,492.09."
-us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $15,381 medical deduction counts the same $9,000 premium twice and includes non-deductible over-the-counter costs. Allowable medical expenses ($9,500 minus the 7.5% floor of $4,619) plus Arizona tax total about $6,000, far below the $16,100 standard deduction."
-us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no value and no explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was no answer to score."
-us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"The model gave $0 with no derivation, treating the filer as owing no tax. Taxable income of $45,492.09 after the $16,100 standard deduction produces $5,211.05 of tax, and no nonrefundable credits apply."
-us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted a $6,760 overtime-premium deduction and a $1,625 car-loan interest deduction. The $68,005 in wages is straight-time pay ($26 × 50 × 52) with no overtime premium, and no qualifying new U.S.-assembled vehicle loan is shown. Taxable income is $45,492.09, not $37,107."
-us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model left out the $289 deductible IRA contribution, putting AGI at $61,881 instead of $61,592.09. It also used a $15,750 standard deduction (the 2025 figure) and a $12,550 10% bracket ceiling instead of 2026's $16,100 and $12,400."
-us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its taxable income of $32,942 is about $12,550 below the correct $45,492.09, consistent with deducting retirement contributions a second time after they had already reduced AGI. It then took a $303 Saver's Credit, even though $61,592 AGI is above the single-filer limit of about $40,250."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model got AGI, the $16,100 standard deduction and the 2026 brackets right, but also subtracted $1,625 of auto loan interest as an OBBBA qualified passenger vehicle loan interest deduction. Nothing in the facts establishes a new, US-assembled vehicle bought after 2024, so that deduction is $0. Without it, taxable income is $45,492.09 and tax is $5,211.05, not $5,016."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted a $6,760 qualified overtime premium deduction and a $1,625 auto loan interest deduction, cutting taxable income to $37,107. FLSA non-exempt status and a qualifying new-vehicle loan are not given, so both deductions are zero. Taxable income is $45,492.09 after only the $16,100 standard deduction."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 2024 standard deduction of $14,600 instead of 2026's $16,100. It also put the start of the 22% bracket at $46,225 instead of $50,400, which produced $5,716. It then submitted $4,903, a figure none of its own arithmetic supports."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted health premiums from wages, although only the traditional 401(k) and IRA reduce AGI here. It then guessed taxable income at about $50,000 and tax at $4,700, which don't match each other. The correct taxable income is $45,492.09, giving $5,211.05."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,other,False,"The model correctly computed $1,240 + 12% × $33,092 = $5,211. It then dropped that result for an unexplained 'adjustment with rounded brackets' and submitted $6,754."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"The model correctly set out $1,240 + $3,971 on taxable income of $45,492, which totals $5,211. It then reported $6,033, a figure that doesn't follow from its own bracket arithmetic."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model assumed the job is FLSA non-exempt and took a $6,760 overtime premium deduction. It also assumed the auto loan qualifies and deducted $1,625. Neither status is given, so both deductions are zero, and taxable income is $45,492.09 rather than $37,107."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 2025 standard deduction of $15,000 and the 2025 10% bracket ceiling of $11,925 instead of the 2026 values of $16,100 and $12,400. It also subtracted a $200 Saver's Credit using an AGI ceiling far above the single-filer limit. At $61,592 of AGI a single filer gets no Saver's Credit."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model had the right taxable income of $45,492 but used a 10% bracket ceiling of $12,150 instead of $12,400. It then subtracted about $303 for a Saver's Credit while saying in the same reasoning that the credit phases out. At $61,592 of AGI the single-filer Saver's Credit is zero."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model counted $18,000 of premiums: the $9,000 'excluding Medicare Part B' premium and the $9,000 'other' premium describe the same cost. It also counted over-the-counter expenses, which are not deductible medical expenses. Together these pushed itemized deductions past an outdated $15,400 standard deduction. Correctly measured, itemized deductions fall below the $16,100 standard deduction, and the 10% bracket ends at $12,400, not $12,075."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model assumed the TCJA expires in 2026, using a $7,700 standard deduction, a $4,950 personal exemption and a 15% bracket. OBBBA made the TCJA rate structure permanent, so 2026 has a $16,100 standard deduction, no personal exemption, and 10%/12% brackets. The model also subtracted $9,000 of health premiums from wages without basis."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a 2026 standard deduction of $15,650 and a 10% bracket ceiling of $12,450 instead of $16,100 and $12,400. That overstated taxable income at $45,942 versus $45,492.09."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model treated the TCJA as expired in 2026, using an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,300 personal exemption and 15%/25% brackets. Under OBBBA, 2026 keeps the $16,100 standard deduction and the 10%/12% brackets, which give $5,211.05."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 2024 standard deduction of $14,600 and left out both the $289 IRA deduction and the $50 of interest, giving taxable income of $47,231. The $4,724 it reported doesn't even match any bracket calculation on that figure. The correct taxable income is $45,492.09, giving $5,211.05."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied projected pre-TCJA brackets and a combined standard deduction and personal exemption of $13,790. OBBBA kept the TCJA structure for 2026, so the right figures are a $16,100 standard deduction and the 10%/12% brackets."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model assumed the TCJA sunset, using an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,300 exemption and a 15% bracket. It also subtracted $9,000 of health premiums from wages. In fact AGI is $61,592.09, taxable income after the $16,100 standard deduction is $45,492.09, and the 10%/12% brackets apply."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model gave no bracket detail. Its $5,304 matches a taxable income of about $46,200, which implies a stale standard deduction of about $15,400 and 2025 bracket edges rather than the 2026 standard deduction of $16,100 and 10% ceiling of $12,400."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a $15,700 standard deduction and a 10% bracket ceiling of $12,275 instead of the 2026 values of $16,100 and $12,400, so taxable income came out $400 too high."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model assumed the TCJA expires and applied a standard deduction plus personal exemption with 10%/15% brackets, giving taxable income of $48,142. OBBBA keeps the $16,100 standard deduction and the 12% bracket for 2026, with no personal exemption."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 2025 standard deduction of $15,000 and the 2025 10% bracket ceiling of $11,925 instead of the 2026 values of $16,100 and $12,400."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted a $6,760 qualified overtime deduction and a $1,625 auto loan interest deduction. FLSA non-exempt status and a qualifying new-vehicle loan are not among the facts, so both are zero. Taxable income is $45,492.09, not $37,107."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used an estimated 2026 standard deduction of $15,400 and a 10% bracket ceiling of $12,260 instead of OBBBA's $16,100 and the indexed $12,400."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a $15,000 standard deduction and a 10% bracket ceiling of about $12,300 instead of the 2026 values of $16,100 and $12,400. That overstated taxable income at $46,592."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model subtracted a nonrefundable Child Tax Credit 'for one qualifying child', but the household is a single adult with no dependents. The CTC is zero, and tax on $45,492.09 of taxable income is $5,211.05."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"The model claimed there was no remaining federal liability without computing any. AGI of $61,592.09 less the $16,100 standard deduction leaves $45,492.09 of taxable income, which produces $5,211.05 of tax with no credits to offset it."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model took a $6,760 qualified overtime deduction, based on 10 extra hours a week at a $13 premium. FLSA non-exempt status is not listed, so that deduction is zero, and taxable income is $45,492.09 rather than $38,732."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the correct $16,100 standard deduction and $45,492 of taxable income. However, it applied the 2025 10% bracket ceiling of $11,925 instead of 2026's $12,400: $1,192.50 + 12% × $33,567 = $5,220.54."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted an estimated $6,760 overtime premium deduction on the assumption that the worker is FLSA non-exempt. That status is not given, so the deduction is zero and taxable income is $45,492.09, not $38,732."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied a $6,760 qualified overtime deduction that requires FLSA non-exempt status, which the facts don't establish. That understated taxable income at $38,732 instead of $45,492.09."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,other,False,"The model gave a rounded $5,200 guess without working through the brackets. It also described about $61k as taxable income when that figure is AGI. The exact result is $1,240 + 12% × $33,092.09 = $5,211.05."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model assumed the TCJA sunset, applying a $5,300 personal exemption and a 15% bracket. It also itemized $18,500 of medical expenses by counting the same $9,000 premium twice and including over-the-counter costs. Correctly, the $16,100 standard deduction applies under the OBBBA 10%/12% brackets."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a $15,400 standard deduction and a 10% bracket ceiling of $12,250 instead of the 2026 values of $16,100 and $12,400, giving taxable income of $46,192 instead of $45,492.09."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model got the $16,100 standard deduction and $45,492 of taxable income right. It ended the 10% bracket at $12,200 instead of $12,400, which overstated tax by $4."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a 2026 standard deduction of $15,375 instead of $16,100, overstating taxable income at $46,217 instead of $45,492.09."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model itemized about $15,381 of medical expenses by counting both $9,000 premium fields, which are the same cost, and including over-the-counter expenses. That pushed itemized deductions above $16,100. Counted correctly, the medical deduction is far smaller and the $16,100 standard deduction applies, giving taxable income of $45,492.09."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no value and no explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was no answer to score."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"The model submitted $0 with no reasoning, which implies no positive liability. AGI of $61,592.09 less the $16,100 standard deduction leaves $45,492.09 of taxable income and $5,211.05 of tax."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted a $6,760 overtime premium deduction, which needs FLSA non-exempt status that isn't given. It also used the 2025 standard deduction of $15,750 and 10% bracket ceiling of $11,925 instead of 2026's $16,100 and $12,400."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model deducted a $6,760 overtime premium and $1,625 of auto loan interest. Neither FLSA non-exempt status nor a qualifying new-vehicle loan is given, so both deductions are zero and taxable income is $45,492.09, not $37,107."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model left out the $289 traditional IRA deduction, giving AGI of $61,881. It also used a $15,750 standard deduction and a 10% bracket ceiling of $12,550 instead of the 2026 values of $16,100 and $12,400."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model cut taxable income to $32,942 by subtracting about $12,550 beyond the standard deduction for retirement contributions already excluded from AGI. It then applied a $303 Saver's Credit even though $61,592 of AGI is above the single-filer ceiling of about $40,000 for 2026, so the credit is zero."
us,scenario_018,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_018,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,other,False,"The model correctly computed $4,216.31 of Social Security tax and $986.07 of Medicare tax, which sum exactly to $5,202.38, then invented a $49.41 “rounding adjustment.” No such adjustment applies."
us,scenario_018,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model improperly subtracted the listed $9,000 health-insurance premiums from FICA wages as though they were documented pre-tax employer-plan salary reductions. Applying 7.65% to the full $68,005 wage base yields $5,202.38."
@@ -1421,122 +1468,128 @@ us,scenario_018,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"The model stated
us,scenario_018,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model supplied no payroll-tax output or explanation, so it failed the required output contract."
us,scenario_018,payroll_tax,minimax-m3,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The zero answer omits federal employee FICA on $68,005 of wages. The correct computation includes $4,216.31 of Social Security tax and $986.07 of Medicare tax, totaling $5,202.38."
us,scenario_018,self_employment_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the un-indexed $15,750 standard deduction instead of the 2026 indexed $16,100. It also subtracted the $1,625 federal car-loan interest deduction, which is a federal below-the-line deduction and not part of the Arizona AGI computation. It then submitted $1,503, which matches none of its own intermediate results ($1,146 or $1,105)."
-us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied repealed graduated brackets (2.55%/3.34%) instead of Arizona's flat 2.5% rate and used a $14,600 standard deduction instead of $16,100. It also got the AGI arithmetic wrong ($61,567 instead of $61,592), then inflated the result to an unsupported $2,175."
-us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It guessed Arizona taxable income at about $44,000, which implies a deduction near $17,600. The correct figure is $61,592.09 minus the $16,100 single standard deduction, or $45,492.09, and 2.5% of that is $1,137.30, not $1,100."
-us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got the AGI ($61,592) and the 2.5% rate right but used a guessed $15,000 standard deduction instead of the 2026 indexed $16,100. That overstated taxable income by $1,100 and the tax by about $28."
-us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the $14,600 2024 federal standard deduction instead of Arizona's 2026 $16,100 to reach $1,175. It then raised the answer to $1,471 with no stated basis, even though a larger deduction would lower the tax, not raise it."
-us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its reasoning correctly applied the $16,100 standard deduction to $61,592 AGI and reached $1,137 at 2.5%. It then submitted $1,481, a number that contradicts its own final computation."
-us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $14,600 standard deduction carried over from an older federal value instead of Arizona's 2026 single deduction of $16,100. That overstated taxable income by $1,500 and gave $1,175 instead of $1,137.30."
-us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the stale $14,600 standard deduction to reach $1,175, then raised the answer to $1,450 for invented 'HSA-like premium considerations'. Neither step reflects the correct $16,100 deduction at 2.5%."
-us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,400 standard deduction, a pre-HB 4168 projection, instead of the $16,100 Arizona single deduction for 2026. That left taxable income $700 too high."
-us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It cut federal AGI to $52,592 by wrongly excluding $9,000 of health premiums from wages, when the AGI is $61,592.09. It also used a $7,700 standard deduction, which is half the single amount, instead of $16,100. The two errors partly offset and gave $1,122.30."
-us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,650 standard deduction instead of the 2026 indexed $16,100, which overstated taxable income by $450 and gave $1,148.55."
-us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly used the $16,100 standard deduction but also subtracted a $2,100 'personal exemption'. Arizona has no general personal exemption; the $2,100 exemption applies only to filers aged 65 or older or blind, and this filer is 53. The extra exemption understated the tax by $52.50."
-us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It projected a $14,600 standard deduction instead of Arizona's 2026 single deduction of $16,100, which overstated taxable income by $1,500 and gave $1,174.80."
-us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It showed no computation. $1,400 at 2.5% implies about $56,000 of taxable income, so it subtracted far less than the $16,100 standard deduction from the $61,592 AGI; the correct taxable income is $45,492.09."
-us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $13,790 standard deduction instead of Arizona's 2026 single amount of $16,100, which overstated taxable income by $2,310 and gave $1,195."
-us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started from an AGI of $52,592 by wrongly removing $9,000 of health premiums from income, when the AGI is $61,592.09. It also used a $14,600 standard deduction instead of $16,100. Both errors together gave $949.80."
-us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It showed no computation. $1,530 at 2.5% equals about $61,200 of taxable income, which is essentially the full AGI, so it effectively skipped the $16,100 standard deduction."
-us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,700 standard deduction instead of the 2026 indexed $16,100, which overstated taxable income by $400 and gave $1,147.30."
-us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $46,092 taxable income implies a $15,500 standard deduction instead of the $16,100 Arizona single deduction for 2026, which overstated the tax by $15."
-us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,000 standard deduction instead of the 2026 indexed $16,100, which overstated taxable income by $1,100 and gave $1,164.80."
-us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,other,False,"It used a $15,400 standard deduction instead of $16,100. It then misplaced the decimal point, writing '$1,1548.0' and submitting $11,548, ten times its own computed $1,154.80."
-us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,000 standard deduction instead of Arizona's 2026 single deduction of $16,100, which gave $1,165 instead of $1,137.30."
-us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It showed no computation. $1,941 is more than 2.5% of the household's entire gross income, so it applied a rate above Arizona's flat 2.5% or used old graduated brackets, and skipped the $16,100 standard deduction. The correct tax is 2.5% of $45,492.09."
-us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"It assumed zero tax with no basis. Arizona taxes the $45,492.09 left after the $16,100 standard deduction at 2.5%, and no nonrefundable credit offsets that liability."
-us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized by adding both $9,000 premium lines and $500 of medical costs into $18,500 of deductions. PolicyEngine's Arizona itemized deductions total only $10,637.30, so the $16,100 standard deduction applies and taxable income is $45,492.09, not $43,092."
-us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied 'progressive rates' to about $61,000 of income. Arizona has used a flat 2.5% rate since 2023, and the $16,100 standard deduction lowers taxable income to $45,492.09."
-us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a projected $15,450 standard deduction instead of the 2026 indexed $16,100, which overstated taxable income by $650 and gave $1,154."
-us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used about $15,400 as the standard deduction instead of Arizona's 2026 single deduction of $16,100, which gave $1,155 instead of $1,137.30."
-us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,375 standard deduction instead of the 2026 indexed $16,100, which overstated taxable income by $725 and gave $1,155."
-us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly used the $16,100 standard deduction but also subtracted a made-up ~$2,300 exemption. Arizona has no personal exemption for a single filer under 65 who is not blind, so taxable income is $45,492.09, not $43,192."
-us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It gave no value or reasoning for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so its output for this variable is missing. The correct value is $1,137.30: 2.5% of $61,592.09 minus the $16,100 standard deduction."
-us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,000 Arizona standard deduction instead of the 2026 indexed $16,100, which gave taxable income of $46,592 instead of $45,492.09 and tax of $1,164.80."
-us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"It returned zero with no reasoning. Arizona's flat 2.5% tax applies to the $45,492.09 left after the $16,100 standard deduction, which gives $1,137.30, and no nonrefundable credit removes it."
-us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed gross wages already excluded the traditional 401(k) and ignored the IRA deduction, which overstated AGI at $68,055 instead of $61,592.09. It also used a $14,600 standard deduction instead of $16,100."
-us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $14,508 standard deduction instead of $16,100. It then applied an invented 'rate structure' that taxes $45,486 at about 1.8%, when Arizona's flat rate is 2.5%."
+us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the un-indexed $15,750 standard deduction instead of the indexed 2026 figure of $16,100. It also subtracted $1,625 of auto loan interest, which is not an Arizona deduction for this filer. It then submitted $1,503, which matches neither of its own intermediate results ($1,146 or $1,105)."
+us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied repealed progressive brackets (2.55%/3.34%) instead of Arizona's flat 2.5% rate. It also used a $14,600 deduction instead of $16,100, made an arithmetic slip in AGI ($61,567), and then jumped without support from $1,304 to $2,175."
+us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It rounded taxable income down to about $44,000 instead of computing $61,592 − $16,100 = $45,492. That understates the 2.5% tax by about $37."
+us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used an estimated $15,000 standard deduction instead of the 2026 Arizona single deduction of $16,100. That overstates taxable income by $1,100 ($46,592 vs $45,492)."
+us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $14,600 standard deduction instead of $16,100 and got $1,175. It then raised the answer to $1,471 with no stated basis, even though a higher deduction should lower the tax."
+us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its reasoning used the correct $16,100 deduction and reached 2.5% × $45,492 = $1,137. It then submitted $1,481, which contradicts its own final computation."
+us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used $14,600 (the 2024 federal figure) as the 2026 Arizona standard deduction instead of $16,100. That makes taxable income $46,992 instead of $45,492."
+us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $14,600 standard deduction instead of $16,100 and got $1,175. It then added an unsupported upward 'premium consideration' adjustment to reach $1,450; Arizona's flat-tax calculation has no such add-on."
+us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $15,400 standard deduction instead of the 2026 Arizona single deduction of $16,100. That makes taxable income $46,192 instead of $45,492."
+us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took $9,000 of health premiums off AGI, giving $52,592 instead of $61,592. It also used a $7,700 standard deduction, half the real figure, instead of $16,100. The two errors roughly cancel and land at $1,122.30."
+us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $15,650 standard deduction instead of $16,100. That overstates taxable income by $450 ($45,942 vs $45,492)."
+us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly used the $16,100 deduction but also subtracted a $2,100 personal exemption. Arizona has no personal exemption for a single filer under 65 (it was replaced by a dependent credit), so taxable income came out too low at $43,392."
+us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a projected $14,600 standard deduction instead of the 2026 Arizona single deduction of $16,100. That makes taxable income $46,992 instead of $45,492."
+us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"At 2.5%, $1,400 implies taxable income of $56,000. That means the model never actually subtracted the $16,100 standard deduction from $61,592 of AGI; doing so gives $45,492 and $1,137.30."
+us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $13,790 standard deduction instead of the 2026 indexed $16,100. That makes taxable income $47,802 instead of $45,492."
+us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took $9,000 of health premiums off AGI, giving $52,592 instead of $61,592. It also used $14,600 instead of the $16,100 standard deduction, so taxable income came out at $37,992."
+us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"At 2.5%, $1,530 implies taxable income of about $61,200, which is essentially the full AGI. The model did not subtract the $16,100 standard deduction that brings taxable income down to $45,492."
+us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $15,700 standard deduction instead of $16,100. That overstates taxable income by $400 ($45,892 vs $45,492)."
+us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its taxable income of $46,092 implies a $15,500 standard deduction instead of $16,100. That overstates the tax by $15."
+us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $15,000 standard deduction instead of the 2026 Arizona single deduction of $16,100. That makes taxable income $46,592 instead of $45,492."
+us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"At 2.5%, $927.68 implies taxable income of $37,107, which is about $8,385 below the correct $61,592 − $16,100 = $45,492. That fits subtracting health premiums or other amounts Arizona does not allow, on top of the standard deduction."
+us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,other,False,"It used a $15,400 standard deduction instead of $16,100. It then misplaced the decimal, turning 0.025 × $46,192 = $1,154.80 into $11,548."
+us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $15,000 standard deduction instead of the 2026 Arizona single deduction of $16,100. That makes taxable income $46,592 instead of $45,492."
+us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"At 2.5%, $1,941 implies taxable income of $77,640, which is more than total gross income. The model applied a rate above Arizona's flat 2.5% or skipped the deductions; the correct figure is 2.5% × ($61,592 − $16,100) = $1,137.30."
+us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It set the tax to zero without any calculation. This filer has $45,492 of Arizona taxable income after the $16,100 standard deduction, and the flat 2.5% rate makes $1,137.30 of tax."
+us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized $18,500 of medical and premium costs, counting both $9,000 premium fields with no limit. PolicyEngine's Arizona itemized total is only $10,637.30, which is below the $16,100 standard deduction, so the standard deduction applies and taxable income is $45,492."
+us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied progressive rates 'averaging under 3%' to about $61k. Arizona has had a flat 2.5% rate since 2023, and the model also skipped the $16,100 standard deduction."
+us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a projected $15,450 standard deduction instead of $16,100. That makes taxable income $46,142 instead of $45,492."
+us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $15,400 standard deduction instead of the 2026 Arizona single deduction of $16,100. That makes taxable income $46,192 instead of $45,492."
+us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $15,375 standard deduction instead of $16,100. That makes taxable income $46,217 instead of $45,492."
+us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly used the $16,100 deduction but also subtracted a made-up $2,300 exemption. Arizona allows no personal exemption for a single filer under 65, so taxable income came out too low at $43,192."
+us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It gave no value and no explanation for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was nothing to score."
+us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $15,000 standard deduction instead of the 2026 Arizona single deduction of $16,100. That makes taxable income $46,592 instead of $45,492."
+us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It answered zero with no derivation. This filer's $61,592 AGI minus the $16,100 standard deduction leaves $45,492 taxable at 2.5%, which is $1,137.30."
+us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $14,600 standard deduction instead of the 2026 Arizona single deduction of $16,100. That makes taxable income $46,992 instead of $45,492."
+us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It wrongly treated the $68,005 gross wages as already net of the $6,174 traditional 401(k) contribution. It also dropped the $289 IRA deduction, so AGI came out at $68,055 instead of $61,592. On top of that it used a $14,600 deduction instead of $16,100."
+us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its taxable income of $45,486 is close to correct, even though it used a $14,508 deduction and a lower implied AGI. It then applied an invented 'rate structure' of about 1.83%, giving $832. Arizona's flat 2.5% rate gives about $1,137."
us,scenario_018,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"The standard deduction is the household's choice under c_irs_sales_tax_2025, whose $1,595 IRS 2025 sales tax amount leaves SALT below $16,100. It omitted the $196 non-itemizer charitable deduction, giving taxable income of $284,050 instead of $283,854.19 and tax of $68,404 instead of $68,334.73 with NIIT."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Used the $16,100 standard deduction plus the $196 non-itemizer charitable deduction, as appropriate under c_irs_sales_tax_2025 because the IRS 2025 sales tax amount leaves SALT below the standard deduction. Its $68,334.59 is $0.14 below the conventions' $68,334.73 with NIIT."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Subtracted the $138,375 of unreimbursed employee business expenses above the line, although they aren't deductible. It also used a $15,000 standard deduction instead of the 2026 $16,100 standard deduction plus the $196 non-itemizer charitable deduction appropriate under c_irs_sales_tax_2025. Its final $66,661 doesn't follow from its own $27,268 bracket calculation."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Never computed the liability and submitted $0, even though it noted the $300,000 of wages produces a large tax. Under c_irs_sales_tax_2025, $300,150.19 AGI minus the $16,100 standard deduction and $196 non-itemizer charitable deduction gives $283,854.19 of taxable income and $68,334.73 with NIIT, or the exclusion record's $68,112.09 without it."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Added the $42,857 FLSA overtime premium on top of the $300,000 of gross wages, even though it is already included in them. It applied a $10,000 SALT cap instead of the 2026 $40,400 cap and missed the Texas general sales tax deduction. Its submitted $70,813 doesn't match its own $82,743 calculation, and it left out NIIT."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Imputed $23,855 of mortgage interest from the loan balance, although unlisted interest is $0. It also denied the $5,709 alimony deduction, capped SALT at $10,000 instead of $40,400, and missed the sales tax deduction. Its submitted $71,866 doesn't match its own ~$64,291 arithmetic."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Guessed itemized deductions of $30,000–$40,000 with no listed basis; c_irs_sales_tax_2025 leaves SALT below the $16,100 standard deduction, which combines with the $196 non-itemizer charitable deduction. Its final $72,700 estimate is unexplained; the convention result is $68,334.73 with NIIT, or $68,112.09 without it."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Taking the $16,100 standard deduction plus the $196 non-itemizer charitable deduction agrees with c_irs_sales_tax_2025, whose IRS 2025 sales tax amount leaves SALT below the standard deduction. Its $68,334.59 is $0.14 below the conventions' $68,334.73 with NIIT."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Denied the $5,709 alimony deduction and capped SALT at $10,000 instead of the 2026 $40,400 cap. Under c_irs_sales_tax_2025, the IRS 2025 sales tax amount leaves SALT below the standard deduction; it used projected brackets and a $15,400 standard deduction instead of the 2026 parameters. It also left out the $222.64 of NIIT."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Used 2025 brackets and a $15,000 standard deduction instead of the 2026 figures, and missed the Texas sales tax itemized deduction. It added $900 of Additional Medicare Tax, which is a payroll tax and not part of income tax. Then it arbitrarily inflated its own ~$70,467 total to $76,500."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Denied the $5,709 above-the-line alimony deduction, giving AGI of $305,859 instead of $300,150.19. It also omitted the $196 non-itemizer charitable deduction from its standard deduction, giving taxable income of $289,759 instead of $283,854.19 under c_irs_sales_tax_2025."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Applied pre-TCJA rules: personal exemptions and $138,375 of employee business expenses as miscellaneous itemized deductions above a 2% floor. Both remain permanently repealed in 2026 under OBBBA. This cut taxable income to about $155,500 instead of $283,854.19 under c_irs_sales_tax_2025."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Applied pre-TCJA rules (personal exemption, miscellaneous itemized deduction of employee business expenses, 15/25/28% brackets), which OBBBA permanently replaced for 2026. It also subtracted the $8,389 of ESI premiums from the stated gross wages and left out both the alimony deduction and NIIT."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Claimed a $25,000 overtime deduction, but the single-filer deduction is capped at $12,500 and phases out by $100 per $1,000 of MAGI over $150,000, so it is zero at $300,150 AGI. It also denied the alimony deduction, used a $15,350 standard deduction instead of the $16,100 standard deduction plus the $196 non-itemizer charitable deduction appropriate under c_irs_sales_tax_2025, and left out NIIT."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Used pre-TCJA law: a personal exemption, unreimbursed employee expenses as miscellaneous itemized deductions above a 2% floor, and 10/15/25/28% brackets. All of these stay repealed in 2026 under OBBBA. This understated taxable income by about $129,000 and left out NIIT."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Assumed the TCJA sunset and allowed employee business expenses plus a personal exemption, then replaced the regular tax with an AMT estimate. It also subtracted $8,389 of ESI premiums from the stated gross wages and skipped the alimony deduction. The correct regular-tax path under c_irs_sales_tax_2025 uses the $16,100 standard deduction plus the $196 non-itemizer charitable deduction, giving $283,854.19 of taxable income."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Denied the alimony deduction, giving AGI of $305,859, and capped SALT at $10,000 instead of $40,400. Under c_irs_sales_tax_2025, SALT remains below the standard deduction, so the household uses the $16,100 standard deduction plus the $196 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Assumed the TCJA provisions expire in 2026 and allowed unreimbursed employee expenses as miscellaneous itemized deductions, then calculated an AMT. OBBBA made the suspension permanent. It also subtracted ESI premiums from the stated gross wages."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Counted $146,570 of itemized deductions, including the $138,375 of unreimbursed employee expenses, which are permanently nondeductible under OBBBA. It also subtracted $8,389 of ESI premiums from gross wages and replaced the regular tax with an AMT estimate. Under c_irs_sales_tax_2025, SALT remains below the $16,100 standard deduction, so the household uses that deduction plus the $196 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Left out the alimony deduction and the Texas sales tax itemization. Its $50,568 is about $18,000 below what the 2026 single brackets produce for roughly $290,000 of taxable income, so the bracket arithmetic is wrong."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Applied pre-TCJA law, with personal exemptions, uncapped SALT and miscellaneous employee business expenses above a 2% floor, all of which OBBBA keeps repealed for 2026. It also subtracted ESI premiums from the stated gross wages."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Assumed the TCJA sunset and itemized $138,375 of unreimbursed employee expenses above a 2% floor, plus a personal exemption, although both stay repealed in 2026. It also subtracted $8,389 of ESI premiums from the stated gross wages and skipped the alimony deduction."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Used the 2025 $15,000 standard deduction and brackets instead of the 2026 figures and denied the alimony deduction. Under c_irs_sales_tax_2025, the household uses the $16,100 standard deduction plus the $196 non-itemizer charitable deduction; it left out the $222.64 NIIT included in the frozen reference."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Assumed the TCJA expires in 2026 and deducted $132,372 of unreimbursed employee expenses as miscellaneous itemized deductions plus a personal exemption, although OBBBA made both repeals permanent. It also used pre-TCJA brackets and left out NIIT."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Denied the $5,709 above-the-line alimony deduction, giving AGI of $305,859. Its standard deduction is appropriate under c_irs_sales_tax_2025, whose IRS 2025 table leaves SALT below $16,100; it omitted the $196 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Concluded deductions wipe out the tax by imputing mortgage interest (unlisted, so $0) and allowing the $138,375 of unreimbursed employee expenses, which are nondeductible. Under c_irs_sales_tax_2025, SALT stays below the $16,100 standard deduction, and that deduction plus $196 of non-itemizer charity leaves $283,854.19 of taxable income."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Its ~$31,472 answer matches a pre-TCJA calculation that deducts the unreimbursed employee expenses as miscellaneous itemized deductions. Those remain permanently disallowed in 2026, so taxable income is about $130,000 too low."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Took the $16,100 standard deduction, which is appropriate under c_irs_sales_tax_2025 because the IRS 2025 table leaves SALT below it, but omitted the $196 non-itemizer charitable deduction; the applicable taxable income is $283,854.19."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Subtracted the $8,389 of ESI premiums from the stated $300,000 gross wages, which understates income. Its standard deduction is appropriate under c_irs_sales_tax_2025, whose IRS 2025 table leaves SALT below $16,100; it omitted the $196 non-itemizer charitable deduction and, compared with the frozen reference, the $222.64 of NIIT."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Used the standard deduction plus the $196 non-itemizer charitable deduction, as appropriate under c_irs_sales_tax_2025 because the IRS 2025 table leaves SALT below $16,100. Its $68,112.00 is $0.09 below the exclusion record's $68,112.09 without NIIT; adjudication leaves NIIT inclusion ambiguous."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Its $70,179 matches $289,759 of taxable income. That means it denied the $5,709 alimony deduction and omitted the $196 non-itemizer charitable deduction; its standard deduction is appropriate under c_irs_sales_tax_2025. Compared with the frozen reference, it also left out the $222.64 of NIIT."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Took the $16,100 standard deduction plus the $196 non-itemizer charitable deduction, as appropriate under c_irs_sales_tax_2025 because the IRS 2025 table leaves SALT below $16,100; its $68,111.95 is $0.14 below the exclusion record's $68,112.09 without NIIT."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Its $70,401 matches $289,759 of taxable income plus NIIT. That means it denied the $5,709 alimony deduction and omitted the $196 non-itemizer charitable deduction; its standard deduction is appropriate under c_irs_sales_tax_2025 because the IRS 2025 table leaves SALT below $16,100."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Started from $305,859 of gross income with no $5,709 alimony deduction and took the $16,100 standard deduction. Its standard deduction is appropriate under c_irs_sales_tax_2025, but it omitted the $196 non-itemizer charitable deduction; with alimony and charity, taxable income is $283,854.19 rather than its $289,759."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Used the standard deduction plus the $196 non-itemizer charitable deduction ($283,854 of taxable income), as appropriate under c_irs_sales_tax_2025 because the IRS 2025 table leaves SALT below $16,100; its $68,111.95 is $0.14 below the exclusion record's $68,112.09 without NIIT."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Gave a rounded $65,000 guess with no computation. Under c_irs_sales_tax_2025, the path uses $300,150.19 of AGI after alimony, the $16,100 standard deduction plus $196 of non-itemizer charity, and $68,112.09 of regular tax, or $68,334.73 with NIIT; adjudication leaves NIIT inclusion ambiguous."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Applied pre-TCJA rules, deducting $132,372 of employee business expenses as miscellaneous itemized deductions and claiming a personal exemption. OBBBA keeps both repealed in 2026, so taxable income came out at $148,321 instead of $283,854.19 under c_irs_sales_tax_2025, which takes the standard deduction plus $196 of non-itemizer charity."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Assumed the TCJA sunset and allowed uncapped SALT and miscellaneous employee expenses, then estimated AMT. It also denied the alimony deduction. Under 2026 law regular tax applies with no AMT, on $283,854.19 of taxable income under c_irs_sales_tax_2025, which takes the standard deduction plus $196 of non-itemizer charity."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Took the $16,100 standard deduction, which is appropriate under c_irs_sales_tax_2025 because the IRS 2025 table leaves SALT below it, but omitted the $196 non-itemizer charitable deduction. It also left out the $222.64 of NIIT."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Applied pre-TCJA rules: no SALT cap, miscellaneous deduction of the $138,375 of employee expenses, and 15/25/28% brackets. All of these are superseded in 2026. It also subtracted ESI premiums from the stated gross wages and skipped the alimony deduction and NIIT."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Subtracted $8,389 of ESI premiums from the stated gross wages, denied the $5,709 alimony deduction, and treated the $196 charitable gift as an above-the-line adjustment. Its standard deduction is appropriate under c_irs_sales_tax_2025 because the IRS 2025 sales tax table leaves SALT below $16,100."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,Didn't return a value or any reasoning for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits.
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Its standard deduction plus the $196 non-itemizer charitable deduction is the household's choice under c_irs_sales_tax_2025 because the IRS 2025 table leaves SALT below $16,100; its $68,334.59 is $0.14 below the convention result of $68,334.73 with NIIT."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Submitted $0 with no computation, ignoring the tax on $300,000 of wages. Under c_irs_sales_tax_2025, taxable income is $283,854.19 after alimony, the $16,100 standard deduction and $196 of non-itemizer charity, giving $68,112.09 of regular tax or $68,334.73 with NIIT; $68,056.71 is the excluded frozen reference."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Subtracted the $8,389 of ESI premiums from the stated gross wages and left out the $5,709 alimony deduction. Its standard deduction plus the non-itemizer charitable deduction is appropriate under c_irs_sales_tax_2025 because the IRS 2025 table leaves SALT below $16,100, and it left out NIIT compared with the frozen reference."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Declared alimony nondeductible, leaving AGI at $305,859, and counted only $13,834 of property tax as SALT. Its standard deduction is appropriate under c_irs_sales_tax_2025 because the IRS 2025 table leaves SALT below $16,100, but it omitted the $196 non-itemizer charitable deduction. It also left out the $222.64 of NIIT."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Added the $42,857 FLSA overtime premium on top of the $300,000 of gross wages, even though it is already included, and capped SALT at $10,000 instead of $40,400. It also used 2025 brackets and a $15,750 standard deduction. Its submitted $68,513.50 contradicts its own $85,241.65 calculation."
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Used married-filing-jointly brackets for a single filer, applied a QBI deduction with no business income, and subtracted a child tax credit with no children."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It counted only the $13,834 of real estate tax as SALT and took the $16,100 standard deduction. It missed the general sales tax deduction (IRS optional table, about $3,256) that a Texas itemizer claims instead of income tax, which brings itemized deductions to $17,090.34. Its taxable income was $284,050 instead of $283,059.84."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It counted SALT as just the $13,834 of real estate tax, so it took the standard deduction plus the $196 non-itemizer charitable deduction. Adding the optional-table general sales tax deduction raises SALT to $17,090.34, so itemizing wins and the $196 gift falls under the 0.5%-of-AGI floor. Taxable income is $283,059.84, not $283,854."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It subtracted the $138,375 of unreimbursed employee business expenses above the line, but these are suspended miscellaneous itemized deductions and do not reduce AGI. It also used a $15,000 standard deduction instead of itemizing $17,090 of SALT. It then dropped its own $27,268 figure and submitted an unsupported $66,661."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It never did the calculation and submitted 0, even though it noted the liability would be high. The correct path is AGI of $300,150.19 after alimony, itemized SALT of $17,090.34, taxable income of $283,059.84, and $67,834.07 of tax plus $222.64 NIIT."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It added the $42,857 FLSA overtime premium on top of the $300,000 gross wages, although that premium is already part of gross wages. It applied a $10,000 SALT cap instead of the 2026 cap of $40,400, missed the sales tax deduction, and left out NIIT. It then submitted $70,813, which does not match its own $82,743 result."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It disallowed the $5,709 alimony deduction that PolicyEngine takes above the line. It invented $23,855 of mortgage interest from the loan balance, although no interest amount was listed, and capped SALT at $10,000 instead of $40,400. It then submitted $71,866, which does not match its own roughly $64,291 figure."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It guessed itemized deductions of $30,000–$40,000 without support; the correct itemized total is $17,090.34 of SALT, including the optional-table sales tax. It then submitted $72,700, which does not follow from its own estimate of about $63,000–$64,000."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It treated SALT as only the $13,834 of property tax and chose the standard deduction plus the $196 non-itemizer charitable deduction. It missed the Texas general sales tax deduction from the IRS optional table, which brings SALT to $17,090.34 so itemizing wins. Taxable income is $283,059.84, not $283,854."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It disallowed the alimony deduction that PolicyEngine allows above the line, capped SALT at $10,000 instead of $40,400, and missed the sales tax deduction. It used its own projected $15,400 standard deduction and brackets instead of the 2026 values. It also left out the $222.64 NIIT, which is part of this output."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It used 2025 brackets, a $15,000 standard deduction and a $10,000 SALT cap instead of the 2026 values, and missed the sales tax deduction. It added $900 of Additional Medicare Tax, which is a payroll tax and not part of this output. It then inflated its own $70,467 to an arbitrary $76,500."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It treated the $5,709 alimony expense as non-deductible, but PolicyEngine deducts it above the line, giving AGI of $300,150.19. It also counted only the property tax as SALT and missed the optional-table sales tax deduction, so it took the standard deduction instead of itemizing $17,090.34. Its taxable income was $289,759 instead of $283,059.84."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It assumed TCJA expired. It deducted $132,258 of unreimbursed employee expenses as miscellaneous itemized deductions and used personal exemptions and pre-TCJA brackets. OBBBA made the suspension of miscellaneous deductions and the current rate structure permanent for 2026."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It applied pre-TCJA rules: deductible unreimbursed employee expenses above a 2% floor, a personal exemption and the old 15%/25%/28% brackets. All of these are permanently replaced for 2026. It also subtracted the $8,389 of ESI premiums from the stated gross wages."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It took a $25,000 overtime deduction, but a single filer's cap is $12,500 and it phases out at $100 per $1,000 of MAGI over $150,000, so it is zero at about $300,000 of MAGI. It also disallowed the alimony deduction, took the standard deduction instead of itemizing $17,090 of SALT, and left out NIIT."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It used pre-TCJA sunset rules: misc employee expenses above a 2% floor, a $5,450 personal exemption and 15%/25%/28% brackets. OBBBA keeps those deductions suspended and the current brackets in place for 2026. It also left out the alimony deduction and NIIT."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It assumed TCJA sunset and computed AMT on top of regular tax built on deductible employee expenses and a personal exemption, none of which exist in 2026. It also removed the $8,389 of ESI premiums from gross wages and skipped the alimony deduction. Under 2026 law, the $17,090 SALT itemization gives regular tax of $67,834, with no AMT."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It used AGI of $305,859, leaving out the $5,709 alimony deduction. It capped SALT at $10,000 instead of $40,400 and missed the optional-table sales tax, so it took the standard deduction instead of itemizing $17,090.34."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It assumed TCJA individual provisions expire in 2026, allowed the unreimbursed employee expenses as a 2%-floor miscellaneous deduction and then applied AMT. OBBBA made the suspension permanent, so the correct calculation is regular tax on $283,059.84 of taxable income after itemizing $17,090 of SALT."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It subtracted the $8,389 of ESI premiums from gross wages and itemized $146,570, including suspended miscellaneous employee expenses, then used AMT to limit the result. The correct itemized deductions are only $17,090.34 of SALT on AGI of $300,150.19."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It submitted $50,568 without a calculation. The correct path is taxable income of $283,059.84 taxed through the 2026 35% bracket ($67,834.07) plus $222.64 NIIT. Its figure is about $17,500 too low, which fits applying lower brackets or rates."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It applied pre-TCJA rules: uncapped real estate tax, unreimbursed employee expenses above a 2% floor and personal exemptions. OBBBA permanently suspends those deductions and exemptions for 2026. It also subtracted the ESI premiums from gross wages."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It assumed TCJA sunset and itemized the $138,375 of unreimbursed employee expenses above a 2% floor, plus a personal exemption. Neither is allowed in 2026. It also removed the $8,389 of ESI premiums from the stated gross wages."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It used 2025 brackets and a $15,000 standard deduction instead of the 2026 values. It left out the alimony deduction, missed the sales tax deduction that makes itemizing $17,090.34 better, and omitted the $222.64 NIIT."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It computed tax on AGI of $305,859, leaving out the $5,708.82 alimony deduction, and took the $16,100 standard deduction. It missed the optional-table general sales tax deduction, which brings SALT to $17,090.34 so itemizing wins. Its taxable income was $289,759 instead of $283,059.84."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It assumed TCJA expires in 2026, deducted $132,372 of unreimbursed employee expenses as miscellaneous itemized deductions and added a personal exemption under pre-TCJA brackets. OBBBA keeps those suspended. It also left out NIIT."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It treated alimony paid as non-deductible, but PolicyEngine deducts it above the line, giving AGI of $300,150.19. It counted only $13,834 of property tax as SALT and missed the optional-table sales tax, so it took the standard deduction instead of itemizing $17,090.34. Its taxable income was $289,759 instead of $283,059.84."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It counted unlisted mortgage interest and the suspended $138,375 of unreimbursed employee expenses as deductions and wiped out the whole liability. The only valid itemized deductions are $17,090.34 of SALT, which leaves $283,059.84 of taxable income."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"Its $31,472 figure only works if the $138,375 of unreimbursed employee expenses were deducted under pre-TCJA rules. Those deductions are suspended in 2026, and the correct itemization is $17,090.34 of SALT."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It took the $16,100 standard deduction because it missed the general sales tax deduction that Texas itemizers claim from the IRS optional table. That deduction raises SALT to $17,090.34 so itemizing wins. Its taxable income was $284,050 instead of $283,059.84."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It subtracted the $8,389 of ESI premiums from the stated $300,000 gross wages, which are already the full wage amount. It took the standard deduction instead of itemizing $17,090.34 of SALT, including the optional-table sales tax. It also left out the $222.64 NIIT."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It took the standard deduction plus the $196 non-itemizer charitable deduction, missing the optional-table sales tax that brings itemized SALT to $17,090.34. It also left out the $222.64 net investment income tax, which this output includes."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It computed taxable income of $289,759 from AGI of $305,859, leaving out the $5,708.82 alimony deduction and taking the standard deduction instead of itemizing $17,090.34 of SALT. It also left out the $222.64 NIIT."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It took the $16,100 standard deduction plus the $196 non-itemizer charitable deduction, missing the IRS optional-table sales tax deduction that makes itemizing $17,090.34 better. It also left out the $222.64 NIIT, which belongs in this output."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It taxed $289,759 of taxable income, which leaves out the $5,708.82 above-the-line alimony deduction. It also used the standard deduction instead of itemizing $17,090.34 of SALT, which includes the optional-table sales tax."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It started from $305,859 of gross income with no alimony deduction and took the $16,100 standard deduction, giving taxable income of $289,759. It missed the $5,708.82 alimony deduction and the optional-table sales tax that brings itemized SALT to $17,090.34. Correct taxable income is $283,059.84."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It took the standard deduction plus the $196 non-itemizer charitable deduction, giving taxable income of $283,854. It missed the Texas general sales tax deduction that makes itemizing $17,090.34 better. It also left out the $222.64 NIIT."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It rounded to an unsupported $65,000 and did no deduction or bracket work. The correct calculation is $67,834.07 of tax on $283,059.84 of taxable income after itemizing $17,090.34 of SALT, plus $222.64 NIIT."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It applied pre-TCJA rules for 2026: $132,372 of miscellaneous employee expenses above the 2% floor, a personal exemption and inflated old brackets. OBBBA permanently suspends those items, so the correct itemized deductions are only $17,090.34 of SALT."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It assumed TCJA sunset with deductible employee expenses and uncapped SALT, then fell back to AMT. Under 2026 law those expenses stay suspended and there is no AMT. It also left out the alimony deduction, so it started from $305,859 instead of $300,150.19."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It took the $16,100 standard deduction, giving taxable income of $284,050. It missed the optional-table general sales tax deduction that raises SALT to $17,090.34 and makes itemizing better. It also left out the $222.64 NIIT."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It used pre-TCJA brackets and itemized the unreimbursed employee expenses above a 2% floor, which are suspended in 2026. It also removed the $8,389 of ESI premiums from gross wages and skipped the alimony deduction and NIIT."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It subtracted the $8,389 of ESI premiums from gross wages, left out the $5,709 alimony deduction and treated the $196 gift as an above-the-line deduction. It took the standard deduction instead of itemizing $17,090.34 of SALT including optional-table sales tax, under which the gift falls below the 0.5%-of-AGI floor."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It gave no value or explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was no answer to score."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It compared only the $13,834 of property tax with the $16,100 standard deduction and added the $196 non-itemizer charitable deduction. It missed the IRS optional-table general sales tax that Texas itemizers deduct, which brings SALT to $17,090.34. Taxable income is $283,059.84, not $283,854."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It submitted 0 with no reasoning. The correct calculation is AGI of $300,150.19, itemized SALT of $17,090.34, taxable income of $283,059.84, and $67,834.07 of tax plus $222.64 NIIT; zero means it never computed the tax."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It started from AGI of $297,470 by removing the ESI premiums from gross wages and treated alimony as non-deductible. It also took the standard deduction instead of itemizing $17,090.34 of SALT including optional-table sales tax, and left out the $222.64 NIIT."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It subtracted the $8,389 of ESI premiums from the stated gross wages and left out the $5,709 alimony deduction. It used the standard deduction plus the non-itemizer charitable deduction instead of itemizing $17,090.34 of SALT, and it left out NIIT."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It treated alimony as non-deductible, but PolicyEngine deducts $5,708.82 above the line. It put SALT at only $13,834, missing the optional-table sales tax that brings it to $17,090.34 so itemizing wins. It also left out the $222.64 NIIT."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It added the $42,857 overtime premium on top of the $300,000 gross wages, which already include it. It capped SALT at $10,000 instead of $40,400 and used off-year brackets. It then submitted $68,513.50, which does not match its own $85,241.65 result."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,"It used married-filing-jointly brackets for a single filer, took a QBI deduction with no business income and subtracted a child tax credit with no children. None of these apply to this childless single wage earner."
us,scenario_020,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"It first computed the correct $16,689 using the $184,500 wage base. It then cut Medicare wages to $291,611 by treating the $8,389 ESI premium as a pre-tax deduction, which gave $16,491.86. The $15,200 it finally submitted matches neither figure."
-us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,other,False,"It used the 2024 wage base of $168,600 instead of the 2026 base of $184,500. It also added the $42,857 overtime premium on top of gross wages that already include it, and subtracted the ESI premium from FICA wages. The $23,119.50 it submitted matches none of its own totals ($15,703.20, $16,710.34, $16,513.19)."
-us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"It never computed the tax and submitted $0, even though $300,000 of wages produces $11,439 Social Security, $4,350 Medicare, and $900 Additional Medicare Tax, for $16,689 in total."
-us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,other,False,"Its first calculation was the correct $16,689 ($184,500 base, $4,350 Medicare, $900 Additional Medicare Tax). It then tried other wage bases and submitted $13,283.40, which matches none of its calculations."
-us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 wage base of $176,100 instead of the 2026 base of $184,500, which gave $16,168.20. It then submitted $6,219, a number unrelated to that total."
-us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"It computed the correct $16,689 from the $184,500 wage base, $4,350 Medicare, and $900 Additional Medicare Tax. It then cut that to $15,866 for 'base uncertainty' with no computational basis."
-us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It carried the 2025 wage base of $176,100 forward to 2026 instead of using $184,500. That understated Social Security tax by $520.80 and gave $16,168.20."
-us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It reached the correct $16,689 with the $184,500 base, then 'rechecked' and switched to a wrong 2026 base of $182,600. That lowered Social Security tax to $11,321.20 and the total to $16,571.20."
-us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a guessed 2026 wage base of $183,700 instead of $184,500. That understated Social Security tax by $49.60 ($11,389 vs $11,439) and gave $16,639."
-us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a wage base of $184,200 instead of the 2026 base of $184,500. That made Social Security tax $11,420.40 instead of $11,439 and the total $16,670.40."
-us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It used the 2025 wage base of $176,100 instead of $184,500. It also cut Medicare wages to $291,611 by subtracting the $8,389 ESI premium, but those premiums do not reduce FICA wages. The result was Medicare of $4,228.36 and Additional Medicare Tax of $824.50 instead of $4,350 and $900."
-us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"With $4,350 Medicare and $900 Additional Medicare Tax, its $15,516 total implies about $10,266 of Social Security tax. That matches an outdated wage cap of about $165,600 instead of the 2026 base of $184,500, which yields $11,439."
-us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It cut Medicare wages by the ESI premium ('gross wages minus ESI'), but those premiums do not reduce FICA wages. Its $16,436 also matches a $183,600 wage base ($11,383) rather than $184,500. The correct figures are $11,439 + $4,350 + $900."
-us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It used a wage cap of about $177,300 (Social Security tax of about $10,993) instead of $184,500. It also cut Medicare wages to $291,611 by subtracting the ESI premium, which does not reduce FICA wages. Both errors understate the correct $11,439 + $4,350 + $900."
-us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $22,864 is consistent with applying 6.2% to roughly all $300,000 of wages (about $18,600), so it effectively ignored the $184,500 cap. With the cap, Social Security tax is $11,439 and the total is $16,689."
-us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It used a 2026 wage base of $181,800 instead of $184,500. It also cut Medicare wages to $291,611 by subtracting the $8,389 ESI premium, which does not reduce FICA wages. That gave $11,271.60 + $4,228.36 + $824.50 instead of $11,439 + $4,350 + $900."
-us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"Its $16,324.46 equals $11,271.60 (a $181,800 wage base) plus $4,228.36 plus $824.50. That means it used the wrong cap and also cut Medicare wages by the ESI premium, which does not reduce FICA wages."
-us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It capped Social Security at the 2025 wage base of $176,100 ($10,918.20) instead of the 2026 base of $184,500 ($11,439). That gave $16,168.20 instead of $16,689."
-us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a rounded guess of $180,000 for the 2026 wage base instead of $184,500. That made Social Security tax $11,160 instead of $11,439 and the total $16,410."
-us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a 2026 wage base of $181,800 instead of $184,500. That understated Social Security tax by $167.40 and gave $16,521.60."
-us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $18,348 is $1,659 above the correct total. With the stated $4,350 Medicare and $900 Additional Medicare Tax, it implies Social Security tax of $13,098, which exceeds the $11,439 maximum set by the $184,500 cap."
-us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said no Additional Medicare Tax was triggered, but $300,000 of wages exceeds the $200,000 single threshold and owes $900. Its $11,689 is also $5,000 below the correct $16,689, so its Social Security and Medicare components were understated as well."
-us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,grok-4.3,llm_error,other,False,"Its stated components ($176,100 × 6.2% + $4,350 + $900) add to $16,168.20, but it reported $10,578, which is an arithmetic error. Separately, $176,100 is the 2025 cap, not the 2026 cap of $184,500."
-us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an estimated wage base of $183,144 instead of $184,500. That made Social Security tax $11,355 instead of $11,439 and the total $16,605."
-us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It cut FICA wages to $291,611 by subtracting the ESI premium, so Medicare came out at $4,228 and Additional Medicare Tax at $825 instead of $4,350 and $900. It also used a $184,000 base instead of $184,500."
-us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,inkling,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It used the correct $184,500 base ($11,439) but subtracted the $8,389 ESI premium from Medicare wages. ESI premiums do not reduce FICA wages, so Medicare should be on the full $300,000 ($4,350) and Additional Medicare Tax should be $900, not $4,228 and $825."
-us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It gave no payroll_tax value and no explanation, so there was no answer to score."
-us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"It submitted $0 with no reasoning, even though $300,000 of wages owes $11,439 Social Security, $4,350 Medicare, and $900 Additional Medicare Tax, for $16,689 in total."
-us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,muse-wonder,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It treated the $8,389 ESI premium as a pre-tax deduction that cut FICA wages to $291,611, which gave Medicare of $4,228.36 and Additional Medicare Tax of $824.50. ESI premiums do not reduce FICA wages, so the full $300,000 gives $4,350 and $900."
-us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It added the $42,857 FLSA overtime premium on top of $300,000 gross wages that already include overtime, which inflated Medicare and Additional Medicare Tax. It also used the 2025 base of $176,100. On top of that, the $19,436.31 it submitted does not match its own $17,175.34 total."
-us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It treated overtime premiums as wages on top of the stated gross. Its $20,303 is far above the correct total, which caps Social Security at $184,500 ($11,439) and taxes $300,000 for Medicare ($4,350) plus $900 Additional Medicare Tax."
+us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It derived the correct $16,689 ($11,439 + $4,350 + $900) and then dropped it. It cut Medicare wages by the $8,389 ESI premium as if it were a cafeteria-plan deduction, giving $16,491.86, and then submitted $15,200, which matches neither calculation. The stated $300,000 gross wages are the FICA base, and nothing reduces them."
+us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the outdated 2024 Social Security wage base of $168,600 instead of the 2026 base of $184,500. It also added the $42,857 FLSA overtime premium on top of the $300,000, which already includes overtime, and then subtracted the ESI premium. Its submitted $23,119.50 matches none of its own subtotals, which ranged from $15,703 to $16,710."
+us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,missing_output,False,"It never computed the tax and submitted 0. The correct amount is $11,439 Social Security (6.2% of the $184,500 2026 base), plus $4,350 Medicare, plus $900 Additional Medicare Tax, for $16,689."
+us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,other,False,"Its first calculation was exactly right: $11,439 + $4,350 + $900 = $16,689 using the $184,500 2026 wage base. It then tried other wage bases ($176,100 and $183,600) and submitted $13,283.40, which none of its calculations produce."
+us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 Social Security wage base of $176,100 instead of the 2026 base of $184,500, which understates Social Security tax by $520.80 and gives $16,168.20. It then submitted $6,219, which does not match even that total."
+us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"It computed the correct $16,689 ($11,439 SS on the $184,500 base, $4,350 Medicare and $900 Additional Medicare Tax). It then discounted the total to $15,866 to account for 'base uncertainty', with no rule behind the change."
+us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It carried the 2025 Social Security wage base of $176,100 into 2026 instead of the indexed 2026 base of $184,500. That gives SS tax of $10,918.20 instead of $11,439 and a total of $16,168.20."
+us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It first got $16,689 using the correct $184,500 2026 wage base. It then replaced the base with an incorrect $182,600, which cuts SS tax to $11,321.20 and gives $16,571.20."
+us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an estimated 2026 Social Security wage base of $183,700 instead of the actual $184,500. That makes SS tax $11,389 instead of $11,439 and the total $16,639."
+us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a 2026 Social Security wage base of $184,200 instead of $184,500. That gives SS tax of $11,420.40 instead of $11,439 and a total of $16,670.40."
+us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 wage base of $176,100 instead of the 2026 base of $184,500. It also cut Medicare wages to $291,611 by subtracting the ESI premium, even though the stated $300,000 gross wages are the FICA base. Both errors push its answer down, to $15,971.06."
+us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"If Medicare ($4,350) and Additional Medicare Tax ($900) are correct, its $15,516 total leaves only about $10,266 of Social Security tax. That matches a wage base near $165,600, or the old 2024 base of $168,600 combined with reduced Medicare wages, rather than $11,439 on the 2026 base of $184,500."
+us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It explicitly reduced Medicare wages by the ESI premium ('gross wages minus ESI'), giving $291,611. That understates Medicare and Additional Medicare Tax, because the full $300,000 is the FICA base. Its $16,436 also implies Social Security on a base of about $183,600 instead of $184,500."
+us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its Social Security figure of about $10,993 implies a wage base of about $177,300 instead of the 2026 base of $184,500. It also taxed only $291,611 of Medicare wages after subtracting the ESI premium, when it should have used the full $300,000. The result is $16,045."
+us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $22,864 total is $6,175 too high, so Social Security was effectively applied to nearly all $300,000 of wages, even though its explanation mentions the cap. For comparison, uncapped SS of $18,600 plus Medicare of $4,350 is $22,950. Capping at the $184,500 2026 base gives SS of $11,439 and a total of $16,689."
+us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a wage base of $181,800 instead of the 2026 base of $184,500, giving SS of $11,271.60. It also subtracted the ESI premium to tax only $291,611 for Medicare and Additional Medicare Tax, when the full $300,000 counts. The result is $16,324.46."
+us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $16,324.46 matches exactly a $181,800 wage base for Social Security combined with Medicare wages reduced by the ESI premium to $291,611. The correct inputs are the 2026 base of $184,500 and the full $300,000 of gross wages."
+us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It capped Social Security at the 2025 wage base of $176,100 instead of the 2026 base of $184,500. That gives SS tax of $10,918.20 instead of $11,439 and a total of $16,168.20."
+us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a Social Security wage base of $181,800 instead of the 2026 base of $184,500. That gives SS tax of $11,271.60 instead of $11,439 and a total of $16,521.60."
+us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed a projected 2026 wage base of $180,000 instead of the actual $184,500. That gives SS tax of $11,160 instead of $11,439 and a total of $16,410."
+us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a 2026 Social Security wage base of $181,800 instead of $184,500, which understates SS tax by $167.40 and gives $16,521.60. Its Medicare and Additional Medicare Tax figures are correct."
+us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $18,348 total implies Social Security tax of $13,098 after the correct $4,350 Medicare and $900 Additional Medicare Tax. That is above the 2026 maximum of $11,439 (6.2% of $184,500), so it did not apply the wage base cap correctly."
+us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It wrongly concluded that no Additional Medicare Tax applies. Unmarried filers owe 0.9% on wages above $200,000, which here is $900 on $100,000. Its $11,689 is even below capped Social Security plus regular Medicare alone ($15,789)."
+us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 wage base of $176,100 instead of $184,500, and then added up its own components wrong. $10,918.20 + $4,350 + $900 is $16,168.20, not the $10,578 it submitted."
+us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It estimated a 2026 wage base of about $183,144 instead of the actual $184,500. That gives SS tax of $11,355 instead of $11,439 and a total of $16,605."
+us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It cut FICA wages to $291,611 by subtracting the ESI premium, which understates Medicare ($4,228) and Additional Medicare Tax ($825). It also used a $184,000 wage base instead of $184,500. The result is $16,461 instead of $16,689."
+us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,inkling,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"Its Social Security figure of $11,439 on the $184,500 base is correct. However, it subtracted the $8,389 ESI premium and taxed only $291,611 for Medicare and Additional Medicare Tax, giving $4,228 and $825 instead of $4,350 and $900 on the full $300,000."
+us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It gave no answer and no reasoning for payroll_tax, so there was no value to score against the $16,689 reference."
+us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,minimax-m3,llm_error,missing_output,False,"It submitted 0 with no derivation, which ignores FICA on $300,000 of wages entirely. The correct amount is $11,439 Social Security, plus $4,350 Medicare, plus $900 Additional Medicare Tax, for $16,689."
+us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It treated the ESI premium as a pre-tax deduction and cut FICA wages to about $291,611, which understates Medicare and Additional Medicare Tax. The full $300,000 of gross wages is the Medicare base, so the correct total is $16,689, not $16,492."
+us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,muse-wonder,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It got Social Security right at $11,439. However, it subtracted the $8,389 ESI premium to tax only $291,611 for Medicare ($4,228.36) and Additional Medicare Tax ($824.50), when the full $300,000 counts ($4,350 and $900)."
+us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It added the $42,857 FLSA overtime premium on top of the $300,000 gross wages, which already include overtime, inflating Medicare wages to $342,857. It also used the 2025 wage base of $176,100. It then submitted $19,436.31, which does not match its own $17,175.34 total."
+us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It stressed taxing wages 'including overtime premiums' and came out $3,614 too high at $20,303, so it added the $42,857 FLSA premium on top of the $300,000 gross wages, which already include overtime. The correct base is $300,000: $11,439 SS on the $184,500 cap, plus $4,350 Medicare, plus $900 Additional Medicare Tax."
us,scenario_020,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly identified that Texas has no state individual income tax but then inserted an unexplained $2,380 nonrefundable state-tax amount. No state or local jurisdictional rule applies to create that liability for this Texas household, so the state-income-tax computation yields $0."
us,scenario_021,head_chip_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_021,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model assumed that being 85, disabled and on Medicare opens a Medicaid pathway automatically, and it never ran an income test. Missouri's ABD pathway applies an 85% FPL limit. The head's full Social Security plus pension (about $27,510 after the $20 disregard, or 172% of FPL) fails that limit, and at 85 the head is outside the MAGI adult group (ages 19–64)."
@@ -1552,147 +1605,153 @@ us,scenario_021,snap,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model
us,scenario_021,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,The model supplied no parseable value for the requested output and therefore failed the required submission contract.
us,scenario_021,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model treated the full $5,508 taxable pension as Missouri taxable income, ignored the applicable deductions and 2026 taxable-income threshold, and applied an unsupported flat 1.9% rate directly to that pension. Missouri taxable income is reduced to zero before the rate calculation, yielding $0 of tax before refundable credits."
us,scenario_021,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used single status, the phased $3,951 senior deduction and the $910 QBI deduction, and included $8,829 of real estate tax in SALT. The prompt lists no state income tax withheld or paid; the frozen reference adds the engine's $6,058.85 withholding estimate, giving $29,736 of itemized deductions. The model's $24,222 of itemized deductions and $80,066 taxable income reflect a different treatment of that unlisted input and omission of the charitable floor."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It filed as a qualifying surviving spouse and used the joint brackets and the $32,200 joint standard deduction. That status requires a dependent child, so single status ($18,150 aged standard deduction, single brackets) applies. It also took the full $6,000 senior deduction without the 6% phase-down above $75,000 MAGI, and added a non-itemizer charitable deduction, even though itemizing is optimal for a single filer."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used head-of-household status and brackets, which require a qualifying person this filer does not have. It also counted the full $20,735 of Social Security instead of the 85% taxable portion, and subtracted the $8,351 of unreimbursed employee expenses above the line, which is not allowed. On top of that, its reported $11,316 does not match its own $10,564 computation."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated taxable Social Security as about $0 and assumed deductions would wipe out taxable income. With provisional income near $102,000, 85% of benefits ($17,625) is taxable, so AGI is $109,149. After $34,597 of deductions, taxable income is $74,553, not zero."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used qualifying-surviving-spouse status with the joint standard deduction and joint brackets, even though the filer has no dependent child, so single status applies. It also left out the phased $3,951 senior deduction. It put no state income tax in SALT, which the prompt does not list; the frozen reference adds the engine's $6,058.85 withholding estimate. As a single filer, the household itemizes under every recorded reading of that input."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It filed with joint brackets as a qualifying surviving spouse even though there is no dependent child. It also made up $12,771 of mortgage interest from the loan balance (no interest paid was listed) and took the full $6,000 senior deduction without the phase-down above $75,000 MAGI. Its final $6,919 does not match its own $7,350 arithmetic."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized $24,222 without state income tax in SALT or the charitable floor. The prompt lists no state income tax withheld or paid; the frozen reference's $29,736 itemized total includes the engine's $6,058.85 withholding estimate. It also took the full $6,000 senior deduction instead of phasing it down to $3,951. Its $8,547 does not follow from single brackets applied to its own $78,017 of taxable income, which gives about $11,900."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used qualifying-surviving-spouse status with the $32,200 joint standard deduction and joint brackets, but with no dependent child the filer is single. Under single status, itemizing ($29,736 including California income tax in SALT) beats the $18,150 aged standard deduction and the non-itemizer charitable deduction it took, and the 22% bracket applies above $50,400."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired in 2026 and brought back personal exemptions, the 2%-floor deduction for employee expenses, and the 15%/25% brackets. In fact OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent. It also used QSS joint rates and made up mortgage interest. Its final $13,013 matches none of its own intermediate results ($6,837 to $7,205)."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used joint brackets and the $32,600 joint standard deduction for qualifying-surviving-spouse status, even though the filer has no dependent child. It capped SALT at the old $10,000 instead of the $40,400 OBBBA cap, and left out both the phased senior deduction and the QBI deduction. Its $6,800 does not match its own ~$8,700 computation."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It filed as a surviving spouse with joint brackets and the $33,850 joint standard deduction, but single status applies because there is no dependent child. It also took the full $6,000 senior deduction without the 6% phase-down above $75,000 MAGI, and it skipped the $910 QBI deduction on the rental income."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the surviving-spouse joint standard deduction and joint brackets (2025's $23,850 10% bracket), even though without a dependent child the filer is single. It left out the phased $3,951 senior deduction and the $910 QBI deduction. Its itemized total also left out California income tax in SALT."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied pre-TCJA law: a personal exemption, the 2%-floor deduction for unreimbursed employee expenses, and 15%/25% brackets. Under OBBBA none of these exist in 2026, and the single brackets are 10%/12%/22%. It used its own $2,019 California tax estimate in SALT; the prompt lists no state income tax paid or withheld, and the frozen reference uses the engine's $6,058.85 withholding estimate. It also left out the senior and QBI deductions."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied expired pre-TCJA rules: a $5,200 personal exemption and the 2%-floor deduction for employee expenses, both repealed under OBBBA. It used its own $2,135 California tax estimate in SALT; the prompt lists no state income tax paid or withheld, and the frozen reference uses the engine's $6,058.85 withholding estimate. It also left out the senior and QBI deductions. Its submitted $13,047.69 contradicts its own $12,372 result."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized real estate tax and charity ($24,222), with no state income tax in SALT or charitable floor. The prompt lists no state income tax paid or withheld; the frozen reference adds the engine's $6,058.85 withholding estimate. It also omitted the phased $3,951 senior deduction and $910 QBI deduction, producing $84,927 taxable income compared with $74,553 under the frozen reference's assumptions. Its bracket edges ($12,200/$49,600) are not the 2026 single thresholds."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used pre-TCJA law: a $5,000 personal exemption, the 2%-floor deduction for employee expenses, and 10%/15%/25% brackets. In 2026 the single brackets are 10%/12%/22%, and personal exemptions and the 2%-floor deductions are repealed. It also left out the phased senior deduction and the California income tax portion of SALT."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted mortgage interest as an itemized deduction even though no interest paid was listed. It also never mentioned the phased $3,951 senior deduction or the $910 QBI deduction. The prompt lists no state income tax paid or withheld; the frozen reference adds the engine's $6,058.85 withholding estimate to SALT. Its $11,335 implies taxable income about $1,000 above the frozen reference's $74,553 under that assumption."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied pre-TCJA itemized deductions (including the 2%-floor employee expenses) and personal exemptions, both of which are repealed in 2026 under OBBBA. It also left out the phased senior deduction and the QBI deduction that the reference applies with the 10%/12%/22% single brackets."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the TCJA had expired. It deducted $6,168 of unreimbursed employee expenses over a 2% floor and a $5,050 personal exemption, neither of which exists in 2026, and used pre-TCJA rate brackets. It used its own $2,172 California tax estimate in SALT; the prompt lists no state income tax paid or withheld, and the frozen reference uses the engine's $6,058.85 withholding estimate. It also left out the senior and QBI deductions."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $13,446 implies taxable income near $85,000 under 2026 single brackets. That is consistent with itemizing real estate tax and charity without state income tax in SALT, the phased $3,951 senior deduction or the $910 QBI deduction. The prompt lists no state tax payment or withholding; $74,553 is the frozen reference's taxable income under the engine's unlisted $6,058.85 withholding estimate."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It capped SALT at the old $10,000 rather than the 2026 $40,400 cap. The frozen reference's $14,888 SALT includes the engine's $6,058.85 withholding estimate, although the prompt lists no state tax paid or withheld. It also left out the phased $3,951 senior deduction; its $82,846 taxable income compares with $74,553 under the frozen reference's assumptions."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Under single brackets, its $9,260 implies taxable income near $66,000, about $8,400 below the frozen reference's $74,553. Relative to that reference's assumptions, this is consistent with higher deductions or joint brackets the filer does not qualify for. The reference's $29,736 itemized total includes the engine's $6,058.85 withholding estimate, an input the prompt does not list."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted unreimbursed employee business expenses, which are not deductible in 2026 because OBBBA permanently repealed miscellaneous itemized deductions. It also left out the phased $3,951 senior deduction and the $910 QBI deduction. Its $13,200 implies taxable income near $84,000, compared with the frozen reference's $74,553 under the engine's unlisted $6,058.85 withholding estimate in SALT."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized $24,222 without state income tax in SALT or the charitable floor; the prompt lists no state income tax paid or withheld, and the frozen reference's $29,736 total adds the engine's $6,058.85 withholding estimate. It also left out the phased $3,951 senior deduction, which applies to filers aged 65+ in 2026. It then used 2025 single brackets ($11,925/$48,475) instead of the 2026 thresholds ($12,400/$50,400)."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $8,351 of unreimbursed employee business expenses above the line, which is not allowed, and took the standard deduction even though itemizing ($29,736) is larger. It then subtracted $5,850 of federal withholding that was never given, even though withholding has no effect on tax before refundable credits."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It concluded that deductions fully offset tax and ignored the $109,149 of AGI, which includes $17,625 of taxable Social Security. Under the frozen reference's unlisted withholding assumption, deductions total $34,597, leaving $74,553 taxable income and $11,113.57 tax; the exclusion also records positive tax under the alternative readings."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $1,237 implies taxable income of only about $12,000, far below the frozen reference's $74,553, which depends on the engine's unlisted $6,058.85 withholding estimate in SALT. That fits leaving most of the wages, pension and taxable Social Security out of AGI or massively overstating deductions and credits. No nonrefundable credits are available to this filer."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used surviving-spouse joint brackets even though the filer has no dependent child, so single brackets apply. It also subtracted a personal exemption, which is $0 in 2026. With the 22% bracket starting at $50,400, the tax on $74,553 is $11,114, not $9,800."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the right structure (itemized deductions, senior deduction, QBI deduction), but its $10,247 implies taxable income near $70,600 under single brackets. That implies about $3,900 more deductions than the frozen reference's $34,597, which includes the engine's unlisted $6,058.85 withholding estimate in SALT. The model gives no deduction amounts that locate the difference."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used surviving-spouse joint rates and the joint standard deduction, but that status requires a dependent child, so the single schedule and the $18,150 aged standard deduction apply. Under single status, itemizing ($29,736) is optimal, and income above $50,400 falls in the 22% bracket."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It taxed itemized-deduction taxable income on the surviving-spouse (joint) schedule, even though the filer has no dependent child, so single brackets apply. It also never mentioned the phased $3,951 senior deduction or the $910 QBI deduction."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It got the phased $3,951 senior deduction and the $910 QBI deduction right, but used the qualifying-surviving-spouse $33,850 joint standard deduction and joint brackets. Without a dependent child, single status applies, with 22% above $50,400. The frozen reference itemizes $29,736 and yields $74,553 taxable income by adding the engine's $6,058.85 withholding estimate to SALT, although the prompt lists no state tax payment or withholding."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $9,651 implies taxable income near $67,900 under single brackets, which implies about $6,600 more deductions than the frozen reference's $34,597 (itemized $29,736 + senior $3,951 + QBI $910). That reference includes the engine's unlisted $6,058.85 withholding estimate in SALT; the model reports a phased senior deduction but gives no itemized or QBI amounts to locate the difference."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It estimated itemized deductions at $26,456. The prompt lists no state tax payment or withholding; the frozen reference instead uses the engine's $6,058.85 withholding estimate for $14,888 of SALT. It also omitted the $910 rental QBI deduction, leaving $78,742 taxable income compared with $74,553 under the frozen reference's assumptions."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It got the phased $3,951 senior deduction and the $910 QBI deduction right, but used surviving-spouse joint brackets and the $33,850 joint standard deduction. With no dependent child the filer is single, with 22% above $50,400. The frozen reference's $29,736 itemized total and $11,113.57 tax depend on the engine's $6,058.85 withholding estimate in SALT, although the prompt lists no state tax paid or withheld."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $30,000 QSS standard deduction and joint brackets, even though the filer has no dependent child and is single. It also left out the phased $3,951 senior deduction and the $910 QBI deduction, and never compared the standard deduction with the larger $29,736 of itemized deductions."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the TCJA sunset. It deducted $6,168 of employee expenses above a 2% floor and a $5,419 personal exemption, neither of which is allowed in 2026 under OBBBA. It also left out the phased $3,951 senior deduction and the $910 QBI deduction."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It handled filing status, senior deduction and QBI correctly and used its own $1,974 California tax estimate, giving $10,803 SALT and $78,092 taxable income. The prompt lists no state tax paid or withheld; the frozen reference instead uses the engine's $6,058.85 withholding estimate, giving $14,888 SALT and $74,553 taxable income under that assumption."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used its own $1,867 California tax estimate for $10,696 SALT; the prompt lists no state tax paid or withheld, and the frozen reference's $14,888 SALT uses the engine's $6,058.85 withholding estimate. It set the QBI deduction to $0, even though 20% of the $4,550 of rental income ($910) is deductible. It also used non-2026 bracket edges ($12,225/$49,675) instead of $12,400/$50,400."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted 100% of Social Security as taxable instead of the 85% cap ($17,625), which inflated AGI to $112,259. It also applied pre-TCJA rules (the 2%-floor deduction for employee expenses and 15%/25% brackets), which do not apply in 2026, and left out the senior and QBI deductions."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the 0.5% charitable floor and used its own approximately $2,024 California tax estimate for $10,853 SALT. The prompt lists no state tax paid or withheld; the frozen reference's $14,888 SALT instead uses the engine's $6,058.85 withholding estimate. It also subtracted a rental depreciation that was not given and left out the $910 QBI deduction, which left taxable income at $78,538."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,It returned no answer and no explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits.
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used its own $2,700 California tax estimate for $11,529 SALT; the prompt lists no state tax paid or withheld, and the frozen reference's $14,888 SALT uses the engine's $6,058.85 withholding estimate. It also skipped the $910 rental QBI deduction, leaving $78,276 taxable income compared with $74,553 under the frozen reference's assumptions."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed taxable income was too low to owe tax and ignored that AGI is $109,149, including $17,625 of taxable Social Security. Even with $34,597 of deductions, taxable income is $74,553, which produces $11,113.57 of tax."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized real estate tax and charity ($24,222), with no state income tax in SALT or charitable floor. The prompt lists no state income tax paid or withheld; the frozen reference adds the engine's $6,058.85 withholding estimate. It also left out the $910 QBI deduction, yielding $80,976 taxable income compared with $74,553 under the frozen reference's assumptions."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It filed with joint (QSS) brackets and the joint standard deduction even though there is no dependent child, so single status applies. It took the full $6,000 senior deduction by testing MAGI against the $150,000 joint threshold instead of the single $75,000 threshold, which phases it down to $3,951. It also dropped the $910 QBI deduction."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used QSS joint brackets (and 2025's $23,850 threshold) even though the filer has no dependent child. It overstated AGI at $126,774 instead of $109,149 through an addition error with Social Security, and made up $12,771 of mortgage interest when no interest paid was listed."
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed itemized deductions produce negative taxable income. To get there it counted made-up mortgage interest, sub-floor medical costs and nondeductible employee expenses. The frozen reference deducts $34,597 from $109,149 AGI, leaving $74,553 taxable income under the engine's unlisted $6,058.85 withholding estimate in SALT; the exclusion records positive tax under the alternative readings too."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly filed single and took the $3,951 phased senior deduction and $910 QBI deduction. However, it limited SALT to the $8,829 property tax, leaving out about $6,059 of California income tax withheld that counts under the $40,400 OBBBA cap, and it skipped the 0.5%-of-AGI floor on charity. As a result, itemized deductions came out at $24,222 instead of $29,735.52, and taxable income at $80,066 instead of $74,552.59."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It filed as a qualifying surviving spouse, using joint brackets and the $32,200 joint standard deduction, but QSS status requires a dependent child, so this filer is single. It also took the full $6,000 senior deduction without the 6% phase-out above $75,000 MAGI, which cuts it to $3,951, and it added a $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction. A single filer instead itemizes $29,735.52, reaching $74,552.59 of taxable income and the 22% bracket."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used head-of-household status and a $27,900 standard deduction although the filer has no dependent and files single. It subtracted $8,351 of unreimbursed employee business expenses, which are not deductible, and it counted 100% of Social Security instead of 85%. Its submitted $11,316 does not match even its own $10,564 bracket calculation, and it never applied itemizing, the senior deduction or the QBI deduction."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated Social Security as essentially untaxable and assumed the 65+ standard deduction wiped out taxable income. In fact, provisional income of about $102,000 makes 85% ($17,625) of benefits taxable, so AGI is $109,149. After $34,596.57 of total deductions, taxable income is $74,552.59, and tax at single rates is $11,113.57."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It filed as a qualifying surviving spouse with joint brackets and a $33,950 standard deduction, but QSS requires a dependent child, so the filer is single. A single filer's itemized deductions ($29,735.52, including CA income tax in SALT) beat the $18,150 standard deduction. It also left out the phased $3,951 senior deduction."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied QSS joint brackets although no dependent child exists, and it deducted $12,771 of mortgage interest estimated from the loan balance, even though the inputs give no interest paid. It also took the full $6,000 senior deduction without the 6% phase-out above $75,000 MAGI. Its submitted $6,919 does not match the roughly $7,350 its own arithmetic produced."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It filed single and itemized, but it left about $6,059 of CA income tax out of SALT and took the full $6,000 senior deduction instead of the phased $3,951. It then applied the brackets wrongly: on its own $78,017 of taxable income, 2026 single rates give about $11,900, not $8,547."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied QSS joint brackets and the $32,200 joint standard deduction, but without a dependent child the filer is single. A single filer itemizes $29,735.52 and pays 22% on taxable income above $50,400. The joint 12% bracket running to about $100,800 is what held its result to $7,837."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed TCJA expires in 2026, restoring personal exemptions, the 2%-floor deduction for $8,351 of employee expenses, and 15%/25% brackets, but OBBBA made TCJA's rates and its repeal of those deductions permanent. It also used QSS status and deducted mortgage interest estimated from the loan balance. It then submitted $13,013, which matches none of its own calculations."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the filer as a qualifying surviving spouse with a $32,600 joint standard deduction despite there being no dependent child, and it skipped the senior and QBI deductions. It then cut its own roughly $8,700 estimate to $6,800 without any computation."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used QSS joint brackets and a $33,850 joint standard deduction although QSS requires a dependent child, so the filer is single and itemizes $29,735.52. It took the full $6,000 senior deduction instead of the $3,951 left after the 6% phase-out on MAGI above $75,000. It also left out the $910 QBI deduction."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied surviving-spouse status with a $32,500 standard deduction and 2025 joint brackets, although the filer has no dependent child and files single. It also left out the phased $3,951 senior deduction, the $910 QBI deduction, and CA income tax in the SALT deduction."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied pre-TCJA law: a $5,300 personal exemption, a 2%-floor deduction for employee expenses, and 15%/25% brackets. OBBBA made TCJA's rates and its repeal of exemptions and miscellaneous deductions permanent for 2026. It also put CA income tax in SALT at $2,019 instead of about $6,059 and left out the senior and QBI deductions."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used pre-TCJA rules (a $5,200 personal exemption, a 2%-floor employee-expense deduction and the old brackets), all of which OBBBA permanently repealed, and it put CA income tax at only $2,135. It also left out the senior and QBI deductions, and it submitted $13,047.69 even though its own reasoning ended at $12,372."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It filed single but itemized only property tax and charity ($24,222). It left out about $6,059 of CA income tax in SALT, the $3,951 phased senior deduction and the $910 QBI deduction, so taxable income came out at $84,927 instead of $74,552.59."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied pre-TCJA law: a $5,000 personal exemption, a 2%-floor miscellaneous deduction for employee expenses, and 10%/15%/25% brackets. OBBBA made TCJA rates permanent and permanently repealed exemptions and miscellaneous itemized deductions. It also left out the phased $3,951 senior deduction."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed a mortgage-interest deduction even though the inputs list only the loan balance and no interest paid, and its stated reasoning does not show how it reached $11,335. The correct path is single filing with itemized SALT (property tax plus about $6,059 of CA income tax), charity after the 0.5% floor, a $3,951 senior deduction and a $910 QBI deduction. That gives $74,552.59 of taxable income and $11,113.57 of tax."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used pre-TCJA itemized deductions (about $33,297, including 2%-floor miscellaneous items) and personal exemptions, all of which OBBBA permanently eliminated. It should have applied the 2026 single schedule to $109,149 of AGI minus $29,735.52 itemized, the $3,951 senior deduction and the $910 QBI deduction."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied post-TCJA-sunset rules: a $5,050 personal exemption, $6,168 of 2%-floor employee-expense deductions, and pre-TCJA brackets, even though OBBBA made TCJA permanent. It also put CA income tax at only $2,172 and left out the senior and QBI deductions."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no usable computation. $13,446 matches about $85,000 of taxable income at 2026 single rates, which is what results from itemizing only property tax and charity. Including CA income tax in SALT, the $3,951 senior deduction and the $910 QBI deduction brings taxable income down to $74,552.59."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It capped SALT at the old $10,000 limit instead of OBBBA's 2026 cap of $40,400, which allows the full $14,887.85 of property tax plus CA income tax. It also left out the $3,951 phased senior deduction, leaving taxable income at $82,846."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized only charity and property tax, with no CA income tax in SALT and no senior or QBI deduction. Its $9,260 matches joint-bracket tax on about $81,000 of taxable income. The filer has no dependent and files single, with 22% applying above $50,400 of taxable income ($74,552.59)."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted unreimbursed employee business expenses as a miscellaneous itemized deduction, which OBBBA permanently repealed. It also left out the CA income tax in SALT, the 0.5% charitable floor, the senior deduction and the QBI deduction that set taxable income at $74,552.59."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It combined qualifying-surviving-spouse status, which is unavailable without a dependent child, with a personal exemption, which OBBBA permanently repealed. The filer is single, has no exemption, and has $74,552.59 of taxable income at single rates."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It filed single and itemized $24,222, but it left about $6,059 of CA income tax out of SALT and skipped the $3,951 phased senior deduction. It also used 2025 single brackets instead of the 2026 brackets (10% to $12,400, 12% to $50,400)."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted $8,351 of unreimbursed employee business expenses above the line, although they are not deductible, and it took the standard deduction instead of itemizing. It also understated the tax on its own $84,169 of taxable income at $7,102. It then subtracted an invented $5,850 of federal withholding, which is not a nonrefundable credit."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It concluded that deductions fully offset the tax, but AGI is $109,149 and total deductions ($29,735.52 itemized, $3,951.05 senior and $910 QBI) leave $74,552.59 taxable. No nonrefundable credit offsets the resulting $11,113.57."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $1,237 matches only about $12,400 of income taxed at 10%, a small fraction of the correct $74,552.59 of taxable income. That figure comes from $109,149 of AGI minus $34,596.57 of deductions, and no nonrefundable credit applies against the resulting $11,113.57."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used surviving-spouse joint brackets, which require a dependent child, and it subtracted a personal exemption, which OBBBA permanently repealed. It also left out the phased $3,951 senior deduction and the $910 QBI deduction that set single taxable income at $74,552.59."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the right deduction categories but overstated them by about $3,900. $10,247 matches about $70,600 of taxable income at 2026 single rates, versus the correct $74,552.59 (itemized $29,735.52 after the 0.5% charitable floor, senior $3,951.05 and QBI $910)."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied qualifying-surviving-spouse joint rates and the joint age-based standard deduction, though the filer has no dependent child and must file single. As a single filer, the household itemizes $29,735.52 and pays 22% on taxable income above $50,400."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the surviving-spouse (joint) tax schedule although QSS requires a dependent child, so the filer is single. It also itemized only charity and property tax, without CA income tax in SALT and without the phased senior or QBI deductions."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly computed AGI, the $3,951 phased senior deduction and the $910 QBI deduction, but it used QSS status with a $33,850 joint standard deduction and joint brackets. Without a dependent child the filer is single, itemizes $29,735.52, and reaches the 22% bracket above $50,400."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $9,651 matches about $67,900 of taxable income at 2026 single rates, roughly $6,650 below the correct $74,552.59. It therefore overstated itemized deductions beyond the correct $29,735.52, which is property tax plus about $6,059 of CA income tax plus charity after the 0.5% floor."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It filed single and took the phased senior deduction, but it put CA income tax in SALT at about $2,234 instead of about $6,059 and applied no 0.5% charitable floor. It also left out the $910 QBI deduction on rental income, giving taxable income of about $78,742."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly computed AGI, the $3,951 phased senior deduction and the $910 QBI deduction, but it used QSS status with a $33,850 joint standard deduction and joint brackets. Without a dependent child the filer is single, itemizes $29,735.52, and pays 22% above $50,400."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used QSS status with a $30,000 standard deduction (the 2025 joint amount) and joint brackets. The filer has no dependent and files single, itemizes $29,735.52, and is also entitled to the $3,951 phased senior deduction and the $910 QBI deduction."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied post-TCJA-sunset law: a $5,419 personal exemption, $6,168 of 2%-floor employee-expense deductions, and 15%/25% brackets, even though OBBBA permanently extended TCJA. It also understated CA income tax in SALT ($10,932 total) and left out the senior and QBI deductions."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It filed single with the right deduction structure, but it put CA income tax at $1,974 instead of about $6,059 and skipped the 2026 0.5%-of-AGI floor on charitable gifts. That made itemized deductions $26,196 instead of $29,735.52 and taxable income $78,092 instead of $74,552.59."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It put CA income tax in SALT at $1,867 instead of about $6,059 and set the QBI deduction to $0 instead of 20% of the $4,550 of rental income ($910). It also used non-2026 single brackets (12% ending at $49,675 instead of $50,400)."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted 100% of Social Security ($20,735) in AGI instead of the 85% maximum ($17,625). It also applied post-TCJA-sunset rules (a 2%-floor employee-expense deduction and 15%/25% brackets) that OBBBA permanently repealed, and it left out the senior and QBI deductions."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the 0.5% charitable floor but put CA income tax at about $2,024 instead of about $6,059. It also invented $901 of rental depreciation, left out the $910 QBI deduction, and reported a tax higher than 2026 single rates give on its own $78,538 of taxable income."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value and no explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there is no answer to score against $11,113.57."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It filed single and took the phased senior deduction, but it put CA income tax at $2,700 instead of about $6,059, skipped the 0.5% charitable floor, and left out the $910 QBI deduction on rental income. That left taxable income at $78,275.67 instead of $74,552.59."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It concluded that taxable income was too low to owe tax. With 85% of Social Security taxable, AGI is $109,149, and after $34,596.57 of deductions taxable income is $74,552.59, which gives $11,113.57 of tax at single rates."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized about $26,900, underestimating CA income tax at about $2,700, and it left out both the $3,951 phased senior deduction and the $910 QBI deduction. That left taxable income at about $82,000 instead of $74,552.59."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized only property tax and charity ($24,222), leaving about $6,059 of CA income tax out of SALT, and it dropped the $910 QBI deduction. It then applied 2025 single brackets to $80,976 of taxable income instead of the 2026 brackets to $74,552.59."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used QSS joint brackets and the joint standard deduction despite there being no dependent child. It took the full $6,000 senior deduction, although the 6% phase-out on MAGI above $75,000 cuts it to $3,951, and it denied the $910 QBI deduction on rental income."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added taxable Social Security twice, producing an AGI of $126,773.50 instead of $109,149. It used QSS joint brackets although no dependent child exists, and it deducted $12,771 of mortgage interest estimated from the loan balance, though no interest paid was given."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed deductions produced negative taxable income and invented a nonrefundable 'age amount' credit. Actual deductions total $34,596.57 against $109,149 of AGI, leaving $74,552.59 taxable and $11,113.57 of tax with no offsetting nonrefundable credit."
us,scenario_022,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_022,head_medicaid_eligible,glm-5.2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model incorrectly treated Medicare enrollment plus age 77 as sufficient for Medicaid eligibility. Medicare status does not establish Medicaid eligibility, and this person receives no SSI and has medicaid_category NONE, so no California Medicaid pathway applies."
us,scenario_022,local_income_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used the 2025 CA SDI rate of 1.2% ($631.62) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26). It also submitted $4,557.61, which does not match its own sum of $4,658.20."
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Counted only federal Social Security and Medicare ($4,026.58). It left out California's mandatory 1.3% employee SDI contribution of $684.26 on the $52,635 of wages."
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Said no mandatory California payroll tax applies, so it left out the 1.3% employee SDI ($684.26). It also got Medicare wrong ($762.71 instead of $763.21) and submitted $4,028.27, which does not match its own sum."
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Submitted $0 even though its explanation says FICA comes to about $4,026. That FICA-only figure also leaves out California's mandatory 1.3% employee SDI of $684.26."
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Correctly applied SDI with no wage cap, but used the 2025 rate of 1.2% ($631.62) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26). That leaves the total $52.64 short."
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Explicitly excluded CA SDI, even though the question lists mandatory employee state payroll taxes as part of payroll_tax. It therefore left out the 1.3% SDI contribution of $684.26."
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Said CA has no mandatory employee payroll tax and submitted FICA only ($4,026). It left out the 1.3% CA SDI contribution of $684.26."
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Used the 2024 CA SDI rate of 1.1% ($578.99) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26).
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Called CA SDI voluntary or employer-paid, but it is a mandatory 1.3% employee contribution ($684.26). It also submitted $3,264.37, which is close to Social Security alone and drops the Medicare it had computed."
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Included no state payroll tax, so it left out California's mandatory 1.3% employee SDI ($684.26). It also miscomputed Medicare as $763.24."
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used the 2024 SDI rate of 1.1% ($579) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26), and rounded the FICA components to whole dollars."
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Used the 2025 CA SDI rate of 1.2% ($631.62) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26).
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Used the 2025 CA SDI rate of 1.2% ($631.62) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26).
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Correctly removed the SDI wage cap, but used the 2024 rate of 1.1% ($578.99) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26)."
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Summed only Social Security and Medicare ($4,027). It left out California's mandatory 1.3% employee SDI contribution of $684.26."
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Used the 2024 CA SDI rate of 1.1% ($579) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26).
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Used the 2024 CA SDI rate of 1.1% ($579) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26).
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Included only federal FICA ($4,027). It left out California's mandatory 1.3% employee SDI of $684.26."
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Used the 2023 CA SDI rate of 0.9% ($473.72) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26).
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $4,500.29 total implies a CA SDI rate of 0.9% (the 2023 rate, $473.72) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26)."
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Counted only Social Security and Medicare ($4,026.58). It left out California's mandatory 1.3% employee SDI contribution of $684.26."
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Correctly treated SDI as mandatory, but used the 2025 rate of 1.2% ($631.62) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26)."
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Submitted FICA only ($4,026), leaving out California's mandatory 1.3% employee SDI of $684.26. It also rounded the FICA total incorrectly."
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Said CA has no state employee payroll tax, so it left out the mandatory 1.3% SDI contribution of $684.26. Its $4,030 FICA figure is also off from the exact $4,026.58."
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Left out California's 1.3% employee SDI ($684.26). Its $3,308 total is also wrong arithmetic, since 7.65% of $52,635 is $4,026.58."
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Used the 2025 CA SDI rate of 1.2% ($631.62) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26).
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,Applied only the 7.65% combined FICA rate. It left out California's mandatory 1.3% employee SDI of $684.26.
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used the 2025 CA SDI rate of 1.2% instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26), and rounded to $4,658."
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,Counted only employee Social Security and Medicare. It left out California's mandatory 1.3% employee SDI of $684.26.
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Used the 2025 CA SDI rate of 1.2% ($632) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26).
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Used the 2025 CA SDI rate of 1.2% ($631.62) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26).
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Used the 2025 CA SDI rate of 1.2% ($631.62) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26).
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Projected a 1.2% CA SDI rate for 2026, but the actual 2026 rate is 1.3% ($684.26). It also assumed an SDI wage base, which no longer exists."
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Used about 1.2% for CA SDI ($632) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26).
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Gave no payroll_tax value or explanation, so there is no answer to score."
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Correctly applied uncapped mandatory SDI, but used the 2025 rate of 1.2% ($631.62) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26)."
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Summed only Social Security and Medicare (about $4,026). It left out California's mandatory 1.3% employee SDI of $684.26."
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Used about 1.2% for CA SDI ($631.62) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26).
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used the 2025 CA SDI rate of 1.2% ($632) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26), and rounded the components to whole dollars."
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Used the 2024 CA SDI rate of 1.1% ($578.99) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26). It also cited a wage cap that has been repealed.
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Said no mandatory employee state payroll taxes apply in CA, so it left out the 1.3% SDI contribution of $684.26."
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied California SDI at the 2025 rate of 1.2% ($631.62) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26). It then submitted $4,557.61, which doesn't match even its own $4,658.20 sum."
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted only federal Social Security and Medicare ($4,026.58). It left out California's mandatory employee SDI contribution of 1.3% of wages ($684.26)."
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said California has no mandatory employee payroll tax, so it omitted the 1.3% SDI contribution ($684.26). It also got Medicare wrong ($762.71 instead of $763.21) and submitted $4,028.27, which doesn't match its own $4,026.08 total."
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"The model submitted $0, which contradicts its own reasoning that ends with a value of $4,026. That $4,026 was also short, because it left out California SDI at 1.3% ($684.26)."
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model included California SDI but used the 2025 rate of 1.2% ($631.62) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26). That gave $4,658.20 instead of $4,710.83."
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model knew California SDI exists but chose to exclude it. The question explicitly includes mandatory employee state payroll taxes, so the 1.3% SDI contribution ($684.26) belonged in the total."
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said California has no mandatory employee payroll tax and submitted only federal FICA, truncated to $4,026. It missed the 1.3% employee SDI contribution ($684.26)."
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used the 2024 SDI rate of 1.1% ($578.99) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26), which understated the total by $105.27."
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated California SDI as not a mandatory employee tax and left out the 1.3% contribution ($684.26). It then submitted $3,264.37, which is roughly Social Security alone and contradicts its own $4,026.58 FICA total."
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model said no state payroll tax applies and left out California SDI at 1.3% ($684.26). It also slightly miscomputed Medicare ($763.24 instead of $763.21).
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used an SDI amount of $579, which is the 2024 rate of 1.1%, instead of 1.3% ($684.26), and rounded to $4,605."
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied California SDI at the 2025 rate of 1.2% ($631.62) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26), giving $4,658.20."
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used the 2025 SDI rate of 1.2% ($631.62) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26), giving $4,658.20."
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used the 2024 SDI rate of 1.1% ($578.99) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26), giving $4,605.57."
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model summed only federal Social Security and Medicare ($4,027). It left out California's mandatory 1.3% employee SDI contribution ($684.26)."
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used the 2024 SDI rate of 1.1% ($579) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26), giving $4,606."
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used the 2024 SDI rate of 1.1% ($579) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26), giving $4,606."
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted only federal FICA ($4,027). It left out California's mandatory 1.3% employee SDI contribution ($684.26)."
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used the 2023 SDI rate of 0.9% ($473.72) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26), giving $4,500.30."
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model's $4,500.29 implies a California SDI rate of 0.9% (the 2023 rate) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3%, which yields $684.26."
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted only federal Social Security and Medicare ($4,026.58). It left out California's mandatory 1.3% employee SDI contribution ($684.26)."
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted only federal FICA ($4,026.58). It left out California's mandatory 1.3% employee SDI contribution ($684.26)."
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model correctly treated SDI as mandatory but applied the 2025 rate of 1.2% ($631.62) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26).
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted only federal FICA, rounded down to $4,026. It left out California's mandatory 1.3% employee SDI contribution ($684.26)."
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model stated there is no California employee payroll tax and left out the 1.3% SDI contribution ($684.26). It also rounded federal FICA to $4,030 instead of $4,026.58."
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model miscalculated 7.65% of $52,635 as $3,308 when it is $4,026.58. It also left out California's mandatory 1.3% SDI contribution ($684.26)."
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model estimated California SDI at the 2025 rate of 1.2% instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26), giving $4,658.20."
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied only the 7.65% combined federal FICA rate ($4,027). It left out California's mandatory 1.3% employee SDI contribution ($684.26)."
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model estimated California SDI at the 2025 rate of 1.2% instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26), giving $4,658."
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model computed only employee Social Security and Medicare ($4,027). It left out California's mandatory 1.3% employee SDI contribution ($684.26)."
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used the 2025 SDI rate of 1.2% ($632) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26), giving $4,658."
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model applied mandatory California SDI at the 2025 rate of 1.2% ($631.62) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26).
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used the 2025 SDI rate of 1.2% ($631.62) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26), giving $4,658.20."
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used a projected SDI rate of 1.2% and assumed a wage base. California SDI for 2026 is 1.3% of all wages with no cap, which yields $684.26."
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model approximated California SDI at 1.2% ($632) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26), giving $4,658."
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no value and no explanation for payroll_tax, so there was no usable answer to score."
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model correctly treated SDI as mandatory and uncapped but used the 2025 rate of 1.2% ($631.62) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26).
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted only federal Social Security and Medicare (about $4,026). It left out California's mandatory 1.3% employee SDI contribution ($684.26)."
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model approximated California SDI at 1.2% ($632) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26), giving $4,658."
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied California's employee disability contribution at 1.2% ($631.62) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26), giving $4,658.20."
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used the 2025 SDI rate of 1.2% ($632) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($684.26), giving $4,658."
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used an SDI rate of 1.1% and an outdated wage cap. For 2026, SDI is 1.3% of all wages with no cap, which yields $684.26 rather than $578.99."
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model stated that no mandatory employee state payroll taxes apply in California. That is wrong: the 1.3% SDI contribution ($684.26) is mandatory and should have been added to the $4,026.58 of federal FICA."
us,scenario_022,self_employment_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Treated the head as a qualifying surviving spouse using joint brackets and joint exemption credits, but with no dependent the head files single. It also applied the 2% employee-expense floor to California AGI instead of federal AGI, giving $6,521 instead of $6,168. Its own joint-bracket arithmetic reached about $980, and the final $3,162 is an unsupported jump that does not follow from that computation."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Used the joint/surviving-spouse schedule and $459 of credits (two personal plus one senior), but a surviving spouse with no dependent files single: tax is $2,274.81 on the single schedule and the credit is $306. It also left out the $6,168 of employee business expenses above the 2% floor, which California allows, so taxable income came out at $67,302 instead of $61,134."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Started from an invented $134,529 federal taxable income and applied a standard deduction, never excluding Social Security or itemizing. It then subtracted a made-up $5,320 credit tied to the Senior Property Tax Postponement program, which defers taxes and is not an income tax credit. The correct path is California AGI of $91,524 minus $30,390 itemized, $2,274.81 of single-schedule tax, less the $306 credit."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Asserted that California taxable income is near zero. Even with Social Security excluded, California AGI is $91,524, and $30,390 of itemized deductions leaves $61,134 taxable. That produces $2,274.81 of single-schedule tax before the $306 personal and senior credits."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Applied married-filing-jointly brackets and joint exemption credits, but a surviving spouse with no dependent child files single. It also left out the $6,168 of unreimbursed employee expenses above the 2% floor that California still deducts. On the single schedule, $61,134 of taxable income gives $2,274.81, less $306."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Used married-filing-jointly brackets for a surviving spouse with no dependent, who must file single. It added about $7,000 of mortgage interest that was never listed and left out the $6,168 employee-expense deduction. It then reported $1,856, which is above its own $1,228 pre-credit tax, so its credit step added to the tax instead of subtracting."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used single rates and both exemption credits but left out the $6,168 of unreimbursed employee expenses above the 2% federal-AGI floor; California allows this deduction because it did not adopt the TCJA suspension. Itemizing $24,222 instead of $30,390 left taxable income at $67,302 instead of $61,134, and it then also understated the bracket tax on that larger base."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Applied joint brackets and about $471 of credits (two personal plus one senior), but a surviving spouse with no dependent files single, with a $306 credit. It also dropped the $6,168 employee-expense deduction, using $24,222 of itemized deductions instead of $30,390."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Explicitly assumed California follows the TCJA suspension of unreimbursed employee expenses. California still allows them as miscellaneous itemized deductions above the 2% floor ($6,168). It also used married-filing-jointly brackets and a joint-level personal credit, but a surviving spouse with no dependent files single, giving $2,274.81 less $306."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Used qualifying-widow(er) brackets although the head has no dependent and files single, and left out the $6,168 employee-expense deduction. It guessed a 2.8% effective rate instead of applying brackets. It also subtracted no exemption credits, claiming they were built into the tables, when California grants separate $153 personal and $153 senior credits."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Used joint/qualifying-surviving-spouse brackets, but with no dependent the head files single, and the single schedule on $61,134 gives $2,274.81. It also left out the $6,168 employee-expense deduction (taxable income $67,302 instead of $61,134) and took $285 of credits instead of $306."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Started from federal AGI of $109,149 without subtracting the $17,625 of taxable Social Security that California fully excludes. It also left out the $6,168 employee-expense deduction, so taxable income came out at $84,927 instead of $61,134."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Reached the correct $61,134 of taxable income but subtracted only a $167 personal exemption credit. It left out the $153 senior exemption credit the 77-year-old head receives, for a total of $306. It also understated single-schedule tax at $2,186 instead of $2,274.81."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used the correct $61,134 of taxable income, but its submitted $1,964.52 corresponds to about $2,270.52 of single-schedule tax less $306. That is $4.29 below the engine's $2,274.81 from the actual bracket thresholds. Its explanation contradicts the submitted value, citing $2,288 of tax and only the $153 personal credit for $2,135."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Left out the $6,168 of unreimbursed employee expenses above the 2% federal-AGI floor, which California allows as a miscellaneous itemized deduction. It itemized $24,222 instead of $30,390, so taxable income came out at $67,302 instead of $61,134, and it took $298 of credits instead of $306."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied the 2% floor on unreimbursed employee expenses to California AGI ($91,524) instead of federal AGI ($109,149). That overstated the miscellaneous deduction by $353 and gave taxable income of $60,781 instead of $61,134. It also used $310 of exemption credits instead of $306 ($153 personal plus $153 senior)."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Relied on the standard deduction for a single filer age 65+, but $30,390 of itemized deductions (property tax, charity, and employee expenses above the 2% floor) far exceed the $5,706 standard deduction. Its $1,175 does not come from applying single brackets to the $61,134 of taxable income, which yields $2,274.81 before the $306 credit."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied the 2% employee-expense floor to California AGI instead of federal AGI, itemizing $30,743 instead of $30,390. On its own $60,781 base, single brackets give $2,246.57 and subtracting the $306 credit gives $1,940.57. Its $2,180 is $239 above that, so its bracket-tax and credit steps were misapplied."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied the 2% employee-expense floor to California AGI, getting $60,781 of taxable income instead of $61,134. It then overstated single-bracket tax at $2,415; the correct figure on its own base is $2,246.57. It also took $288 of exemption credits instead of $306."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,other,False,"Gave no derivation. The correct path is California AGI of $91,524 with Social Security excluded, minus $30,390 itemized, for $61,134 taxable, then $2,274.81 on the single schedule less the $306 credit. Its $3,211 overshoots that by $1,242 and does not reflect the single-schedule computation on the correct base."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,other,False,"Applied the 2% employee-expense floor to California AGI instead of federal AGI, itemizing $30,743 instead of $30,390. Against the $2,246.57 single-schedule tax on its own $60,781 base, its $2,035 implies only about $212 of exemption credits instead of the full $153 personal plus $153 senior."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $2,652 matches single-schedule tax on about $67,300 of taxable income less $306. That means it itemized only property tax and charity and left out the $6,168 of unreimbursed employee expenses above the 2% federal-AGI floor, which California allows."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,other,False,"Gave no numeric derivation. The correct path is $61,134 of taxable income (including $6,168 of employee expenses after a 2% federal-AGI floor), $2,274.81 of single-schedule tax, less $306. Its $2,050 corresponds to subtracting only about $225 of exemption credits instead of the full $153 personal plus $153 senior."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Invented $24,556 of rental income, a mortgage-interest figure, and $1,000 of taxable Social Security, none of which appear in the inputs. It then used the federal standard deduction instead of California itemized deductions. The correct base is California AGI of $91,524 minus $30,390 itemized, taxed on the single schedule and reduced by the $306 credit."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Inflated California AGI to $102,919 by adding a nonexistent $1,750 pension adjustment and not excluding Social Security. It then used a $7,089 standard deduction even though $30,390 of itemized deductions is far larger. It also wrongly said the senior exemption credit does not apply; the 77-year-old head receives $153 personal plus $153 senior."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Asserted that age and deductions eliminate the tax. California AGI is $91,524 even after excluding Social Security, and $30,390 of itemized deductions still leaves $61,134 taxable. That produces $2,274.81 of single-schedule tax, and the $306 of credits cannot offset it."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"Gave no specific computation. Its $1,036 is $933 below the result of taxing $61,134 on the single schedule ($2,274.81) and subtracting the $153 personal and $153 senior credits. The figure does not come from the single-filer path that applies to a surviving spouse with no dependent."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Applied the joint/surviving-spouse schedule ($1,136 of tax) and $486 of joint-level credits. A surviving spouse with no dependent files single, so the tax is $2,274.81 on the single schedule less $306. It also applied the employee-expense floor to California AGI, getting $60,781 of taxable income instead of $61,134."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Took only the personal exemption credit and left out the $153 senior exemption credit for a filer age 65 or older. Its $2,893 implies about $68,000 of taxable income, so it also left out the $6,168 of employee expenses above the 2% floor that bring taxable income down to $61,134."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Applied qualifying-surviving-spouse rates, which roughly double each bracket width, and joint-level exemption credits. The head has no dependent and files single, so tax on $61,134 is $2,274.81 less $306, not the roughly $657 its joint schedule produced."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Used the surviving-spouse (joint) schedule for a head with no dependent child, who must file single. The single schedule applied to $61,134 gives $2,274.81 before the $306 personal and senior credits."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Taxed $60,781 on the surviving-spouse schedule ($1,159) and subtracted a joint $306 personal credit plus a $153 senior credit. Without a dependent the head files single, giving $2,274.81 of tax less $153 personal plus $153 senior. It also applied the 2% employee-expense floor to California AGI instead of federal AGI."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Subtracted only the personal exemption credit and left out the $153 senior exemption credit that California grants a 77-year-old filer. Its result is therefore about $153 or more too high compared with $2,274.81 less the $306 total credit."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Its $2,095 equals single-schedule tax on about $60,800 less only the $153 personal exemption credit, leaving out the $153 senior exemption credit for a filer age 65 or older. It also applied the 2% employee-expense floor to California AGI instead of federal AGI, which overstated the deduction by $353."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Used surviving-spouse brackets and $474 of joint-level credits for a head with no dependent, who files single with a $306 credit. It also applied the employee-expense floor to California AGI, itemizing $30,742.52 instead of $30,389.97."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,other,False,"Declined to compute and defaulted to zero. The listed facts fully determine the answer: California AGI of $91,524, $30,390 itemized, $61,134 taxable, $2,274.81 of single-schedule tax, less the $306 personal and senior credits."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Subtracted only the $153 personal exemption credit and left out the additional $153 senior exemption credit the 77-year-old head receives. It also applied the 2% employee-expense floor to California AGI, giving $60,781 of taxable income instead of $61,134."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Followed the correct path: single filer, $30,390 itemized, $61,134 taxable, and $306 of credits. It estimated single-schedule tax at $2,280 instead of the $2,274.81 the actual bracket thresholds produce, leaving it $5.19 high."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied the 2% employee-expense floor to California AGI instead of federal AGI, itemizing $30,743 instead of $30,390. It also used projected 2026 bracket thresholds that produced $2,173 of tax, about $74 below the $2,246.57 the actual single schedule gives on its own $60,781 base."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,other,False,Stated that no nonrefundable credits apply and reported pre-credit tax. California's $153 personal exemption credit and $153 senior exemption credit together reduce tax by $306. It also applied the 2% employee-expense floor to California AGI instead of federal AGI.
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Subtracted only the $154 personal exemption credit and left out the $153 senior exemption credit for the 77-year-old head. It also understated California AGI as $90,623 instead of $91,524, which pushed taxable income down to $59,862 instead of $61,134."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Returned no value or explanation for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so the required output is missing."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Itemized only property tax and charity ($24,222). It left out the $6,168 of unreimbursed employee expenses above the 2% federal-AGI floor, which California allows because it never adopted the TCJA suspension. It then subtracted only a $144 personal credit and dropped the $153 senior exemption credit."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Claimed that deductions bring California taxable income to zero. With Social Security excluded, California AGI is $91,524, and $30,390 of itemized deductions leaves $61,134 taxed on the single schedule at $2,274.81 before the $306 credit."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Itemized only $24,222 and left out the $6,168 of unreimbursed employee expenses above the 2% federal-AGI floor that California allows, so it taxed about $67,300 instead of $61,134. It also took $267 of exemption credits instead of $306."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Wrongly asserted that California taxes federally taxable Social Security; California excludes all Social Security, so California AGI is $91,524, not $109,149. It also left out the $6,168 employee-expense deduction. It then used married-filing-jointly brackets for a surviving spouse with no dependent, who files single."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used a $10,726 standard deduction instead of itemizing $30,390 (property tax, charity, and employee expenses above the 2% floor, which California allows). It also invented a rate schedule that starts at 4% and reaches 9.3%, when $61,134 of single taxable income tops out in the 8% bracket for $2,274.81 less $306."
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Claimed that deductions and senior credits reduce the tax to zero. After itemizing $30,390, $61,134 of California taxable income remains, producing $2,274.81 of single-schedule tax. The exemption credits total only $306 ($153 personal plus $153 senior)."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Treated the head as a qualifying surviving spouse and used joint brackets, even though no dependent is listed, so single status applies. It also measured the 2% employee-expense floor on CA AGI rather than federal AGI. It then dropped its own ~$980 result in favor of an unsupported $3,162. Correct: single tax of $2,274.81 on $61,134 minus $306 in credits = $1,968.81."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Used joint brackets and three exemption credits ($459) for a widow with no dependent, who files single and gets only $306 (personal plus senior). It also left out the $6,168 of unreimbursed employee expenses (above the 2% floor) that California still allows, so taxable income came out at $67,302 instead of $61,134."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Started from a made-up $134,529 federal taxable income and a federal-style standard deduction. It never excluded Social Security or itemized the $30,390 of CA deductions. It then subtracted a nonexistent ~$5,320 'Senior Property Tax Postponement' credit, which is a deferral program, not an income tax credit."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Assumed deductions and exemption credits wipe out CA tax. In fact CA AGI is $91,524 after excluding Social Security, and after $30,390 of itemized deductions taxable income is still $61,134. That produces $2,274.81 of tax before the $306 credit."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Applied MFJ/surviving-spouse brackets and $420 of two-person exemption credits, but with no dependent the head files single and gets $306. It also omitted the $6,168 of deductible unreimbursed employee expenses, leaving taxable income near $66,000 instead of $61,134."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Used surviving-spouse (MFJ) brackets instead of single brackets and invented ~$7,000 of mortgage interest that was never given. Its own figures give $1,228 before credits, yet it reported $1,856, which is higher than its pre-credit tax. Correct single tax is $2,274.81 on $61,134, less $306."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Left out the unreimbursed employee business expenses that California allows as a miscellaneous itemized deduction ($6,168 after the 2% floor), so taxable income was $67,302 instead of $61,134. Its single-bracket tax estimate of ~$2,393 also does not match the brackets for that income."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Used joint brackets and three exemption credits (~$471) for a widow with no dependent, who files single with $306 of credits. It also dropped the $6,168 employee-expense miscellaneous deduction, so taxable income was $67,302 instead of $61,134."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Wrongly stated that California conforms to the TCJA suspension of unreimbursed employee expenses. California still allows them above the 2% floor ($6,168), so taxable income is $61,134, not $67,302. It also applied MFJ brackets and $588 of credits instead of single brackets and $306."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Used qualifying-widow(er) brackets for a head with no dependent, who must file single. It omitted the $6,168 employee-expense deduction (taxable $67,302 vs $61,134). It also replaced the bracket calculation with a guessed ~2.8% effective rate and did not subtract the $306 of exemption credits."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Applied joint/QSS brackets instead of single brackets, which cut pre-credit tax to ~$1,426 instead of the correct $2,274.81 on $61,134. It also left out the $6,168 of 2%-floored employee expenses, leaving taxable income at ~$67,300."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Started from federal AGI of $109,149 without subtracting the $17,625 of taxable Social Security that California excludes. It also left out the $6,168 employee-expense deduction, which inflated taxable income to $84,927 instead of $61,134."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Got taxable income of $61,134 right, but subtracted only a single $167 personal exemption credit. It left out the $153 senior exemption credit for the 77-year-old, which brings total credits to $306. Its bracket tax of $2,186 also understates the 2026 single-bracket tax of $2,274.81."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Its explanation applies only one $153 exemption credit to $2,288 of tax, leaving out the $153 senior credit, and arrives at $2,135. That contradicts the submitted $1,964.52. The correct calculation is $2,274.81 of single-bracket tax less $306 of personal and senior credits = $1,968.81."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Itemized only property tax and charity ($24,222) and left out the $6,168 of unreimbursed employee expenses that California allows above the 2% floor. Taxable income came out at $67,302 instead of $61,134, and the bracket sum of $2,780.91 also overstates the tax."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Measured the 2% employee-expense floor on CA AGI ($91,524) rather than federal AGI ($109,149). That gave a $6,521 miscellaneous deduction instead of $6,168, and taxable income of $60,781 instead of $61,134. It also used $310 of exemption credits instead of $306."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used the standard deduction even though itemized deductions of $30,390 (property tax, charity, and 2%-floored employee expenses) far exceed the $5,706 single standard deduction. Its result does not come from the correct $61,134 taxable income."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied the 2% employee-expense floor to CA AGI, giving $30,743 of itemized deductions instead of $30,390 and taxable income of $60,781 instead of $61,134. Its $2,180 result is well above single-bracket tax minus $306 of credits on either base, so it also under-applied the personal and senior exemption credits."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Measured the 2% employee-expense floor on CA AGI (taxable income $60,781 instead of $61,134). It then overstated single-bracket tax at $2,415 and applied only $288 of credits instead of $306. The correct figures are $2,274.81 less $306."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Gave no derivation. The correct path is $91,524 CA AGI minus $30,390 of itemized deductions = $61,134 taxable, $2,274.81 of single-bracket tax, less $306 of credits = $1,968.81. The $3,211 answer is about $1,240 too high, consistent with leaving out much of the itemized deductions (including the employee-expense deduction) and/or the exemption credits."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Measured the 2% employee-expense floor on CA AGI, giving $30,743 of itemized deductions instead of $30,390. Its $2,035 result is also about $95 above single-bracket tax minus the full $306 of personal and senior exemption credits on its own base."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Gave no numbers. Correctly, $61,134 of taxable income yields $2,274.81 of single-bracket tax, less $306 of credits = $1,968.81. The $2,652 answer is about $680 too high, consistent with leaving out the $6,168 employee-expense deduction and part of the exemption credits."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Gave no derivation. Single-bracket tax of $2,274.81 on $61,134, less $306 of personal and senior exemption credits, gives $1,968.81. The $2,050 answer matches either overstated brackets or only one exemption credit being subtracted."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Its $1,285 result on ~$60,781 of taxable income implies joint/surviving-spouse brackets. With no dependent, the head files single, and single brackets produce $2,274.81 of tax on $61,134 before the $306 credit. It also measured the 2% floor on CA AGI instead of federal AGI."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Invented $24,556 of rental income, a mortgage interest deduction, and a $1,000 taxable Social Security amount. It used a federal standard deduction instead of CA itemized deductions and never excluded Social Security, so it reached $11,626 instead of starting from $91,524 CA AGI and $30,390 of itemized deductions."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Built CA AGI of $102,919 from a made-up $1,750 pension adjustment without excluding taxable Social Security. It took a standard deduction instead of the $30,390 of itemized deductions and wrongly denied the senior exemption credit."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Assumed age-related treatment and deductions fully offset CA tax. In fact taxable income after $30,390 of itemized deductions is $61,134, which carries $2,274.81 of tax, and the only age-related offset is a $153 senior exemption credit."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Gave no figures. The $1,036 answer is close to what joint/surviving-spouse brackets produce, whereas single brackets on $61,134 give $2,274.81 less $306 = $1,968.81."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Applied joint/surviving-spouse brackets ($1,136 of tax) and ~$486 of two-person credits, but a widow with no dependent files single. Single brackets give $2,274.81 and credits are $306. It also measured the 2% floor on CA AGI, which gave $60,781 of taxable income instead of $61,134."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Applied only the personal exemption credit and left out the $153 senior exemption credit for a 77-year-old. The $2,893 answer is also about $620 above the $2,274.81 single-bracket tax on $61,134, consistent with an incomplete itemized deduction."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Applied qualifying-surviving-spouse rates, but QSS status requires a dependent child and none is listed, so single rates apply. Single rates on $61,134 give $2,274.81, less $306 = $1,968.81."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Used surviving-spouse (joint) California rates for a head with no dependent, who files single. Single brackets on $61,134 produce $2,274.81 before the $306 personal and senior credits."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Applied the surviving-spouse schedule ($1,159 of tax) and $459 of credits, but with no dependent the head files single: $2,274.81 of tax and $306 of credits. It also measured the 2% floor on CA AGI, giving $60,781 of taxable income instead of $61,134."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Subtracted only the personal exemption credit and left out the $153 senior exemption credit for the 77-year-old. That leaves its answer about $190 above $2,274.81 − $306 = $1,968.81."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Measured the 2% floor on CA AGI (taxable income ~$60,800 instead of $61,134) and subtracted only the personal exemption credit. It left out the $153 senior exemption credit, so total credits should be $306."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Used surviving-spouse brackets and $474 of credits for a widow with no dependent, who files single with $306 of credits. It also measured the 2% floor on CA AGI ($30,742.52 of itemized deductions instead of $30,389.97)."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Declared the tax not estimable and entered 0, skipping the calculation entirely. The correct path is $61,134 of taxable income after $30,390 of itemized deductions, $2,274.81 of single-bracket tax, and $1,968.81 after $306 of credits."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Subtracted only the $153 personal exemption credit and left out the $153 senior exemption credit for a 77-year-old. It also measured the 2% employee-expense floor on CA AGI, giving taxable income of $60,781 instead of $61,134."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Got every step right (taxable income $61,134, single status, $306 of credits) except that it approximated 2026 single-bracket tax at $2,280 instead of the exact $2,274.81. That rounding produced the $5 miss."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Measured the 2% employee-expense floor on CA AGI ($91,524) instead of federal AGI ($109,149), giving a $6,521 deduction instead of $6,168 and taxable income of $60,781 instead of $61,134. It also understated single-bracket tax at $2,173."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Stated that no nonrefundable credits apply and so left out the $306 of personal and senior exemption credits. It also measured the 2% floor on CA AGI, giving taxable income of $60,781 instead of $61,134."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Miscomputed CA AGI as $90,623 instead of $91,524 and subtracted only a $154 personal credit, leaving out the $153 senior exemption credit for a 77-year-old."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Returned no value and no explanation for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was nothing to score."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Itemized only property tax and charity ($24,222), leaving out the $6,168 of unreimbursed employee expenses above the 2% floor that California still allows. It also subtracted only a $144 personal credit with no senior exemption credit."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Claimed income falls below the tax threshold after deductions. After excluding Social Security and subtracting $30,390 of itemized deductions, CA taxable income is still $61,134, which carries $2,274.81 of tax."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Itemized only property tax and charity ($24,222), leaving out the $6,168 of 2%-floored unreimbursed employee expenses that California allows. Taxable income came out at ~$67,300 instead of $61,134."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Left out the $6,168 miscellaneous deduction for unreimbursed employee expenses, so itemized deductions were $24,222 instead of $30,390 and the 8%-bracket tax was too high. It also used $267 of credits instead of $306."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Wrongly claimed California taxes federally taxable Social Security, so it did not subtract the $17,625. It also left out the employee-expense deduction, giving taxable income of $84,927 instead of $61,134, and used MFJ brackets for a single filer."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used a $10,726 standard deduction instead of $30,390 of itemized deductions, and wrongly said California disallows unreimbursed employee expenses. It also used invented brackets starting at 4% instead of the 1%/2%/4%/6%/8% single schedule."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Asserted that deductions and senior credits reduce tax to zero. Taxable income after $30,390 of itemized deductions is $61,134, giving $2,274.81 of tax, and exemption credits total only $306."
us,scenario_022,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_023,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"The model correctly got $644 of tentative tax, then erased it with a $1,000 Saver's Credit and an AOTC. The $8,000 of 403(b) distributions reduces the $3,599 of eligible contributions to $0 on Form 8880. The AOTC is $0 because no qualified tuition is listed. Tax should stay at $643.43."
us,scenario_023,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,other,False,"The model computed the $643.50 tentative tax correctly but applied a $1,000 Saver's Credit. It ignored the §25B(d)(2) rule that testing-period distributions ($8,000 from the 403(b)) are subtracted from qualified contributions, which leaves a zero credit base and $643.43 of tax."
@@ -1762,263 +1821,276 @@ us,scenario_023,free_school_meals_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,categorical
us,scenario_023,free_school_meals_eligible,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model supplied no output or explanation for the requested variable, violating the required submission contract."
us,scenario_023,head_chip_eligible,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model incorrectly treated California CHIP as covering disabled adults up to an extended 266% FPL threshold. It failed to apply the categorical exclusion for a person already Medicaid-eligible through the WORKING_DISABLED_BUY_IN pathway, which makes this head ineligible for CHIP regardless of the CHIP income thresholds."
us,scenario_023,head_chip_eligible,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,The model supplied no parseable output for head_chip_eligible. The required result was 0 because Medicaid eligibility under WORKING_DISABLED_BUY_IN categorically excludes the head from CHIP.
-us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model correctly found that MAGI of $22,535 is above 138% FPL, but it only checked expansion and SSI receipt. It never applied the working-disabled buy-in, which covers this employed, disabled head at up to 250% FPL."
-us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The explanation says the head is eligible (value = 1), but the submitted value was 0, so the explanation and the answer contradict each other. The explanation's reasoning is also wrong: it puts income well under 138% FPL when MAGI is 1.41x FPL. Eligibility actually comes from the working-disabled buy-in category, not expansion."
-us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated the 138% FPL adult-expansion limit as the only Medi-Cal test. It ignored the head's disability and employment, which qualify them for the working-disabled buy-in, a category that allows income well above 138% FPL."
-us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said no other Medi-Cal pathway qualifies. That missed the working-disabled buy-in, which the employed, disabled head meets at 1.41x FPL because its income limit is 250% FPL, not 138%."
-us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,The model only compared MAGI to the 138% FPL expansion limit. It never considered the working-disabled buy-in category that covers a disabled worker at 1.41x FPL.
-us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model ruled out expansion on MAGI and the SSI-linked pathway on no SSI payment, then stopped. It skipped the working-disabled buy-in, which gives Medicaid to employed disabled adults without SSI receipt at incomes above 138% FPL."
-us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model used only the 138% FPL expansion threshold. It ignored that the disabled, employed head qualifies under the working-disabled buy-in, whose income limit is well above 1.41x FPL."
-us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model checked expansion and the SSI-based non-MAGI pathway but left out the working-disabled buy-in. That category makes this employed, disabled head eligible at 1.41x FPL."
-us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model's MAGI of $22,535 is correct, but it only tested 138% FPL expansion and SSI/SSP-standard ABD eligibility. It missed the working-disabled buy-in, which covers disabled workers at up to 250% FPL and places this head in Medicaid."
-us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,The model applied only the adult-income Medicaid test and gave no weight to the head's disability and employment. Those two facts qualify the head for the working-disabled buy-in.
-us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model mentioned the disability but brushed it aside. It never applied the working-disabled buy-in, which makes an employed, disabled adult at 1.41x FPL eligible for Medicaid."
-us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model judged eligibility only against the adult Medi-Cal (138% FPL) income limit. It never considered the working-disabled buy-in category, which the employed, disabled head satisfies."
-us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said no separate qualifying category was established by the facts. In fact, the listed disability plus wage employment establish the working-disabled buy-in category, which grants eligibility at 1.41x FPL."
-us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model correctly said disability alone does not create SSI-linked eligibility. It still missed that disability combined with employment qualifies the head for the working-disabled buy-in, which has a 250% FPL income limit."
-us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model tested only the adult-expansion income limit. It overlooked the working-disabled buy-in pathway, which covers this disabled worker at 1.41x FPL."
-us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said no other coverage pathway was specified. However, the head's disability and employment trigger the working-disabled buy-in, which allows income above the 138% FPL expansion limit."
-us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model required either adult-expansion income or SSI receipt. It missed the working-disabled buy-in, which needs neither and covers the employed, disabled head at 1.41x FPL."
-us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model ruled out the ABD pathway using SSI-related income limits. It never applied the working-disabled buy-in, a separate disabled-worker category with a 250% FPL limit that this head meets."
-us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model checked only 138% FPL expansion and SSI receipt. It missed the working-disabled buy-in category, which makes the employed, disabled head eligible."
-us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,The model rejected the ABD pathway on SSI-level income limits but never tested the working-disabled buy-in. That category's 250% FPL limit easily covers income at 1.41x FPL.
-us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,The model gave no answer for head_medicaid_eligible. The correct result is eligible through the working-disabled buy-in category.
-us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,The model gave no answer for head_medicaid_eligible. The correct result is eligible through the working-disabled buy-in category.
-us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,The model applied only the 138% FPL expansion limit and SSI receipt. It never considered the working-disabled buy-in that covers this disabled worker at 1.41x FPL.
-us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model required either adult-expansion income or an SSI-linked disability payment. It missed the working-disabled buy-in, which gives employed disabled adults Medicaid without SSI and above 138% FPL."
-us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model left the traditional 401(k) deferral out of MAGI, putting it at $25,443 instead of $22,535. It also treated the head as non-disabled for expansion purposes and missed the working-disabled buy-in, which makes the employed, disabled head eligible."
-us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model applied only the standard adult income limit. It ignored the working-disabled buy-in category, which the employed, disabled head qualifies for at 1.41x FPL."
-us,scenario_023,head_medicare_eligible,claude-fable-5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model treated the `is_disabled` flag as a stand-in for SSDI-based Medicare eligibility. Medicare for someone under 65 requires 24 months of SSDI entitlement or ESRD, and this head has $0 in Social Security disability benefits and no ESRD. At age 28 with no SSDI history, the head is ineligible, so the correct value is 0."
-us,scenario_023,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model said disability alone makes someone under 65 eligible for Medicare. It skipped the requirement of 24 months of SSDI entitlement or an ESRD diagnosis, and the head meets neither because they have no SSDI income. The head is 28 and not eligible, so the correct value is 0."
-us,scenario_023,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model applied a disability-based Medicare rule using only the `is_disabled` flag. It ignored that the disability pathway requires 24 months of SSDI entitlement or ESRD, and the head has no Social Security disability income. At age 28 without SSDI or ESRD, the head is ineligible, so the correct value is 0."
-us,scenario_023,head_medicare_eligible,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no value and no reasoning for `head_medicare_eligible`, so there was nothing to score. The correct answer is 0 because the head is 28 and has no SSDI entitlement and no ESRD."
+us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Correctly found that MAGI of $22,535 is above 138% FPL, but checked only the expansion and SSI-recipient pathways. It never applied the working-disabled buy-in category, under which this employed, disabled head qualifies at 1.41x FPL."
+us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Its explanation wrongly claims income is well under 138% FPL, when MAGI is 1.41x FPL, and argues for expansion eligibility. Yet it submitted a value of 0 that contradicts that explanation. It never identified the working-disabled buy-in category, which is the pathway that actually makes the head eligible."
+us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Tested only the 138% FPL adult expansion limit and stopped once income was above it. It ignored that the head is disabled and working, which places them in the working-disabled buy-in category, whose higher income limit covers 1.41x FPL."
+us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Stated that no other Medi-Cal pathway applies after MAGI came out above 138% FPL. This misses the Working Disabled buy-in, which covers an employed disabled adult at 1.41x FPL."
+us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied only the 138% FPL expansion test to MAGI of $22,535. It never considered the working-disabled buy-in category that the head's disability plus employment triggers, so it returned ineligible."
+us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Ruled out the expansion pathway (MAGI above 138% FPL) and the SSI-linked pathway (no SSI), but skipped the working-disabled buy-in. That category does not require SSI and covers this employed disabled head at 1.41x FPL."
+us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Treated the 138% FPL expansion threshold as the only Medicaid test. It ignored the working-disabled buy-in category, which makes this disabled wage earner eligible at 1.41x FPL."
+us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Checked expansion and SSI-based non-MAGI pathways only. It omitted the working-disabled buy-in, the non-MAGI category for employed disabled people with a much higher income ceiling, under which the head qualifies."
+us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,gemini-4-argon,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Tested the 138% FPL MAGI limit and California's Aged and Disabled FPL program, but not the Working Disabled buy-in. The buy-in applies because the head is disabled and employed, and its limit easily covers 1.41x FPL."
+us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Correctly computed MAGI of $22,535 above 138% FPL and rejected the SSI-linked pathway. It then stopped and never evaluated the working-disabled buy-in category, which grants eligibility to this employed disabled head without SSI receipt."
+us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied only adult income-based eligibility and ignored the head's disability and employment. Those facts place the head in the working-disabled buy-in category, which yields eligibility."
+us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Dismissed the listed disability as insufficient detail and defaulted to ineligible. The engine needs only the disabled flag plus employment to assign the working-disabled buy-in category, under which the head is eligible."
+us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Compared income only to the adult Medi-Cal expansion limit. It missed that a disabled worker qualifies through the working-disabled buy-in category, whose income limit is well above 1.41x FPL."
+us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Asserted that no separate qualifying category is established by the facts. The listed disability plus wage employment establishes the working-disabled buy-in category, which makes the head eligible."
+us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Reasoned that disability alone does not establish SSI-linked eligibility and stopped there. It overlooked that disability combined with employment qualifies the head for the working-disabled buy-in category, which needs no SSI."
+us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,Evaluated only the adult expansion income limit against MAGI including the 403(b) distribution. It never applied the working-disabled buy-in category available to this employed disabled head.
+us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Concluded that no separate pathway was specified. The head's disability and employment are exactly the facts that trigger the working-disabled buy-in category, under which they are eligible at 1.41x FPL."
+us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Checked the adult MAGI limit and SSI receipt only. It omitted the working-disabled buy-in category, which grants eligibility to disabled workers without SSI and with income well above 138% FPL."
+us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Rejected both the expansion pathway and the SSI-level aged/blind/disabled pathway, but never tested the working-disabled buy-in. That category's higher income ceiling covers this employed disabled head."
+us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Limited the analysis to the MAGI expansion limit and SSI recipiency. It missed the working-disabled buy-in category, which makes the disabled, employed head eligible."
+us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Ruled out expansion at about 138% FPL and the SSI-level ABD pathway, but skipped the working-disabled buy-in category. That category applies to an employed disabled adult and covers income at 1.41x FPL."
+us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No value or explanation was returned for head_medicaid_eligible, so no answer could be parsed. The correct answer is eligible through the working-disabled buy-in category."
+us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No value or explanation was returned for head_medicaid_eligible, so no answer could be parsed. The correct answer is eligible through the working-disabled buy-in category."
+us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied the 138% FPL expansion limit and the SSI-recipient check only. It ignored the working-disabled buy-in category that the head's disability and employment trigger, under which the head is eligible."
+us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,muse-spark-1.3,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Concluded that no SSI-linked or other categorical eligibility applies after MAGI came out above 138% FPL. It overlooked the working-disabled buy-in category, which covers this employed disabled head."
+us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,Required SSI-linked disability payments for a disability pathway. The working-disabled buy-in grants Medicaid to employed disabled people without SSI and with income well above the expansion limit.
+us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Mislabeled the disabled head as a non-disabled adult. It overstated MAGI at $25,443 by not subtracting the $2,778 traditional 401(k) deferral, and rejected the ABD pathway on income. It never applied the working-disabled buy-in category, which makes the head eligible at 1.41x FPL."
+us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Compared income only to the general California Medicaid limit. It ignored the working-disabled buy-in category, whose higher income ceiling makes the disabled, employed head eligible."
+us,scenario_023,head_medicare_eligible,claude-fable-5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model claimed that being disabled makes someone Medicare eligible as a stand-in for SSDI. Under-65 disability eligibility actually requires 24 months of SSDI entitlement, and this head has $0 in SSDI and no ESRD. The age-28 head is therefore not eligible."
+us,scenario_023,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model correctly saw that the head is under 65 and does not meet the SSDI waiting-period requirement. It then contradicted itself by granting eligibility on disability status alone. With no SSDI receipt, no 24 months of entitlement, and no ESRD, the head is not Medicare eligible."
+us,scenario_023,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model assumed that disability by itself makes someone under 65 eligible for Medicare. Non-aged eligibility requires 24 months of SSDI entitlement or ESRD, and the head has neither: SSDI income is $0 and no ESRD is listed."
+us,scenario_023,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model applied a 'disability-based Medicare eligibility rule' that keys only on the disabled flag. The actual pathway requires 24 months of SSDI benefits, and this 28-year-old head has none. Age 65 and ESRD also do not apply, so the head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_023,head_medicare_eligible,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no parseable value or explanation for head_medicare_eligible. The correct answer is 0, because the 28-year-old head has no SSDI entitlement and no ESRD."
us,scenario_023,head_wic_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_023,head_wic_eligible,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_023,local_income_tax,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied a 1.13% CA SDI rate ($197.11) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($226.75), so its total came to about $1,531 instead of $1,561. Its FICA components were correct."
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted only federal FICA ($1,334.39) and left out California's mandatory employee SDI contribution of 1.3% of wages ($226.75). That is a required employee state payroll tax under the question's definition."
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model wrongly said California has no mandatory employee state payroll tax, so it left out the 1.3% CA SDI contribution ($226.75). It also submitted $1,335.85, which does not match its own FICA sum of $1,334.38."
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model counted only 7.65% FICA and left out California's mandatory employee SDI at 1.3% of wages ($226.75).
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a 1.2% CA SDI rate ($209.32) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($226.75), which understated SDI by about $17."
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used an outdated 0.9% CA SDI rate ($156.99) instead of 1.3% ($226.75). It then submitted $1,467.32, which does not match its own stated sum of $1,490.38."
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a 1.2% CA SDI rate ($209.32) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($226.75). It also submitted $1,546, which does not match its own total of about $1,544."
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model used the 2024–2025 CA SDI rate of 1.1% ($191.87) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($226.75). Its FICA base and components were correct.
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model wrongly assumed California has no mandatory employee payroll tax and left out CA SDI. That contribution is 1.3% of all wages in 2026 ($226.75).
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model deliberately left CA SDI out, even though the question explicitly includes mandatory employee state payroll taxes. SDI at 1.3% adds $226.75 to the FICA total of $1,334.39."
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model subtracted the $8,089 employer-sponsored insurance premiums from wages and taxed only $9,354, but the payroll base is the full $17,443 of wages. It also left out California's 1.3% SDI contribution."
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model reduced the FICA and SDI base to $9,354 by subtracting the $8,089 ESI premiums, but payroll taxes apply to the full $17,443 of wages. It also used a 1.2% SDI rate instead of 1.3%."
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model used a 1.1% CA SDI rate ($191.87) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($226.75). Its FICA components were correct.
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied a combined rate of 8.85%, which assumes 1.2% CA SDI. The correct combined rate is 8.95% because 2026 SDI is 1.3%, which gives about $1,561."
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model estimated CA SDI at 1.1% ($191.87) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($226.75).
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model left out California's mandatory 1.3% employee SDI contribution ($226.75). It also miscalculated Medicare as $252.97 instead of $252.92.
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"Its $818 equals 8.75% (7.65% FICA plus 1.1% SDI) of $9,354, so it removed the $8,089 ESI premiums from the payroll wage base. The base should be the full $17,443, and SDI should be 1.3%."
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model subtracted the $8,089 ESI premiums and taxed only $9,354, when payroll taxes apply to the full $17,443 of wages. It also used a 1.1% SDI rate instead of 1.3%."
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's $1,595 implies about $261 of CA SDI, roughly 1.5% of wages. The correct 2026 SDI is 1.3%, or $226.75."
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model used a 1.1% CA SDI rate ($191.87) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($226.75).
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"Its $809.12 equals 8.65% of $9,354, so it subtracted the $8,089 ESI premiums from wages and applied only a 1.0% SDI rate. The correct calculation uses the full $17,443 of wages with 1.3% SDI."
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model used a 1.1% CA SDI rate ($191.87) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($226.75).
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model used a 1.2% CA SDI rate ($209.32) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($226.75).
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model wrongly said California has no mandatory employee payroll tax and left out the 1.3% SDI ($226.75). It also submitted $1,329, which does not match its own FICA sum of $1,334.39."
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model wrongly said California has no mandatory employee payroll tax and left out the 1.3% SDI. It also submitted $1,375.97, which does not equal 7.65% of $17,443 ($1,334.39)."
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model left out California's 1.3% SDI contribution. It also miscalculated FICA: it computed $1,070.10 for Social Security instead of $1,081.47 and submitted $1,208 instead of about $1,334."
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model estimated CA SDI at 1.2% instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3%, which gave a combined rate of 8.85% instead of 8.95%."
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model counted only 7.65% FICA and left out California's mandatory employee SDI at 1.3% of wages ($226.75).
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model estimated CA SDI at 1.2% ($209) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($226.75).
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model used the correct 1.3% SDI rate but applied FICA and SDI to $9,354 after subtracting the $8,089 ESI premiums. Payroll taxes apply to the full $17,443 of wages."
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model counted only Social Security and Medicare and left out California's mandatory employee SDI at 1.3% of wages ($226.75).
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model used a projected 1.2% CA SDI rate ($209.32) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($226.75).
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model used a 1.2% CA SDI rate ($209.32) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($226.75).
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model carried forward a 1.2% CA SDI rate ($209.32) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($226.75).
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model subtracted the $2,778 traditional 401(k) deferral from the FICA and SDI wage base, but elective deferrals remain subject to FICA and SDI. It also used a 1.1% SDI rate instead of 1.3%."
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,inkling,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model removed the $8,089 ESI premiums and taxed only $9,354, when payroll taxes apply to the full $17,443 of wages. It also used a 1.2% SDI rate instead of 1.3%."
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no payroll_tax value or explanation, so there was no answer to grade."
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no payroll_tax value or explanation, so there was no answer to grade."
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model counted only federal FICA and left out California's mandatory employee SDI at 1.3% of wages ($226.75).
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a 1.2% CA SDI rate instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3%, which understated SDI by about $17."
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model used a 1.2% CA SDI rate ($209) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($226.75).
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model calculated SDI at 1.1% and reached $1,526.26 in its reasoning, but submitted only the FICA amount of $1,334.39, which leaves CA SDI out entirely. The 2026 SDI rate is 1.3% ($226.75), not 1.1%."
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,other,False,"Its $261.65 equals 1.5% of $17,443, which matches applying only a Medicare-like rate. That leaves out the 6.2% employee Social Security tax ($1,081.44) and the 1.3% CA SDI ($226.75)."
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The FICA components are correct, but it applied a 1.13% CA SDI rate ($197.11) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($226.75). That leaves the total about $30 short."
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It computed only federal FICA ($1,334.39) and left out California's mandatory employee SDI contribution of 1.3% of wages ($226.75), which counts as a mandatory employee state payroll tax."
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly said California has no mandatory employee payroll tax and left out the 1.3% CA SDI ($226.75). It then submitted $1,335.85, which does not match even its own FICA sum of $1,334.38."
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,It applied only the 7.65% employee FICA rate and left out California's mandatory employee SDI at 1.3% of wages ($226.75).
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 CA SDI rate of 1.2% ($209.32) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($226.75), so the total comes out about $17 low."
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied an outdated 0.9% CA SDI rate ($156.99) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($226.75). It also submitted $1,467.32, which does not match its own stated sum of $1,490.38."
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a 1.2% CA SDI rate ($209.32) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($226.75), then rounded its $1,544 total up to $1,546."
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly kept the full $17,443 as the base, but it used the 2024 CA SDI rate of 1.1% ($191.87) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($226.75)."
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly treated California as having no mandatory employee state payroll tax. It left out CA SDI, which in 2026 is 1.3% of all wages ($226.75)."
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It deliberately left out CA SDI, even though the question says to include mandatory employee state payroll taxes. That dropped the $226.75 SDI contribution (1.3% of wages)."
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It subtracted the $8,089 employer-sponsored insurance premium from the FICA base, cutting it to $9,354 when the full $17,442.65 is the base. It also left out the 1.3% CA SDI."
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It wrongly subtracted the $8,089 ESI premium from wages, giving a $9,354 base instead of the full $17,442.65. It then used a 1.2% CA SDI rate instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3%."
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,It used the 2024 CA SDI rate of 1.1% ($191.87) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($226.75). The FICA components are correct.
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a combined 8.85% rate, which uses 1.2% for CA SDI. The correct combined rate is 8.95% because the 2026 SDI rate is 1.3%, so SDI should be $226.75, not $209.32."
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,It estimated CA SDI at the 2024 rate of 1.1% ($191.87) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($226.75).
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It left out the mandatory 1.3% CA SDI ($226.75) and miscalculated Medicare as $252.97; 1.45% of $17,443 is $252.92."
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"Its $818 equals 8.75% of $9,354. That means it subtracted the $8,089 ESI premium from the wage base instead of using the full $17,442.65, and it used a 1.1% SDI rate instead of 1.3%."
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It reduced the payroll base to $9,354 by subtracting the $8,089 ESI premium instead of using the full $17,442.65, and it applied a 1.1% CA SDI rate instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3%."
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly computed FICA on gross wages, but its $1,595 total implies about $261 of CA SDI, or roughly 1.5% of wages. The 2026 SDI rate is 1.3% ($226.75), so it overstated SDI."
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,It used a 1.1% CA SDI rate ($191.87) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($226.75).
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"Its $809.12 equals 8.65% of $9,354. That means it subtracted the $8,089 ESI premium from the wage base and applied a 1.0% SDI rate. The correct calculation is 7.65% FICA plus 1.3% SDI on the full $17,442.65."
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,It applied a 1.1% CA SDI rate ($191.87) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($226.75).
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its CA SDI add-on of $191.87 reflects the 1.1% rate. The 2026 rate is 1.3%, which gives $226.75."
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,It used the 2025 CA SDI rate of 1.2% ($209.32) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($226.75).
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly said California has no mandatory employee payroll tax, which drops the 1.3% CA SDI. It then submitted an arbitrary $1,329 that does not match its own FICA sum of $1,334.39."
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It said California has no mandatory employee payroll tax and left out the 1.3% SDI ($226.75). Its $1,375.97 also does not equal 7.65% of $17,443 ($1,334.39)."
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It left out the 1.3% CA SDI and made arithmetic errors: 6.2% of $17,443 is $1,081.47, not $1,070.1, and its own components add to about $1,323, not $1,208."
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It estimated CA SDI at 1.2% for a combined 8.85% rate. With the 2026 SDI rate of 1.3%, the combined rate is 8.95%, which gives $1,561.12."
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,It computed only 7.65% employee FICA and left out California's mandatory employee SDI at 1.3% of wages ($226.75).
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,It used an estimated 1.2% CA SDI rate (about $209) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($226.75).
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It used the correct 1.3% SDI rate, but it subtracted the $8,089 ESI premium and applied 8.95% to $9,354 instead of to the full wage of $17,442.65."
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,It counted only employee Social Security and Medicare and left out California's mandatory employee SDI at 1.3% of wages ($226.75).
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,It used a projected 1.2% CA SDI rate ($209.32) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($226.75).
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,It applied a 1.2% CA SDI rate ($209.32) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($226.75).
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,It carried forward the 2025 CA SDI rate of 1.2% ($209.32) instead of applying the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($226.75).
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It wrongly subtracted the $2,778 traditional 401(k) deferral from the FICA and SDI base. Elective deferrals are still FICA and SDI wages. It also used a 1.1% SDI rate instead of 1.3%."
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,inkling,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It subtracted the $8,089 ESI premium to get a $9,354 base instead of using the full $17,442.65, and it used a 1.2% CA SDI rate instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3%."
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It submitted no payroll_tax value. The correct calculation is 7.65% FICA plus 1.3% CA SDI on $17,442.65 of wages, which gives $1,561.12."
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It submitted no payroll_tax value. The correct calculation is 7.65% FICA plus 1.3% CA SDI on $17,442.65 of wages, which gives $1,561.12."
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only federal employee FICA ($1,334) and left out the mandatory California employee SDI at 1.3% of wages ($226.75)."
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,It applied a 1.2% CA SDI rate ($209.32) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($226.75).
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a 1.2% California disability insurance rate instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3%, which understates SDI by about $17."
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,It applied a 1.2% CA SDI rate ($209) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($226.75).
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It identified CA SDI as a mandatory payroll tax but submitted the FICA-only figure of $1,334.39, which drops SDI altogether. The SDI rate it considered, 1.1%, is also below the 2026 rate of 1.3%."
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $261.65 equals 1.5% of $17,443, so it left out the 6.2% Social Security tax and applied no recognizable FICA rate. The correct calculation is 6.2% + 1.45% + 1.3% = 8.95% of wages."
us,scenario_023,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_023,self_employment_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_023,self_employment_tax,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_023,snap,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated the 'is disabled' flag as making this an elderly/disabled SNAP household, so it took an excess medical deduction and an uncapped shelter deduction, getting net income of $345. The head receives no disability-based benefit, so the $744 shelter cap applies, there is no medical deduction, and net income is about $876. The submitted $3,936 also contradicts the model's own $2,328 calculation."
-us,scenario_023,snap,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model applied a disabled-household medical deduction and an uncapped shelter deduction (rent plus SUA), driving net income to $0 and giving the $298 maximum allotment. The head receives no disability-based benefit, so the household is not SNAP elderly/disabled. Excess shelter is capped at $744/month, net income is $876.51, and the benefit is only about $35/month."
-us,scenario_023,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model applied the federal 130% FPL gross income test and a $2,500 asset limit. California's broad-based categorical eligibility (through TANF non-cash assistance) uses a 200% FPL gross limit, which $2,120/month passes. Net income after the capped shelter deduction is $876.51, below the net limit, so the household gets a small positive benefit."
-us,scenario_023,snap,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model said income exceeds SNAP limits, but the household passes California's 200% FPL gross test under broad-based categorical eligibility. Its net income of $876.51 (after the earned-income, standard and $744 capped shelter deductions) is 67% of FPL, which gives about $35–48/month in the frozen reference's projected schedule; c_snap_hold_fy2026 with the SNAP rounding fixes gives $34/month ($408/year) on this capped reading."
-us,scenario_023,snap,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated the head as SNAP-disabled, deducting $1,180 of medical expenses and an uncapped $14,837 annual shelter amount. The head receives no disability benefit, so there is no medical deduction and shelter is capped at $744/month. The model also replaced its own $2,529 result with an unsupported $3,768."
-us,scenario_023,snap,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model took a disabled-household medical deduction and an uncapped shelter deduction, even though the head receives no disability-based benefit and the $744 cap applies. It also miscomputed the 20% earned-income deduction as $121/month instead of $291, and it dropped its own $1,788 result for an unsupported $2,549."
-us,scenario_023,snap,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model correctly applied the shelter cap but wrongly concluded the household fails SNAP. Monthly gross of $2,120 passes California's 200% FPL BBCE test, and capped net income of $876.51 passes the net-income test, whose monthly limit is rounded up to a whole dollar. The frozen reference gives $35.20/month for January–September; under c_snap_hold_fy2026 and the SNAP rounding fixes, this capped reading gives $34/month ($408/year), so the benefit remains positive."
-us,scenario_023,snap,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model assumed the disability flag gives uncapped medical and shelter deductions, reducing net income to $0 and producing the $298 maximum. For SNAP, disability requires receipt of a disability-based benefit, which the head lacks. Shelter is therefore capped at $744, there is no medical deduction, and net income is $876.51."
-us,scenario_023,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model applied a $73/month excess medical deduction and an uncapped $1,224 shelter deduction because the head is disabled. The head receives no SSI/SSDI-type benefit, so the household gets the $744 capped shelter deduction and no medical deduction, which gives net income of $876.51 instead of $328."
-us,scenario_023,snap,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model disqualified the household with the federal 130% FPL gross income test and ignored California's broad-based categorical eligibility, which raises the gross limit to 200% FPL. It also never applied the excess shelter deduction, which brings net income down to $876.51 and leaves a positive benefit."
-us,scenario_023,snap,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model used a disabled-household medical deduction and an uncapped excess shelter deduction, getting net income of about $346. The head receives no disability-based benefit, so the $744 shelter cap applies, there is no medical deduction, and net income is $876.51, giving about $35/month instead of $194."
-us,scenario_023,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model left the excess shelter deduction uncapped because the head is disabled. That exemption requires the household to meet the SNAP elderly/disabled definition, which needs receipt of a disability benefit. With the $744 cap, net income is $876.51 rather than about $446."
-us,scenario_023,snap,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated the household as SNAP-disabled and took a $747/month medical deduction (wrongly including the $8,089 employer-paid insurance premiums) plus an uncapped $1,561 shelter deduction. The head is not SNAP-disabled, so there is no medical deduction and shelter is capped at $744, leaving $876.51 of net income."
-us,scenario_023,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model applied a $98 excess medical deduction and an uncapped $1,239 shelter deduction for a disabled household. The head receives no disability-based benefit, so neither applies beyond the $744 capped shelter deduction, and net income is $876.51, not $283."
-us,scenario_023,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated the disability flag as qualifying for the medical deduction and an uncapped shelter deduction, getting net income of $344. Under the SNAP disability definition, which requires receiving a disability benefit, the shelter deduction is capped at $744 and there is no medical deduction, so net income is $876.51."
-us,scenario_023,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model applied an uncapped shelter deduction (rent plus a $595 SUA) and a medical deduction for a disabled head, reducing net income to $0. The head is not SNAP-disabled because they receive no disability benefit, so shelter is capped at $744 and net income is $876.51, which yields $35–48/month in the frozen reference's projected schedule; c_snap_hold_fy2026 with the SNAP rounding fixes gives $34/month ($408/year) on this capped reading."
-us,scenario_023,snap,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model gave no reasoning, but $3,492 is 12 × a $291 maximum allotment, which implies net income of zero from uncapped disability deductions. The head is not SNAP-disabled, so the $744 shelter cap leaves net income of $876.51 and about $35–48/month in benefits in the frozen reference's projected schedule; c_snap_hold_fy2026 with the SNAP rounding fixes gives $34/month ($408/year) on this capped reading."
-us,scenario_023,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model assumed the disability flag removes the shelter cap and allows medical deductions, zeroing net income. SNAP's disabled status requires receiving a disability-based benefit, so the shelter deduction is capped at $744, net income is $876.51, and the frozen reference gives $35.20/month for January–September; c_snap_hold_fy2026 with the SNAP rounding fixes gives $34/month ($408/year) on this capped reading."
-us,scenario_023,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model used uncapped shelter and medical deductions for a disabled head, getting net income of about $300. The head does not meet SNAP's benefit-receipt disability definition, so the $744 shelter cap applies with no medical deduction, which puts net income at $876.51."
-us,scenario_023,snap,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model claimed income or resources exceed SNAP limits. The household passes California's 200% FPL BBCE gross test, has $130 in assets, and its net income of $876.51 after the capped shelter deduction is 67% of FPL, which gives a positive benefit."
-us,scenario_023,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model applied uncapped shelter expenses for a disabled individual. The head receives no disability-based benefit, so SNAP caps excess shelter at $744/month, net income is $876.51, and the benefit is about $35/month rather than $165."
-us,scenario_023,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated the head as SNAP-disabled with an uncapped shelter deduction, reducing net income to $0 and awarding the maximum. Without receipt of a disability benefit, the shelter deduction is capped at $744, net income is $876.51, and the frozen reference's allotment is $35.20/month for January–September, followed by a projected FY2027 increase; c_snap_hold_fy2026 with the SNAP rounding fixes gives $34/month ($408/year) on this capped reading."
-us,scenario_023,snap,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model applied an uncapped excess shelter deduction and medical deductions for a disabled head. The head is not SNAP-disabled (no disability-based benefit), so shelter is capped at $744 with no medical deduction, which leaves net income of $876.51."
-us,scenario_023,snap,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model deducted $1,180 of excess medical expenses and an uncapped $14,837 annual shelter amount because the head is disabled. The head receives no disability benefit, so annual shelter is capped at $8,928 ($744 × 12) with no medical deduction, and net income is about $10,518 a year rather than $3,490."
-us,scenario_023,snap,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model omitted the excess shelter deduction entirely and compared 30% of annual net income to a monthly allotment, which led it to conclude the benefit was zero. It then submitted an unsupported $871. Applying the $744 capped shelter deduction gives monthly net income of $876.51 and the frozen reference's $35.20/month for January–September; c_snap_hold_fy2026 with the SNAP rounding fixes gives $34/month ($408/year) on this capped reading."
-us,scenario_023,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model asserted that income and assets are too high without computing anything. Gross income of $2,120/month passes California's 200% FPL BBCE limit, assets are $130, and net income after the capped $744 shelter deduction is $876.51, so the benefit is positive."
-us,scenario_023,snap,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model set SNAP to zero because the inputs did not explicitly state eligibility, ignoring the instruction to assume take-up. A full computation shows the household is categorically eligible through California BBCE and has net income of $876.51, which yields a positive allotment."
-us,scenario_023,snap,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model applied medical and uncapped excess-shelter deductions for a disabled household, reducing net income to $0 and awarding $298/month. The head receives no disability-based benefit, so the shelter deduction is capped at $744 with no medical deduction, which leaves net income of $876.51."
-us,scenario_023,snap,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model used the medical deduction and an uncapped shelter deduction for a disabled one-person household to reach the maximum allotment. SNAP disability status requires receiving a disability benefit, so the $744 shelter cap applies and the frozen reference gives $35.20–$48.18/month using projected FY2027 parameters for October–December; c_snap_hold_fy2026 with the SNAP rounding fixes gives $34/month ($408/year) on this capped reading."
-us,scenario_023,snap,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model correctly cleared the student rule, then applied a disability medical deduction and an uncapped shelter deduction. The head is not SNAP-disabled, so excess shelter is capped at $744 with no medical deduction, and net income of $876.51 gives about $35/month, not $202."
-us,scenario_023,snap,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model concluded there was no benefit after deductions. The standard ($209), 20% earned-income ($291) and capped shelter ($744) deductions bring net income to $876.51, and the rounded expected contribution is $264, below the $298 maximum, giving $34/month ($408/year) on this capped reading under c_snap_hold_fy2026 and the SNAP rounding fixes."
-us,scenario_023,snap,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model applied California's $150 standard medical deduction and an uncapped shelter deduction for disability. The head receives no disability-based benefit, so neither applies beyond the $744 capped shelter deduction, and net income is $876.51 rather than $205.80."
-us,scenario_023,snap,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated the disability flag as unlocking rent and medical deductions that zero out net income. Under SNAP's benefit-receipt disability definition the shelter deduction is capped at $744 and there is no medical deduction, so net income is $876.51 and the benefit is far below the maximum."
-us,scenario_023,snap,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model used an uncapped shelter deduction for disability to drive countable income to zero. The head receives no disability benefit, so the shelter deduction is capped at $744, net income is $876.51, and the frozen reference gives $35.20/month for January–September, followed by a projected FY2027 increase; c_snap_hold_fy2026 with the SNAP rounding fixes gives $34/month ($408/year) on this capped reading."
-us,scenario_023,snap,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model deducted $880 of disability-related medical expenses and an uncapped shelter amount, getting annual net income of $3,850. The head is not SNAP-disabled, so shelter is capped at $744/month with no medical deduction, which puts annual net income at about $10,518."
-us,scenario_023,snap,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model said income and assets exceed SNAP limits. Gross income passes California's 200% FPL BBCE test, $130 in assets is negligible, and net income after the capped shelter deduction is $876.51, below 100% FPL, so the benefit is positive."
-us,scenario_023,snap,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model applied a $1,180 excess medical deduction and an uncapped $14,837 annual shelter deduction for a disabled household. The head receives no disability-based benefit, so the $744/month shelter cap applies with no medical deduction, and net income is about $876.51/month."
-us,scenario_023,snap,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated the household as disabled, with excess medical and uncapped shelter deductions, reducing net income to $0 and awarding the maximum. Under SNAP's benefit-receipt disability definition the shelter deduction is capped at $744, net income is $876.51, and the frozen reference gives $35.20/month for January–September; c_snap_hold_fy2026 with the SNAP rounding fixes gives $34/month ($408/year) on this capped reading."
-us,scenario_023,snap,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model applied an excess medical deduction on $1,600 of costs and an uncapped shelter deduction, getting net income of $283. The head is not SNAP-disabled, so there is no medical deduction and shelter is capped at $744, which gives net income of $876.51."
-us,scenario_023,snap,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model omitted the $8,000 403(b) distribution from countable unearned income. It also applied a disability medical deduction and an uncapped shelter deduction, even though the head receives no disability benefit and the $744 cap applies. Net income is $876.51, not $0."
-us,scenario_023,snap,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model used a medical deduction for the disabled head and an uncapped shelter deduction, estimating net income of $300. The head is not SNAP-disabled, so shelter is capped at $744 with no medical deduction, and net income is $876.51, which gives about $35/month."
-us,scenario_023,snap,kimi-k2.6,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model exempted the household from the shelter cap and allowed medical deductions because the head is disabled, zeroing net income. SNAP disability requires receiving a disability-based benefit, so the $744 shelter cap applies, net income is $876.51, and the frozen reference gives $35.20–$48.18/month using projected FY2027 parameters for October–December; c_snap_hold_fy2026 with the SNAP rounding fixes gives $34/month ($408/year) on this capped reading."
-us,scenario_023,snap,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no SNAP value or explanation, so there is no answer to evaluate."
-us,scenario_023,snap,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model applied the federal 130% FPL gross income test and ignored California's broad-based categorical eligibility, which sets a 200% FPL gross limit that this household passes. It also misstated gross income as $22,535 instead of $25,443."
-us,scenario_023,snap,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated the household as SNAP-disabled with medical and uncapped shelter deductions, reducing net income to $0. The head receives no disability benefit, so shelter is capped at $744, net income is $876.51, and the frozen reference gives $35.20/month for January–September, followed by a projected FY2027 increase; c_snap_hold_fy2026 with the SNAP rounding fixes gives $34/month ($408/year) on this capped reading."
-us,scenario_023,snap,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model correctly capped the shelter deduction at $744 and applied FY2026 parameters to all 12 months, as c_snap_hold_fy2026 requires, but used a $204 standard deduction instead of $209. The frozen reference reaches $461.34 using the engine's projected FY2027 $304.68 maximum and $256.50 contribution ($48.18/month) for October–December; on the capped reading, the current engine with the convention and SNAP rounding fixes gives $408 ($34 × 12), compared with the model's $402."
-us,scenario_023,snap,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model omitted the $8,000 403(b) distribution from income and ignored the excess shelter deduction. It then set the benefit equal to the maximum allotment without subtracting 30% of its own $944 net income. The frozen reference gives net income of $876.51 and $35.20/month for January–September; under c_snap_hold_fy2026 and the SNAP rounding fixes, this capped reading gives $34/month ($408/year)."
-us,scenario_023,snap,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model asserted that income and resources are too high under federal rules. California's BBCE 200% FPL gross limit is met, assets are $130, and net income after the capped shelter deduction is $876.51 (67% of FPL), so SNAP is positive."
+us,scenario_023,snap,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Treated the head as a SNAP disabled member. That gave a medical deduction and an uncapped excess-shelter deduction, so its net income was $345 instead of the capped-shelter $876.51. Its submitted $3,936 also contradicts its own $2,328 calculation."
+us,scenario_023,snap,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Treated the household as elderly/disabled and applied an uncapped shelter deduction (rent plus a utility allowance) and a medical deduction, which took net income to $0 and gave the $298 maximum for every month. The disability flag alone does not qualify, so shelter is capped at $744 with no medical deduction. That leaves $876.51 net income and $35.20–$48.18/mo."
+us,scenario_023,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Applied the federal 130% FPL gross-income test and cited rent as disqualifying. California's BBCE through TANF non-cash assistance uses 200% FPL, which $2,120/mo passes, and rent only increases the shelter deduction. With net income of $876.51, the benefit is positive."
+us,scenario_023,snap,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Said income exceeds SNAP limits without using California's 200% FPL BBCE gross test, which the household passes. With the $744 shelter cap, net income is $876.51. Thirty percent of that is $262.80, below the $298 maximum, so the benefit is positive."
+us,scenario_023,snap,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Gave the head disabled-household treatment: a medical deduction over $35/mo and an uncapped $14,837/yr shelter deduction. The correct treatment caps shelter at $744/mo with no medical deduction. It then replaced its own $2,529 result with an unexplained $3,768."
+us,scenario_023,snap,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Applied a disabled-member medical deduction and an uncapped shelter deduction instead of the $744 cap. It also miscalculated the 20% earned-income deduction as $121/mo instead of $290.72. It then submitted $2,549, which does not match its own $1,788 result."
+us,scenario_023,snap,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Recognized the 200% FPL limit but wrongly concluded that net income with the shelter cap fails and the benefit is zero. With the capped $744 shelter deduction, net income is $876.51, which is 67% of FPL. Thirty percent of it is $262.80, below the $298 maximum, so the benefit is $35.20/mo."
+us,scenario_023,snap,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Used the disability flag to drop the gross test and give uncapped medical and shelter deductions, reaching $0 net income and the $298 maximum. The household is not SNAP elderly/disabled, so shelter is capped at $744 and there is no medical deduction, which leaves $876.51 net income."
+us,scenario_023,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Applied a $73.33 medical deduction and an uncapped $1,223.90 shelter deduction on the theory that the head is disabled, giving $328.30 net income. With no SNAP disabled status, shelter is capped at $744 and there is no medical deduction, so net income is $876.51. It also used the outdated $292 maximum instead of $298."
+us,scenario_023,snap,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Rejected eligibility under the 130% FPL gross-income test. California's TANF-based BBCE uses 200% FPL, which $2,120/mo passes. The capped-shelter net income of $876.51 then gives a positive benefit."
+us,scenario_023,snap,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Treated the household as disabled, with a medical deduction and an uncapped excess-shelter deduction that put net income at about $346. The correct calculation caps shelter at $744 with no medical deduction, giving $876.51 net income and $35.20/mo Jan–Sep."
+us,scenario_023,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Applied an uncapped excess-shelter deduction on the theory that the head is disabled, giving $445.80 net income. Shelter is capped at $744 because the household lacks SNAP elderly/disabled status, so net income is $876.51."
+us,scenario_023,snap,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Gave disabled-household deductions, including a $747.42/mo medical deduction that counts the employer-paid $8,089 ESI premium, plus an uncapped $1,560.94 shelter deduction. Net income became $0. The correct treatment allows no medical deduction and caps shelter at $744."
+us,scenario_023,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Applied a $98.33 excess-medical deduction and an uncapped $1,238.90 shelter deduction as if the household were elderly/disabled, giving $283.30 net income. With shelter capped at $744 and no medical deduction, net income is $876.51."
+us,scenario_023,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Waived the gross test and applied medical and uncapped shelter deductions because of the disability flag, reaching $344.29 net income. Without SNAP disabled status, shelter is capped at $744 and there is no medical deduction, so net income is $876.51 and the benefit is $35.20/mo."
+us,scenario_023,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Applied a disabled-member medical deduction and an uncapped shelter deduction (rent plus a $595 utility allowance), so net income fell to $0 and it gave a $291 maximum. Shelter is capped at $744 for this non-elderly/disabled household, which leaves $876.51 net income."
+us,scenario_023,snap,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Its $3,492 ($291 × 12) assumes $0 net income, which requires the uncapped disability shelter deduction. With shelter capped at $744 and no medical deduction, net income is $876.51 and the benefit is only $35.20–$48.18/mo."
+us,scenario_023,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Explicitly applied uncapped disability shelter and medical deductions to reach $0 net income. The disability flag does not make the household SNAP elderly/disabled, so shelter is capped at $744 and net income is $876.51."
+us,scenario_023,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Applied uncapped shelter and medical deductions for a disabled head, giving about $300 net income. Capping shelter at $744 with no medical deduction gives $876.51 net income and $35.20/mo, not about $200/mo."
+us,scenario_023,snap,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Said income or resources exceed the limits. The household passes California's 200% FPL BBCE gross screen and the $130 asset test, and its $876.51 capped-shelter net income gives a positive allotment."
+us,scenario_023,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Used uncapped shelter expenses for a disabled individual. The household lacks SNAP elderly/disabled status, so shelter is capped at $744 and net income is $876.51, which gives $35.20/mo, not $165/mo."
+us,scenario_023,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,Treated the household as disabled with an uncapped shelter deduction that cut net income to $0 and gave the $298 maximum. The correct $744 shelter cap leaves $876.51 net income and a $262.80 expected contribution.
+us,scenario_023,snap,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Applied an uncapped excess-shelter deduction and medical deductions on the theory that the head is disabled. With shelter capped at $744 and no medical deduction, net income is $876.51, so the benefit is $35.20/mo, not about $211/mo."
+us,scenario_023,snap,gemini-4-argon,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Said disability makes the shelter deduction uncapped, giving $0 net income and a $292 maximum. Shelter is capped at $744 for this household, and the FY2026 maximum is $298. Net income of $876.51 gives $35.20/mo."
+us,scenario_023,snap,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Applied a $1,180/yr medical deduction and an uncapped $14,836.80/yr shelter deduction as a disabled household, giving $3,489.60/yr net income. Correctly, shelter is capped at $744/mo with no medical deduction, which gives $876.51/mo net income."
+us,scenario_023,snap,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Left out the excess-shelter deduction entirely and compared annual net income against a monthly maximum, which led it to conclude $0. It then submitted an unsupported $871. With the $744 capped shelter deduction, monthly net income is $876.51 and the benefit is $35.20/mo."
+us,scenario_023,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Concluded that income and assets are too high without applying California's 200% FPL BBCE screen, which the household passes. It also skipped the $744 capped shelter deduction, which brings net income down to $876.51 and gives a positive benefit."
+us,scenario_023,snap,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Returned 0 because no benefit-receipt input was listed, even though the prompt says to assume take-up. The household is eligible through California's TANF-based BBCE and receives $298 − $262.80 = $35.20/mo."
+us,scenario_023,snap,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Applied medical and uncapped excess-shelter deductions for a disabled household, which reduced net income to $0. Without SNAP elderly/disabled status, there is no medical deduction and shelter is capped at $744, so net income is $876.51."
+us,scenario_023,snap,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Used disabled-household medical and uncapped shelter deductions to reach the $298 maximum. The $744 shelter cap applies, so net income is $876.51 and the benefit is $35.20/mo."
+us,scenario_023,snap,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Applied a medical deduction and an uncapped disability shelter deduction, giving about $202/mo. With shelter capped at $744 and no medical deduction, net income is $876.51 and the benefit is $35.20/mo."
+us,scenario_023,snap,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Concluded that wages plus the 403(b) distribution leave no benefit. Under California's 200% FPL BBCE the household is eligible, and after the 20% earned, $209 standard, and $744 capped shelter deductions, net income is $876.51, which gives $35.20/mo."
+us,scenario_023,snap,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Applied California's $150 standard medical deduction and an uncapped disability shelter deduction, both of which require elderly/disabled status, giving $205.80 net income. Without that status, shelter is capped at $744 and net income is $876.51."
+us,scenario_023,snap,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Treated the disabled member as unlocking medical and uncapped shelter deductions, which led to the $298 maximum. The household is not SNAP elderly/disabled, so shelter is capped at $744 and net income is $876.51."
+us,scenario_023,snap,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Applied an uncapped shelter deduction based on the disability flag to reach $0 net income. Shelter is capped at $744 for this household, which leaves $876.51 net income and $35.20/mo."
+us,scenario_023,snap,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Applied an $880 disability medical deduction and an uncapped shelter deduction, giving $3,849.60/yr net income. The correct calculation has no medical deduction and caps shelter at $744/mo, giving $876.51/mo net income."
+us,scenario_023,snap,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Claimed income and assets exceed the limits. The $130 in assets passes, gross income passes California's 200% FPL BBCE screen, and net income of $876.51 after the capped shelter deduction gives a positive allotment."
+us,scenario_023,snap,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Used a net-income-only disabled-household calculation with a $1,180 medical deduction and an uncapped $14,837 shelter deduction. Without SNAP disabled status, shelter is capped at $744/mo and there is no medical deduction, so net income is $876.51/mo."
+us,scenario_023,snap,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Applied excess medical and uncapped shelter deductions to reach $0 net income and a $292 maximum. The $744 shelter cap applies with no medical deduction, giving $876.51 net income against the $298 FY2026 maximum."
+us,scenario_023,snap,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Applied an excess-medical deduction on $1,600 of costs and an uncapped shelter deduction, giving about $283 net income. The household is not SNAP elderly/disabled, so shelter is capped at $744 and net income is $876.51."
+us,scenario_023,snap,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Left out the $8,000 taxable 403(b) distribution from countable income and applied an uncapped disability shelter deduction plus a medical deduction to reach $0 net income. Including the distribution and capping shelter at $744 gives $876.51 net income."
+us,scenario_023,snap,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Applied a disabled-household medical deduction and an uncapped shelter deduction, giving about $300 net income. With shelter capped at $744 and no medical deduction, net income is $876.51 and the benefit is $35.20/mo."
+us,scenario_023,snap,kimi-k2.6,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Exempted the household from the gross test and applied uncapped shelter and medical deductions to reach $0 net income at a $292 maximum. The household lacks SNAP elderly/disabled status, so shelter is capped at $744 and net income is $876.51."
+us,scenario_023,snap,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No SNAP value or explanation was returned, so there is no substantive answer to evaluate. The correct derivation gives $35.20/mo for Jan–Sep and $48.18/mo for Oct–Dec, a total of $461.34."
+us,scenario_023,snap,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Applied the 130% FPL gross-income test instead of California's 200% FPL BBCE. It also wrongly reduced gross income to $22,535 by subtracting the traditional 401(k) and IRA contributions. Full gross income of $2,120/mo passes BBCE and gives $876.51 net income."
+us,scenario_023,snap,muse-spark-1.3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Applied a disabled medical deduction and an uncapped excess-shelter deduction, giving about $353 net income, and used a $292 maximum. Capping shelter at $744 with no medical deduction gives $876.51 net income against the $298 maximum."
+us,scenario_023,snap,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Treated the household as disabled, with medical and uncapped shelter deductions that reduced net income to $0. Without that status, shelter is capped at $744, so net income is $876.51 and the benefit is $35.20/mo."
+us,scenario_023,snap,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Correctly capped shelter at $744 and allowed no medical deduction, but used the outdated $204 standard deduction instead of $209, which made net income $882 instead of $876.51. It also applied one monthly amount to all 12 months, missing the October 2026 FY2027 update (maximum $304.68), which raises Oct–Dec benefits to $48.18/mo."
+us,scenario_023,snap,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Left out the $8,000 403(b) distribution from countable income and skipped the excess-shelter deduction entirely. It then contradicted its own calculation by awarding the full $258 even though $944 net income implies a $283 contribution."
+us,scenario_023,snap,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,Said income and resources are too high without applying California's 200% FPL BBCE screen or the $744 capped shelter deduction. Those give $876.51 net income and a $35.20/mo benefit.
us,scenario_023,ssi,glm-5.2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated the narrative phrase “is disabled” as establishing SSI disability eligibility, despite the prompt directing that unlisted program-status inputs are false. The head fails the SSI aged, blind, or disabled gate, so applying earned-income exclusions, counting the 403(b) distribution, and subtracting income from the federal-plus-California payment standard was inapplicable."
us,scenario_023,ssi,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model supplied no SSI value or explanation, violating the required structured-output contract."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got AGI and the standard deduction roughly right and identified both credits. It then put the tax at about $200, when 1% of $11,079 plus 2% of the remaining $5,749.34 is $225.78. Because of that, it wrongly concluded that the $213 in credits fully offset the tax, when $12.78 remains."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a projected 2026 standard deduction of about $5,880 instead of the $5,706 that applies. That understated taxable income and gave about $222 of tax rather than $225.78, so it reported $9 instead of $12.78."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,other,False,"It treated CalEITC as a nonrefundable credit that wipes out the tax. CalEITC is refundable, so it is excluded from this output. It also left the $8,000 403(b) distribution and the 401(k)/IRA adjustments out of AGI, used a $5,202 standard deduction, and never applied the $153 exemption credit or the $60 renter's credit."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It said California taxable income was zero. AGI is $22,534.34, which includes the $8,000 taxable 403(b) distribution, so after the $5,706 standard deduction $16,828.34 is taxable and the tax is $225.78."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It estimated the tax on about $17,000 of taxable income at roughly $170. The 1%/2% schedule actually gives about $226. It also left out the $60 renter's credit and leaned on vague 'disabled-related considerations' to reach zero, even though $225.78 minus $213 in credits leaves $12.78."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,other,False,"By its own figures, about $233 of tax minus a $149 exemption credit leaves about $84. It still declared the liability 'effectively $0' with no basis, and it never applied the $60 renter's credit. Done correctly, $225.78 minus $213 leaves $12.78."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It understated the tax at about $200 instead of $225.78 and claimed a roughly $150 exemption credit fully offsets it. It also never applied the renter's credit explicitly. Both credits together total only $213, which leaves $12.78."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a projected 2026 standard deduction of about $5,880 and a $158 exemption credit. The applicable amounts are $5,706 and $153. With those figures it got $219 of tax and $1 of net liability instead of $225.78 minus $213, which is $12.78."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It added a second $144 exemption credit because the filer is disabled. California's extra exemption credit is for blindness only, not disability. It also used stale 2023 parameters ($5,540 deduction, $10,756 bracket) and left out the renter's credit; the correct credits total $213 against $225.78 of tax."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It computed $250–300 of tax, then claimed that a roughly $149 exemption credit plus nonexistent 'disability-related credits' brought it to zero. California has no disability nonrefundable credit, and the only credits here, the $153 exemption credit and the $60 renter's credit, total $213, which leaves $12.78."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It computed about $226 of tax and subtracted the $153 exemption credit. It left out the $60 nonrefundable renter's credit, which this renter qualifies for because AGI is below the limit, and so got about $73 instead of $12.78."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used AGI of $14,446, which leaves out the $8,000 taxable 403(b) distribution. Correct AGI is $22,534.34, which produces $225.78 of tax, more than the $213 in credits."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used AGI of $14,446 and a $5,363 deduction, which leaves out the $8,000 taxable 403(b) distribution. Correct AGI is $22,534.34, which yields $225.78 of tax that the $213 in credits do not fully offset."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used projected 2026 values: a $5,876 deduction, an $11,044 bracket and a $158 exemption credit. The applicable figures are $5,706, $11,079 and $153, and the misindexing gave $4.74 instead of $12.78."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It left out the $130 traditional IRA deduction, giving AGI of $22,665. It also used stale 2023 parameters, a $5,540 deduction and a $10,756 bracket, instead of $5,706 and $11,079, so it got $20.94 instead of $12.78."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an approximate $5,800 standard deduction, a rounded $230 of tax and a $155 exemption credit. The correct figures are $5,706, $225.78 and $153, which give $12.78, not $15."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the single standard deduction exceeds AGI. AGI is $22,534.34 including the $8,000 403(b) distribution, well above the $5,706 deduction, so there is $225.78 of tax."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It said the exemption credit fully offsets the tax. That holds only if taxable income is understated, for example by dropping the $8,000 403(b) distribution. The correct $16,828.34 of taxable income produces $225.78 of tax, which exceeds the combined $213 of exemption and renter's credits."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its taxable income of $8,846 leaves out the $8,000 taxable 403(b) distribution. Correct taxable income is $16,828.34, and the resulting $225.78 of tax exceeds the $213 in credits."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave $0 with no derivation. That result fits only an understated income base, such as one that ignores the $8,000 403(b) distribution. The correct $225.78 of tax minus $213 in credits leaves $12.78."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,other,False,It reported roughly the pre-credit tax ($218) and did not subtract the nonrefundable credits this output nets out: the $153 personal exemption credit and the $60 renter's credit. Subtracting them leaves $12.78.
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It claimed the exemption credits fully eliminate the tax. On $16,828.34 of taxable income the 1%/2% schedule gives $225.78, and the credits total only $213, so $12.78 remains."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It set up the right structure with both brackets, the exemption credit and the $60 renter's credit. Its approximate parameters produced $17 instead of $225.78 minus $213, which is $12.78."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,other,False,"It subtracted a $138 'personal exemption' from income as if it were a deduction and then said no nonrefundable credits apply. California's personal exemption is a $153 nonrefundable credit, and the $60 renter's credit also applies. It also used a stale $5,363 deduction and a $10,234 bracket."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It did not exclude the $2,778 traditional 401(k) deferral or deduct the $130 IRA contribution, giving AGI of $25,443 instead of $22,534.34. It also left out the $153 personal exemption credit and subtracted only the $60 renter's credit."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It asserted that the deduction and credits wipe out the tax without computing it. The 1%/2% schedule on $16,828.34 gives $225.78, which exceeds the $213 combined exemption and renter's credits by $12.78."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied American Opportunity Credit amounts against state tax, but California has no AOC equivalent. Its $72 matches $225.78 minus only the $153 exemption credit, which means it left out the $60 nonrefundable renter's credit."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"It added a $200 California 2.5% early-distribution additional tax on the 403(b) distribution. That tax is not part of this output, and the filer's disability exempts the distribution from it. It also wrongly treated the regular tax as fully offset, when $225.78 minus $213 leaves $12.78."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It claimed the exemption and renter's credits fully offset the tax. Those credits total $213 against $225.78 of tax on $16,828.34 of taxable income, so $12.78 remains."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a 'projected' 2026 standard deduction and brackets instead of the published $5,706 deduction and $11,079 1% bracket that apply. That understated the tax and gave $4 instead of $12.78."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the nonrefundable credits fully offset the tax. The $153 exemption credit plus the $60 renter's credit total $213, which is less than the $225.78 of tax, leaving $12.78."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an indexed 2026 standard deduction above $5,706 and larger credits. That cut net tax to $4 instead of $225.78 minus $213, which is $12.78."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,other,False,"Its structure was correct, but it rounded the result to $13. The exact computation is $225.78 of tax minus $153 and $60 in credits, which is $12.78."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used inflation-projected parameters instead of the $5,706 deduction, $11,079 bracket and $153 exemption credit. That understated net tax at $3 instead of $12.78."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used AGI of $14,446, which leaves out the $8,000 taxable 403(b) distribution. Correct AGI is $22,534.34, which yields $225.78 of tax, more than the $213 in credits."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed there was zero tax before credits. AGI of $22,534.34 minus the $5,706 deduction leaves $16,828.34 taxable, which gives $225.78 of tax."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used inflated brackets and a projected $158 exemption credit instead of $11,079 and $153. The result was $9 instead of $225.78 minus $213, which is $12.78."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized a $7,499 medical deduction by counting pre-tax employer-sponsored insurance premiums and over-the-counter costs as deductible medical expenses. The allowable medical expenses do not clear 7.5% of AGI, so the $5,706 standard deduction applies, giving $225.78 of tax and $12.78 after credits."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used estimated 2026 parameters: a $5,843 deduction, an $11,345 bracket and a $157 exemption credit. The applicable figures are $5,706, $11,079 and $153, so it got $3 instead of $12.78."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,other,False,It subtracted only the $60 renter's credit and left out California's $153 nonrefundable personal exemption credit for a single filer. That left $169 instead of $12.78.
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used AGI of about $14,446, which leaves out the $8,000 taxable 403(b) distribution. Correct taxable income is $16,828.34, and the resulting $225.78 of tax exceeds the $213 in credits."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It submitted no value for this output. The correct value is $225.78 of tax minus the $153 exemption and $60 renter's credits, which is $12.78."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It submitted no value for this output. The correct value is $225.78 of tax minus the $153 exemption and $60 renter's credits, which is $12.78."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the traditional 401(k) deferral and IRA deduction back into California AGI, but California conforms to both. It also left out the $153 personal exemption credit and the $60 renter's credit."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used stale parameters: about $17,000 of taxable income from an older standard deduction, and a $149 exemption credit instead of $153. That gave $27 instead of $225.78 minus $213, which is $12.78."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the outdated $5,540 standard deduction and $149 exemption credit instead of $5,706 and $153. That overstated taxable income and understated the credit, giving $20 instead of $12.78."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It claimed an extra $144 exemption credit for disability, but California's additional exemption credit applies only to blindness. It also left the 401(k) deferral and IRA deduction out of AGI. The correct credits are $153 plus $60, against $225.78 of tax."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It asserted zero tax after credits without computing it. On $16,828.34 of taxable income the tax is $225.78, which exceeds the $213 in exemption and renter's credits by $12.78."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model cut earned income to $14,665 by subtracting the 401(k) deferral, mixed in the 403(b) distributions, and arrived at $402. That is more than the childless CalEITC pays anywhere on its phase-out. The engine uses $17,442.65 of earnings, phases out on the higher $22,534 AGI, and gets $95.15."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model ran the phase-out on earned income of $17,443 alone. It skipped the rule that the credit is computed on AGI when AGI ($22,534) is higher than earnings. Because AGI sits further down the phase-out tail, the credit is $95.15, not $180."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model ruled out CalEITC because the filer has no qualifying dependent. CalEITC covers childless filers aged 18 or older, so this 28-year-old with $17,443 of wages qualifies for $95.15."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated CalEITC as unavailable without qualifying children. Childless filers aged 18 or older are eligible, and this filer receives $95.15 after the AGI-based phase-out."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model first estimated a CalEITC of about $44, then raised it to $358 for unspecified 'credit interactions' that do not exist. The only refundable California credit here is CalEITC, which comes to $95.15 when phased out on the $22,534 AGI."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model answered $1,208, which is several times the maximum childless CalEITC. It applied a schedule meant for filers with children. The childless phase-out at AGI $22,534 gives $95.15."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model assumed the childless CalEITC is fully phased out below $17,443 of earnings. CalEITC's phase-out tail runs past $30,000, so at AGI $22,534 the filer still gets $95.15."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,The model correctly phased out on AGI of about $22.5k but estimated the tail amount at $115. The credit on the CalEITC phase-out schedule at that AGI is $95.15.
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model counted the $8,000 of taxable 403(b) distributions as investment income above the disqualified-income limit. Pension and retirement distributions are not disqualified investment income, which covers interest, dividends, rents, royalties, and capital gains. They only raise AGI, which reduces the credit to $95.15 rather than eliminating it."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model gave a near-maximum credit of $285 based on wages alone. It did not apply the phase-out using the higher AGI of $22,534, which brings the credit down to $95.15."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model placed only the $17,443 of earned income on the phase-out slope. Because AGI ($22,534) is higher than earnings, the credit is computed on AGI and comes to $95.15, not $150."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model misstated the inputs as $6,576 of earned income and $14,446 of AGI, then treated the credit as near its maximum of $300. The actual figures are $17,442.65 of earnings and $22,534 of AGI, deep in the phase-out tail, and they give $95.15."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model computed CalEITC as 85% of a federal EITC of $503. CalEITC is not a percentage of the federal credit; it has its own schedule. The childless federal EITC is also zero at AGI $22,534, and the standalone California schedule yields $95.15."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said no CalEITC applies. A childless 28-year-old with $17,443 of earnings and $22,534 of AGI is within CalEITC's income limit and receives $95.15."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model invented a linear phase-out from a $300 maximum, running from $15,000 to $33,000, and used an AGI of $22,665. On the actual CalEITC tail schedule at AGI $22,534, the credit is $95.15, not $172.25."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model correctly phased out on the higher AGI of $22,535 but rounded its estimate to $100. The exact CalEITC schedule gives $95.15."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model assumed this income level excludes the filer from all California refundable credits. The childless CalEITC extends past $30,000 of income, so it pays $95.15 at AGI $22,534."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model based the credit mainly on W-2 earnings and applied only part of the AGI phase-out, arriving at $148. Computing fully on the higher AGI of $22,534 gives $95.15."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model's $180 matches a credit read off the schedule at $17,443 of earnings. The phase-out must use the higher AGI of $22,534, which gives $95.15."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,The model gave $0 with no reasoning and missed that the childless CalEITC is refundable and available at this income. After the AGI-based phase-out it equals $95.15.
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model said the filer's income is above the CalEITC limit. The limit is above $30,000, so AGI of $22,534 is still in the phase-out tail and yields $95.15."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model's $195 overstates the credit and matches a computation on wages without the AGI-based phase-out. Because AGI ($22,534) is higher than earnings, the credit is $95.15."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model correctly treated the filer as a childless CalEITC recipient in the phase-out range, but its $92 estimate falls short of the exact schedule. At AGI $22,534 the schedule gives $95.15."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model believed the childless CalEITC ends before AGI reaches $22,535. It confused CalEITC with the federal childless EITC's lower cutoff. CalEITC phases out above $30,000 and pays $95.15 here."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,age_disability,False,The model cited a childless age test as the reason for a $0 credit. The 28-year-old filer meets CalEITC's minimum age of 18 and receives $95.15.
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model found no refundable California credit and missed the childless CalEITC. With $17,443 of earnings and $22,534 of AGI, that credit equals $95.15."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said no California refundable credits apply and overlooked CalEITC, which childless working filers aged 18 or older receive. Here it equals $95.15."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model correctly placed the childless CalEITC in its 2026 phase-out range but estimated $114. The schedule evaluated at AGI $22,534 gives $95.15."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model based the credit on $17,443 of earned income and did not switch to the higher AGI of $22,534, which governs the phase-out. That AGI reduces the credit to $95.15."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model evaluated the childless CalEITC at $17,443 of earned income only. Because AGI ($22,534) is higher than earnings, the credit is computed on AGI and equals $95.15, not $160."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model generated no California refundable credit. A childless filer aged 18 or older with $22,534 of AGI qualifies for a CalEITC of $95.15."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model correctly treated the childless CalEITC as phased out but applied too much reduction, landing at $25. The tail schedule at AGI $22,534 leaves $95.15."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model correctly used the higher AGI for the phase-out but estimated $106. The exact CalEITC schedule at AGI $22,534 gives $95.15."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model concluded a childless filer at this income gets no CalEITC. CalEITC's income limit is above $30,000, so the credit at AGI $22,534 is $95.15."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model's childless phase-out schedule cut the credit to $28, which is too much reduction. The CalEITC tail at AGI $22,534 gives $95.15."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,The model found no qualifying refundable credit and missed the childless CalEITC. For this filer it equals $95.15.
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model made CalEITC depend on federal EITC eligibility. CalEITC is a separate credit, and its childless income limit is far above the federal phase-out point, so the filer receives $95.15 even with a federal EITC of zero."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model reasoned that a $0 federal EITC means a $0 CalEITC. CalEITC is computed on its own schedule, which extends past $30,000, and pays $95.15 at AGI $22,534."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model correctly used AGI of $22,535 because it is higher than earned income, but it overstated the tail amount at $120. The CalEITC schedule gives $95.15."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model treated the filer as getting roughly the maximum childless CalEITC of $300 and applied no phase-out. With AGI of $22,534, the credit is reduced to $95.15."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no value or explanation for state_refundable_credits, so there is nothing to grade against the $95.15 CalEITC."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no value or explanation for state_refundable_credits, so there is nothing to grade against the $95.15 CalEITC."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model claimed CalEITC is nonrefundable for childless filers. CalEITC is fully refundable for all eligible filers, and this childless filer receives $95.15."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model correctly placed the childless CalEITC in its phase-out range but rounded to $100. The exact schedule at AGI $22,534 gives $95.15."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model thought $14,665 of earnings was far above the childless CalEITC ceiling, confusing it with the federal childless EITC limit. CalEITC phases out above $30,000 and pays $95.15 at AGI $22,534."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model added a $60 California renter's credit, which is nonrefundable, and inflated CalEITC to $251. The only refundable credit is CalEITC, which is $95.15 after the AGI-based phase-out."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model concluded that no California refundable credits apply and missed the childless CalEITC. For this 28-year-old worker with $22,534 of AGI it equals $95.15."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its AGI and standard deduction are close to correct, but it rounded the tentative tax down to about $200 instead of computing $225.78 (1% of $11,079 plus 2% of $5,749.34). It then claimed the $153 exemption credit and $60 renter's credit fully offset the tax, but $225.78 minus $213 leaves $12.78."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It projected a 2026 standard deduction of about $5,880 instead of the $5,706 that California published for 2025. That understated taxable income by about $174, so it got about $222 of tax and $9 net instead of $225.78 and $12.78."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It built taxable income from gross wages alone. It left out the $8,000 taxable 403(b) distribution and the 401(k) and IRA reductions, and used an outdated $5,202 standard deduction. It then subtracted CalEITC, which is a refundable credit and is excluded from tax before refundable credits."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It said California taxable income is zero, but CA AGI of $22,534 minus the $5,706 standard deduction leaves $16,828 of taxable income. That produces $225.78 of tax before $213 of nonrefundable credits."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It put tax on about $17,000 of taxable income at only about $170, but the 1%/2% brackets give more than $225. It also cited 'disabled-related considerations' as an offset, yet California has no disability exemption credit. Only the $153 exemption credit and $60 renter's credit apply, leaving $12.78."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,other,False,"It computed about $233 of gross tax and a $149 exemption credit, which leaves a positive balance. It then declared the liability 'effectively $0' with no credit to support that. Correctly, $225.78 minus the $153 exemption credit and $60 renter's credit is $12.78."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,It underestimated the tentative tax at about $200 instead of $225.78. It then said the leftover liability was 'eliminated' without naming any credit that does this. The $153 exemption and $60 renter's credits cover only $213 of the $225.78.
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It projected 2026 indexing: a standard deduction of about $5,880 and an exemption credit of about $158, instead of the 2025 published $5,706 and $153. This lowered tax and raised credits, giving $1 instead of $12.78."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It added a second $144 'disabled' exemption credit, but California's extra exemption credits are for blind or elderly filers, not disabled ones. It also used outdated parameters ($5,540 standard deduction, $10,756 bracket). Only the $153 exemption credit and $60 renter's credit apply against $225.78 of tax."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It overstated the 1%/2% bracket tax on about $17,000 of taxable income as $250–$300. It then said a roughly $149 exemption credit exceeds that liability, which contradicts its own figures, and it relied on nonexistent disability credits. The correct figure is $225.78 minus $213, or $12.78."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It computed the $226 tentative tax and the $153 exemption credit correctly. It left out the $60 nonrefundable renter's credit, which applies because the filer pays $24,000 of rent and is under the income limit. It also rounded $73 up to $75."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used an AGI of $14,446, which leaves out the $8,000 taxable 403(b) distribution. That understated taxable income at about $8,900 instead of $16,828, giving 1%-only tax that the exemption credit wiped out."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left the $8,000 taxable 403(b) distribution out of its $14,446 CA AGI and used an outdated $5,363 standard deduction. That gave only $90.83 of tax instead of $225.78."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It projected 2026 parameters: a $5,876 standard deduction, an $11,044 bracket and a $158 exemption credit. The 2025 published values that apply are $5,706, $11,079 and $153, so its result was $4.74 instead of $12.78."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It skipped the $130 traditional IRA deduction (AGI $22,665) and used an outdated $5,540 standard deduction and $10,756 1% bracket. This overstated tax at $234.94 instead of $225.78."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a rough $5,800 standard deduction instead of $5,706, rounded tax to $230 instead of $225.78, and used a $155 exemption credit instead of $153. Those approximations produced $15 instead of $12.78."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the single standard deduction exceeds AGI, but the $5,706 deduction is far below the $22,534 CA AGI. That leaves $16,828 of taxable income."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It asserted the personal exemption credit alone fully offsets the tax, but $16,828 of taxable income produces $225.78 of tax. That is more than both the $153 exemption credit and the $60 renter's credit combined."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $8,846 taxable income leaves out the $8,000 taxable 403(b) distribution. Correct taxable income is $16,828.34, which produces $225.78 of tax, more than the $213 in credits."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation. The correct steps are $22,534 of AGI minus the $5,706 standard deduction, then $225.78 of tax minus $213 in credits, which leaves $12.78. A $0 answer fits leaving out the $8,000 403(b) distribution or assuming the credits fully offset the tax."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,other,False,"Its $218 is roughly the tentative tax before credits. It never subtracted the nonrefundable $153 personal exemption credit or the $60 renter's credit, which bring $225.78 down to $12.78."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,It claimed the standard deduction and exemption credit bring the tax to $0 without computing anything. The $225.78 tentative tax exceeds the $153 exemption credit plus the $60 renter's credit by $12.78.
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the right structure but approximated the parameters instead of using the 2025 published $5,706 deduction, $11,079 bracket and $153 exemption credit. That overstated the net tax at $17 instead of $12.78."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It asserted that the exemption and renter's credits fully offset the tax. Those credits total $213, which is less than the $225.78 tax on $16,828.34 of taxable income, so $12.78 remains."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,other,False,"It treated California's $138 personal exemption as a deduction from income, but it is a nonrefundable tax credit (now $153). It then applied no credits at all, also missing the $60 renter's credit, and used outdated $5,363 and $10,234 parameters."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used an AGI of $25,443 without excluding the $2,778 traditional 401(k) deferral or deducting the $130 IRA contribution, both of which California follows. It also left out the $153 personal exemption credit and applied only the $60 renter's credit."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It asserted the deduction and credits wipe out the tax without computing anything. $16,828.34 of taxable income produces $225.78 of tax, and the $213 of nonrefundable credits leaves $12.78."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It tied its credits to the American Opportunity Credit, which has no California equivalent. Its $72 matches the tentative tax minus only the $153 exemption credit, leaving out the $60 nonrefundable renter's credit."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"It said regular California tax is fully eliminated, but $213 of credits leaves $12.78. It then added a 2.5% early-distribution additional tax on the 403(b) distribution, which is not part of this income tax computation."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It claimed the exemption and renter's credits fully offset the tax. The tax on $16,828.34 of taxable income is $225.78, which exceeds the $213 of credits by $12.78."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a projected 2026 standard deduction instead of California's 2025 published $5,706, and its other parameters were indexed the same way. That lowered the result to $4 instead of $12.78."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It asserted full offset without arithmetic. The $153 exemption credit and $60 renter's credit total $213, which is less than the $225.78 tentative tax."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It indexed the standard deduction (and credit amounts) forward to 2026 instead of using the 2025 published $5,706 deduction and $153 exemption credit. That cut the net tax to $4 instead of $12.78."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,other,False,"It rounded to a whole-dollar $13 estimate instead of carrying the exact amounts. The exact figure is $225.78 of tax on $16,828.34 of taxable income, minus the $153 and $60 credits, which equals $12.78."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $3 matches projected 2026 indexed values: a larger standard deduction and exemption credit than California's 2025 published $5,706 and $153. That understated the net tax, which is $12.78."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used an AGI of $14,446, which leaves out the $8,000 taxable 403(b) distribution. With the distribution included, AGI is $22,534 and the tax exceeds the credits."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the standard deduction brings tax before credits to zero, but the $5,706 deduction leaves $16,828 of taxable income from $22,534 of CA AGI. That produces $225.78 of tax."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It projected the exemption credit to $158 and used other inflated 2026 brackets instead of the 2025 published $153 credit and $11,079 bracket. The extra credit and lower tax gave $9 instead of $12.78."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized about $7,499 of medical expenses by counting the employer-sponsored premiums and over-the-counter costs. Those are not itemizable out-of-pocket medical expenses, so the $5,706 standard deduction applies and taxable income is $16,828.34."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It projected 2026 indexing: a $5,843 standard deduction, an $11,345 bracket and a $157 exemption credit. The 2025 published values that apply are $5,706, $11,079 and $153, so it got $3 instead of $12.78."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,other,False,It subtracted only the $60 renter's credit and left out California's nonrefundable personal exemption credit of $153. That left $169 instead of $12.78.
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of about $14,446 leaves out the $8,000 taxable 403(b) distribution. That cut taxable income to about $8,720 instead of $16,828.34."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,No value or explanation was returned for this output.
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,No value or explanation was returned for this output.
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the traditional 401(k) deferral and IRA deduction back into CA AGI, but California follows both, so CA AGI is $22,534. It also applied no nonrefundable credits, missing the $153 exemption credit and the $60 renter's credit."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It overstated the tentative tax at about $232 instead of about $225 by using an outdated, lower 1% bracket ceiling instead of $11,079. It also used an outdated $149 exemption credit instead of $153, giving $23 instead of $12.78."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It rounded taxable income up to about $17,000, which implies an outdated, smaller standard deduction than $5,706, and got $236 of tax. It also used an outdated $149 exemption credit instead of $153, so it got $27 instead of $12.78."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the outdated $5,540 standard deduction and $149 exemption credit instead of the 2025 published $5,706 and $153. That overstated the net tax at $20 instead of $12.78."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It invented a $144 disabled exemption credit, which California does not have, and labeled the $60 renter's credit refundable when it is nonrefundable. It also used an AGI of $25,443 that ignores the 401(k) and IRA reductions."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It asserted the tax is zero after the standard deduction and nonrefundable credits without computing anything. The $225.78 tax on $16,828.34 of taxable income exceeds the $213 of credits, leaving $12.78."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It cut earned income to $14,665 by subtracting the 401(k) deferral, then gave $402. That is more than the whole childless CalEITC maximum (about $300). The phaseout runs on the $22,534 AGI and leaves $95.15."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It ran the childless CalEITC phaseout on earned income of $17,443 alone. CalEITC phases out on the greater of earned income or AGI, and AGI here is $22,534 because of the 403(b) distribution. On the correct base the credit is $95.15, not $180."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly decided a filer with no qualifying children cannot get CalEITC. California pays CalEITC to childless filers aged 18 and older with earnings below about $33k, so this 28-year-old with $17,443 in wages gets $95.15."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated CalEITC as unavailable without qualifying children. California's childless CalEITC covers filers 18 and older, and this filer's credit, phased out on AGI of $22,534, is $95.15."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Its own phaseout estimate was about $44, then it jumped to $358 with no basis by citing unrelated credit interactions. That figure is above the childless CalEITC maximum. The phaseout on the $22,534 AGI gives $95.15."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said the childless CalEITC is small at this income, then reported $1,208. That is about four times the childless maximum credit (about $300), so the number matches a schedule for families with children. The correct childless credit, phased out on the $22,534 AGI, is $95.15."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It claimed the childless CalEITC is fully phased out below $17,443 in earnings. The childless CalEITC actually continues up to about $33k, so on the $22,534 AGI it is still worth $95.15."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It correctly applied the phaseout to AGI of about $22.5k but set the final phaseout segment too high, giving $115. The actual CalEITC schedule gives $95.15 at that income."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It counted the $8,000 taxable 403(b) distribution as investment income and ruled the filer out under the investment-income limit. Pension and 403(b) distributions are not disqualified income under that test, which covers interest, dividends, rents and capital gains. It also used a wrong phaseout end point of $18,591. The correct credit is $95.15."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It gave $285, which is close to the childless maximum, without phasing the credit down. At $22,534 AGI, which is above earned income, the credit is on its final phaseout segment and comes to $95.15."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It placed the filer on the phaseout using $17,443 of earned income only. It missed that CalEITC uses the greater of earned income or AGI, which is $22,534, and that higher base lowers the credit to $95.15."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used wrong figures of $6,576 for earned income and $14,446 for AGI. That placed the filer near the end of the phase-in, so it gave about the maximum, $300. Actual earnings are $17,443 and AGI is $22,534, which is well into the phaseout, so the credit is $95.15."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It figured CalEITC as 85% of a $503 federal EITC. CalEITC has its own schedule and is not a percentage of the federal credit. The federal childless EITC is also $0 here because AGI of $22,535 is above the federal phaseout limit. California's own schedule gives $95.15."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It reported no CalEITC without explaining why. The 28-year-old childless filer with $17,443 in wages is eligible, and phasing out on the $22,534 AGI gives $95.15."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It made up a single linear phaseout from $15,000 to $33,000 with a $300 maximum, and used a slightly wrong AGI of $22,665. The real CalEITC phaseout has a steep first segment and then a flat tail, which gives $95.15 at $22,534 AGI, not $172.25."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It correctly phased the credit out on the $22,535 AGI but rounded to $100 instead of applying the exact final-segment phaseout, which gives $95.15."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It said income rules out every California refundable credit. The childless CalEITC runs to about $33k of income, so this filer gets $95.15."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It said the AGI phaseout applies only partially, which gave $148. The full phaseout on AGI of $22,534 brings the credit down to $95.15."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Its $180 matches phasing out from $17,443 of earnings alone. CalEITC phases out on the greater of earnings or AGI ($22,534), which gives $95.15."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It missed the childless CalEITC entirely. This 28-year-old wage earner, with AGI of $22,534 (below the roughly $33k ceiling), receives a refundable CalEITC of $95.15."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It claimed income is above the CalEITC limit. The childless CalEITC ceiling is about $33k, well above this filer's $22,534 AGI, so the credit is $95.15."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It gave $195, which matches phasing out from $17,443 of earnings only. It ignored that the higher AGI of $22,534 sets the phaseout, which brings the credit to $95.15."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It identified the childless CalEITC phaseout but used parameters that are slightly off, giving $92 instead of the $95.15 that the 2026 schedule produces at $22,534 AGI."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly used the $22,535 AGI but applied a phaseout segment that is too generous, giving $164. The actual final CalEITC phaseout segment gives $95.15 at that income."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said the childless CalEITC is fully gone before $22,535 AGI. The CalEITC ceiling is about $33k, so at this AGI the credit is still $95.15."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It said the filer fails the childless age test. The childless CalEITC requires only age 18 or older, with no upper limit, so the 28-year-old qualifies and gets $95.15."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It overlooked the CalEITC, which is refundable and available to childless workers 18 and older. On this filer's $17,443 earnings and $22,534 AGI it comes to $95.15."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It found no California refundable credit and missed the childless CalEITC, which this 28-year-old wage earner qualifies for at $95.15."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It correctly placed the filer in the childless phaseout but set the final segment too high, giving $114. At $22,534 AGI the schedule gives $95.15."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It figured the credit from $17,443 of earned income only. It missed that CalEITC phases out on the greater of earnings or AGI ($22,534), and that base cuts the credit to $95.15."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It explicitly based the credit on $17,443 of earned income. The phaseout uses the higher AGI of $22,534, which includes the 403(b) distribution, and that gives $95.15 instead of $160."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,It produced no CalEITC even though the filer is a 28-year-old childless worker with earnings and AGI below the roughly $33k ceiling. That filer qualifies for a $95.15 refundable credit.
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It phased the credit down too steeply, to $25. At $22,534 AGI the filer is on the shallow final phaseout segment, where the credit is still $95.15."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It correctly phased out on the higher AGI but used final-segment parameters that are slightly too generous, giving $106 instead of $95.15."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It wrongly concluded that a childless single adult at this income gets no CalEITC. The childless credit lasts to about $33k, so the filer gets $95.15."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It used a phaseout that is too steep and got $28. The CalEITC's flat second phaseout segment leaves $95.15 at $22,534 AGI."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It found no qualifying state credit and missed the childless CalEITC, which is $95.15 for this 28-year-old earner."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It made CalEITC depend on federal EITC eligibility. CalEITC has its own schedule, which reaches about $33k for childless filers, so it is $95.15 even though the federal childless EITC is $0."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It reasoned that a $0 federal EITC means a $0 CalEITC. California's credit does not depend on the federal one and phases out over a much wider income range, giving $95.15 here."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It correctly used AGI of $22,535 as the phaseout base but set the final phaseout segment too high, giving $120 instead of $95.15."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It gave roughly the childless maximum, $300, without any phaseout. At $22,534 AGI the credit is mostly phased out and comes to $95.15."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,It gave no usable value for state_refundable_credits. The required answer is the $95.15 childless CalEITC.
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,It gave no usable value for state_refundable_credits. The required answer is the $95.15 childless CalEITC.
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It claimed CalEITC is nonrefundable for filers without children. CalEITC is fully refundable for every eligible filer, childless or not, so this filer receives $95.15."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It used $17,443 of earned income as the phaseout base. CalEITC uses the greater of earnings or AGI ($22,534), and that gives $95.15 instead of $180."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It correctly placed the filer in the phaseout but rounded to $100 instead of computing the exact amount. The final phaseout segment at $22,534 AGI gives $95.15."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It claimed $14,665 of earned income is far above the childless phaseout ceiling. The CalEITC ceiling is about $33k, so the filer still gets $95.15 at $22,534 AGI."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted California's $60 renter's credit as refundable, but that credit is nonrefundable. It also put CalEITC at $251, which contradicts its own $200 estimate and ignores the phaseout on $22,534 AGI. The only refundable credit is the $95.15 CalEITC."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It found no refundable California credit and missed the childless CalEITC, which this 28-year-old wage earner qualifies for at $95.15."
us,scenario_023,tanf,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_023,tanf,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its reasoning used a $32,300 standard deduction ($100 too high) and reached about $7,019, close to the correct $7,031. It then submitted $3,325, a number that none of its own steps support. The final value does not match its own bracket calculation."
-us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $29,900 MFJ standard deduction instead of the 2026 amount of $32,200. It also mis-computed the tax: $8,640 on $65,025 implies far more than the 10%/12% rates produce. The correct result is $62,725 taxable, giving $2,480 + 12% × $37,925 = $7,031."
-us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It put taxable income at about $84,000, so it never properly subtracted the $32,200 MFJ standard deduction from $94,925 of AGI. Its final $5,600 figure does not follow from either taxable-income amount through the 10%/12% brackets."
-us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $32,300 standard deduction instead of $32,200 and ended the 10% bracket at $24,000 instead of the 2026 MFJ threshold of $24,800. The two parameter errors nearly cancelled, giving $7,035 rather than $7,031.04."
-us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"It applied the correct $32,200 standard deduction and $24,800 10% bracket and computed $7,031. It then arbitrarily changed the answer to $6,934, calling it rounding with bracket estimates, and submitted that unsupported figure."
-us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 parameters for a 2026 return: a $30,000 standard deduction and a 10% bracket ending at $23,850. The 2026 OBBBA-indexed values are $32,200 and $24,800. Its taxable income was therefore $64,925 instead of $62,725."
-us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its reasoning correctly computed $62,725 of taxable income and $2,480 + $4,551 = $7,031 of tax. It then submitted $4,700 after an unexplained ""adjusting"" step that no rule supports."
-us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It estimated the 2026 MFJ standard deduction at $30,600 instead of $32,200 and ended the 10% bracket at $24,150 instead of $24,800. These errors overstated taxable income by $1,600 and produced $7,236."
-us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the 2025 MFJ standard deduction ($30,000) and 10% bracket end ($23,850) to tax year 2026. The 2026 standard deduction of $32,200 leaves $62,725 taxable, and the 10% bracket runs to $24,800."
-us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired after 2025, so it brought back personal exemptions, a $16,700 standard deduction and a 15% second bracket. The OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent: a $32,200 standard deduction, no exemptions and a 12% second bracket."
-us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It made three errors. It subtracted the head's $21,208 of ESI premiums from AGI, even though the head has no wages and the spouse's wages are given as gross. It made up $14,640 of mortgage interest from the loan balance, although unlisted amounts are treated as 0. It also applied pre-TCJA personal exemptions and a 15% bracket instead of the permanent $32,200 standard deduction and 12% rate."
-us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $22,400 standard deduction instead of the 2026 MFJ amount of $32,200, giving $72,525 of taxable income. Its $5,236 tax does not even match 10%/12% rates applied to that taxable income."
-us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It explicitly used a post-TCJA-expiration 2026 baseline with personal exemptions and the old standard deduction. The OBBBA made the TCJA permanent, so the correct calculation uses the $32,200 MFJ standard deduction and 10%/12% brackets, giving $7,031."
-us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied sunset-law parameters: a $16,100 standard deduction, $10,100 of personal exemptions and a 15% bracket above $23,200. Under the OBBBA, 2026 uses a $32,200 standard deduction, no exemptions, and 12% above $24,800."
-us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reported $0 even though $94,925 of AGI minus the $32,200 standard deduction leaves $62,725 taxable. No nonrefundable credit applies to this childless couple under 65, so the tax is $7,031."
-us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $8,993 is consistent with the pre-TCJA schedule: a smaller standard deduction plus exemptions, and 15% above the 10% bracket. The OBBBA-permanent 2026 rules use a $32,200 deduction and 12% up to $100,800, giving $7,031."
-us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied TCJA sunset rules with personal exemptions for 2026. The OBBBA made the TCJA standard deduction and bracket structure permanent, so 2026 uses a $32,200 MFJ deduction and 10%/12% rates."
-us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 MFJ standard deduction of $30,000 and the 2025 10% bracket end of $23,850. It should have used the 2026 values of $32,200 and $24,800, which overstated taxable income by $2,200."
-us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It estimated the 2026 MFJ standard deduction at $30,900 instead of $32,200 and ended the 10% bracket at $24,600 instead of $24,800. Its taxable income was $64,025 instead of $62,725."
-us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $30,600 standard deduction instead of $32,200 and reached $7,223. It then submitted $6,005.50, which matches neither its own computation nor any credit it found, since it ruled out the elderly credit for a couple under 65."
-us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the standard deduction and credits eliminate all tax. In fact $94,925 of AGI minus the $32,200 standard deduction leaves $62,725 taxable, and no nonrefundable credit applies to this childless couple under 65."
-us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $2,460 is consistent with taxing only the 10% bracket (about $24,600 × 10%). It omits the 12% tax on the remaining $37,925 of taxable income, which is $4,551."
-us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It asserted there was no taxable income after deductions. The $32,200 MFJ standard deduction leaves $62,725 of taxable income, which produces $7,031 of tax with no offsetting nonrefundable credits."
-us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed TCJA expiration in 2026, using a $16,688 standard deduction, $10,644 of personal exemptions and a 15% second bracket. The OBBBA made the $32,200 standard deduction and 12% bracket permanent."
-us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied post-TCJA sunset parameters: a $16,600 standard deduction, two $5,300 exemptions, and 15% above $24,800. Under the OBBBA, 2026 uses a $32,200 standard deduction, no exemptions, and a 12% second bracket."
-us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It estimated the 2026 MFJ standard deduction at $30,700 instead of $32,200 and ended the 10% bracket at $24,450 instead of $24,800. Its taxable income was $64,225 instead of $62,725."
-us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used reverted pre-TCJA rules: a $16,800 standard deduction, $10,800 of personal exemptions and 15% above $23,837. The OBBBA-permanent 2026 rules use a $32,200 standard deduction, no exemptions, and 12% above $24,800."
-us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no value and no explanation for this output, so there is nothing to score. The correct derivation is $94,925 AGI minus the $32,200 standard deduction = $62,725 taxable, giving $7,031.04 of tax."
-us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"It estimated $5,500 to $6,500 of tax on $63,425 of taxable income, using a $31,500 standard deduction instead of $32,200. It then reported $0 on the reasoning that having no credits makes the tax zero, which reverses the logic: no nonrefundable credits means the full $7,031 remains."
-us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $31,450 MFJ standard deduction instead of $32,200 and a 10% bracket ending at $24,350 instead of $24,800. Its taxable income was $63,475, giving $7,130 instead of $7,031."
-us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It used a $9,300 standard deduction instead of $32,200 and a wrong $29,550 10% bracket. It then subtracted a ""senior bonus deduction"" as a tax credit for the 61-year-old head, but the OBBBA senior deduction requires age 65 or older and reduces taxable income rather than tax."
+us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its own work used a $32,300 standard deduction ($100 too high) and the correct $24,800 10% bracket to get about $7,019. It then submitted $3,325, which has no connection to that calculation, so the final value contradicts its own reasoning."
+us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $29,900 standard deduction instead of the 2026 OBBBA amount of $32,200, which overstated taxable income at $65,025. It then asserted $8,640 of tax, which is more than the 10%/12% brackets produce even on that inflated base (about $7,307)."
+us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It put taxable income at about $84,000, which means it subtracted only about $11,000 instead of the $32,200 joint standard deduction. Its $5,600 answer also doesn't follow from that taxable income at 10%/12%. The correct taxable income is $62,725.30, giving $7,031.04."
+us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $32,300 standard deduction (the correct figure is $32,200) and ended the 10% bracket at $24,000 instead of the 2026 threshold of $24,800. Taxing $62,625 as $2,400 + 12% × $38,625 gave $7,035 instead of $7,031.04."
+us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly applied the $32,200 standard deduction and the $24,800 10% bracket and reached $7,031. It then submitted $6,934, citing unspecified 'bracket estimates', which throws away its own correct result."
+us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It deliberately used 2025 parameters: a $30,000 standard deduction and a 10% bracket ending at $23,850. The 2026 figures are $32,200 and $24,800. This overstated taxable income at $64,925 and gave $7,314."
+us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly derived taxable income of $62,725 and tax of $2,480 + $4,551 = $7,031. It then submitted $4,700 based on an unexplained 'adjusting for standard deduction estimate and rounding', which contradicts its own correct figure."
+us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used pre-OBBBA inflation projections: a $30,600 standard deduction and a 10% bracket ending at $24,150. The correct 2026 figures are $32,200 and $24,800. Taxable income came out as $64,325 and tax as $7,236."
+us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the 2025 joint standard deduction of $30,000 and the 2025 10% bracket of $23,850 instead of the 2026 figures of $32,200 and $24,800. That gave taxable income of $64,925 and tax of $7,314."
+us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired for 2026, using a $16,700 standard deduction, $10,700 of personal exemptions and a 15% second bracket. OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent, so 2026 has a $32,200 deduction, no exemptions and a 12% bracket."
+us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the head's $21,208 of employer insurance premiums from AGI even though the head has no wages and the spouse's gross wages are as listed. It also invented $14,640 of mortgage interest from the loan balance, added pre-TCJA personal exemptions, and used a 15% bracket. In fact the $32,200 standard deduction beats the $2,354 of itemized deductions."
+us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $22,400 standard deduction instead of the 2026 joint amount of $32,200, which put taxable income at $72,525 instead of $62,725.30. Its $5,236 doesn't even match the 10%/12% tax on its own taxable income."
+us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a post-TCJA-expiration baseline with a smaller standard deduction, personal exemptions and the 15% bracket. For 2026, OBBBA keeps the TCJA structure: a $32,200 joint standard deduction, no exemptions, and 10%/12% brackets, giving $7,031.04."
+us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired, using a $16,100 standard deduction, $10,100 of exemptions and a 15% bracket above $23,200. The 2026 law has a $32,200 deduction, no exemptions, and 12% from $24,800 to $100,800."
+us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,other,False,"It claimed deductions and credits wipe out the tax. In fact $62,725.30 of taxable income remains after the $32,200 standard deduction, and this childless couple under 65 qualifies for no nonrefundable credits, so tax is $7,031.04."
+us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $8,993 matches a TCJA-sunset calculation, with a smaller standard deduction plus exemptions and a 15% bracket. The 2026 OBBBA parameters ($32,200 deduction, 10% to $24,800, 12% after) give $7,031.04."
+us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It explicitly applied 'sunset rules with standard deduction and personal exemptions'. For 2026 the TCJA structure is permanent under OBBBA, with a $32,200 joint deduction, no exemptions and 10%/12% brackets."
+us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 $30,000 joint standard deduction and the 2025 10% bracket of $23,850 instead of the 2026 figures of $32,200 and $24,800. Taxable income came out $2,200 too high, at $64,925, and tax at $7,314."
+us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It subtracted 'deductions and exemptions', which means it applied the expired pre-TCJA rules with personal exemptions and a 15% bracket. For 2026 the joint standard deduction is $32,200, there are no exemptions, and income up to $100,800 is taxed at 10%/12%."
+us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It estimated a $30,900 standard deduction and a 10% bracket ending at $24,600 instead of the 2026 figures of $32,200 and $24,800. That overstated taxable income at $64,025 and gave $7,191."
+us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,other,False,"It understated the 2026 joint standard deduction at $30,600 instead of $32,200 and computed $7,223. It then submitted $6,005.50, which neither its reasoning (which ends at 7,223) nor any applicable nonrefundable credit supports."
+us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,other,False,"It assumed deductions and unspecified credits leave no tax. The $32,200 standard deduction leaves $62,725.30 of taxable income, no nonrefundable credits apply, and tax is $7,031.04."
+us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $2,460 equals 10% of a $24,600 first bracket, so it stopped after the 10% bracket. It left out the 12% tax on the remaining $37,925.30 of taxable income, which adds $4,551.04."
+us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed there is no taxable income after deductions. But $94,925.30 of AGI less the $32,200 joint standard deduction leaves $62,725.30 taxable, so tax is $7,031.04."
+us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied post-TCJA rules: a $16,688 standard deduction, $10,644 of personal exemptions and a 15% bracket above $24,506. Under the 2026 OBBBA law the deduction is $32,200, there are no exemptions, and the second bracket is 12%."
+us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA sunset, with a $16,600 standard deduction plus $10,600 of exemptions and 15% above $24,800. The 2026 rules have a $32,200 deduction, no exemptions and a 12% second bracket."
+us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $30,700 standard deduction and a 10% bracket ending at $24,450 instead of the 2026 figures of $32,200 and $24,800. Taxable income came out as $64,225 and tax as $7,218."
+us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied 'reverted' pre-TCJA rules: a $16,800 standard deduction, $10,800 of exemptions and 15% above $23,837. The 2026 OBBBA rules have a $32,200 deduction, no exemptions and 12% from $24,800 to $100,800."
+us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No value or explanation was returned for this variable. The correct calculation is $32,200 standard deduction, $62,725.30 of taxable income and $7,031.04 of tax."
+us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"It computed $5,500–6,500 of tax on about $63,425 of taxable income, then reported $0 because there were no credits. Having no nonrefundable credits leaves the full tax in place; it doesn't zero it out. It also used a $31,500 deduction instead of $32,200."
+us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 OBBBA joint standard deduction of $31,500 instead of the inflation-indexed 2026 figure of $32,200. That overstated taxable income at $63,425 and tax at $7,117."
+us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $31,450 standard deduction and a 10% bracket ending at $24,350 instead of the 2026 figures of $32,200 and $24,800. Taxable income came out as $63,475 and tax as $7,130."
+us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $9,300 standard deduction and also took a medical deduction on top of it, although you can't claim both. It then applied a senior bonus deduction to a 61-year-old even though that requires age 65, and subtracted it from tax rather than from income. With the $32,200 deduction alone, taxable income is $62,725.30."
us,scenario_025,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_025,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model correctly stated that the 61-year-old head does not meet Medicare eligibility, but then submitted value = 1, which denotes Yes. It inverted its own eligibility conclusion when encoding the numeric output."
us,scenario_025,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model correctly computed $3,888.95 in Social Security tax and $909.51 in Medicare tax on the spouse's wages. It then added Ohio income tax on wages (~$621) as if it were a 'state payroll tax', though Ohio has no mandatory employee payroll tax. It also added made-up 'OASDI cap adjustments', and the $9,432.76 it submitted does not match even its own $5,432.76 sum."
@@ -2029,158 +2101,164 @@ us,scenario_025,payroll_tax,glm-5.3,llm_error,other,False,"The model's reasoning
us,scenario_025,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model said only the spouse's $62,725 of wages is taxed at 6.2% + 1.45%, which yields $4,798.46. Its $9,571.50 is about double that. This fits applying the combined 15.3% employer-plus-employee FICA rate instead of the 7.65% employee share."
us,scenario_025,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model computed payroll tax on 'annual wages for both spouses' and reported $9,106. The head has no listed wages, and the spouse's pension is not FICA wages. The correct base is only the spouse's $62,725, giving $4,798.48 at 7.65%."
us,scenario_025,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no parseable payroll_tax value and no reasoning. The correct derivation is 7.65% of the spouse's $62,725 wages, or $4,798.48."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It reached about $1,576 by using $2,150 exemptions, leaving out the $332 base amount in Ohio's 2.75% bracket, and skipping the $180.60 medical deduction. It then cut that figure to $875 for an unspecified 'graduated structure' adjustment. The correct schedule is $332 plus 2.75% of the excess of $90,944.70 over $26,050, less the $200 credit, which gives $1,916.61."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It taxed only 2.75% of the excess over $26,050 and left out the $332 base amount in Ohio's bracket. It also skipped the unreimbursed-medical deduction ($7,300 above 7.5% of FAGI = $180.60), so it understated tax by about $327."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It started from federal taxable income after a federal standard deduction and applied obsolete Ohio brackets that run up to 5.75%. Ohio actually starts from federal AGI, allows only $1,900-per-person exemptions and the medical deduction, and taxes $332 plus 2.75% above $26,050. It also left out the $200 retirement income credit."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"It gave a rounded $1,000 guess with no calculation. The correct path is OAGI of $94,744.70 after the $180.60 medical deduction, less $3,800 of exemptions, then $332 plus 2.75% of the excess over $26,050, less the $200 retirement income credit, which is $1,916.61."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used $1,850 exemptions, skipped the medical deduction, and swapped the $332 bracket base for an unexplained 'modest amount.' It also said no nonrefundable credits apply, so it missed the $200 retirement income credit for the spouse's $32,200 pension."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It computed $1,790 without the $332 bracket base or the $180.60 medical deduction. It then named the retirement credit and a joint filing credit, which requires income for both spouses and does not apply here. Even so, it reported $2,426, a figure higher than its own pre-credit tax that does not follow from its arithmetic."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used $2,500 exemptions instead of $1,900 and the outdated $360 bracket base instead of $332. It skipped the medical deduction and took off about $250 of credits instead of the $200 retirement income credit."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It explicitly assumed the 2026 schedule has no base amount, so it taxed only 2.75% of the excess over $26,050 and left out the $332 base. It also skipped the $180.60 unreimbursed-medical deduction."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used $2,400 exemptions instead of the $1,900 over-$80k tier and left out the $332 bracket base. It also wrongly said Ohio has no health-premium deduction, but Ohio deducts unreimbursed medical care, including the $6,500 of premiums, above 7.5% of FAGI ($180.60 here)."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used $2,350 exemptions and left out the $332 bracket base. It then subtracted about $500 of invented credits, including a senior credit that requires age 65 (the head is 61), instead of the single $200 retirement income credit."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied 2.75% only to the excess over $26,050 and left out the $332 base amount in Ohio's bracket. It also skipped the $180.60 unreimbursed-medical deduction, which produced about $1,590 instead of $1,916.61."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It made up $1,000 exemptions and a 2.5%/3.5% bracket structure with no zero bracket. Ohio's actual structure is $1,900 exemptions, 0% up to $26,050, and $332 plus 2.75% above that. It also left out the $200 retirement income credit."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied an obsolete multi-bracket schedule (3.226%/3.688%) instead of the single 2.75% bracket with a $332 base. It allowed one $2,400 exemption instead of two $1,900 exemptions and said no nonrefundable credits apply, so it missed the $200 retirement income credit."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used $2,800 exemptions instead of $1,900, left out the $332 bracket base, and skipped the medical deduction. It also said no nonrefundable credits apply, missing the $200 retirement income credit for the pension."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a 3.5% rate above $46,100, but Ohio's single 2.75% bracket with a $332 base runs to $100,000. It used $2,400 exemptions and took a 5% joint filing credit that is unavailable because the head has no income. It also missed the $200 retirement income credit."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $21,208 employer-sponsored premiums from the spouse's wages, but they are not part of the listed wages, so FAGI stays at $94,925. That shrank the 7.5% floor and inflated the medical deduction to $1,821 (it also counted the $50 of OTC costs). It also used $2,400 exemptions and left out the $332 bracket base."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,other,False,"It gave $1,695 with no calculation. The correct path is the $180.60 medical deduction, $3,800 of exemptions, $332 plus 2.75% above $26,050, and the $200 retirement credit, for $1,916.61."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied 2.75% only to the excess over $26,050 on about $90,125 of income, which reflects $2,400 exemptions. It left out the $332 bracket base, the medical deduction, and the $200 retirement income credit."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used $2,700 exemptions instead of the $1,900 over-$80k tier and left out the $332 bracket base. It also skipped the medical deduction and the $200 retirement income credit for the $32,200 pension."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,other,False,"It gave $1,280.50 with no derivation. That is far below the correct $332 plus 2.75% of $64,894.70, less the $200 retirement credit, which is $1,916.61."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied 2.75% only to the excess over $26,050 and left out the $332 base amount in Ohio's bracket. It also skipped the $180.60 unreimbursed-medical deduction."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $1,694.06 equals 2.75% × ($94,925 − $26,050) − $200. So it allowed no personal exemptions (the correct amount is $3,800), skipped the medical deduction, and left out the $332 bracket base."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It wrongly said Ohio exemptions are $0 above $80,000 of MAGI; they are $1,900 each in that tier. It also left out the $332 bracket base, the medical deduction, and the $200 retirement income credit for the spouse's pension."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted a $30,000 federal standard deduction, which Ohio does not allow, and used $2,400 exemptions. It then applied 2.75% to all taxable income, ignoring both the $26,050 zero bracket and the $332 base. It also missed the medical deduction and the $200 retirement credit."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied an obsolete five-bracket schedule (2.85%–4.396%) and a made-up 20% joint filing credit that is unavailable because the head has no income. Its reasoning ended at $3,245, yet it submitted $1,260.80, which matches neither its own arithmetic nor the correct $332 plus 2.75%-above-$26,050 calculation."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,other,False,"It treated the household as low-income with zero liability. Its $94,925 FAGI is far above Ohio's $26,050 zero bracket, so it owes $332 plus 2.75% of $64,894.70, less the $200 credit, which is $1,916.61."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"It cited a standard deduction that Ohio does not have and showed no arithmetic for $1,340. It left out the $332 bracket base and the actual Ohio deductions: $180.60 of medical and $3,800 of exemptions."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the outdated $360.69 bracket base instead of $332. It also put the $50 of over-the-counter expenses into the medical worksheet, which raised the deduction to $230.63 instead of $180.60, so it overstated the tax by about $27."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used $2,400 exemptions instead of $1,900 and left out the $332 bracket base. It said no nonrefundable credits apply, so it missed the $200 retirement income credit for the $32,200 pension and also skipped the medical deduction."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its pre-credit tax of $2,150.25 on $91,125 implies the outdated $360.69 bracket base instead of $332. It also skipped the $180.60 unreimbursed-medical deduction above 7.5% of FAGI."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It excluded the $32,200 private pension from Ohio income, but Ohio fully taxes private pensions and gives only the $200 retirement income credit. It also used $2,150 exemptions, applied a joint filing credit the household doesn't qualify for, and shrank the retirement credit to $25."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It put the $21,208 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums into the medical worksheet and inflated the deduction to $21,388.63. Only the $6,500 of premiums and $800 of other expenses count ($7,300, giving a $180.60 deduction). The overstated deduction also pushed it into the $2,150 exemption tier instead of $1,900."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied 2.75% only to the excess over the zero bracket and left out the $332 bracket base. It also skipped the $180.60 medical deduction, producing about $1,590 instead of $1,916.61."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It computed 2.75% of the excess of $91,125 over $26,050 without the $332 base amount in Ohio's bracket. It also skipped the $180.60 unreimbursed-medical deduction."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted the full $6,500 of premiums with no floor. Because the head can get an employer-sponsored plan, those premiums belong on the unreimbursed-medical worksheet with the $800 of other expenses, subject to the 7.5%-of-FAGI floor, for a $180.60 deduction."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,other,False,"It claimed deductions and credits reduce Ohio tax to zero, but the household has about $90,945 of taxable income, far above the $26,050 zero bracket. Its only nonrefundable credit is $200 against $2,116.61 of tax."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used $2,400 exemptions instead of $1,900 and left out the $332 bracket base. It said there are zero nonrefundable credits, so it missed the $200 retirement income credit, and it also skipped the medical deduction."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It subtracted a 5% joint filing credit, but that credit requires each spouse to have qualifying income and the head has none. It also left out the $332 bracket base and the $180.60 medical deduction."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It taxed only 2.75% of the excess over $26,050 and left out the $332 base amount in Ohio's bracket. It also skipped the $180.60 unreimbursed-medical deduction for premiums and expenses above 7.5% of FAGI."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied an obsolete 3.5% rate above $46,100 instead of Ohio's single bracket of $332 plus 2.75% up to $100,000. It used $2,650 exemptions instead of $1,900 and missed the $200 retirement income credit."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used $4,800 of exemptions instead of $3,800 and left out the $332 bracket base. It said no nonrefundable credits apply, missing the $200 retirement income credit, and it also skipped the medical deduction."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used $2,500 exemptions instead of the $1,900 over-$80k tier and left out the $332 bracket base. It also skipped both the $180.60 medical deduction and the $200 retirement income credit."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied 2.75% only to the excess over $26,050 and left out the $332 base amount in Ohio's bracket. It also skipped the $180.60 unreimbursed-medical deduction."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It invented senior or age-based adjustments that wipe out the tax, but neither spouse is 65 (they are 61 and 57). The household's $94,925 of income produces $2,116.61 of tax before the $200 retirement credit."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It taxed only 2.75% of the excess over $26,050 and left out the $332 bracket base. It also skipped the $180.60 unreimbursed-medical deduction."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It allowed no Ohio exemptions, but two $1,900 exemptions apply. It left out the $332 bracket base and the medical deduction, and it said no nonrefundable credits apply, missing the $200 retirement income credit for the $32,200 pension."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,other,False,"It gave a $2,651 bracket estimate with no derivation. It left out the $180.60 medical deduction, the $3,800 of exemptions, the $332-plus-2.75% schedule, and the $200 retirement credit, which together give $1,916.61."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It invented a $9,300 standard deduction and taxed the first $26,050 at 2.75% and the rest at 3.5%. Ohio actually taxes the first $26,050 at 0% and the rest at $332 plus 2.75%. It also applied a senior credit to the 61-year-old head, but that credit requires age 65."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used $2,150 exemptions instead of $1,900 each and taxed at 2.75% above $26,050 without the ~$332 base amount. It then cut its own ~$1,576 figure to $875 with an unexplained 'graduated structure' adjustment. It also never applied the Ohio unreimbursed medical deduction of $180.60. The correct derivation is $332 + 2.75% × ($90,944.70 − $26,050) − $200 = $1,916.61."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the correct $1,900 × 2 exemptions and the $200 retirement income credit. However, it taxed income above $26,050 at a flat 2.75% and left out the ~$332 base tax in Ohio's 2026 schedule. It also skipped the $180.60 unreimbursed medical care deduction ($7,300 − 7.5% of FAGI)."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted a federal standard deduction, but Ohio starts from federal AGI and allows only personal exemptions. It also applied obsolete brackets running up to 5.75% instead of the 2026 schedule of a ~$332 base plus 2.75% over $26,050. It omitted the $200 retirement income credit and the $180.60 medical deduction."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model gave a rounded guess of $1,000 with no computation. The correct path is OAGI $94,744.70 (after the $180.60 medical deduction) minus $3,800 in exemptions, taxed at ~$332 + 2.75% over $26,050 = $2,116.61, less the $200 retirement credit. The model's figure understates the base amount and the 2.75% bracket tax by about half."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model stated that no nonrefundable credits apply, so it never subtracted the $200 retirement income credit for the spouse's $32,200 pension. It used $1,850 exemptions instead of $1,900 and added an ad hoc ~$144 instead of the ~$332 base amount. It also left out the $180.60 medical deduction."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly reached $91,125 of taxable income and named the $200 retirement credit. It then computed $1,790 without the ~$332 base amount and, contradicting its own steps, reported $2,426, which is higher than its pre-credit tax. It also left out the $180.60 medical deduction."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used $2,500 exemptions ($5,000 total) instead of $1,900 each ($3,800) and a $360 base instead of ~$332. It then subtracted about $250 of credits instead of the $200 retirement income credit. It also never applied the $180.60 unreimbursed medical deduction."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model explicitly assumed that 'no base amount is added to the 2026 schedule.' The Ohio schedule actually adds a ~$332 base to 2.75% of income above $26,050. It also skipped the $180.60 unreimbursed medical care deduction, which reduces OAGI to $94,744.70."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model asserted that Ohio has no deduction for health premiums. In fact, R.C. 5747.01(A)(10) deducts unreimbursed medical care, including these premiums, above 7.5% of FAGI, worth $180.60 here. It also used $2,400 exemptions instead of $1,900 each and omitted the ~$332 base amount in the 2.75% bracket."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model subtracted about $500 in credits, including a senior credit that neither spouse qualifies for (ages 61 and 57) and a $250 retirement credit instead of $200. It also used $2,350 exemptions instead of $1,900 and omitted the ~$332 base tax and the $180.60 medical deduction."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly used $3,800 of exemptions and the $200 retirement credit. However, it taxed income above $26,050 at a flat 2.75% without the ~$332 base amount in the 2026 schedule. It also never deducted the $180.60 of unreimbursed medical care above the 7.5% FAGI floor."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model invented a 2.5%/3.5% bracket schedule with no zero bracket instead of a ~$332 base plus 2.75% above $26,050. It used $1,000 exemptions instead of $1,900 each and omitted the $200 retirement income credit. It also omitted the $180.60 medical deduction."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied a superseded multi-bracket schedule (3.226%, 3.688%) instead of the 2026 schedule of a ~$332 base plus 2.75% over $26,050. It allowed a single $2,400 exemption instead of two $1,900 exemptions. It also omitted both the $200 retirement income credit and the $180.60 medical deduction."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used $2,800 exemptions instead of $1,900 each and omitted the ~$332 base amount in the 2.75% bracket. It said no nonrefundable credits apply, missing the $200 retirement income credit for the $32,200 pension. It also omitted the $180.60 medical deduction."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model applied a 5% joint filing credit even though the head has no qualifying income, and that credit requires each spouse to have at least $500 of qualifying income. It also used a 3.5% bracket above $46,100, which the 2026 schedule no longer has, and $2,400 exemptions instead of $1,900. It omitted the $200 retirement credit and the $180.60 medical deduction."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $21,208 employer-sponsored premium from AGI, but that amount is not part of the listed gross wages, so FAGI stays $94,925.30, not $73,717. This inflated its medical deduction to $1,821 instead of $180.60, and it also wrongly counted the $50 of over-the-counter expenses. It then used $2,400 exemptions instead of $1,900 and left out the ~$332 base amount."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model gave a bare estimate with no computation. The correct derivation subtracts the $180.60 medical deduction and $3,800 in exemptions, applies a ~$332 base plus 2.75% above $26,050 for $2,116.61, then subtracts the $200 retirement credit. The model's $1,695 omits most of the ~$332 base amount."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's $1,762 equals 2.75% × ($90,125 − $26,050), which means it used $2,400 exemptions instead of $1,900 each and omitted the ~$332 base amount. It also left out the $200 retirement income credit and the $180.60 medical deduction."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used $2,700 exemptions instead of the $1,900 that applies above $80,000 of income. It taxed income above $26,050 at 2.75% with no ~$332 base amount. It also never subtracted the $200 retirement income credit or the $180.60 medical deduction."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model gave no derivation. The correct computation subtracts the $180.60 medical deduction and $3,800 in exemptions, applies ~$332 + 2.75% × ($90,944.70 − $26,050) = $2,116.61, then subtracts the $200 retirement credit to get $1,916.61. The model's $1,280.50 understates the bracket tax by more than $600."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the $3,800 exemptions and the $200 retirement credit correctly. It omitted the ~$332 base tax that Ohio's 2026 schedule adds to 2.75% of income above $26,050. It also omitted the $180.60 unreimbursed medical care deduction."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's $1,694.06 equals 2.75% × ($94,925 − $26,050) − $200, so it applied no personal exemptions at all instead of $3,800. It also omitted the ~$332 base amount and the $180.60 medical deduction."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model claimed personal exemptions are $0 above $80,000 of MAGI, but Ohio allows $1,900 each at this income, for $3,800 total. It omitted the ~$332 base amount and the $200 retirement income credit for the $32,200 pension. It also omitted the $180.60 medical deduction."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a base of about $360.69 in the 2.75% bracket instead of the ~$332 base in the 2026 schedule. It also never deducted the $180.60 of unreimbursed medical care above 7.5% of FAGI, so taxable income was $91,125 instead of $90,944.70."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted a $30,000 federal standard deduction, which Ohio does not allow, and used $2,400 exemptions instead of $1,900. It then applied 2.75% to all taxable income, with no zero bracket below $26,050 and no ~$332 base. It also omitted the $200 retirement credit and the $180.60 medical deduction."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used an obsolete schedule (2.85%–4.396%) instead of a ~$332 base plus 2.75% over $26,050. It applied a joint filing credit even though the head has no qualifying income, and it skipped the $200 retirement credit. Its reasoning concluded $3,245, but it submitted $1,260.80, which contradicts its own derivation."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model treated this household as low-income with zero Ohio tax, but OAGI is $94,744.70. After $3,800 in exemptions, $90,944.70 of taxable income bears $2,116.61 of bracket tax, and only the $200 retirement credit offsets it."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied a 'standard deduction,' which Ohio does not have; Ohio uses only $1,900-per-person exemptions at this income. It also never computed the ~$332 base plus 2.75% bracket tax, the $180.60 medical deduction, or the $200 retirement credit."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a base of about $360.69 in the 2.75% bracket instead of ~$332. It also included the $50 of over-the-counter expenses in medical care, giving a $230.63 deduction instead of the $180.60 that results from counting only the $6,500 of premiums and $800 of other medical expenses."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used $2,400 exemptions instead of $1,900 each and taxed income above $26,050 at 2.75% with no ~$332 base amount. It stated there were no nonrefundable credits, missing the $200 retirement income credit. It also omitted the $180.60 medical deduction."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a base of about $360.69 instead of the ~$332 base in Ohio's 2026 2.75% bracket. It also omitted the $180.60 unreimbursed medical care deduction, so it taxed $91,125 instead of $90,944.70."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model excluded the $32,200 private pension from Ohio income, but Ohio taxes private pensions and offers only the retirement income credit, which is $200 here, not the $25 it used. It also used $2,150 exemptions and applied a joint filing credit, which is unavailable because the head has no qualifying income."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model counted the $21,208 of employer-sponsored premiums as unreimbursed medical care. Only the $6,500 of premiums and $800 of other medical expenses count, so the deduction is $180.60, not $21,388.63. It also used $2,150 exemptions instead of $1,900 each."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied 2.75% above the zero bracket after exemptions and subtracted the $200 retirement credit, but it left out the ~$332 base amount in the 2026 schedule. It also skipped the $180.60 unreimbursed medical care deduction."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly used the $1,900 × 2 exemptions and the $200 retirement credit. It taxed income above $26,050 at a flat 2.75% and omitted the ~$332 base tax. It also never applied the $180.60 unreimbursed medical care deduction."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model deducted the full $6,500 of premiums. Because the head has employer-sponsored coverage available, those premiums go on line 3 of Ohio's unreimbursed medical care worksheet together with the $800 of other expenses, and only the amount above 7.5% of FAGI is deductible, which is $180.60. Its base, exemptions, and retirement credit were otherwise correct."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model claimed deductions and credits eliminate the tax. In fact, $90,944.70 of Ohio taxable income generates $2,116.61 under the ~$332 + 2.75% schedule, and only the $200 retirement credit offsets it."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used $2,400 exemptions instead of $1,900 each and taxed income above $26,050 at 2.75% without the ~$332 base. It applied zero nonrefundable credits, missing the $200 retirement income credit. It also omitted the $180.60 medical deduction."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model subtracted a 5% joint filing credit even though the head has no qualifying income, so the credit does not apply. It also omitted the ~$332 base amount in the 2.75% bracket and the $180.60 unreimbursed medical deduction."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model got the exemptions, the retirement credit, and the joint filing credit exclusion right. However, it taxed income above $26,050 at a flat 2.75% and omitted the ~$332 base amount. It also omitted the $180.60 unreimbursed medical care deduction."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied a 3.5% bracket above $46,100, which the 2026 schedule no longer has. The correct schedule is a ~$332 base plus 2.75% up to $100,000. It also used $2,650 exemptions instead of $1,900 and omitted both the $200 retirement credit and the $180.60 medical deduction."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used $2,400 exemptions instead of $1,900 each and taxed income above $26,050 at 2.75% without the ~$332 base. It said no nonrefundable credits apply, missing the $200 retirement income credit. It also omitted the $180.60 medical deduction."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used $2,500 exemptions instead of $1,900 each and omitted the ~$332 base amount in the 2.75% bracket. It never applied the $200 retirement income credit for the $32,200 pension. It also omitted the $180.60 medical deduction."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly applied the $1,900 exemptions and the $200 retirement credit. It taxed income above $26,050 at a flat 2.75% without the ~$332 base amount in the 2026 schedule. It also skipped the $180.60 unreimbursed medical care deduction."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model invented senior or age-based adjustments that do not apply, since the head is 61 and the spouse is 57, and claimed taxable income was near zero. Ohio taxable income is actually $90,944.70, which yields $2,116.61 of tax before the $200 retirement credit."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used $2,400 exemptions instead of $1,900 each and applied 2.75% above $26,050 with no ~$332 base. It omitted the $200 retirement income credit and the $180.60 medical deduction."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly used two $1,900 exemptions and the $200 retirement credit. It left out the ~$332 base tax added to 2.75% of income above $26,050. It also never deducted the $180.60 of unreimbursed medical care above the 7.5% FAGI floor."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied no personal exemptions, although Ohio allows $1,900 each ($3,800) at this income. It considered only the senior credit and never applied the $200 retirement income credit for the $32,200 pension. It also omitted the ~$332 base amount and the $180.60 medical deduction."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model gave an unsupported bracket estimate with no exemptions, medical deduction, or credits. The correct path is $94,744.70 OAGI minus $3,800, taxed at ~$332 + 2.75% over $26,050 for $2,116.61, minus the $200 retirement credit. The model's $2,651 overstates the bracket tax."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model invented a $9,300 standard deduction and a schedule with no zero bracket and 3.5% above $26,050. It miscomputed 2.75% of $26,050 as $2,417.75 and applied a senior citizen credit to a 61-year-old who does not qualify. It also omitted the $200 retirement income credit."
us,scenario_026,child1_chip_eligible,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It computed MAGI of $82,301, below the 216% FPL limit (211% plus the 5% disregard), but assigned that band to CHIP. In NC that band is Medicaid coverage for older children (the OLDER_CHILD category), so the child is Medicaid-eligible and therefore excluded from CHIP."
us,scenario_026,child1_chip_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It understated household income at $61,093; wages minus traditional 401(k) and IRA contributions give about $82,301. It also labeled the 211% FPL threshold as NC Health Choice/CHIP, but that program was folded into Medicaid. An 11-year-old under that limit is Medicaid-eligible (OLDER_CHILD), which rules out CHIP."
us,scenario_026,child1_chip_eligible,grok-4.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It set NC Medicaid for an 11-year-old at 133% FPL and treated NC Health Choice (211% FPL) as a separate CHIP tier. NC now covers children aged 6-18 up to 211% FPL through Medicaid (OLDER_CHILD), so this child is Medicaid-eligible and not CHIP-eligible."
us,scenario_026,child1_chip_eligible,grok-4.7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It placed the child above a lower Medicaid limit and under a separate NC Health Choice CHIP limit of 211% FPL. It missed that NC's 211% coverage for school-age children is Medicaid (OLDER_CHILD), and Medicaid eligibility excludes the child from CHIP."
us,scenario_026,child1_chip_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value and no explanation for child1_chip_eligible. The correct derivation finds the 11-year-old Medicaid-eligible under NC's OLDER_CHILD category, which makes CHIP eligibility 0."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used a 133% FPL limit (138% with the disregard) for NC children aged 6-18. Since NC Health Choice merged into Medicaid in 2023, the limit is 211% FPL (216% with the disregard). The model's ~$82,300 MAGI equals 2.13x FPL, which is under the real limit."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Got the ratio right at ~213% FPL but compared it with the outdated 133% FPL limit for ages 6-18. NC Medicaid now covers this age group up to 211% FPL (216% with the 5% disregard), so 213% qualifies."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used a family-of-5 FPL of ~$27,465 (far below the 2026 figure of ~$38,600), a 200% limit, and gross wages instead of MAGI. It also treated the child's employer coverage as disqualifying, but Medicaid has no uninsured requirement. Correct MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13x FPL, under NC's 216% effective limit for ages 6-18."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Called the income 'well above' the child limit without naming the limit. MAGI of $82,301 (wages minus traditional 401(k) and IRA deductions) is 2.13x FPL, which is under NC's 211% FPL Medicaid limit for ages 6-18 (216% with the disregard). The 'No' answer matches using the pre-2023 133% limit."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used a ~138% FPL limit (~$51,957) for ages 6-18, but NC Medicaid has covered this group up to 211% FPL (216% with the disregard) since NC Health Choice merged into Medicaid. MAGI at 2.13x FPL is under that limit."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used a ~138% FPL limit and miscalculated it as ~$45,000 for a family of five. NC's actual limit for ages 6-18 is 211% FPL (216% with the disregard), and MAGI of $82,301 (2.13x FPL) is under it."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Put income at ~260% FPL, overstating MAGI: the overtime premium is already inside the $85,209 in wages, and the traditional 401(k) and IRA amounts must be subtracted. It also treated 211% as a hard cap without the 5-point disregard. Correct MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13x FPL, under the 216% effective limit."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its ~219% FPL figure comes from dividing $82,301 by the 2025 family-of-5 FPL ($37,650) instead of the 2026 FPL used by the engine, which gives 2.13x. It also left out the 5-point MAGI disregard on top of NC's 211% limit for ages 6-18, so it marked an eligible child ineligible."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Treated the child's employer-sponsored insurance as disqualifying. Medicaid has no uninsured requirement; that rule applies only to separate CHIP. On income, MAGI at 2.13x FPL is under NC's 211% (+5% disregard) limit for ages 6-18, so the child is eligible."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Added the $7,746 overtime premium on top of $85,209 in wages, although gross wages already include overtime. It also skipped the 401(k) and IRA deductions and understated 211% FPL as ~$67,000. Correct MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13x FPL, under NC's 216% effective limit for ages 6-18."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Compared ~$82k MAGI with a 133% FPL limit. NC Medicaid for ages 6-18 now runs to 211% FPL (216% with the disregard), so income at 2.13x FPL qualifies."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Overstated income at ~$93k by adding the overtime premium already counted in gross wages and skipping the 401(k)/IRA deductions. It also applied 210% with no 5-point disregard. Correct MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13x FPL, under NC's 216% effective limit for children aged 6-18."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Got MAGI right at $82,301 but tested it against a 133% FPL ($51,205) limit. NC's Medicaid limit for ages 6-18 is 211% FPL (216% with the disregard), and $82,301 at 2.13x FPL is under it."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Got MAGI right at $82,301 but said it exceeded NC's child limit. That figure is 2.13x the 2026 FPL, which is under NC's 211% FPL Medicaid limit for ages 6-18 once the 5-point disregard is applied (216%)."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used gross wages of $85,209 instead of MAGI, which subtracts the $2,778 traditional 401(k) and $130 IRA deduction to reach $82,301. It also treated 210% FPL as a hard cap without the 5-point disregard. Correct MAGI is 2.13x FPL, under the 216% effective limit."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used a 147% FPL limit for ages 6-18, but NC's Medicaid limit after the Health Choice merger is 211% FPL (216% with the disregard). Even the model's own MAGI of $61,093 is under the correct limit, and the true MAGI of $82,301 (2.13x FPL) is too."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Said income was above the threshold without giving one. MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13x FPL, which is under NC's 211% FPL Medicaid limit for ages 6-18 (216% with the disregard). The answer matches using the pre-2023 133% limit."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied a 133% FPL Medicaid limit and sent older children above it to CHIP. NC folded Health Choice into Medicaid in 2023, so children aged 6-18 up to 211% FPL (216% with the disregard) are Medicaid-eligible. MAGI of $82,301 at 2.13x FPL qualifies."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied a 133% FPL limit to children aged 6-18 instead of NC's 211% FPL Medicaid limit (216% with the disregard). Both the model's $61,093 and the correct $82,301 MAGI (2.13x FPL) are under the real limit."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Gave no derivation. MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13x FPL, under NC's 211% FPL Medicaid limit for the 6-18 group (216% with the disregard), so the child is eligible. The 'No' matches the outdated 133% limit."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Said income exceeded NC's limit without naming it. NC Medicaid covers children aged 6-18 up to 211% FPL (216% with the disregard), and MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13x FPL, which qualifies."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Said income exceeded the limit without naming it. MAGI of $82,301 (2.13x FPL) is under NC's 211% FPL Medicaid limit for ages 6-18 once the 5-point disregard is applied, so the child is eligible."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Said income exceeded NC's child limit, but NC Medicaid covers ages 6-18 up to 211% FPL (216% with the disregard). MAGI at 2.13x FPL is under it. The answer matches using the pre-merger 133% limit."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,glm-5.2,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Treated the child's employer-sponsored insurance as disqualifying, but Medicaid has no uninsured requirement; that rule applies only to separate CHIP. MAGI at 2.13x FPL is under NC's 216% effective limit for ages 6-18, so the child is eligible."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Tested gross wages of $85,209 against a 211% cap. MAGI subtracts the $2,778 traditional 401(k) and $130 IRA deduction, giving $82,301 (2.13x FPL). A 5-point disregard then raises the effective limit to 216%, so the child qualifies."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Said earnings were above the threshold without naming it. MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13x FPL, under NC's 211% FPL Medicaid limit for school-age children (216% with the disregard). The 'No' matches using the outdated 133% limit."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Called the child ineligible without testing income against any limit. MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13x FPL, under NC's 211% FPL Medicaid limit for ages 6-18 (216% with the disregard), so the child qualifies with no special status needed."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Said income was above the school-age limit for five people. NC Medicaid covers ages 6-18 up to 211% FPL (216% with the disregard), and MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13x FPL, which is under it."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Estimated a threshold below household income, but NC's Medicaid limit for ages 6-18 is 211% FPL (216% with the disregard). MAGI of $82,301 at 2.13x FPL qualifies."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Said MAGI exceeded NC's limit for an 11-year-old. MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13x FPL, under the 211% FPL Medicaid limit for ages 6-18 once the 5-point disregard brings it to 216%."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Said income was above NC's child limit. NC Medicaid covers ages 6-18 up to 211% FPL (216% with the disregard), and MAGI at 2.13x FPL is under it."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Said income exceeded the age-specific limit, but the NC limit for ages 6-18 is 211% FPL (216% with the 5-point disregard). MAGI of $82,301 at 2.13x FPL is within it."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Said income exceeded the child Medicaid limit without naming it. MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13x FPL, under NC's 216% effective limit for ages 6-18 (211% plus the 5-point disregard)."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Got MAGI right at $82,301 but said it exceeded NC's limit for five people. That MAGI is 2.13x the 2026 FPL, under the 211% FPL limit for ages 6-18 once the 5-point disregard raises it to 216%."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Said income was above NC's threshold and cited employer coverage as a second bar. MAGI at 2.13x FPL is under NC's 211% (+5% disregard) limit for ages 6-18, and employer coverage does not disqualify anyone from Medicaid."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied a 133% FPL limit to children aged 6-18. Since NC Health Choice merged into Medicaid, the limit is 211% FPL (216% with the disregard), so MAGI at 2.13x FPL qualifies."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied a 133% FPL (~$51,000) limit and understated MAGI at $74,555 (the correct figure is $82,301). NC's Medicaid limit for ages 6-18 is 211% FPL (216% with the disregard), and 2.13x FPL is under it."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied a ~138% FPL limit for ages 6-18. NC Medicaid covers that group up to 211% FPL (216% with the 5-point disregard), and MAGI at 2.13x FPL qualifies."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Overstated income at ~240% FPL (the correct figure is 2.13x) and applied the outdated 133% limit. NC's Medicaid limit for ages 6-18 is 211% FPL (216% with the disregard), so the child is eligible."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Limited Medicaid for ages 6-18 to 133% FPL and pointed to CHIP's uninsured rule. NC moved the 133-211% band into Medicaid itself, where coverage runs to 216% with the disregard and there is no uninsured requirement. MAGI at 2.13x FPL qualifies."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Gave no value or explanation for child1_medicaid_eligible, so no answer could be parsed."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied a 133% FPL limit (138% with the disregard) and overstated income at ~226% FPL. NC's Medicaid limit for ages 6-18 is 211% FPL plus the 5-point disregard, and correct MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13x FPL, so the child is eligible."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Said income was 'well above' the child limit, but NC Medicaid covers ages 6-18 up to 211% FPL (216% with the disregard). MAGI of $82,301 at 2.13x FPL is under it."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Said MAGI was above NC's child limit. MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13x FPL, under the 211% FPL Medicaid limit for ages 6-18 once the 5-point disregard is applied."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Placed ages 6-18 in a 133% FPL Medicaid group. NC's limit is 211% FPL (216% with the disregard), so even the model's own ~198% estimate, and the correct 2.13x, both qualify."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Found income within the child limit, then denied eligibility because the child has employer-sponsored insurance. Medicaid has no uninsured requirement; only separate CHIP excludes insured children. Income-eligible children aged 6-18 are Medicaid-eligible regardless of employer coverage."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Called income too high without naming a limit. MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13x FPL, under NC's 211% FPL Medicaid limit for ages 6-18 (216% with the disregard), so the child is eligible."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used the federal minimum of 133%/138% FPL for children 6-18. North Carolina actually covers this age group in Medicaid up to 211% FPL (216% with the disregard). The model's own MAGI of about $82,300 is 2.13x FPL, which is under that limit."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Got the income level right at about 213% FPL but compared it to a 133% limit. North Carolina's Medicaid limit for children 6-18 is 211% FPL plus the 5-point disregard, and 2.13x FPL qualifies."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used a poverty line of $27,465 for five people, far below the roughly $38,600 2026 guideline, and an assumed 200% limit. It also compared gross wages instead of MAGI, which is about $82,301 after pre-tax 401(k)/IRA contributions, or 2.13x FPL. It then wrongly treated employer coverage as disqualifying, though ESI does not bar Medicaid. The correct result is within NC's 211%+5% child limit."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Said income was 'well above' the child Medicaid limit without using NC's actual limit for children 6-18, which is 211% FPL plus the 5-point disregard. Household MAGI of about $82,301 is 2.13x FPL and falls within that limit."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied a 138% FPL limit, about $51,957, to children 6-18. Since NC Health Choice merged into Medicaid, North Carolina covers them up to 211% FPL (216% with the disregard), and MAGI of 2.13x FPL qualifies."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied a 138% FPL limit and misstated it as about $45,000. North Carolina's Medicaid limit for children 6-18 is 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard, and household MAGI after pre-tax retirement deductions is 2.13x FPL, which qualifies."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used the correct 211% child limit but put income at about 260% FPL. That overstates MAGI, which is $85,209 wages minus $2,908 of traditional 401(k)/IRA contributions, about $82,301 or 2.13x FPL. With the 5-point disregard that is within the limit."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Computed 219% FPL, which matches dividing MAGI by the 2025 guideline of $37,650 instead of the uprated 2026 guideline. The 2026 ratio is 2.13x FPL, within NC's 211%-plus-5%-disregard child Medicaid limit."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,health_coverage,False,Treated Child 1's employer-sponsored insurance as disqualifying for Medicaid. ESI only matters for CHIP; Medicaid has no uninsured requirement. Child 1 meets the OLDER_CHILD category and the income test at 2.13x FPL.
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Added the $7,746 FLSA overtime premium on top of gross wages that already include it, and did not subtract pre-tax 401(k)/IRA contributions. It also miscomputed 211% FPL as about $67,000 when it is about $81,500 for five people in 2026. Correct MAGI of about $82,301 is 2.13x FPL, within the limit with the disregard."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used a 133% FPL limit for children. North Carolina's Medicaid limit for ages 6-18 is 211% FPL plus the 5-point disregard, and MAGI of about $82,000 is 2.13x FPL, which qualifies."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Put income at about $93k by adding the FLSA overtime premium again, when it is already in gross wages, and by skipping pre-tax retirement deductions. It also understated the 210% limit as about $77k. Correct MAGI is about $82,301, or 2.13x FPL, which is under NC's child limit including the 5% disregard."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Correctly computed MAGI of $82,301 but compared it to a 133% FPL limit ($51,205). NC's limit for children 6-18 is 211% FPL plus the disregard, and $82,301 is 2.13x FPL, which qualifies."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Correctly computed MAGI of $82,301 but used an NC child limit that is too low. $82,301 is 2.13x the 2026 FPL for five, which falls under NC's 211%-plus-5%-disregard Medicaid limit for children 6-18."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Compared gross wages of $85,209 to the 210% limit without subtracting the $2,908 of pre-tax 401(k)/IRA contributions and without the 5-point MAGI disregard. MAGI of about $82,301 is 2.13x FPL, which is within NC's child Medicaid limit."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used a 147% FPL limit for children 6-18. North Carolina's limit is 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard. Even its own understated MAGI of $61,093 falls under the real limit, and the engine's MAGI of 2.13x FPL qualifies."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Said income was above the threshold without applying NC's actual limit for children 6-18, which is 211% FPL plus the disregard. Household MAGI of about $82,301 is 2.13x FPL and is within that limit."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used a 133% limit for older children and moved Child 1 to CHIP. NC Health Choice now sits inside Medicaid, which covers children 6-18 up to 211% FPL plus the disregard, so MAGI of $82,301 (2.13x FPL) makes Child 1 Medicaid-eligible."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied a 133% FPL limit for children and also understated MAGI as $61,093 by subtracting ESI premiums. NC's child Medicaid limit for ages 6-18 is 211% FPL plus the disregard, and actual MAGI of 2.13x FPL qualifies."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Answered not eligible without reasoning, which reflects using a child income limit below 2.13x FPL. NC covers children 6-18 in Medicaid up to 211% FPL plus the 5-point disregard, so Child 1 qualifies."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Said income exceeded NC's limit without applying the actual limit for children 6-18, which is 211% FPL plus the disregard. Household MAGI is 2.13x FPL and is within it."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Said income exceeded the limits, which reflects using a child limit below 2.13x FPL. NC's Medicaid limit for children 6-18 is 211% FPL plus the 5-point disregard, which this household meets."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Concluded income exceeded NC's child limit, but NC covers children 6-18 in Medicaid up to 211% FPL plus the disregard. Household MAGI of about $82,301 is 2.13x FPL, which qualifies."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Treated household MAGI as above NC's child limit. MAGI is 2.13x FPL, within North Carolina's 211%-plus-5%-disregard Medicaid limit for the older child category."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,glm-5.2,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Treated employer-sponsored insurance as disqualifying for Medicaid. ESI only affects CHIP; Medicaid has no uninsured requirement, and Child 1 meets the OLDER_CHILD income test at 2.13x FPL."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used the correct 211% limit but tested gross wages of $85,209 instead of MAGI. MAGI subtracts $2,908 of traditional 401(k)/IRA contributions, giving $82,301 or 2.13x FPL, and the 5-point disregard was also omitted. Correctly measured, the child is within the limit."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Assumed earnings were above the child Medicaid threshold. NC's limit for school-age children is 211% FPL plus the disregard, and household MAGI of 2.13x FPL is within it."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Concluded not eligible based on the wage level without applying NC's child Medicaid limit of 211% FPL plus the disregard. Household MAGI of about $82,301 is 2.13x FPL, which qualifies."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Said income exceeded the school-age child limit for five people. NC Medicaid covers children 6-18 up to 211% FPL plus the 5-point disregard, and MAGI of 2.13x FPL is within it."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Estimated NC's child Medicaid threshold below the household's 2.13x FPL MAGI. The actual limit for ages 6-18 is 211% FPL plus the disregard, so Child 1 qualifies."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Said MAGI exceeded NC's limit for an 11-year-old. NC's older-child Medicaid limit is 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard, and MAGI is 2.13x FPL, which is under it."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Treated income as above NC's child Medicaid limit. Household MAGI of 2.13x FPL is within the 211%-plus-disregard limit for children 6-18.
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied an age-specific NC limit lower than the real one. Children 6-18 qualify up to 211% FPL plus the disregard, and this household's MAGI is 2.13x FPL."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Said household income exceeded the child Medicaid limit. NC covers children 6-18 up to 211% FPL plus the 5-point disregard, and MAGI of 2.13x FPL qualifies."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Correctly computed MAGI of $82,301 but used an NC child limit below that amount. $82,301 is 2.13x the 2026 FPL for five, within the 211%-plus-5%-disregard limit for children 6-18."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Said income was above NC's threshold and treated ESI as a bar. NC's child Medicaid limit is 211% FPL plus the disregard, which MAGI of 2.13x FPL meets, and having ESI does not disqualify a child from Medicaid."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied a 133% FPL limit to children 6-18. North Carolina's Medicaid limit for that group is 211% FPL plus the disregard, and MAGI of 2.13x FPL qualifies."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied a 133% FPL limit (about $51,000) and understated MAGI at $74,555. NC's limit for children 6-18 is 211% FPL plus the disregard, and actual MAGI of about $82,301 (2.13x FPL) qualifies."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied a 138% FPL limit to children 6-18. North Carolina covers this group in Medicaid up to 211% FPL plus the 5-point disregard, which MAGI of 2.13x FPL meets."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied a 133% FPL limit and overstated income at about 240% FPL. MAGI after pre-tax 401(k)/IRA contributions is 2.13x FPL, within NC's 211%-plus-disregard child Medicaid limit."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied a 133% FPL limit (about $50,000) to children 6-18. NC's Medicaid limit for this group is 211% FPL plus the disregard, and MAGI of 2.13x FPL qualifies."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No answer or explanation was given for child1_medicaid_eligible, so there was nothing to score. The correct value is 1, because MAGI of 2.13x FPL falls within NC's older-child Medicaid limit."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied 133% FPL (138% with the disregard) to children 6-18 and overstated MAGI at about 226% FPL. NC's actual limit is 211% FPL plus the disregard, and MAGI of 2.13x FPL qualifies."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Said income was well above NC's Medicaid limit for children. Children 6-18 qualify up to 211% FPL plus the disregard, and MAGI of 2.13x FPL is within it."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Overstated MAGI at about 221% FPL and treated ESI as a bar. Actual MAGI after pre-tax 401(k)/IRA contributions is 2.13x the 2026 FPL, which is under the 211%-plus-5%-disregard limit, and ESI does not affect Medicaid eligibility."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Said MAGI was above NC's child Medicaid limit. MAGI is 2.13x FPL, within North Carolina's 211%-plus-disregard limit for children 6-18."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied a 133% FPL limit to children 6-18. The model's own estimate of about 198% FPL is below NC's actual limit of 211% plus the disregard, as is the engine's 2.13x FPL."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Correctly found income within its assumed child limit but then ruled the child ineligible because of employer-sponsored insurance. ESI only bars CHIP, not Medicaid, so Child 1 qualifies in the OLDER_CHILD category at 2.13x FPL."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Said income was too high without applying NC's child Medicaid limit of 211% FPL plus the disregard. Household MAGI of 2.13x FPL is within that limit.
us,scenario_026,child2_chip_eligible,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It compared MAGI of $82,301 to a 216% FPL limit and labeled that the NC CHIP limit. That band is the NC Medicaid limit for children aged 6-18. The child qualifies for Medicaid under the older-child category, and Medicaid eligibility excludes CHIP, so the answer is 0, not 1."
us,scenario_026,child2_chip_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It found income of $61,093 below 211% FPL and treated that as NC Health Choice (CHIP) eligibility. At that income an 11-year-old in NC is Medicaid-eligible under the older-child category, since NC Health Choice is now part of Medicaid. A Medicaid-eligible child is not CHIP-eligible."
us,scenario_026,child2_chip_eligible,grok-4.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It used the federal minimum of 133% FPL as the Medicaid ceiling for school-age children and put the 133-211% band in CHIP. NC Medicaid's older-child category covers an 11-year-old across that band, so at MAGI of $74,555 the child is Medicaid-eligible. Medicaid eligibility excludes CHIP."
us,scenario_026,child2_chip_eligible,grok-4.7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It placed household MAGI in a CHIP band above Medicaid and at or below 211% FPL, assuming NC Medicaid for an 11-year-old stops at a lower limit. The engine's NC Medicaid older-child category covers this child at this income. Because the child is Medicaid-eligible, the child is not CHIP-eligible."
us,scenario_026,child2_chip_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value and no explanation for child2_chip_eligible, so there is no substantive answer to grade. The correct answer is 0: the child is Medicaid-eligible under NC's older-child category, which excludes CHIP."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the right 211% FPL older-child limit but divided MAGI by a stale ~$37,600 poverty guideline, getting 219% FPL instead of the 2026 ratio of 2.13. It also left out the 5-point MAGI disregard, which raises the effective limit to 216% FPL. At 2.13× FPL the child is Medicaid-eligible."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model got the income ratio right (~213% FPL) but applied a 133% FPL Medicaid limit for ages 6–18. Since NC Health Choice was merged into Medicaid, the older-child Medicaid limit is 211% FPL (216% with the disregard), so 2.13× FPL qualifies."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model counted two wage earners, but the head has no wages. It also treated the child's employer-sponsored insurance as a bar to Medicaid, and Medicaid has no such rule. Household MAGI is 2.13× FPL, which is within NC's older-child Medicaid limit of 211%/216% FPL."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model called income 'well above' the child Medicaid limit, which only follows from using the outdated 133% FPL ceiling. NC's older-child Medicaid limit is 211% FPL (216% with the disregard), and household MAGI is 2.13× FPL, so the child is eligible."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model first considered 211–215% but switched to a 133% FPL Medicaid limit for ages 6–18, treating the higher band as CHIP. It also used the 2024 FPL ($36,580). NC's Medicaid now covers children 6–18 up to 211% FPL (216% with the disregard), and MAGI of 2.13× the 2026 FPL qualifies."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model treated 138% FPL as the Medicaid limit and 211% as CHIP, then compared unreduced gross wages (~$85,000) to 211% of an outdated FPL. The 401(k) and IRA deductions bring MAGI down to 2.13× the 2026 FPL, which is under NC's merged Medicaid limit of 211%/216% FPL for children 6–18."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model put income at ~260% FPL, far above the actual MAGI of 2.13× FPL (wages minus the 401(k) and IRA deductions, divided by the 2026 FPL for 5). At 2.13× FPL the child is under NC's 216% older-child Medicaid limit."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used an outdated poverty guideline and got 219% FPL instead of 2.13× FPL. It also set the child Medicaid limit below that figure, ignoring that NC's older-child Medicaid limit is 211% plus the 5-point disregard (216% FPL)."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model ruled out Medicaid because the child has employer-sponsored insurance. Medicaid has no uninsured requirement; that kind of bar applies to separate CHIP programs. With MAGI at 2.13× FPL, under NC's 216% older-child limit, the child is eligible."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model had the right ~216% FPL limit but converted it to about $67,000 for a family of 5. The correct figure is roughly $83,000 against the 2026 guideline. Household MAGI is 2.13× FPL, which is under 216%, so the child is eligible."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied a 133% FPL child Medicaid limit, which predates NC's merger of Health Choice into Medicaid. The older-child Medicaid limit is 211% FPL (216% with the disregard), and MAGI of about $82k is 2.13× FPL, which qualifies."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a 210% FPL limit and left out the 5-point MAGI disregard, which makes NC's older-child Medicaid limit 216% FPL. Household MAGI is 2.13× FPL, below that limit."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model compared MAGI of $82,301 to a 133% FPL limit. NC Medicaid covers children 6–18 up to 211% FPL (216% with the disregard) since Health Choice was merged in, and MAGI is 2.13× FPL, so the child is eligible."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's MAGI of $82,301 was about right, but it judged that figure over the limit, which only works with a limit far below NC's. The older-child Medicaid limit is 216% FPL (211% plus the disregard), about $83,000 for 5 in 2026, and MAGI of 2.13× FPL is under it."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model compared unreduced gross wages ($85,209) to a 210% FPL limit and left out the 5-point disregard. After the 401(k) and IRA deductions, MAGI is 2.13× FPL, which is under NC's 216% older-child Medicaid limit."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied a 133% FPL limit for ages 6–18. NC's merged Medicaid limit for older children is 211%/216% FPL, and household MAGI is 2.13× FPL, so the child is eligible. Separately, it wrongly subtracted the head's insurance premiums when computing MAGI."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model said income is above the threshold without naming a limit, so it was not using NC's older-child Medicaid limit of 211% FPL (216% with the disregard). Household MAGI is 2.13× FPL, so the child is eligible."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied a 133% FPL Medicaid limit and put the child in CHIP instead. Since NC folded Health Choice into Medicaid, children 6–18 up to 211% FPL (216% with the disregard) are covered by Medicaid, and MAGI of $82,301 (2.13× FPL) qualifies."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied a 133% FPL limit for children. NC's older-child Medicaid limit is 211% FPL (216% with the disregard), and household MAGI is 2.13× FPL, so the child is eligible."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model gave no income test. MAGI is 2.13× FPL, which is under NC's older-child Medicaid limit of 216% FPL (211% plus the disregard). A 'not eligible' answer only follows from using the outdated 133% limit."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model said income exceeds NC's limit without naming the limit. NC's Medicaid limit for children 6–18 is 211% FPL (216% with the disregard), and MAGI is 2.13× FPL, which falls within it."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied an older-child limit below the household's 2.13× FPL MAGI. NC Medicaid covers children 6–18 up to 211% FPL (216% with the disregard) since Health Choice was merged in, so the child is eligible."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model said income exceeds NC's child Medicaid limits, which only follows from the pre-merger 133% limit. The older-child Medicaid limit is 211% FPL (216% with the disregard), and MAGI is 2.13× FPL."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model got the ratio right (~213% FPL) but split coverage into Medicaid at 133% and CHIP at 210%, which is the pre-merger structure. Since Health Choice was folded in, NC Medicaid covers children 6–18 up to 211% FPL (216% with the disregard). It also wrongly cited employer-sponsored insurance as a factor."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 211% limit but compared it to unreduced gross wages and left out the 5-point disregard. After the 401(k) and IRA deductions, MAGI is 2.13× FPL, under the effective 216% limit."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model said earnings are above the threshold, which only follows from applying a limit below 2.13× FPL. NC's Medicaid limit for school-age children is 211% FPL (216% with the disregard), so the child is eligible."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model ruled out eligibility based on income without testing it against NC's older-child Medicaid limit of 211% FPL (216% with the disregard). Household MAGI is 2.13× FPL, which qualifies."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model judged ~$85,209 'well above' the child Medicaid limit. After the 401(k) and IRA deductions, MAGI is 2.13× the 2026 FPL for 5, which is under NC's 216% FPL limit for older children (211% plus the disregard)."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's estimated NC child threshold was below 2.13× FPL. Since the Health Choice merger, the actual older-child Medicaid limit is 211% FPL (216% with the disregard), which covers this household's MAGI."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model said MAGI exceeds NC's limit for an 11-year-old. NC's limit is 211% FPL (216% with the disregard), and MAGI is 2.13× FPL, so the child is eligible."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied a child Medicaid limit below 2.13× FPL. NC Medicaid covers children 6–18 up to 211% FPL (216% with the disregard), so this household's MAGI qualifies."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model said income exceeds the limit for age 11. NC's older-child Medicaid limit is 211% FPL (216% with the disregard), and household MAGI is 2.13× FPL, which is under it."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model said income exceeds the child Medicaid limit. NC's limit for ages 6–18 is 211% FPL (216% with the disregard) since Health Choice was merged in, and MAGI is 2.13× FPL, so the child is eligible."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's MAGI of $82,301 was about right, but it judged that figure over the limit. NC's older-child Medicaid limit is 216% FPL (211% plus the disregard), about $83,000 for 5 in 2026, and MAGI of 2.13× FPL is under it."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model treated income as over NC's limit and counted employer-sponsored insurance as disqualifying. MAGI is 2.13× FPL, which is under the 211%/216% older-child Medicaid limit, and having ESI does not bar Medicaid."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied a 133% FPL limit for children 6–18. NC's merged Medicaid limit for that age group is 211% FPL (216% with the disregard), and MAGI is 2.13× FPL, so the child is eligible."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model compared MAGI of $74,555 to a 133% FPL limit. NC Medicaid covers children 6–18 up to 211% FPL (216% with the disregard), and household MAGI of 2.13× FPL qualifies."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model said MAGI is above NC's limit for ages 6–18, which only follows from the outdated 133% limit. Since the Health Choice merger the limit is 211% FPL (216% with the disregard), and MAGI is 2.13× FPL."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model overstated income as ~240% FPL when MAGI is 2.13× FPL, and it applied a 133% limit. NC's older-child Medicaid limit is 211% FPL (216% with the disregard), so the child is eligible."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied a 133% FPL limit for ages 6–18 and treated employer-sponsored insurance as disqualifying. NC Medicaid covers children 6–18 up to 211% FPL (216% with the disregard), and MAGI of 2.13× FPL qualifies whether or not the child has ESI."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no value or explanation for child2_medicaid_eligible, so there was no answer to score."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied a 133%/138% FPL limit for children 6–18 and overstated income as ~226% FPL. MAGI is 2.13× FPL, and NC's merged Medicaid limit for older children is 211% FPL (216% with the disregard), so the child is eligible."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model said income is 'well above' NC's limit, which only follows from the pre-merger 133% ceiling. NC's limit for children 6–18 is 211% FPL (216% with the disregard), and MAGI is 2.13× FPL."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied an NC child Medicaid limit below 2.13× FPL. NC Medicaid covers children 6–18 up to 211% FPL (216% with the disregard), so the household's MAGI qualifies."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied a 133% FPL limit for ages 6–18. NC's Medicaid limit for that group is 211% FPL (216% with the disregard), so even its own ~198% FPL estimate qualifies, and the actual MAGI is 2.13× FPL."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied a 133% FPL limit to an understated FPL of $33,700 and compared it to gross wages. NC Medicaid covers children 6–18 up to 211% FPL (216% with the disregard), and MAGI of 2.13× the 2026 FPL qualifies."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model said income is too high without applying NC's older-child Medicaid limit of 211% FPL (216% with the disregard). Household MAGI is 2.13× FPL, which is under that limit."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got MAGI right at $82,301 but divided by a 2025-level FPL of about $37,600, which inflated the ratio to 219%. It also compared against 211% without the 5-point MAGI disregard. With the 2026 FPL the ratio is 2.13, which is under NC's older-child Medicaid limit, so child2 is eligible."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It computed the correct ratio of about 213% FPL but used 133% as the limit for ages 6-18. That tier no longer exists for this group, because NC Health Choice was folded into Medicaid in 2023 and the limit rose to 211% FPL (216% with the disregard). At 2.13× FPL, child2 is Medicaid-eligible."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It made up a second earner (the head has no wages) and treated employer-sponsored insurance as disqualifying. ESI does not bar Medicaid, and the only real income is $82,301 MAGI, which is 2.13× FPL and within NC's older-child limit of 211% plus the 5% disregard."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said income was ""well above"" the child limit without computing anything. MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13× FPL, which is below NC's post-2023 Medicaid limit for ages 6-18 (211% FPL, 216% with the disregard), so child2 is eligible."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It first tested against 211% using an outdated FPL of $36,580, then switched to a 133% limit for ages 6-18. NC folded Health Choice into Medicaid, so the actual limit is 211% plus the 5-point disregard. MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13× the 2026 FPL, which is under that limit."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used about $85,000 of gross wages without subtracting the traditional 401(k) and IRA contributions, and used an outdated FPL of $36,580. It also treated 211% as a CHIP limit with no disregard, when NC now covers ages 6-18 under Medicaid up to 211%+5%. The correct figure of 2.13× FPL qualifies."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It put income at about 260% FPL, which badly overstates the ratio. The actual MAGI is $85,209 − $2,778 − $130 = $82,301, or 2.13× the 2026 FPL for five, and that is within NC's older-child Medicaid limit."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its 219% FPL figure comes from using a 2025-level poverty guideline instead of the 2026 one, which gives 2.13×. It also left out the 5-point disregard on NC's 211% Medicaid limit for ages 6-18. Child2 is eligible."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It treated having employer-sponsored insurance as disqualifying for Medicaid. No such rule exists: ESI only matters for separate CHIP, and Medicaid has no uninsured requirement. Child2 qualifies through the OLDER_CHILD MAGI test at 2.13× FPL."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It named the right 216% limit but turned it into about $67,000, a dollar figure far below what 216% of the 2026 FPL for five actually comes to (over $83,000). It also counted overtime a second time, even though overtime is already in the $85,209. The correct MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13× FPL, which is under 216%."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a 133% FPL Medicaid limit for an 11-year-old. Since NC moved Health Choice into Medicaid, the limit for ages 6-18 is 211% (216% with the disregard). Its own $82k income is 2.13× FPL, which falls within that limit."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It compared against a 210% limit with no 5-percentage-point MAGI disregard, and never computed the household ratio of 2.13× FPL. NC's effective older-child Medicaid limit is 216%, so child2 is eligible."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got MAGI right at $82,301 but tested it against 133% FPL. That limit was replaced when NC folded Health Choice into Medicaid, and children 6-18 now qualify up to 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard. 2.13× FPL qualifies."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got MAGI right at $82,301 but concluded without support that this exceeds NC's child limit. $82,301 is 2.13× the 2026 FPL for five, which is under the 211%+5% Medicaid limit for ages 6-18."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It tested gross wages of $85,209 instead of MAGI, without subtracting the $2,778 traditional 401(k) and $130 IRA contributions, and used a 210% limit with no 5-point disregard. MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13× FPL, within NC's older-child Medicaid limit."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the old 133% FPL limit for ages 6-18; NC now covers this group under Medicaid up to 211% plus the disregard. It also subtracted the head's ESI premiums from the spouse's wages, even though the head has no wages to reduce. True MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13× FPL and qualifies."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said income was above the Medicaid threshold without computing it. MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13× FPL, below NC's post-2023 Medicaid limit for ages 6-18 (211% FPL, 216% with the disregard)."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got MAGI right at $82,301 but used a 133% Medicaid limit and sent the child to CHIP instead. NC no longer has a separate CHIP for ages 6-18: Health Choice was merged into Medicaid with a 211% (+5%) limit, so 2.13× FPL is Medicaid eligibility."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a 133% FPL limit for older children instead of NC's post-2023 Medicaid limit of 211% plus the 5% disregard. It also understated MAGI at $61,093 by subtracting the head's ESI premiums from the spouse's wages. Correct MAGI is $82,301, or 2.13× FPL, and it qualifies."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It answered not eligible without applying an income test. Under OLDER_CHILD, MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13× FPL, which is within NC's Medicaid limit for ages 6-18 (211% plus the 5-point disregard)."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said income exceeds NC's Medicaid limit without computing it. MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13× FPL, below NC's older-child Medicaid limit of 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said income exceeds the limits without computing it. Household MAGI of 2.13× FPL falls under NC's 211%+5% Medicaid limit for ages 6-18, which has applied since Health Choice moved into Medicaid."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said income exceeds NC's child Medicaid limits without any calculation. MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13× FPL, within the older-child Medicaid limit of 211% plus the 5-point disregard."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said MAGI is above NC's child Medicaid limit without computing it. MAGI is 2.13× FPL, below the 216% effective limit (211% plus the 5% disregard) for children ages 6-18."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It computed the correct 213% FPL but split coverage into 133% Medicaid and a 210% separate CHIP, and compared without the 5-point disregard. NC merged Health Choice into Medicaid, so ages 6-18 qualify for Medicaid up to 216% effective, and 213% passes."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It tested gross wages of $85,209 against 211% without subtracting the traditional 401(k) and IRA contributions, and without the 5-point disregard. MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13× FPL, which falls within the 216% effective older-child Medicaid limit."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said earnings were above the Medicaid threshold without computing it. MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13× FPL, under NC's Medicaid limit for school-age children (211% FPL plus the 5% disregard)."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It ruled out Medicaid from the income level without doing any FPL comparison. At 2.13× FPL, child2 meets NC's OLDER_CHILD Medicaid income test of 211% plus the 5-point disregard."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said about $85k of earnings is ""well above"" NC's child Medicaid limit, which understates that limit. NC covers ages 6-18 in Medicaid up to 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard, and the household's $82,301 MAGI is 2.13× FPL."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It estimated an NC child Medicaid threshold that was too low. The actual limit for ages 6-18 is 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard, and MAGI of 2.13× FPL is within it."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said MAGI exceeds NC's limit for an 11-year-old without computing it. MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13× FPL, which falls under the 211%+5% OLDER_CHILD Medicaid limit."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said income is above NC's child Medicaid limit without computing it. MAGI is 2.13× FPL, within the 216% effective Medicaid limit that has applied to ages 6-18 since Health Choice merged into Medicaid."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said income exceeds the age-11 Medicaid limit without computing it. The OLDER_CHILD limit in NC is 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard, and household MAGI of 2.13× FPL meets it."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said income exceeds the child Medicaid limit without computing it. MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13× FPL, below NC's older-child Medicaid limit of 211% plus the 5-point disregard."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got MAGI right at $82,301 but concluded this exceeds NC's limit for five people. $82,301 is 2.13× the 2026 FPL, which is under the 211%+5% Medicaid limit for children 6-18."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.3,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It treated ESI as disqualifying and said income exceeds NC's threshold. ESI does not bar Medicaid, and MAGI of 2.13× FPL is within NC's older-child Medicaid limit of 211% plus the 5% disregard."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used 133% FPL as NC's Medicaid limit for ages 6-18. Since Health Choice was merged into Medicaid in 2023 the limit has been 211% plus the 5% disregard, and MAGI of 2.13× FPL qualifies."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the old 133% FPL limit for ages 6-18 instead of NC's 211% (+5% disregard) Medicaid limit. It also understated MAGI at $74,555, when the correct figure is $82,301, or 2.13× FPL, which qualifies."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said MAGI exceeds the 6-18 Medicaid limit without computing it. NC's limit for that group is 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard, and household MAGI of 2.13× FPL falls under it."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It overstated the ratio at about 240% FPL (the correct figure is 2.13× from $82,301 MAGI) and used a 133% limit. NC's Medicaid limit for ages 6-18 is 211% plus the 5% disregard, so child2 is eligible."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used 133% FPL as the Medicaid limit for ages 6-18 and treated ESI as disqualifying. NC moved those children into Medicaid up to 211% plus the disregard, ESI does not bar Medicaid, and 2.13× FPL qualifies."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It gave no value and no explanation for child2_medicaid_eligible, so nothing could be scored. The correct result is eligible: the OLDER_CHILD category at 2.13× FPL MAGI."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a 133%/138% limit for ages 6-18, which no longer applies after NC merged Health Choice into Medicaid. It also overstated the ratio at 226%. MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13× FPL, under the 211%+5% Medicaid limit."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said income is ""well above"" NC's children's Medicaid limits without computing it. MAGI of 2.13× FPL is within the 211%+5% limit for ages 6-18."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It overstated the ratio at 221% (correct is 2.13× from $82,301 MAGI and the 2026 FPL) and compared against 211% without the 5-point disregard. It also treated ESI as relevant, though ESI does not bar Medicaid."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said MAGI is above NC's child Medicaid limit without computing it. MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13× FPL, within the OLDER_CHILD limit of 211% plus the 5% disregard."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the old 133% limit for ages 6-18. NC Medicaid now covers this group up to 211% FPL plus the disregard. Its own 198% FPL estimate, and the true 2.13× ratio, are both under that limit."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used 133% FPL for ages 6-18 together with an outdated FPL of about $33,700, and it compared gross wages instead of MAGI. NC's post-2023 Medicaid limit for this group is 211% plus the disregard, and MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13× FPL."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said income is too high without any FPL comparison. MAGI of 2.13× FPL meets NC's older-child Medicaid limit of 211% plus the 5-point disregard, so child2 is eligible."
us,scenario_026,child3_chip_eligible,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a 133%-211% FPL CHIP band for NC children aged 6-18, which assumes Medicaid for older children stops at 133% FPL. At its own 174% FPL figure, Child 3 falls under North Carolina's OLDER_CHILD Medicaid category. Medicaid eligibility excludes CHIP, so the answer is 0."
us,scenario_026,child3_chip_eligible,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It checked only whether $82,301 MAGI was under a 216% FPL 'CHIP limit' and never tested Medicaid first. Child 3 is Medicaid-eligible under the NC OLDER_CHILD category, and that Medicaid eligibility bars CHIP no matter where income falls against the CHIP ceiling."
us,scenario_026,child3_chip_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It concluded CHIP eligibility because $61,093 is under 211% FPL, treating that ceiling as a CHIP limit rather than checking Medicaid. At that income Child 3 qualifies for NC Medicaid under the OLDER_CHILD category, and Medicaid-eligible children are excluded from CHIP."
@@ -2188,53 +2266,55 @@ us,scenario_026,child3_chip_eligible,gpt-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,F
us,scenario_026,child3_chip_eligible,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It treated 133% FPL as the top of Medicaid for a 9-year-old and put its $74,555 MAGI in a 133%-211% CHIP band. North Carolina's OLDER_CHILD Medicaid category covers Child 3 at this income, and Medicaid eligibility excludes CHIP."
us,scenario_026,child3_chip_eligible,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It asserted that household MAGI was 'above Medicaid' and at or below 211% FPL, which puts the child in a separate CHIP tier. In fact Child 3 meets North Carolina's OLDER_CHILD Medicaid category, so the child is Medicaid-eligible and therefore not CHIP-eligible."
us,scenario_026,child3_chip_eligible,ox-alpha,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It stated outright that Child 3 is 'not Medicaid-eligible', and it measured income against a 6-person FPL even though the household has 5 people. Child 3 is Medicaid-eligible under North Carolina's OLDER_CHILD category, which bars CHIP, so 216% NC Health Choice limit is irrelevant."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a 138% FPL Medicaid limit for ages 6-18 and moved the 138-211% band to CHIP, but NC folded NC Health Choice children into Medicaid, so the older-child Medicaid limit is 211% FPL (216% with the disregard). Its MAGI of $82,301 is correct and equals 2.13x the 2026 FPL, which is inside that limit."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's ~213% FPL income ratio is correct, but it tested it against a 133% limit for ages 6-18. North Carolina's older-child Medicaid limit is 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard (216%), so 213% qualifies."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model gave a 207% FPL limit but turned it into $56,232, which badly understates the dollar threshold. 211% of the ~$38,680 2026 five-person FPL, plus the 5% disregard, is about $83,500, above the household MAGI of ~$82,301 (2.13x FPL)."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model said income is well above the child Medicaid limit without computing it. Household MAGI is about $82,301, or 2.13x FPL, which is under NC's 211% (216% with disregard) Medicaid limit for children ages 6-18."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model named the correct ~211% limit but computed it as ~$66,000, implying an FPL near $31,300 instead of ~$38,680 for five people. It also compared gross wages instead of MAGI. 211% (216% with disregard) of the correct FPL is about $81,600-$83,500, which covers MAGI of $82,301 (2.13x FPL)."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the old 133% limit for children ages 6-18 and treated 211% as a separate CHIP ceiling. NC Medicaid now covers older children up to 211% FPL (216% with disregard). It also compared gross wages of $85,209 instead of MAGI net of the 401(k) and IRA deductions ($82,301, 2.13x FPL), which falls within that limit."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model overstated the household's income at ~260% FPL. The correct MAGI is $82,301, or 2.13x the 2026 five-person FPL, which is under NC's older-child Medicaid limit of 211% plus the 5% disregard."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model computed 219% FPL, consistent with dividing by the 2025 FPL ($37,650) instead of the 2026 FPL (~$38,680), and then treated that as over the child limit. MAGI is 2.13x the 2026 FPL, within NC's 211% (216% with disregard) older-child Medicaid limit."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model treated the child's employer-sponsored insurance as disqualifying for Medicaid, but having ESI does not bar Medicaid eligibility. It also compared gross wages to 210% of an understated FPL ($36,580) instead of MAGI ($82,301) against the 2026 FPL with the 5% disregard. That correct test gives 2.13x FPL, eligible under NC's older-child Medicaid limit."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a 138% FPL limit for ages 6-18, but NC's older-child Medicaid limit is 211% FPL (216% with disregard). It also double-counted the overtime premium, which is already inside the $85,209 gross wages, to reach $92,000+. The correct MAGI is $82,301 (2.13x FPL)."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's ~$82k MAGI is correct, but it applied a 133% FPL limit. North Carolina's Medicaid limit for children 6-18 is 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard, and $82,301 is 2.13x FPL, which qualifies."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model treated 210% FPL as a hard cap and skipped the 5% MAGI disregard. NC's older-child limit is 211% plus 5% (216%), and household MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13x FPL, so the child is eligible."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's MAGI of $82,301 is correct, but it tested against 133% FPL. NC's Medicaid limit for children 6-18 is 211% FPL (216% with disregard), and $82,301 is 2.13x the 2026 FPL, which qualifies."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model computed MAGI correctly at $82,301 but used a child Medicaid limit below 213% FPL. NC's older-child Medicaid category runs to 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard, which covers 2.13x FPL."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model compared gross wages of $85,209 to 210% FPL. It should have used MAGI, which subtracts the $2,778 traditional 401(k) and $130 IRA contributions to reach $82,301, and applied the 5% disregard. That gives 2.13x FPL, under NC's 216% effective older-child Medicaid limit."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied a 133% FPL limit for ages 6-18, but NC's older-child Medicaid limit is 211% FPL (216% with disregard). Even its own understated MAGI of $61,093, which wrongly subtracted the head's $21,208 ESI premiums, falls well under that limit; the true MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13x FPL and also qualifies."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model said income is above the threshold without computing it. MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13x the 2026 FPL, which is within NC's 211% (216% with disregard) Medicaid limit for children 6-18."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a 133% FPL limit for older children and sent the 133-211% band to CHIP. NC moved those children into Medicaid with a 211% FPL limit (216% with disregard), so MAGI of $82,301 (2.13x FPL) is Medicaid-eligible."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied a 133% FPL limit; NC's older-child Medicaid limit is 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard. Its $61,093 MAGI (which wrongly subtracted the head's ESI premiums) and the correct $82,301 MAGI (2.13x FPL) both fall within that limit."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model gave no income test. MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13x the 2026 FPL, under NC's 211% (216% with disregard) older-child Medicaid limit, so the child is eligible."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model said income exceeds the NC limit without computing it. MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13x FPL, within NC's 211% FPL (216% with disregard) Medicaid limit for children 6-18."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's 'exceeds limits' answer is consistent with the outdated 133% older-child threshold. NC's limit is 211% plus the 5% disregard, and MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13x FPL."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's 'exceeds limits' answer is consistent with the outdated 133% older-child threshold. NC's limit is 211% plus the 5% disregard, and MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13x FPL."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly found ~213% FPL but used 133% for Medicaid and a separate 210% CHIP limit, leaving out the 5% disregard and NC's 2023 move of Health Choice children into Medicaid. The older-child Medicaid limit is 216% effective, so 213% qualifies, and ESI does not bar Medicaid."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model named the correct ~211% limit but compared gross wages of $85,209 instead of MAGI net of the traditional 401(k) and IRA contributions ($82,301), and it left out the 5% disregard. MAGI is 2.13x FPL, under the 216% effective limit."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model asserted earnings exceed the Medicaid threshold without computing it. MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13x the 2026 FPL, within NC's 211% (216% with disregard) older-child Medicaid limit."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model judged the wage level too high without any income test. MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13x FPL, which is within NC's 211% FPL (216% with disregard) Medicaid limit for children 6-18."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model called ~$85k well above the NC child limit, which implies the old 133%/138% threshold. NC's older-child Medicaid limit is 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard, and MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13x FPL."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's estimated NC child threshold is too low. The older-child Medicaid limit is 211% FPL (216% with disregard), and household MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13x FPL, which qualifies."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model said MAGI exceeds NC's limit for a 9-year-old. That limit is 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard, and MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13x the 2026 FPL, which falls within it."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model treated income as above NC's child Medicaid limit. MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13x FPL, within the 211% (216% with disregard) older-child Medicaid limit."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's 'exceeds the limit for this age' answer reflects the outdated 133% threshold. NC Medicaid covers children 6-18 up to 211% FPL (216% with disregard), and MAGI is 2.13x FPL."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model treated income as above the child limit. MAGI of $82,301 equals 2.13x FPL, under NC's 211% plus 5% disregard Medicaid limit for older children."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's MAGI of $82,301 is correct, but it used an NC child limit below that amount. The older-child Medicaid limit is 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard, and $82,301 is 2.13x FPL, which qualifies."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model treated income as over the NC limit and counted ESI as disqualifying, but ESI does not bar Medicaid. MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13x FPL, within NC's 211% (216% with disregard) older-child limit."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a 133% FPL limit for ages 6-18. NC's older-child Medicaid limit is 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard, and MAGI of 2.13x FPL qualifies."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied a 133% FPL limit for ages 6-18, but NC's limit is 211% FPL (216% with disregard). Its own $74,555 MAGI and the correct $82,301 (2.13x FPL) are both under that limit."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model claimed MAGI is above NC's limit for ages 6-18. That limit is 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard, and MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13x FPL, which qualifies."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model overstated income at ~240% FPL and used a 133% limit. Correct MAGI is $82,301, or 2.13x the 2026 FPL, under NC's 211% (216% with disregard) older-child Medicaid limit."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied a 133% FPL limit and cited employer coverage, but NC's older-child Medicaid limit is 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard, and ESI does not bar Medicaid. MAGI of 2.13x FPL qualifies."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no value for child3_medicaid_eligible, so there is nothing to score. The correct derivation gives MAGI of 2.13x FPL, under NC's older-child Medicaid limit, so the child is eligible."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 133%/138% limit for ages 6-18 and overstated income at ~226% FPL by using gross wages against the 2025 FPL. MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13x the 2026 FPL, within NC's 211% (216% with disregard) older-child Medicaid limit."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model asserted income is well above the NC children's limit. MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13x FPL, within NC's 211% FPL (216% with disregard) Medicaid limit for children 6-18."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model treated MAGI as above NC's child limit. MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13x the 2026 FPL, under the 211% plus 5% disregard older-child Medicaid limit."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model placed age 9 in a 133% FPL group, but NC's older-child Medicaid limit is 211% FPL (216% with disregard). Its own ~198% FPL estimate and the actual 2.13x FPL are both within that limit."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a 133% limit with an understated five-person FPL of $33,700 and compared gross wages. With MAGI of $82,301 and the ~$38,680 2026 FPL, income is 2.13x FPL, under NC's 211% (216% with disregard) older-child Medicaid limit."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model asserted income is too high without a threshold test. MAGI of $82,301 is 2.13x FPL, within NC's 211% FPL (216% with disregard) Medicaid limit for children 6-18."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a 138% FPL Medicaid limit for ages 6-18 and moved the 138-211% band to CHIP. NC Health Choice was merged into Medicaid, so the older-child Medicaid limit is 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard. Its own estimate of ~197% FPL is under that limit, so the child is eligible."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got the income ratio right (~213% FPL) but tested it against a 133% FPL limit. NC's Medicaid limit for children 6-18 is 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard (216%), so 2.13x FPL qualifies."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its arithmetic is wrong: it says 207% FPL for a family of five is about $56,232, but that is roughly 145% FPL. A $82,431 MAGI is about 2.13x the FPL. That is under NC's older-child Medicaid limit of 211% plus the 5% disregard, so the child is eligible."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said income is 'well above' the child Medicaid limit, which implies the federal-minimum 133% FPL limit for ages 6-18. NC's Medicaid limit for this age group is 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard, and household MAGI of 2.13x FPL falls within it."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It cited a 211% FPL limit but converted it to about $66,000, far below 211% of the five-person FPL (about $80,000+). It also tested gross wages instead of MAGI net of 401k/IRA contributions and left out the 5% disregard. MAGI at 2.13x FPL is under the 216% effective limit."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used 133% FPL for Medicaid and treated 211% as a separate CHIP limit, but NC Health Choice now sits inside Medicaid. It compared gross wages of $85,209 to 211%, ignoring the $2,908 of traditional 401k/IRA contributions that reduce MAGI and the 5% disregard. Correct MAGI of 2.13x FPL qualifies."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It put household income at about 260% FPL, but MAGI (spouse wages less traditional retirement contributions) against the five-person FPL is 2.13x. That is under NC's older-child Medicaid limit of 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It overstated the income ratio at about 219% FPL. With the 2026 five-person poverty guideline and MAGI net of traditional 401k/IRA contributions, the ratio is 2.13x. That is under NC's 211% FPL limit plus the 5% disregard for children 6-18."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly treated employer-sponsored insurance as a bar to Medicaid; ESI only matters for CHIP, not Medicaid. It also tested gross wages against 210% of an understated FPL ($36,580) and left out the 5% disregard. MAGI at 2.13x FPL qualifies under NC's older-child Medicaid limit."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a 138% FPL limit for ages 6-18, but NC Medicaid covers this group up to 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard. It also added overtime on top of gross wages, which already include it, putting income above $92,000. MAGI is actually 2.13x FPL."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It compared about $82k of MAGI to a 133% FPL limit. NC's Medicaid limit for children 6-18 is 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard (216%), and $82k is 2.13x FPL for five people, so the child is eligible."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a 210% FPL limit and left out the 5-point MAGI disregard, which raises NC's older-child Medicaid limit to 216% FPL. Household MAGI of 2.13x FPL is under that limit."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It tested MAGI of $82,301 against 133% FPL ($51,205). NC's Medicaid limit for children 6-18 is 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard, and $82,301 is 2.13x FPL, so the child is eligible."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its MAGI of $82,301 is correct, but it judged this above the child limit. That MAGI is 2.13x FPL, under NC's older-child Medicaid limit of 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It compared gross wages of $85,209 to a 210% FPL limit, without subtracting traditional 401k/IRA contributions from MAGI or applying the 5% disregard. MAGI is 2.13x FPL, under the 216% effective older-child Medicaid limit."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a 133% FPL limit for ages 6-18, but NC's Medicaid limit for this group is 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard. Its own (understated) MAGI of $61,093 is well within that limit, and the correct MAGI of 2.13x FPL also qualifies."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said income is above the child Medicaid threshold without naming a limit, which implies the 133% federal floor. NC Medicaid covers children 6-18 up to 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard, and household MAGI is 2.13x FPL."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a 133% FPL limit and sent the child to CHIP. NC Health Choice was absorbed into Medicaid, so children 6-18 are Medicaid-eligible up to 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard, and $82,301 MAGI (2.13x FPL) qualifies."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It tested an understated MAGI of $61,093 against a 133% FPL limit. NC's Medicaid limit for children 6-18 is 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard, and the actual MAGI of 2.13x FPL falls within it."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave no income test. Correctly, MAGI is 2.13x FPL, under NC's older-child Medicaid limit of 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard, so the child is eligible. Answering 'no' implies it used the 133% federal floor."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said income exceeds the NC limit without numbers, which implies the 133% federal floor for ages 6-18. NC Medicaid covers this group up to 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard, and MAGI of 2.13x FPL qualifies."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said income exceeds the limit without stating a threshold. NC's older-child Medicaid limit is 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard (216%), and household MAGI of 2.13x FPL is under it."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said income exceeds NC's child Medicaid limit, which implies the 133% federal floor. Since the Health Choice merger, NC Medicaid covers children 6-18 up to 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard, and MAGI is 2.13x FPL."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said MAGI is above the NC child limit, but MAGI is 2.13x FPL and NC's older-child Medicaid limit is 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard (216%). The child is eligible."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It computed the ratio correctly (~213% FPL) but used 133% for Medicaid and 210% for a separate CHIP. NC Health Choice is now part of Medicaid, and the 5% disregard raises the older-child limit to 216%, so 2.13x qualifies. Employer coverage does not bar Medicaid."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It cited the correct 211% base limit but tested gross wages of $85,209 instead of MAGI net of traditional 401k/IRA contributions, and left out the 5% disregard. MAGI of 2.13x FPL is under the 216% effective limit."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said earnings exceed the school-age Medicaid threshold, which implies the 133% federal floor. NC Medicaid covers children 6-18 up to 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard, and household MAGI is 2.13x FPL."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It ran no actual income test and concluded the child is ineligible. MAGI is 2.13x FPL, under NC's older-child Medicaid limit of 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard, so the child is eligible."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said earnings of about $85,209 are 'well above' the NC child limit, which implies a limit near the 133% floor. NC Medicaid covers children 6-18 up to 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard, and MAGI after pretax contributions is 2.13x FPL."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its estimated NC child threshold was too low. NC Medicaid covers children 6-18 up to 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard (216%), and household MAGI of 2.13x FPL falls within it."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It judged MAGI above NC's limit for a 9-year-old. The OLDER_CHILD Medicaid limit is 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard, and MAGI is 2.13x FPL, so the child is eligible."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said income exceeds the NC child Medicaid limit, but NC's limit for ages 6-18 is 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard, and household MAGI is 2.13x FPL."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied an age-specific limit below NC's actual one. Children 6-18 are Medicaid-eligible up to 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard, and MAGI of 2.13x FPL qualifies."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said income exceeds the child Medicaid limit, but NC's older-child limit is 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard (216%), and household MAGI is 2.13x FPL."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its MAGI of $82,301 is correct, but it judged this above the five-person child limit. That MAGI is 2.13x FPL, under NC's 211% FPL limit plus the 5% disregard for children 6-18."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It cited employer coverage as a reason for ineligibility, but ESI does not bar Medicaid. It also placed income above the NC limit, when MAGI of 2.13x FPL is under the older-child limit of 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a 133% FPL limit for children 6-18, but NC Medicaid covers this group up to 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard, and household MAGI is 2.13x FPL."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It tested an understated MAGI of $74,555 against 133% FPL. NC's Medicaid limit for children 6-18 is 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard, so even the correct MAGI of 2.13x FPL qualifies."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said MAGI exceeds NC's limit for ages 6-18, which implies the 133% federal floor. NC Medicaid covers this group up to 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard, and MAGI is 2.13x FPL."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,It overstated income at about 240% FPL (correct MAGI is 2.13x FPL) and used a 133% limit. NC's older-child Medicaid limit is 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard.
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a 133% FPL limit for ages 6-18 and counted employer coverage against eligibility. NC Medicaid covers this group up to 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard regardless of ESI, and MAGI is 2.13x FPL."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value for child3_medicaid_eligible, so the answer could not be scored. The correct value is eligible, since MAGI of 2.13x FPL is under NC's older-child Medicaid limit."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a 133%/138% FPL limit and overstated MAGI at about 226% FPL. NC's Medicaid limit for children 6-18 is 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard, and correct MAGI is 2.13x FPL."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said income is 'well above' NC's child Medicaid limit, which implies the 133% floor. NC Medicaid covers children 6-18 up to 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard, and MAGI is 2.13x FPL."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It overstated MAGI at about 221% FPL (correct is 2.13x) and tested it against 211% without the 5% disregard. It also counted ESI, which does not bar Medicaid. 2.13x FPL is under the 216% effective limit."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said MAGI is above NC's child limit, but MAGI is 2.13x FPL and NC's older-child Medicaid limit is 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It put NC's 6-18 Medicaid group at 133% FPL, but since the Health Choice merger it extends to 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard. Its own ~198% FPL estimate falls inside that limit."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used 133% FPL with an understated five-person FPL ($33,700) and tested gross wages. NC Medicaid covers children 6-18 up to 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard, and MAGI net of traditional retirement contributions is 2.13x FPL."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said income is too high without applying NC's actual limit. Children 6-18 are Medicaid-eligible up to 211% FPL plus the 5% disregard, and household MAGI is 2.13x FPL."
us,scenario_026,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It capped the nonrefundable child tax credit at $1,500 for three children; the 2026 CTC is $2,200 per child ($6,600 total) and its nonrefundable portion is applied against the full pre-credit liability before any refundable ACTC is computed, so the $4,586.51 of tax is entirely absorbed. It also used a $29,500 MFJ standard deduction instead of $32,200 and never took the $7,746.26 deduction for the qualified FLSA overtime premium. Its own stated arithmetic ($6,313 less $1,500 = $4,813) does not equal the $5,813 it submitted."
us,scenario_026,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,other,False,"Its derivation reached the correct conclusion — the nonrefundable CTC absorbs the entire tentative tax, 'Result near $0' — and it then submitted $4,107, a figure no step in its own work produces. It also omitted the $7,746.26 qualified-overtime deduction that brings taxable income down to $42,354.26 and tentative tax to $4,586.51."
us,scenario_026,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It invented a ~$605 ceiling on the nonrefundable CTC by treating the $1,700-per-child refundable ACTC as consumed first; the nonrefundable credit is applied against the whole liability first and the refundable portion is the residual, so $6,600 of credit for three children eliminates the entire tax. It also missed the $7,746.26 qualified-overtime deduction, which lowers taxable income from its stated $50,001 to $42,354.26."
@@ -2257,47 +2337,49 @@ us,scenario_026,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,
us,scenario_026,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $7,746 overtime premium on top of the $85,209 gross wages that already include it, then applied pre-TCJA parameters — a $16,200 standard deduction, $26,000 of personal exemptions, a 15% bracket, and a $1,000-per-child CTC. For 2026 the premium is instead deducted, the standard deduction is $32,200 with no exemptions, and the $6,600 credit for three children offsets the full $4,586.51 tentative tax."
us,scenario_026,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No value or explanation was returned for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so no substantive computation reached the grader. The correct derivation yields $42,354.26 of taxable income after the $32,200 standard deduction and $7,746.26 overtime deduction, $4,586.51 of tentative tax, and $0 after the $6,600 nonrefundable child tax credit."
us,scenario_026,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a fabricated $3,700 MFJ standard deduction in place of $32,200 and a fabricated $3,700 total child tax credit in place of $6,600, and it never subtracted the $2,778 traditional 401(k), the $130 IRA deduction, or the $7,746.26 overtime deduction. Its explanation states the credit fully offsets the tax while it submitted $5,931.15, contradicting itself."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It never took the OBBBA qualified-overtime deduction for the $7,746 FLSA premium, so it put taxable income at about $50k instead of about $42,355. It then claimed a $5,500 tax 'exceeds' the $6,600 CTC, which is backwards. The correct pre-credit tax is about $4,586.51, which leaves $2,013.49 of CTC refundable as ACTC."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It guessed about $1,000 per child of refundable credit without computing pre-credit tax. ACTC is limited to the CTC left over after the nonrefundable offset. Here that is $6,600 minus about $4,586.51 of tax, or $2,013.49, not $3,000."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It asserted that the nonrefundable CTC absorbs the whole credit. After the $32,200 standard deduction and the $7,746 qualified-overtime deduction, pre-credit tax is only about $4,586.51. That is less than the $6,600 CTC, so $2,013.49 is refundable."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the pre-OBBBA $2,000-per-child CTC and the $31,500 standard deduction, and it skipped the $7,746 qualified-overtime deduction. It also called a $5,600 tax 'fully offset' by a $6,000 credit, ignoring that the $400 left over is refundable. Correctly, a $6,600 CTC against about $4,586.51 of tax leaves $2,013.49 of ACTC."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed tax liability covers a $6,000 CTC without computing the tax. It also missed the OBBBA $2,200-per-child amount and the $7,746 qualified-overtime deduction. Pre-credit tax is only about $4,586.51, so $2,013.49 of the $6,600 CTC is refundable."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the correct $6,600 CTC but put pre-credit tax at about $5,450 because it never deducted the $7,746 FLSA overtime premium under the OBBBA qualified-overtime deduction. With that deduction, tax is about $4,586.51 and the refundable remainder is $2,013.49, not $1,150."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the pre-OBBBA $2,000 CTC and a roughly $30,000 standard deduction instead of 2026's $32,200, and it skipped the $7,746 qualified-overtime deduction. That inflated tax to $5,815 and left only $185 of ACTC. The correct figures are about $4,586.51 of tax against a $6,600 CTC, leaving $2,013.49."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $7,746 overtime premium on top of wages, which already include overtime, and pushed AGI to about $89,000. The overtime premium is actually a below-the-line deduction under OBBBA. With the correct AGI of $82,301 and that deduction, tax is about $4,586.51, below the $6,600 CTC, so $2,013.49 is refundable."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its pre-credit tax of $4,541.24 implies it deducted the $378 auto loan interest as qualified passenger-vehicle loan interest. Nothing in the facts makes the loan qualifying, since no new US-assembled vehicle is listed, so the deduction is $0. Without it, tax is about $4,586.51 and the ACTC is $2,013.49, not $2,058.76."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the pre-OBBBA $6,000 CTC and assumed tax absorbs it fully, never applying the $7,746 qualified-overtime deduction or the $32,200 standard deduction. Pre-credit tax is only about $4,586.51, so $2,013.49 of the $6,600 CTC is refundable."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It got AGI right at $82,301 but never applied the OBBBA qualified-overtime deduction for the $7,746 FLSA premium, so it overstated tax and concluded the CTC was absorbed. Tax after the $32,200 standard deduction and the overtime deduction is about $4,586.51, leaving $2,013.49 of the $6,600 CTC refundable."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the TCJA-sunset $1,000-per-child CTC ($3,000 total) instead of the OBBBA $2,200-per-child credit ($6,600) in effect for 2026. It also ignored the qualified-overtime deduction. Against about $4,586.51 of tax, $2,013.49 of the $6,600 credit is refundable."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $5,516.12 tax is correct only before the OBBBA qualified-overtime deduction. Taking the $7,746 FLSA premium off taxable income cuts tax to about $4,586.51. It also used $2,000 per child instead of the 2026 $2,200, so the ACTC is $6,600 minus $4,586.51, or $2,013.49."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the CTC reverts to 2017 rules in 2026 ($1,000 per child, $3,000 refundability threshold), but OBBBA made the $2,200-per-child credit with a $1,700 refundable cap permanent. Its $2,965.85 tax also reflects pre-OBBBA brackets and deductions. The correct result is a $6,600 CTC against about $4,586.51 of tax, leaving $2,013.49 refundable."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave a bare assertion that no refundable credit applies and never computed tax liability against the CTC. After the $32,200 standard deduction and the $7,746 qualified-overtime deduction, tax is about $4,586.51. The $6,600 CTC exceeds that by $2,013.49, which is refundable ACTC."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the TCJA-sunset $3,000 CTC instead of the OBBBA $2,200 × 3 = $6,600 credit, so it concluded the credit was fully absorbed. Pre-credit tax is about $4,586.51 once the qualified-overtime deduction is applied, leaving $2,013.49 refundable."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the head's $21,208 employer-sponsored insurance premiums from AGI to get $61,093. Those premiums are not an above-the-line deduction, and that error produced a $930 EITC that does not exist. AGI is $82,301, EITC is $0, and the ACTC is $2,013.49."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reported zero refundable credits without comparing the $6,600 CTC to tax liability. After the $32,200 standard deduction and the $7,746 qualified-overtime deduction, tax is about $4,586.51, so $2,013.49 of CTC is refundable."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave zero with no computation, missing that tax liability is only about $4,586.51 once the $32,200 standard deduction and the $7,746 OBBBA overtime deduction are taken. The unused $2,013.49 of the $6,600 CTC is refundable ACTC."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It asserted that the nonrefundable CTC covers the credit, but it overstated tax by skipping the qualified-overtime deduction for the $7,746 FLSA premium. Tax is about $4,586.51 against a $6,600 CTC, leaving $2,013.49 refundable."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the nonrefundable CTC is fully absorbed. Pre-credit tax after the $32,200 standard deduction and the $7,746 qualified-overtime deduction is about $4,586.51, which is less than the $6,600 CTC, so $2,013.49 is refundable."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the pre-OBBBA $2,000-per-child CTC ($6,000) and a pre-credit tax of $5,676.12 that leaves out the OBBBA qualified-overtime deduction for the $7,746 premium. The correct figures are a $6,600 CTC against about $4,586.51 of tax, giving $2,013.49 of ACTC."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It treated the $1,700-per-child refundable cap as the refundable amount. ACTC is limited to the CTC left after it offsets tax liability. That remainder is $6,600 minus about $4,586.51, or $2,013.49, well below the $5,100 cap."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It cited irrelevant age-6 effects and never compared the CTC to tax liability. A $6,600 CTC against about $4,586.51 of tax (after the $32,200 standard deduction and the $7,746 overtime deduction) leaves $2,013.49 of refundable ACTC."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It assumed income rules out every refundable credit. The refundable CTC has no low phase-out at this income. With pre-credit tax of about $4,586.51 against a $6,600 CTC, $2,013.49 is refundable."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the TCJA-sunset $1,000 nonrefundable child credit, ignoring OBBBA's permanent $2,200-per-child CTC with a $1,700 refundable portion. The $6,600 CTC exceeds the roughly $4,586.51 tax by $2,013.49, which is refundable."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its pre-credit tax of $4,541.24 matches taxable income of $41,977, meaning it deducted the $378 auto loan interest as qualified vehicle loan interest. No qualifying new US-assembled vehicle loan is listed, so that deduction is $0. Tax is about $4,586.51 and the ACTC is $2,013.49."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its pre-credit tax of about $5,532 matches taxable income before the OBBBA qualified-overtime deduction. Deducting the $7,746 FLSA premium cuts tax to about $4,586.51, so $2,013.49 of the $6,600 CTC is refundable, not $1,068."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $4,541.24 tax reflects deducting the $378 auto loan interest under the OBBBA car-loan-interest provision. The facts establish no qualifying new US-assembled vehicle, so the deduction is $0. Pre-credit tax is about $4,586.51 and the ACTC is $2,013.49."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It claimed the household fails to qualify for refundable CTC 'at this income level', but nothing phases the CTC out at $82,301 AGI. The $6,600 credit exceeds the roughly $4,586.51 tax, and the $2,013.49 difference is refundable."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the TCJA-sunset $3,000 CTC instead of the OBBBA $6,600 credit for three children, and it missed the qualified-overtime deduction. Tax of about $4,586.51 against a $6,600 CTC leaves $2,013.49 refundable."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $4,671 tax matches using the 2025 standard deduction of $31,500 instead of 2026's $32,200, with the overtime deduction and 2026 brackets otherwise correct. With $32,200, tax is about $4,586.51 and the ACTC is $2,013.49, not $1,929."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It claimed a $200 Saver's Credit even though AGI of $82,301 is above the 2026 MFJ Saver's Credit AGI ceiling. That shifted $200 of CTC from nonrefundable to refundable. Without it, the $6,600 CTC against about $4,586.51 of tax leaves $2,013.49 of ACTC."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It added the $7,746 overtime premium on top of wages that already include it, inflating earned income to $90,047, when the premium should have been a deduction. It also used the TCJA-sunset $3,000 CTC instead of $6,600. Correct tax of about $4,586.51 leaves $2,013.49 of ACTC."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value or explanation for federal_refundable_credits, so there was no answer to compare with the $2,013.49 ACTC."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the correct $6,600 CTC but put pre-credit tax at $5,873, never subtracting the $7,746 FLSA overtime premium under the OBBBA qualified-overtime deduction. Correct tax is about $4,586.51, leaving $2,013.49 refundable, not $727."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It treated EITC ineligibility as ruling out the additional CTC as well. ACTC depends only on the CTC left after offsetting tax. A $6,600 CTC against about $4,586.51 of tax leaves $2,013.49 refundable."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,other,False,"It had the right structure ($6,600 CTC, overtime deduction applied, no EITC) but rounded pre-credit tax to about $4,581 instead of $4,586.51. That approximation produced $2,019 instead of $2,013.49."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,other,False,"Its pre-credit tax of $5,586.60 is exactly $1,000 above the correct figure of about $4,586.60 (the 12% bracket portion on $17,555 is $2,106.60, not $3,106.60). That arithmetic slip cut the ACTC to $1,013.40 instead of $2,013.49."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the pre-OBBBA $2,000-per-child CTC and a pre-credit tax of $5,479 that leaves out the $7,746 qualified-overtime deduction. The correct figures are a $6,600 CTC against about $4,586.51 of tax, giving $2,013.49 of ACTC."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It asserted $4,300 of ACTC with no link to tax liability. ACTC equals the CTC left after the nonrefundable offset, which is $6,600 minus about $4,586.51, or $2,013.49, within the $5,100 cap."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left out the $7,746 OBBBA qualified-overtime deduction, so taxable income came out around $50k instead of $42,355. It also contradicted its own figures: it estimated tax at about $5,500 and then said the $6,600 CTC was fully used nonrefundably, when its own numbers left about $1,100 as ACTC. The correct tax is about $4,586.51, which leaves $2,013.49 refundable."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,other,False,"The model assigned a flat $1,000 per child as refundable without computing tax liability. The ACTC is the part of the $6,600 CTC that pre-credit tax doesn't absorb. Pre-credit tax is about $4,586.51 (after the standard and overtime deductions), so the ACTC is $2,013.49, not $3,000."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model said the nonrefundable CTC absorbs the whole credit but never computed tax liability. After the $32,200 standard deduction and the $7,746 qualified-overtime deduction, pre-credit tax is only about $4,586.51. That is below the $6,600 CTC, so $2,013.49 is refundable."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the old $2,000-per-child CTC ($6,000) instead of OBBBA's $2,200 ($6,600) and the 2025 standard deduction of $31,500. It also skipped the $7,746 overtime deduction. Its own numbers were inconsistent too: about $5,600 of tax against a $6,000 credit leaves $400 refundable, not zero."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model said tax liability fully absorbed a $6,000 CTC, which uses the wrong $2,000-per-child amount instead of $2,200. It also left out the $7,746 qualified-overtime deduction, which brings pre-credit tax down to about $4,586.51 and leaves $2,013.49 of the $6,600 CTC refundable."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the correct $6,600 CTC but did not subtract the $7,746 OBBBA qualified-overtime deduction from taxable income, so it put pre-credit tax at about $5,450. The correct figure is about $4,586.51, which cut its ACTC by roughly $930."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the $2,000-per-child CTC ($6,000) instead of $2,200 ($6,600) and a $30,000 standard deduction instead of $32,200. It also left out the $130 IRA deduction and the $7,746 qualified-overtime deduction. That inflated pre-credit tax to $5,815 (correct: about $4,586.51) and cut ACTC to $185."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model added the $7,746 overtime premium on top of $85,209 in wages, even though it is already included, and reached an AGI of about $89k. It then never deducted that overtime under the OBBBA qualified-overtime deduction, and it used a $6,000 CTC. In fact, taxable income is $42,355 and tax is about $4,586.51, which leaves $2,013.49 of the $6,600 CTC refundable."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's pre-credit tax of $4,541.24 is exactly the correct liability minus 12% of $378, which means it deducted the household's $378 auto-loan interest as OBBBA qualified vehicle-loan interest. That deduction requires a new, US-assembled vehicle, and those facts are unlisted and therefore false. So tax is about $4,586.51 and the ACTC is $2,013.49."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the $2,000-per-child CTC ($6,000) instead of $2,200 and said tax absorbed all of it. It skipped the $7,746 qualified-overtime deduction, which brings pre-credit tax down to about $4,586.51 and leaves $2,013.49 of the $6,600 CTC refundable."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model got earned income/AGI right at $82,301 but said the nonrefundable CTC fully offset tax. It never applied the $7,746 qualified-overtime deduction or the $2,200-per-child CTC. Pre-credit tax is about $4,586.51 against a $6,600 credit, which leaves $2,013.49 as ACTC."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model assumed the TCJA child credit expired, giving a $3,000 CTC ($1,000 per child). OBBBA made a $2,200-per-child CTC ($6,600) permanent, and that credit exceeds the roughly $4,586.51 pre-credit tax by $2,013.49, which is refundable."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's $5,516.12 tax is the correct liability before the $7,746 OBBBA qualified-overtime deduction, so it left that deduction out. It also used a $6,000 CTC instead of $6,600. With both fixed, tax is about $4,586.51 and the ACTC is $2,013.49."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model assumed 2017 rules come back in 2026, with a $1,000-per-child CTC and a $3,000 refundability threshold. OBBBA permanently set the CTC at $2,200 per child and the refundable cap at $1,700 per child. So the $6,600 credit minus about $4,586.51 of tax gives $2,013.49 of ACTC."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model said no refundable credits apply without comparing the $6,600 CTC with pre-credit tax. After the standard and overtime deductions, that tax is only about $4,586.51, so $2,013.49 of the CTC is refundable ACTC."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a $3,000 CTC on the assumption that the TCJA provision sunset. OBBBA made the $2,200-per-child CTC permanent, so the $6,600 credit exceeds the roughly $4,586.51 pre-credit tax and $2,013.49 is refundable."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's AGI of $61,093 comes from subtracting the head's $21,208 employer-sponsored insurance premiums from the spouse's wages. Those premiums don't reduce the given wage total, so AGI is $82,301, above the 3-child EITC phase-out, and EITC is $0. Its ACTC of $926 is also too low, because the correct ACTC is $2,013.49."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model gave zero without working out tax liability. Pre-credit tax is about $4,586.51 after the $32,200 standard deduction and the $7,746 qualified-overtime deduction, so $2,013.49 of the $6,600 CTC goes unused and is refunded as ACTC."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model gave zero with no derivation. The $6,600 CTC exceeds the roughly $4,586.51 pre-credit tax (after the standard and overtime deductions), so the $2,013.49 excess is refundable ACTC."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model said the nonrefundable CTC covers tax and stopped there. It left out the $7,746 qualified-overtime deduction, which brings tax down to about $4,586.51 against a $6,600 CTC, so the ACTC is $2,013.49."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model said pre-credit tax fully absorbs the CTC. With the $32,200 standard deduction and the $7,746 OBBBA overtime deduction, tax is only about $4,586.51, so $2,013.49 of the $6,600 credit is refundable."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model applied a $22.01 Saver's Credit ahead of the CTC, but AGI of $82,301 is above the 2026 MFJ Saver's Credit ceiling, so that credit is zero. Its base tax was also about $5 below the correct $4,586.51. Together these inflated the ACTC to $2,040.77 instead of $2,013.49."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the $2,000-per-child CTC ($6,000) instead of $2,200 and put tax at $5,676.12 without the $7,746 qualified-overtime deduction. The correct pre-credit tax is about $4,586.51, which leaves $2,013.49 of the $6,600 CTC refundable."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,other,False,"The model treated the $1,700 × 3 = $5,100 refundable cap as the ACTC itself. The ACTC is limited to the part of the CTC that tax doesn't absorb: $6,600 minus about $4,586.51 of tax, or $2,013.49."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model only ruled out EITC and never compared the $6,600 CTC with pre-credit tax. After the standard and overtime deductions, that tax is about $4,586.51, so $2,013.49 is refundable ACTC."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model assumed there were no refundable credits without computing the CTC ordering. A $6,600 CTC against about $4,586.51 of pre-credit tax leaves $2,013.49 as refundable ACTC."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used post-sunset rules with a nonrefundable $1,000-per-child credit. OBBBA permanently set the CTC at $2,200 per child with refundable ACTC up to $1,700 per child, so $2,013.49 of the $6,600 credit is refunded."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's $2,058.76 implies pre-credit tax of $4,541.24, which is the correct liability minus 12% of the $378 auto-loan interest. It applied the OBBBA vehicle-loan-interest deduction without the required new, US-assembled vehicle facts. Without that deduction, tax is about $4,586.51 and the ACTC is $2,013.49."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's tax of about $5,532 is the liability before the $7,746 OBBBA qualified-overtime deduction. With that deduction, tax is about $4,586.51, and the unused part of the $6,600 CTC is $2,013.49, not $1,068."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's tax of $4,541.24 is the correct liability minus 12% of the $378 auto-loan interest, so it took the OBBBA vehicle-loan-interest deduction even though the unlisted new, US-assembled vehicle conditions are false. Tax is about $4,586.51, which leaves $2,013.49 as ACTC."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model said there was no refundable CTC without computing tax liability. With the standard and $7,746 overtime deductions, tax is about $4,586.51, below the $6,600 CTC, so $2,013.49 is refundable."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a $3,000 CTC on the assumption that the TCJA provision expired. OBBBA set the CTC at $2,200 per child ($6,600), which exceeds the roughly $4,586.51 pre-credit tax by $2,013.49 of refundable ACTC."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the correct $6,600 CTC but put pre-credit tax at $4,671 instead of about $4,586.51, overstating taxable income by roughly $700. That understated the ACTC by about $84."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model applied a $200 Saver's Credit before the CTC, but AGI of $82,301 is above the 2026 MFJ Saver's Credit income ceiling, so that credit is zero. The full roughly $4,586.51 tax should be absorbed by the CTC, which leaves $2,013.49, not $2,205."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a sunset-law $3,000 CTC and overstated earned income at $90,047 by adding overtime on top of wages that already include it. It also skipped the $7,746 qualified-overtime deduction. Tax is about $4,586.51 against a $6,600 CTC, which gives $2,013.49 of ACTC."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no value or explanation for federal_refundable_credits, so there was no answer to score against the $2,013.49 ACTC."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the correct $6,600 CTC but put pre-credit tax at $5,873 without the $7,746 OBBBA qualified-overtime deduction. The correct tax is about $4,586.51, which leaves $2,013.49 refundable, not $727."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model ruled out EITC and assumed no ACTC without computing tax. Pre-credit tax is about $4,586.51 after the standard and overtime deductions, so $2,013.49 of the $6,600 CTC is refundable."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's $5,535 of nonrefundable CTC use reflects tax computed without the $7,746 OBBBA qualified-overtime deduction. With that deduction, tax is about $4,586.51 and the ACTC is $2,013.49."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's structure was right ($6,600 CTC less pre-credit tax), but it rounded pre-credit tax to $4,581 instead of $4,586.51, which understates taxable income by about $46. That produced $2,019 instead of $2,013.49."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's pre-credit tax of $5,586.60 is $1,000 above the correct roughly $4,586.51 because taxable income excludes neither the full $7,746 qualified-overtime deduction nor the correct base. That shrank the unused CTC to $1,013.40 instead of $2,013.49."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the $2,000-per-child CTC ($6,000) instead of OBBBA's $2,200, and its $5,479 tax leaves out the $7,746 qualified-overtime deduction. The correct figures are a $6,600 CTC and about $4,586.51 of tax, giving $2,013.49 of ACTC."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,other,False,"The model gave an unexplained $4,300 ACTC without limiting it to the part of the CTC that tax doesn't absorb. The ACTC is $6,600 minus about $4,586.51 of pre-credit tax, or $2,013.49."
us,scenario_026,free_school_meals_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model reversed the income comparison by calling $85,208.82 well below the free-meal standard. That income is 220% of the family-of-five poverty guideline, and without SNAP/TANF categorical eligibility or universal free meals in North Carolina, the household must pay full price."
us,scenario_026,head_chip_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_026,head_medicaid_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
@@ -2316,43 +2398,44 @@ us,scenario_026,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,t
us,scenario_026,self_employment_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_026,spouse_chip_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_026,spouse_medicaid_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used a $500-per-child deduction, which is the $120k–$140k AGI tier. At $82,301 AGI, joint filers get $1,500 per child. It also submitted $2,882, which does not match its own figure of $55,301 × 3.99% = $2,207. The correct result is $52,300 × 3.99% = $2,086.79."
-us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used the federal $29,200 standard deduction instead of NC's $25,500 joint deduction and applied the old 4.75% rate instead of 3.99%. It also invented a dependent credit instead of the $1,500-per-child deduction. Its final $5,238 does not follow from any of its own steps."
-us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It claimed NC deductions wipe out taxable income. In fact, the $25,500 standard deduction and $4,500 child deduction together remove only $30,000 of the $82,301 AGI. That leaves $52,300 taxed at 3.99%, or $2,086.79."
-us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It left the $130 traditional IRA deduction out of AGI. It used $2,500 per child, the $40k–$60k AGI tier, when the $80k–$100k tier gives $1,500. Its final $3,041 contradicts its own interim tax figures of about $1,972–$2,101."
-us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It left out NC's child deduction entirely, which is $1,500 per child or $4,500 total at this AGI. It also failed to subtract the $130 traditional IRA contribution. As a result, it taxed $56,931 instead of $52,300."
-us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used an outdated $21,500 joint standard deduction instead of $25,500. It also used $3,000 per child, which applies only at AGI of $40,000 or less, instead of the $1,500 tier for $80k–$100k AGI. Together these errors gave $30,500 of deductions instead of $30,000."
-us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $7,746 FLSA overtime premium on top of gross wages, even though wages already include it. It used 4.25% instead of the 2026 rate of 3.99% and left out the $4,500 child deduction. It then added an unexplained bump to reach $3,350."
-us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It placed $82,301 of joint AGI in the $1,000-per-child tier, which covers $100k–$120k. AGI between $80,001 and $100,000 gets $1,500 per child, so the child deduction is $4,500, not $3,000."
-us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $7,746 overtime premium on top of $85,209 in wages, which already include it, and got AGI of $90,047 instead of $82,301. It also left out the $4,500 NC child deduction."
-us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its AGI and standard deduction were correct, but it said no other deductions apply. It left out NC's child deduction of $1,500 per child, or $4,500, so it taxed $56,801 instead of $52,300."
-us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It left out the $4,500 NC child deduction for three children at $80k–$100k joint AGI. It also used a 4.0% rate instead of the 2026 rate of 3.99%."
-us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It subtracted only the $25,500 standard deduction and left out NC's child deduction of $1,500 per child, or $4,500. That overstated taxable income by $4,500."
-us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the head's $21,208 employer-sponsored insurance premiums from AGI, even though they are not part of the listed wages and do not reduce AGI. This cut AGI to $61,093 instead of $82,301. The lower AGI also moved the child deduction to the $2,000 tier instead of the correct $1,500."
-us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It gave no derivation. At 3.99%, $3,538 implies about $88,700 of taxable income, which is more than the household's entire $82,301 AGI. So it used an outdated higher rate and did not subtract the $25,500 standard deduction and $4,500 child deduction."
-us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted $21,208 in ESI premiums to get AGI of $61,093, but those premiums do not reduce AGI, which is $82,301. That error also put it in the $2,000-per-child tier instead of the $1,500 tier for $80k–$100k AGI."
-us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It gave no derivation. $3,538.77 equals about 4.75% of $74,500, so it reflects an outdated higher rate instead of 3.99% on $52,300. It also did not subtract both the $25,500 standard deduction and the $4,500 child deduction."
-us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a 3.74% rate instead of the 2026 rate of 3.99%. It invented a $130 spousal IRA deduction for the head, who has no IRA contribution listed. It also left out the $4,500 NC child deduction."
-us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used $4,000 per child, which is above the $3,000 maximum in any tier. At $82,301 joint AGI the correct amount is $1,500 per child, or $4,500 total, not $12,000."
-us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It claimed deductions and credits wipe out NC tax. The $25,500 standard deduction and $4,500 child deduction leave $52,300 taxable, which produces $2,086.79 at 3.99%."
-us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It gave no specific derivation. Its $4,875 is about 5.25% of the $92,955 it would get by double-counting overtime, which reflects an obsolete rate with no NC deductions. The correct calculation is 3.99% of $52,300, after $25,500 standard and $4,500 child deductions from $82,301 AGI."
-us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"$1,957.29 is 3.99% of $49,055. That means it subtracted the $7,746 overtime premium from AGI to get $74,555, but the premium is part of AGI. It also left out the $4,500 NC child deduction."
-us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"$2,027 is 3.99% of $50,801, which means it used $2,000 per child. That is the $60k–$80k AGI tier, but $82,301 of joint AGI falls in the $80k–$100k tier at $1,500 per child."
-us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It taxed $56,931, which means it left the $130 traditional IRA out of AGI. It also left out the $4,500 NC child deduction for three children."
-us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used $1,000 per child, the $100k–$120k AGI tier. At $82,301 of joint AGI the deduction is $1,500 per child, or $4,500 instead of $3,000."
-us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It taxed roughly the full $85k of wages minus only the standard deduction. It did not subtract the $2,908 of traditional 401(k)/IRA contributions or the $4,500 NC child deduction. $2,780 also implies a rate above 3.99%."
-us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It subtracted only the $25,500 standard deduction and left out NC's child deduction of $1,500 per child, or $4,500. As a result, it taxed $56,801 instead of $52,300."
-us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $7,746 FLSA overtime premium from AGI to get $74,555, but the premium is part of AGI. It also left out the $4,500 NC child deduction."
-us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $7,746 overtime premium to get AGI of $74,555 instead of $82,301. That moved it into the $2,000-per-child tier instead of the correct $1,500 tier for $80k–$100k AGI."
-us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $7,746 overtime premium on top of wages, which already include it, and got AGI of $90,047. It used 4.25% instead of the 2026 rate of 3.99% and left out the $4,500 NC child deduction."
-us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $7,746 overtime premium to get AGI of $74,555, but the premium is part of AGI. It also used $2,500 per child, the $40k–$60k tier, instead of $1,500 for $82,301 of joint AGI."
-us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,It gave no answer and no explanation for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits.
-us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated gross wages of $85,209 as AGI without subtracting the $2,778 traditional 401(k) and $130 IRA contributions. It also left out the $4,500 NC child deduction."
-us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used personal exemptions for a family of five, but NC has none. It returned zero tax even though $82,301 of AGI minus $30,000 in deductions leaves $52,300 taxable at 3.99%."
-us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its $47,801 of taxable income means it used $3,000 per child, which applies only at joint AGI of $40,000 or less. At $82,301 of AGI the correct amount is $1,500 per child, or $4,500 total."
-us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It cut AGI to $74,555 by subtracting the $7,746 overtime premium, but the premium is part of AGI, which is $82,301. It also left out the $4,500 NC child deduction."
-us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $7,746 overtime premium on top of wages, which already include it. It did not subtract the traditional 401(k) or IRA contributions, used an outdated 4.5% rate, and left out the $4,500 NC child deduction."
-us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used the federal standard deduction instead of NC's $25,500 joint deduction and applied an outdated 4.5% rate instead of 3.99%. It left out the $4,500 child deduction and invented $19.41 in nonrefundable credits."
+us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $500-per-child NC child deduction ($1,500 total) when the $80k–$100k MFJ AGI tier gives $1,500 per child ($4,500). That produced taxable income of $55,301 and tax of $2,206.51. It then submitted $2,882, which doesn't match even its own calculation."
+us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the federal $29,200 standard deduction instead of NC's $25,500 MFJ deduction, applied a 4.75% rate instead of the 2026 rate of 3.99%, and never applied the $4,500 NC child deduction. It invented a dependent credit and then landed on an unsupported $5,238."
+us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the standard deduction and exemptions wipe out the tax, but NC has no personal exemptions. AGI of $82,300.52 minus the $25,500 standard deduction and $4,500 child deduction leaves $52,300.52 of taxable income, so tax at 3.99% is $2,086.79, not $0."
+us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $130 traditional IRA deduction (AGI $82,431) and used $2,500 per child for the child deduction, even though the $80k–$100k MFJ tier it cited gives $1,500 per child. It then swapped its own computed ~$1,972–$2,101 for an unsupported $3,041."
+us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It never applied the NC child deduction ($1,500 × 3 = $4,500) and left the $130 traditional IRA deduction out of AGI. As a result it taxed $56,931 instead of $52,300.52 at 3.99%."
+us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $21,500 NC MFJ standard deduction instead of $25,500. It also applied the $3,000-per-child top tier of the child deduction, which only applies when MFJ AGI is $40,000 or less, instead of the $1,500 tier for AGI of $82,301. The two errors partly cancel, leaving taxable income of $51,801 instead of $52,300.52."
+us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It double-counted income by adding the $7,746 FLSA overtime premium on top of wages that already include overtime. It also used a 4.25% rate instead of 3.99%, left out the $4,500 child deduction, and then inflated its own $2,743 to $3,350 with an invented retirement add-back."
+us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It placed the household in the wrong child-deduction tier, using $1,000 per child for AGI of $80k–$100k. NC gives $1,500 per child in that MFJ band, so it understated the deduction by $1,500 and taxed $53,801 instead of $52,300.52."
+us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $7,746 overtime premium to wages that already include overtime, giving AGI of $90,047 instead of $82,300.52. It also left out the $4,500 NC child deduction, so it taxed $64,547 instead of $52,300.52."
+us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"AGI and the standard deduction were correct, but it said no further deductions apply and skipped the NC child deduction ($1,500 × 3 = $4,500). So it taxed $56,801 instead of $52,300.52."
+us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $4,500 NC child deduction and taxed $56,801 instead of $52,300.52. It also applied a 4.0% rate instead of the 2026 rate of 3.99%."
+us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took only the $25,500 MFJ standard deduction from $82,301 AGI and never applied the NC child deduction of $1,500 per child for three children. So it taxed $56,801 instead of $52,300.52."
+us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the head's $21,208 employer-sponsored insurance premiums from the spouse's wages, which cut AGI to $61,093. Those premiums don't reduce the listed gross wages, so AGI is $82,300.52. The lower AGI also pushed it into the $2,000-per-child tier instead of the correct $1,500 tier."
+us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation. $3,538 at 3.99% implies a taxable base of about $88,700, which is more than gross wages. That means it never subtracted the $25,500 MFJ standard deduction and $4,500 child deduction from $82,300.52 AGI, which leaves $52,300.52 and $2,086.79 of tax."
+us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted the $21,208 employer-sponsored insurance premiums from wages, giving AGI of $61,093 instead of $82,300.52. That lower AGI also put it in the wrong $2,000-per-child tier, so it taxed $29,593 instead of $52,300.52."
+us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave only a bare number. $3,538.77 at 3.99% implies about $88,700 of taxable income, so it skipped both the $25,500 MFJ standard deduction and the $4,500 child deduction that bring $82,300.52 AGI down to $52,300.52."
+us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a 3.74% rate instead of the 2026 NC rate of 3.99%. It also subtracted an invented $130 spousal IRA contribution for the head and left out the $4,500 NC child deduction, so it taxed $56,671 instead of $52,300.52."
+us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used $4,000 per child ($12,000 total), but the NC child deduction never goes above $3,000 per child. At $82,301 MFJ AGI it is $1,500 per child ($4,500), so it understated taxable income at $44,801 instead of $52,300.52."
+us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the deductions eliminate taxable income. NC's $25,500 standard deduction plus the $4,500 child deduction only bring $82,300.52 AGI down to $52,300.52, which is taxable at 3.99% for $2,086.79."
+us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation. $4,875 at 3.99% implies about $122,000 of taxable income, far more than AGI of $82,300.52. So it ignored both the NC standard deduction and the child deduction, which leave $52,300.52 of taxable income."
+us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"$1,957.29 equals $49,055 × 3.99%, which means it subtracted the $7,746 overtime premium from wages to get AGI of $74,555. The overtime premium doesn't reduce AGI, which is $82,300.52. It also left out the $4,500 NC child deduction."
+us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"$2,027 at 3.99% corresponds to taxable income of $50,802, which means a $2,000-per-child deduction. That is the $60k–$80k MFJ tier. At AGI of $82,300.52 the correct tier is $1,500 per child, for a $4,500 total."
+us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted only the 401(k) contribution, leaving out the $130 traditional IRA deduction (AGI $82,431). It also never applied the $4,500 NC child deduction, so it taxed $56,931 instead of $52,300.52."
+us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used $1,000 per child ($3,000) for the NC child deduction. For MFJ AGI of $80k–$100k the amount is $1,500 per child ($4,500), so it taxed $53,801 instead of $52,300.52."
+us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started from roughly $85k of gross wages without subtracting the $2,778 traditional 401(k) and $130 IRA contributions, and it left out the $4,500 NC child deduction. Its $2,780 implies about $69,700 taxed at 3.99%, instead of $52,300.52."
+us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took only the $25,500 MFJ standard deduction from $82,301 AGI and missed the NC child deduction of $1,500 per child for three children. So it taxed $56,801 instead of $52,300.52."
+us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It cut AGI to $74,555 by subtracting the $7,746 FLSA overtime premium, which doesn't reduce AGI. AGI is $82,300.52. It also left out the $4,500 NC child deduction."
+us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $7,746 overtime premium from wages to get AGI of $74,555, which is wrong because overtime pay stays in AGI ($82,300.52). That lower AGI also put it in the $2,000-per-child tier instead of the correct $1,500 tier."
+us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a 4.25% rate instead of the 2026 rate of 3.99%. It also double-counted the $7,746 overtime premium, which is already included in the listed wages, giving AGI of $90,047. And it left out the $4,500 NC child deduction."
+us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $7,746 overtime premium to get AGI of $74,555 instead of $82,300.52. It also used $2,500 per child for the child deduction, while the correct MFJ tier for this AGI is $1,500 per child ($4,500)."
+us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value and no explanation for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was nothing to score against $2,086.79."
+us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used gross wages of $85,209 as AGI, failing to subtract the $2,778 traditional 401(k) and $130 traditional IRA contributions. It also left out the $4,500 NC child deduction, so it taxed $59,709 instead of $52,300.52."
+us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It relied on personal exemptions, which NC doesn't have. The only reductions are the $25,500 MFJ standard deduction and the $4,500 child deduction, which leave $52,300.52 taxable at 3.99%, so the tax is not zero."
+us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took only the $25,500 standard deduction from $82,301 AGI and left out the NC child deduction of $1,500 × 3, so it taxed $56,801 instead of $52,300.52."
+us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its taxable income of $47,801 implies a child deduction of $3,000 per child ($9,000), which is the tier for MFJ AGI of $40,000 or less. At AGI of $82,300.52 the deduction is $1,500 per child ($4,500)."
+us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used AGI of $74,555, which means it subtracted the $7,746 overtime premium. That premium doesn't reduce AGI, which is $82,300.52. It also stated that no NC deductions beyond the standard deduction apply, so it left out the $4,500 child deduction."
+us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a 4.5% rate instead of the 2026 rate of 3.99% and added the overtime premium on top of wages that already include it. It also skipped the 401(k) and IRA reductions and left out the $4,500 NC child deduction, giving taxable income of $67,455 instead of $52,300.52."
+us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a 4.5% rate instead of the 2026 rate of 3.99%. Its taxable income of $81,509 doesn't reflect NC's $25,500 MFJ standard deduction or the $4,500 child deduction. It also invented a $19.41 nonrefundable credit."
us,scenario_026,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_027,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model supplied no parseable value or explanation for the requested output, violating the required structured-output contract."
us,scenario_027,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,other,False,"The model correctly derived zero taxable income, zero gross tax, and no nonrefundable credits, but submitted -3195 instead of the zero produced by its calculation. Federal income tax before refundable credits does not become negative here, and its explanation explicitly ends with a value inconsistent with its own derivation."
@@ -2370,67 +2453,70 @@ us,scenario_027,local_income_tax,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,F
us,scenario_027,payroll_tax,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_027,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_027,self_employment_tax,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_027,snap,claude-fable-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It correctly found that CT's BBCE drops the asset test, but it then applied the 100% FPL net income test as a separate bar. Categorical eligibility waives that test. The eligible two-person household gets the $24/month minimum allotment even though the formula benefit is zero, which is $288 a year."
-us,scenario_027,snap,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It ruled the household ineligible because net income of about $2,308 is above the 100% FPL net limit. It never recognized that CT's BBCE, through TANF non-cash benefits, waives the net income test. As a categorically eligible two-person household it receives the $24/month minimum allotment, or $288 a year."
-us,scenario_027,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"It applied a $3,500 federal asset limit to the $48,000 in assets, but CT's BBCE has no asset test. It also wrongly said $2,513/month is above a roughly $2,900 gross limit. Gross income is under CT's 200% FPL BBCE limit, so the household is eligible and gets the $24/month minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_027,snap,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"It denied SNAP because $48,000 is above the federal resource limit. Connecticut's TANF-based BBCE removes the asset test for households under 200% FPL gross income. The household is eligible and gets the $24/month minimum allotment, which is $288 a year."
-us,scenario_027,snap,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"It applied the roughly $4,500 elderly/disabled resource limit, but CT's broad-based categorical eligibility waives the asset test. With gross income at 1.44 times FPL the household is eligible, and its zero formula benefit is raised to the $24/month two-person minimum."
-us,scenario_027,snap,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"It treated the $48,000 in assets as disqualifying under the elderly/disabled resource limit. It missed that CT's BBCE, through TANF non-cash benefits, removes the asset test. The household is categorically eligible and receives the $24/month minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_027,snap,claude-opus-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated the net income limit as disqualifying. Under CT's BBCE the net income test is waived. The household is eligible, and because the expected contribution of $636 is above the $546 maximum, the $24/month two-person minimum allotment applies."
-us,scenario_027,snap,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It compared net income of about $2,308 with the roughly $1,763 net limit and gave $0. CT's BBCE makes the household categorically eligible and waives that test, so the $24/month minimum allotment for one- and two-person households applies, which is $288 a year."
-us,scenario_027,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"It computed the income steps but then denied SNAP because assets are above a $4,500 elderly/disabled limit. It missed that CT's BBCE has no asset test. The categorically eligible household gets the $24/month minimum allotment even though its formula benefit is zero."
-us,scenario_027,snap,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"It applied a $4,250 resource limit to $48,000 in assets. Connecticut's TANF-based BBCE removes the asset test because gross income is under 200% FPL. The household is eligible and receives the $24/month minimum allotment, or $288 a year."
-us,scenario_027,snap,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,period_annualization,False,"It treated the $650 of annual medical and OTC costs as a monthly amount and deducted $615 a month. The correct deduction is $650/12 minus $35, about $19. That error pushed net income down to $1,712 and produced a $32/month formula benefit. Using the reference's net income of $2,118, the contribution is $636, which exceeds the $546 maximum, so only the $24/month minimum applies, or $288 a year."
-us,scenario_027,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"It denied SNAP because assets are above a $4,250 elderly/disabled limit. Connecticut's BBCE waives the asset test for this household, whose gross income is 1.44 times FPL. The eligible two-person household receives the $24/month minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_027,snap,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It correctly passed the 200% FPL gross test, but then applied the 100% FPL net income test, which CT's categorical eligibility waives. The household is eligible, and its zero formula benefit is raised to the $24/month two-person minimum, which is $288 a year."
-us,scenario_027,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated the net income limit as disqualifying, but CT's BBCE makes the household categorically eligible without a net income test. The $24/month minimum allotment for eligible two-person households applies, which is $288 a year."
-us,scenario_027,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It compared net income of $2,313 with the $1,762.50 limit and returned $0. It missed that CT's BBCE waives the net income test. The categorically eligible two-person household gets the $24/month minimum allotment, or $288 a year."
-us,scenario_027,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly identified CT BBCE eligibility and a zero formula benefit, but it stopped at the formula. Eligible one- and two-person households receive the $24/month minimum allotment, which is $288 a year."
-us,scenario_027,snap,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"It denied SNAP because of the $48,000 in assets. Connecticut's BBCE removes the asset test for households under 200% FPL gross income. The household is eligible and receives the $24/month minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_027,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,other,False,"It recognized categorical eligibility and that 30% of net income is more than the $546 maximum, then gave $0. It left out the minimum allotment rule: eligible two-person households get $24/month, or $288 a year."
-us,scenario_027,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly applied BBCE and the minimum allotment, but it used the FY2025 minimum of $23/month. The FY2026 minimum is $24/month, so the 2026 total is $288, not $276."
-us,scenario_027,snap,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,other,False,"It gave $0 without stating a rule. The correct answer: the household is categorically eligible under CT's BBCE, net income is $2,118, and the $636 contribution exceeds the $546 maximum, so the $24/month minimum allotment applies. Its zero amounts to dropping that minimum benefit."
-us,scenario_027,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly applied CT's BBCE and the minimum allotment, but it used the FY2025 minimum of $23. The FY2026 two-person minimum is $24/month, which gives $288 a year."
-us,scenario_027,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly applied the minimum allotment for a categorically eligible household, but it used the outdated $23/month figure. The FY2026 minimum is $24/month, which totals $288."
-us,scenario_027,snap,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"It treated $48,000 in assets as disqualifying and the zero formula benefit as final. CT's BBCE waives the asset test, and the eligible two-person household receives the $24/month minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_027,snap,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no usable SNAP value. The correct derivation gives categorical eligibility under CT BBCE and the $24/month minimum allotment, which is $288 a year."
-us,scenario_027,snap,glm-5.3,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly found that 30% of net income is more than the two-person maximum, but it treated the zero formula benefit as final. A categorically eligible two-person household receives the $24/month minimum allotment, which is $288 a year."
-us,scenario_027,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"It cited the $48,000 in assets and the income as disqualifying. CT's BBCE has no asset test and waives the net income test. The household receives the $24/month minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_027,snap,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"It defaulted to $0 because inputs were missing and computed nothing. The given facts are enough: the household is categorically eligible under CT BBCE, and its $636 contribution exceeds the $546 maximum, so the $24/month minimum allotment applies."
-us,scenario_027,snap,gpt-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated the net income limit and benefit phase-out as ending eligibility. CT's BBCE waives the net income test, and an eligible two-person household whose formula benefit is zero still gets the $24/month minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_027,snap,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,other,False,"It computed a zero formula benefit after deductions and stopped. It never applied the minimum allotment, which gives a categorically eligible two-person household $24/month, or $288 a year."
-us,scenario_027,snap,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,It treated net income above the two-person limit as disqualifying. CT's TANF-based BBCE waives the net income test. The household is eligible and receives the $24/month minimum allotment.
-us,scenario_027,snap,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"It applied the elderly/disabled resource limit to $48,000 in assets. Connecticut's BBCE eliminates the asset test for this household, which then receives the $24/month two-person minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_027,snap,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,other,False,It concluded that high countable income produces no positive allotment and missed the floor. Categorically eligible one- and two-person households receive the $24/month minimum allotment even when the formula benefit is zero.
-us,scenario_027,snap,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated income above the two-person net income limit as disqualifying. CT's BBCE waives that test, so the household is eligible and receives the $24/month minimum allotment, which is $288 a year."
-us,scenario_027,snap,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly found that the benefit reduction is more than the two-person maximum. It then left out the minimum allotment, which gives the categorically eligible household $24/month."
-us,scenario_027,snap,grok-4.3,llm_error,asset_resource,False,It cited assets above typical SNAP limits. Connecticut's BBCE has no asset test for households under 200% FPL gross income. The eligible household receives the $24/month minimum allotment.
-us,scenario_027,snap,grok-4.5,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"It applied a roughly $4,500 elderly/disabled resource limit and called the household ineligible regardless of income. CT's BBCE waives the asset test, and the household receives the $24/month minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_027,snap,grok-4.6,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly found that 30% of net income is more than the two-person maximum, but it reported $0. It left out the $24/month minimum allotment for eligible one- and two-person households."
-us,scenario_027,snap,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly applied BBCE's waiver of the asset test and the minimum allotment, but it used the FY2025 minimum of $23. The FY2026 minimum is $24/month, so the total is $288."
-us,scenario_027,snap,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,other,False,"It compared annual net income directly with the annual maximum allotment and gave $0, without applying the 30% contribution rate or the benefit floor. The correct derivation gives a $636 monthly contribution against the $546 maximum, so the $24/month minimum allotment applies."
-us,scenario_027,snap,inkling,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the 100% FPL net income test and found the household ineligible. CT's BBCE waives the net income test, so the household gets the $24/month two-person minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_027,snap,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated the 100% FPL net income limit as disqualifying. CT's TANF-based BBCE waives that test. The eligible two-person household receives the $24/month minimum allotment, which is $288 a year."
-us,scenario_027,snap,kimi-k3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It ruled the household ineligible because net income is above the two-person limit. It missed CT's BBCE, which removes the net income test, and the $24/month minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_027,snap,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It put the 200% FPL gross limit for two people at about $30,120, but that limit is $42,300/yr ($3,525/mo). It also applied a $4,250 asset limit that CT's BBCE waives. The household is categorically eligible and receives the $24/month minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_027,snap,muse-wonder,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the elderly/disabled net income limit as disqualifying. CT's BBCE waives the net income test, and the eligible household receives the $24/month two-person minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_027,snap,ox-alpha,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It failed the household on the net income test and gave $0. CT's BBCE waives that test, and an eligible two-person household whose formula benefit is zero gets the $24/month minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_027,snap,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It claimed $2,536/month is above both the gross and net limits and that assets are above the resource limit. Gross income is 1.44 times FPL, under CT's 200% BBCE limit, and BBCE waives both the net income test and the asset test. The household receives the $24/month minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_027,snap,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It made up a $51,000 resource limit, claimed net income is under the poverty line, and gave a near-maximum benefit of $430/month. Net income is $2,118, about 1.2 times FPL, so the $636 contribution exceeds the $546 maximum and only the $24/month minimum applies, which is $288 a year."
+us,scenario_027,snap,claude-fable-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Correctly identified CT as a BBCE state and found that gross income passed, but then applied the 100%-FPL net income test as disqualifying. Categorical eligibility waives that test. Because 30% of net income exceeds the $546 maximum, the household gets the $24/month two-person minimum allotment ($288/yr), not $0."
+us,scenario_027,snap,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied the 100%-FPL net income limit and concluded the household was ineligible. It missed that Connecticut BBCE (gross income at 1.44× FPL, under 200%) waives the net income test. It then failed to award the $24/month minimum allotment that eligible two-person households receive when the formula benefit is zero."
+us,scenario_027,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"Claimed that $2,513/month exceeds a ~$2,900 gross limit, which contradicts its own numbers; gross income is 1.44× FPL and passes CT's 200% BBCE limit. It also applied a $3,500 asset limit that Connecticut's categorical eligibility waives. The household is eligible and receives the $24/month minimum allotment ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_027,snap,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"Disqualified the household on the $48,000 in assets. Connecticut's TANF-based BBCE waives the SNAP resource test, so the household is eligible and receives the $24/month two-person minimum allotment ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_027,snap,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"Applied the ~$4,500 elderly/disabled resource limit to the $48,000 bank balance. Connecticut BBCE removes the asset test, so the household is eligible and gets the $24/month minimum allotment, or $288 a year."
+us,scenario_027,snap,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"Treated the ~$4,500 elderly/disabled resource limit as binding. Under Connecticut BBCE, categorically eligible households have no asset test and no net income test. With 30% of net income above the $546 maximum, the $24/month minimum allotment applies ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_027,snap,claude-opus-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Concluded that income above the net income limit means no benefit. BBCE in Connecticut waives the net income test, and an eligible two-person household whose formula benefit is zero still receives the $24/month minimum allotment ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_027,snap,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Compared net income of ~$2,308 with the ~$1,763 net limit and stopped there. Categorical eligibility through Connecticut's TANF non-cash rules waives the net income test, so the household is eligible for the $24/month two-person minimum allotment ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_027,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"Correctly passed the 200%-FPL gross test, then disqualified the household on a $4,500 elderly/disabled asset limit. Passing Connecticut's BBCE gross test confers categorical eligibility, which waives the asset test. That leaves the $24/month minimum allotment ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_027,snap,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"Applied a $4,250 elderly/disabled resource limit and labeled the household 'categorically ineligible.' Connecticut BBCE confers categorical eligibility and eliminates the resource test, so the household receives the $24/month minimum allotment ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_027,snap,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,period_annualization,False,"Treated the $650 of annual medical and OTC expenses as a monthly amount and deducted $615/month instead of about $19/month. That pushed net income down to $1,712 and produced a formula benefit of $32/month. In reality net income stays near $2,118, 30% of it ($636) exceeds the $546 maximum, and only the $24/month minimum applies ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_027,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"Applied the $4,250 elderly/disabled asset limit to the $48,000 balance. Connecticut's broad-based categorical eligibility waives the SNAP asset test, so the household is eligible for the $24/month minimum allotment ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_027,snap,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Passed the 200%-FPL gross test but then denied benefits on the 100%-FPL net income test. Passing CT's BBCE gross test makes the household categorically eligible, which waives the net test, so it receives the $24/month two-person minimum allotment ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_027,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Held the household ineligible because net income exceeds the net income limit. Categorical eligibility through Connecticut BBCE waives that test, and a two-person household with a zero formula benefit receives the $24/month minimum allotment ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_027,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Compared net income of $2,313 with the $1,762.50 net limit and returned 0. It ignored that CT BBCE (gross income at 1.44× FPL) waives the net income test, which entitles the household to the $24/month minimum allotment ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_027,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,other,False,"Correctly found BBCE eligibility, then stopped when the formula benefit (max allotment minus 30% of net income) came out at zero. It omitted the minimum allotment rule that guarantees eligible one- and two-person households $24/month in FY2026, or $288 a year."
+us,scenario_027,snap,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"Disqualified the household on its $48,000 in assets. Connecticut BBCE waives the SNAP resource limit, so the household is eligible and receives the $24/month minimum allotment ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_027,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,other,False,"Recognized categorical eligibility and correctly found that 30% of net income exceeds the two-person maximum, then set the benefit to zero. It missed the minimum allotment rule, which gives eligible one- and two-person households $24/month ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_027,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Correctly applied BBCE and the minimum allotment but used the FY2025 minimum of $23. The FY2026 minimum is $24/month (8% of the one-person maximum), which gives $288/yr instead of $276."
+us,scenario_027,snap,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Returned zero on 'income and asset levels.' Connecticut BBCE waives both the asset test and the net income test for this household, whose gross income is 1.44× FPL. It therefore receives the $24/month minimum allotment ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_027,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied BBCE and the minimum allotment correctly but used the outdated $23 FY2025 minimum. The FY2026 minimum allotment is $24/month, so the annual total is $288, not $276."
+us,scenario_027,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used a $23/month minimum allotment, which is the FY2025 figure. The 2026 minimum is $24/month, so the annual total is $288."
+us,scenario_027,snap,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"Applied an asset limit that Connecticut BBCE waives. It also treated a zero formula benefit as zero SNAP, leaving out the $24/month minimum allotment for eligible two-person households ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_027,snap,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Wrongly claimed that gross income above 100% FPL exceeds the categorical eligibility threshold. Connecticut's BBCE gross limit is 200% FPL, and this household is at 1.44×. Categorical eligibility waives the asset test, so the household receives the $24/month minimum allotment ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_027,snap,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Gave no SNAP value or explanation, so there was no answer to score. The correct result is the $24/month two-person minimum allotment under Connecticut BBCE, or $288 a year."
+us,scenario_027,snap,glm-5.3,llm_error,other,False,"Correctly found that 30% of net income exceeds the two-person maximum allotment, then returned zero without applying the minimum allotment. An eligible one- or two-person household receives $24/month in FY2026 ($288/yr). It also used an outdated ~$536 maximum instead of $546."
+us,scenario_027,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"Cited the $48,000 in assets and 'typical' income rules as disqualifying. Connecticut BBCE waives the asset and net income tests, and gross income of 1.44× FPL passes the 200% limit, so the household receives the $24/month minimum allotment ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_027,snap,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"Returned 0 on the grounds that shelter and other inputs were missing. The listed facts are enough: CT BBCE makes the household eligible, 30% of its ~$2,118 net income exceeds the $546 maximum, and the $24/month minimum allotment applies ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_027,snap,gpt-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Concluded that net income is above the SNAP limit and the phaseout, so nothing is payable. Connecticut BBCE waives the net income test, and an eligible two-person household with a zero formula benefit receives the $24/month minimum allotment ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_027,snap,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,other,False,"Found that the benefit formula produces no allotment and stopped there. It missed the minimum allotment for eligible one- and two-person households, which is $24/month in FY2026 ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_027,snap,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Disqualified the household for net income above the two-person limit. Connecticut BBCE confers categorical eligibility, which waives the net income test. The household therefore receives the $24/month minimum allotment ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_027,snap,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"Applied the elderly/disabled resource limit to the $48,000 in bank assets. Connecticut's TANF-based BBCE eliminates the asset test, so the household is eligible for the $24/month minimum allotment ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_027,snap,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,other,False,Concluded that income is too high for a positive allotment and returned 0. It omitted the rule that categorically eligible one- and two-person households receive at least the $24/month minimum allotment ($288/yr).
+us,scenario_027,snap,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied the two-person net income limit as disqualifying. Under Connecticut BBCE the household is categorically eligible and the net income test does not apply, so it receives the $24/month minimum allotment ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_027,snap,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,other,False,"Correctly found that the 30% benefit reduction ($636) exceeds the $546 maximum, then returned zero. It missed the $24/month minimum allotment guaranteed to eligible one- and two-person households ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_027,snap,grok-4.3,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"Cited typical SNAP asset limits and income as disqualifying. Connecticut BBCE waives the asset test, and gross income at 1.44× FPL passes the 200% limit, so the household receives the $24/month minimum allotment ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_027,snap,grok-4.5,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"Disqualified the household on a ~$4,500 elderly/disabled resource limit 'regardless of income.' Connecticut's broad-based categorical eligibility removes the resource test, so the household gets the $24/month minimum allotment ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_027,snap,grok-4.6,llm_error,other,False,"Correctly found that 30% of net income exceeds the two-person maximum allotment, then set SNAP to zero. It omitted the $24/month FY2026 minimum allotment for eligible one- and two-person households, which gives $288/yr."
+us,scenario_027,snap,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied BBCE and the minimum allotment correctly but used the FY2025 minimum of $23. The FY2026 two-person minimum is $24/month, so the annual total is $288, not $276."
+us,scenario_027,snap,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,other,False,"Compared about $30,000 of annual net income with the annual maximum allotment and returned 0. It missed that the categorically eligible two-person household receives the $24/month minimum allotment when the formula benefit is zero ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_027,snap,inkling,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Denied eligibility because net income (~$2,317) exceeds 100% FPL. Connecticut BBCE waives the net income test for this household, whose gross income is 1.44× FPL, so it receives the $24/month minimum allotment ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_027,snap,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied the 100%-FPL net income limit as disqualifying. Categorical eligibility through Connecticut's TANF non-cash rules waives that test, and the eligible two-person household receives the $24/month minimum allotment ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_027,snap,kimi-k3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Held the household ineligible because net income exceeds the two-person net limit. Connecticut BBCE waives the net income test, so the $24/month minimum allotment applies ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_027,snap,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used a gross limit of about $30,120 that badly understates 200% FPL for two; the correct figure is about $42,300/yr ($3,525/month), and the household is at 1.44× FPL. It also applied a $4,250 asset limit that Connecticut BBCE waives. The household is eligible for the $24/month minimum allotment ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_027,snap,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"Disqualified the household on the ~$4,250 elderly/disabled asset limit. Connecticut BBCE eliminates the asset test, so the household is eligible and receives the $24/month minimum allotment ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_027,snap,muse-wonder,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied the elderly/disabled net income limit and concluded the household was ineligible. Categorical eligibility under Connecticut BBCE waives the net income test, and the household receives the $24/month two-person minimum allotment ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_027,snap,ox-alpha,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,Failed the household on the net income test and correctly found that 30% of net income exceeds the maximum allotment. It missed that Connecticut BBCE waives the net test and that eligible two-person households receive the $24/month minimum allotment ($288/yr).
+us,scenario_027,snap,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Claimed that $2,536/month exceeds the gross income limit. It is 1.44× FPL, under Connecticut's 200% BBCE limit. Categorical eligibility then waives both the net income and asset tests, so the household receives the $24/month minimum allotment ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_027,snap,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,other,False,"Invented a $51,000 resource limit and assumed net income was below the poverty guideline, which produced a formula benefit of $430/month. Net income is actually about $2,118 (1.2× FPL), so 30% of it ($636) exceeds the $546 maximum and only the $24/month minimum allotment applies ($288/yr)."
us,scenario_027,spouse_chip_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_027,spouse_medicaid_eligible,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated Medicaid MAGI as counting only taxable Social Security and put countable income at about $275. Medicaid MAGI adds back non-taxable Social Security benefits, so household MAGI is the full $30,435, or 1.41x FPL. That is above the 138% expansion limit, and the model itself noted that $30,435 exceeded its own ~$28,850 threshold."
-us,scenario_027,spouse_medicaid_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated blindness and disability as categorical Medicaid eligibility and looked only at the spouse's own zero income. It also asserted that the $48,000 in assets satisfies the ABD test. The spouse receives $0 SSI because the couple's $30,435 income and $48,000 in resources far exceed the SSI couple limits ($3,000 resource limit), so no disability category applies. The adult MAGI path also fails at 1.41x FPL against the 138% limit."
-us,scenario_027,spouse_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It correctly counted the SSDI in household income but then assumed an aged/disabled pathway covers the spouse. That pathway requires SSI-linked status, and the spouse's SSI is $0 given the couple's income and $48,000 in resources. Its $30,435 of household income is 1.41x FPL, above the 138% adult-group limit, so no category remains."
-us,scenario_027,spouse_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It concluded that blindness and disability alone qualify the spouse through an ABD pathway because income is 'modest' for a family of 2. It applied no income or resource test to that pathway. The spouse receives $0 SSI because $30,435 of couple income and $48,000 of resources exceed the SSI limits, and household MAGI of 1.41x FPL exceeds the 138% adult-group limit, so no category applies."
-us,scenario_027,spouse_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It asserted HUSKY D or a disability category on the strength of blindness and disability, and said household income was within the limits for a disabled adult. It never tested income against a specific limit. HUSKY D is the MAGI adult group, where household MAGI including the SSDI is 1.41x FPL, above 138%. The disability route requires SSI-linked status, and the spouse receives $0 SSI."
-us,scenario_027,spouse_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"It claimed the couple's $48,000 in assets falls below Connecticut's ABD (HUSKY C) asset limit for a couple. ABD resource limits are a few thousand dollars (the SSI couple limit is $3,000), so $48,000 disqualifies the couple. The spouse receives $0 SSI. With household MAGI at 1.41x FPL, above the 138% adult-group limit, no category applies."
-us,scenario_027,spouse_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly included non-taxable Social Security in MAGI ($30,435) but then added a 5% disregard on top of 138%, for an effective 143% limit. The 138% expansion threshold is already the statutory 133% plus the 5-point disregard, so the disregard was counted twice. The correct test is 1.41x FPL against 1.38x, which fails."
-us,scenario_027,spouse_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated disability status alone as conferring Medicaid eligibility and applied no financial test. The spouse receives $0 SSI because the couple's $30,435 income and $48,000 in resources exceed the SSI limits, and household MAGI of 1.41x FPL exceeds the 138% adult-group limit, so no category applies."
-us,scenario_027,spouse_medicaid_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model submitted no value and no explanation for spouse_medicaid_eligible, so no answer was parsed. The correct answer is 0: household MAGI including the SSDI is 1.41x FPL, above the 138% limit, and the spouse receives $0 SSI."
-us,scenario_027,spouse_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It stated that household MAGI is 'well below' Connecticut's adult Medicaid limit, which is only true if the head's $30,160 in non-taxable SSDI is left out. Medicaid MAGI adds back all Social Security benefits, giving $30,435, or 1.41x FPL, above the 138% limit. The spouse's disability confers no separate category because she receives $0 SSI."
-us,scenario_027,spouse_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It set MAGI at $275 by excluding Social Security. Medicaid MAGI adds back non-taxable Social Security benefits, so household MAGI is $30,435, or 1.41x FPL, which exceeds Connecticut's 138% expansion limit."
-us,scenario_027,spouse_medicaid_eligible,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It computed HUSKY D household MAGI as $275 (interest only) because it did not count Social Security. Medicaid MAGI adds back non-taxable Social Security benefits, giving $30,435, which even exceeds its own $28,207 figure for 138% FPL. The engine puts it at 1.41x FPL, so the expansion test fails."
-us,scenario_027,spouse_medicaid_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It granted SSI-related Medicaid because the spouse is blind, disabled and has no income of her own. It ignored that the spouse receives $0 SSI: SSI counts the couple's combined $30,435 income and $48,000 in resources, both far above the couple limits. The MAGI adult path also fails at 1.41x FPL against 138%."
+us,scenario_027,spouse_medicaid_eligible,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model correctly saw that $30,435 exceeds the 2-person 138% FPL threshold. It then cut MAGI to $275 by counting only taxable Social Security, but Medicaid MAGI adds back non-taxable Social Security benefits. Household MAGI stays at $30,435 (141% FPL), which is above the expansion limit."
+us,scenario_027,spouse_medicaid_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"The model treated the spouse as qualifying for blind/disabled Medicaid because the spouse has no income of their own. ABD Medicaid counts the couple's combined resources, and the $48,000 in bank assets is far above Connecticut's ABD resource limit and the SSI couple limit. The ABD pathway fails, SSI is $0, and the 141% FPL MAGI is above the 138% expansion limit."
+us,scenario_027,spouse_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"The model said $30,435 is below the income limits for disabled adults, but it is 141% FPL, above the 138% MAGI expansion limit. The model also skipped the ABD resource test, which the couple's $48,000 in bank assets fails, so no disability-based category applies."
+us,scenario_027,spouse_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"The model granted eligibility through the aged/blind/disabled pathway on disability status and 'modest income' without applying the ABD resource test. The couple's $48,000 in bank assets is far above Connecticut's ABD and SSI resource limits. Household MAGI of $30,435 (141% FPL) also fails the 138% expansion test."
+us,scenario_027,spouse_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"The model assumed blindness and disability plus income 'within limits' make the spouse eligible for a disability category. It never applied the ABD resource test, which the couple's $48,000 in bank assets fails, so SSI is $0 and the optional disabled pathway is closed. Household MAGI is also 141% FPL, above the 138% adult limit."
+us,scenario_027,spouse_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"The model wrongly claimed that $48,000 in assets is below Connecticut's HUSKY C/ABD limit for a couple. That limit is only a few thousand dollars, so the resource test disqualifies the spouse. Household MAGI of $30,435 (141% FPL) also fails the 138% expansion test."
+us,scenario_027,spouse_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly counted non-taxable Social Security in MAGI ($30,435) but raised the limit to 143% FPL by adding the 5% disregard. PolicyEngine compares MAGI with the 138% limit directly, so 141% FPL fails the expansion test."
+us,scenario_027,spouse_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"The model granted Medicaid on disability status alone. Disability-based Medicaid also requires passing income and resource tests, and the couple's $48,000 in bank assets fails Connecticut's ABD resource limit. The spouse also fails the MAGI pathway at 141% FPL."
+us,scenario_027,spouse_medicaid_eligible,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model computed MAGI correctly at $30,435 but wrongly said it is below 138% FPL for a household of two. 138% of the 2026 two-person FPL is about $29,800, so $30,435 (141% FPL) is above the expansion limit."
+us,scenario_027,spouse_medicaid_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no answer or reasoning for spouse_medicaid_eligible, so there is no valid value to grade. The correct derivation puts household MAGI at 141% FPL, above the 138% limit, with the ABD pathway failing on $48,000 in assets."
+us,scenario_027,spouse_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model said household MAGI is 'well below' Connecticut's adult Medicaid limit. MAGI of $30,435, including all Social Security, is 141% FPL and above the 138% limit. The model also ignored that the disability pathway fails the resource test because of the $48,000 in assets."
+us,scenario_027,spouse_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left Social Security out of MAGI and got MAGI of $275. Medicaid MAGI adds back all non-taxable Social Security benefits, so household MAGI is $30,435 (141% FPL), above the 138% expansion threshold."
+us,scenario_027,spouse_medicaid_eligible,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model set household MAGI at $275 by treating Social Security as 'not counted'. Medicaid MAGI includes non-taxable Social Security, so MAGI is $30,435, or 141% FPL, above the 138% HUSKY D limit it cited itself."
+us,scenario_027,spouse_medicaid_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"The model claimed SSI-related eligibility because the spouse has no income of their own. The spouse receives no SSI: the couple's $48,000 in resources is far above the $3,000 SSI couple limit, and the head's income is deemed to the spouse. The SSI-linked category does not apply, and MAGI at 141% FPL is above the 138% limit."
us,scenario_027,spouse_medicare_eligible,claude-fable-5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model noted that disability-based Medicare normally follows SSDI receipt, then made the spouse eligible on the disability flag alone. The spouse has no Social Security disability income, so the 24-month SSDI entitlement path is never met, and at age 39 the spouse fails the age-65 test."
us,scenario_027,spouse_medicare_eligible,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model's own reasoning was right: disability-based Medicare requires SSDI receipt, the spouse has none, so the spouse is not eligible. It still submitted 1, which contradicts its own conclusion; the answer should have been 0."
us,scenario_027,spouse_medicare_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model said disability status gives Medicare eligibility regardless of age. Under-65 Medicare requires 24 months of the person's own SSDI entitlement, and the spouse receives no Social Security disability income, so the spouse is not eligible."
@@ -2448,26 +2534,27 @@ us,scenario_027,ssi,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wron
us,scenario_027,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_027,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_027,tanf,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Treated income of about 185% FPL, which sits between PA's Medicaid limit and its ~314% CHIP ceiling, as the whole test and never checked Child 1's existing coverage. Child 1 has employer-sponsored insurance. A child covered under a group health plan is not a targeted low-income child under 42 U.S.C. 1397jj(b)(1)(C), so Child 1 is CHIP-ineligible."
-us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Stated that CHIP eligibility does not depend on 'other coverage', which is the decisive error: CHIP's definition of a targeted low-income child excludes children covered under a group health plan, and Child 1 has employer-sponsored insurance. It also overstated income at ~240% FPL, when $60,010 MAGI is about 187% FPL for a family of four, but that slip did not change the answer."
-us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,claude-opus-5,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Applied only the under-19 age test and the income test (~190% FPL against PA's 314% limit) and ignored Child 1's employer-sponsored insurance. CHIP excludes children covered under a group health plan (42 U.S.C. 1397jj(b)(1)(C)), so Child 1 is ineligible."
-us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Placed income at about 187% FPL, above the Medicaid limit and below PA's ~314% CHIP limit, and concluded eligible without checking whether Child 1 already had coverage. Child 1 has employer-sponsored insurance, and CHIP's group-health-plan exclusion removes Child 1 from eligibility."
-us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Treated income of about 186% FPL, below PA's ~314% CHIP limit and above the Medicaid limit, as sufficient and never applied CHIP's coverage requirement. Child 1 has employer-sponsored insurance, and a child covered under a group health plan is not a targeted low-income child, so the answer is No."
-us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Placed income (~190-200% FPL) inside PA's 158-314% FPL CHIP band and treated that band as the only condition. It ignored that Child 1 has employer-sponsored insurance, which excludes Child 1 from CHIP's targeted low-income child population under 42 U.S.C. 1397jj(b)(1)(C)."
-us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Compared $60,010 with a generic 300% FPL ($99,000) cutoff and declared all age-10 children eligible. It never applied CHIP's bar on children covered by a group health plan, and Child 1's employer-sponsored insurance makes Child 1 ineligible."
-us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Checked only age (under 19) and income ($60,010 against PA's 314% FPL limit) and stopped there. CHIP also requires that the child not be covered under a group health plan, and Child 1 has employer-sponsored insurance, so Child 1 is not CHIP-eligible."
-us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Declared eligibility from age under 19 and income within PA's CHIP limits alone. It skipped CHIP's exclusion of children covered by a group health plan, and Child 1's employer-sponsored insurance triggers that exclusion."
-us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Used only the under-19 age test and PA's CHIP income limit and never checked Child 1's existing coverage. Child 1 has employer-sponsored insurance, which disqualifies Child 1 under CHIP's targeted low-income child definition (42 U.S.C. 1397jj(b)(1)(C))."
-us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Returned no value and no explanation for child1_chip_eligible, so there was nothing to score. The correct answer is 0: Child 1's employer-sponsored insurance excludes Child 1 from CHIP."
-us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,glm-5.3,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Put income at about 185% FPL, above the Medicaid child threshold and within PA's CHIP limit, and treated that as sufficient. It never applied CHIP's rule that a child covered under a group health plan is not a targeted low-income child, and Child 1 has employer-sponsored insurance."
-us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Relied only on Child 1's age and income falling in PA's upper CHIP range. It ignored Child 1's employer-sponsored insurance, which bars CHIP eligibility because CHIP covers only children not covered under a group health plan."
-us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,grok-4.6,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Correctly found Child 1 not Medicaid-eligible and under PA's ~314% FPL limit, but left out CHIP's third condition: the child must not be covered under a group health plan (42 U.S.C. 1397jj(b)(1)(C)). Child 1 has employer-sponsored insurance and fails that condition."
-us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,grok-4.7,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Applied the age rule, the income rule (MAGI below PA's 314% FPL) and the not-Medicaid-eligible rule, but not CHIP's coverage exclusion. Child 1 has employer-sponsored insurance, and a child covered under a group health plan is not CHIP-eligible."
-us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Compared $60,010 MAGI with PA's 314% FPL limit for a family of four and stopped there. It never applied CHIP's bar on children with group health coverage, and Child 1's employer-sponsored insurance makes Child 1 ineligible."
-us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,kimi-k3,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Stated outright that current ESI coverage does not negate CHIP eligibility. That is the error: CHIP's targeted low-income child definition (42 U.S.C. 1397jj(b)(1)(C); 42 CFR 457.310(c)(1)(ii)) excludes children covered under a group health plan, so Child 1's employer-sponsored insurance makes Child 1 ineligible despite income of about 187% FPL."
-us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,minimax-m3,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Counted $61,277, including child support that MAGI excludes, placed it in a 138-319% FPL CHIP band, and treated that band as the whole test. It ignored Child 1's employer-sponsored insurance, which excludes Child 1 from CHIP as a child covered under a group health plan."
-us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,ox-alpha,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Dismissed employer-sponsored insurance as 'enrollment status, not eligibility'. Coverage under a group health plan is itself a CHIP eligibility bar under 42 U.S.C. 1397jj(b)(1)(C), so Child 1 is ineligible even though the $60,010 MAGI (about 187% FPL) is under PA's limit."
-us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Said Child 1's income falls in PA's CHIP range and checked nothing else. It missed CHIP's exclusion of children covered under a group health plan, and Child 1's employer-sponsored insurance makes Child 1 ineligible."
+us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Concluded eligible only because income of about 185% FPL falls between the Medicaid ceiling and the ~314% FPL CHIP ceiling. Never applied the rest of CHIP's own child test. PolicyEngine fails that test for this child, and the child's employer-sponsored insurance excludes them as a targeted low-income child, so the answer is 0."
+us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Explicitly ruled that other coverage does not affect PA CHIP eligibility, and also overstated income at about 240% FPL when it is about 186%. CHIP's own child test fails in PolicyEngine. A child covered by employer-sponsored insurance is not a targeted low-income child, so eligibility is 0."
+us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,claude-opus-5,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Applied only the under-19 age test and a 190% versus 314% FPL income comparison. Ignored that the child's employer-sponsored insurance makes CHIP's own eligibility test fail in PolicyEngine. Medicaid is denied and the CHIP child test is false, so the correct value is 0."
+us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Reasoned that 187% FPL sits between the Medicaid limit and the 314% CHIP limit, which handles only the Medicaid-gap income band. Skipped CHIP's own child test, which PolicyEngine fails for this ESI-covered child, so eligibility is 0, not 1."
+us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Equated CHIP eligibility with income of about 186% FPL falling below the ~314% PA limit. Disregarded the listed employer-sponsored insurance, which excludes the child from targeted low-income child status. PolicyEngine's CHIP child test fails, so the answer is 0."
+us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Placed income at 190–200% FPL inside an assumed 158–314% PA CHIP band and stopped there. Never applied the requirement that a CHIP child not already be covered by a group health plan. This child has ESI and fails PolicyEngine's CHIP child test, so the value is 0."
+us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Compared $60,010 with an assumed 300% FPL cutoff of $99,000 and treated age plus income as the whole test. PolicyEngine's CHIP child criteria fail for this child, who is covered by employer-sponsored insurance, so the correct output is 0."
+us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Treated 'under 19 and below 314% FPL' as sufficient for PA CHIP. The child's employer-sponsored insurance removes targeted low-income child status, and PolicyEngine's CHIP child test returns false, so eligibility is 0."
+us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Said only that the child is under 19 and within PA CHIP income limits. Never applied the rest of CHIP's own child test, which PolicyEngine fails for this ESI-covered child. With Medicaid also denied, CHIP eligibility is 0."
+us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Relied on age under 19 and a generic statement that income is within PA CHIP limits. Ignored the child's employer-sponsored insurance, under which PolicyEngine's CHIP child test fails, so the correct value is 0."
+us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Returned no value and no explanation for child1_chip_eligible, so there was no answer to score. The correct output is 0: the child is not Medicaid-eligible and fails CHIP's own child test."
+us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,glm-5.3,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Concluded eligible because 185% FPL is above the child Medicaid threshold and below the PA CHIP ceiling, treating CHIP as a pure income band. Missed that the child's ESI coverage makes CHIP's own child test fail in PolicyEngine, so the value is 0."
+us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Asserted the child is within PA's higher CHIP income range and called that eligibility. Did not apply the CHIP child test that PolicyEngine fails for this ESI-covered child, so the correct value is 0."
+us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,grok-4.6,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Correctly found the child is not Medicaid-eligible, then treated MAGI below 314% FPL as the only remaining CHIP condition. PolicyEngine's CHIP child test fails for this child, who already has employer-sponsored insurance, so eligibility is 0."
+us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,grok-4.7,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Correctly denied Medicaid, then declared CHIP eligibility from age and MAGI below 314% FPL alone. Ignored that a child covered by employer-sponsored insurance fails CHIP's own child criteria, which PolicyEngine returns as false, so the value is 0."
+us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Compared MAGI of $60,010 for a family of four against the 314% FPL limit and stopped. Skipped the CHIP child requirement that PolicyEngine fails for this ESI-covered child, so the answer is 0."
+us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,kimi-k3,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Explicitly asserted that current ESI coverage does not negate CHIP eligibility. That is the error: a child covered by a group health plan is not a targeted low-income child, and PolicyEngine's CHIP child test fails, so the value is 0."
+us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,minimax-m3,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Placed $61,277 inside an assumed 138%–319% FPL CHIP range for a family of four and called the child eligible. Ignored the child's employer-sponsored insurance, under which PolicyEngine's CHIP child test fails, so the correct value is 0."
+us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Judged eligibility only from income of about 186% FPL against an assumed 300% FPL ceiling. Missed that the ESI-covered child fails CHIP's own child test in PolicyEngine, so the value is 0."
+us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,ox-alpha,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Computed MAGI correctly at about 180–190% FPL, but explicitly dismissed the employer-sponsored insurance as 'enrollment status, not eligibility.' CHIP excludes children already covered by a group health plan, and PolicyEngine's CHIP child test fails, so eligibility is 0."
+us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Asserted only that the child is within PA's CHIP income range, treating CHIP as an income-band test. Ignored the child's employer-sponsored insurance, under which PolicyEngine's CHIP child test fails, so the correct value is 0."
us,scenario_028,child1_early_head_start_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_028,child1_head_start_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_028,child1_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied an approximately 215% FPL threshold as Pennsylvania's Medicaid limit for children. The engine places this child at 1.82 times FPL but in no Medicaid category, so the model used a broader child-coverage threshold instead of the applicable Medicaid pathway thresholds."
@@ -2480,27 +2567,28 @@ us,scenario_028,child1_wic_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligi
us,scenario_028,child1_wic_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model provided no output or explanation for child1_wic_eligible, violating the required structured-output contract."
us,scenario_028,child1_wic_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model incorrectly placed a 10-year-old within WIC's eligible child age range. Children qualify categorically only while under age 5, so Child 1 is not eligible."
us,scenario_028,child1_wic_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model misapplied WIC's child age limit by treating age 10 as within it. Because WIC child eligibility ends at age 5, the income test cannot make this child eligible."
-us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model put income at about 185% FPL, compared it with a PA CHIP ceiling of about 314% FPL, and declared child2 eligible. PolicyEngine finds child2 not Medicaid-eligible and failing CHIP's own criteria. Age 10 passes the under-19 age rule, so the failed criterion is the CHIP income test, and the model's income-within-limit step is wrong."
-us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model estimated about 192% FPL against a 314% FPL PA CHIP limit and treated age 10 plus that comparison as enough for eligibility. PolicyEngine's CHIP-specific test fails for child2. Because the age condition is met, the failure is on the CHIP income test, so the model's conclusion that income is 'well within PA CHIP income limits' is the wrong step."
-us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model divided about $60,000 by a $32,150 FPL to get about 187% FPL, then declared child2 CHIP-eligible because that is under PA's roughly 314% threshold. PolicyEngine finds child2 failing CHIP's own criteria despite meeting the age requirement. The model's income-threshold pass is therefore the step that diverges from the engine's CHIP income determination."
-us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model reasoned only that a child under 19 at about 190% FPL is within PA CHIP income limits. PolicyEngine finds child2 not Medicaid-eligible and failing CHIP's own age-or-income test. With age satisfied, the failure is the CHIP income test, which the model wrongly marked as passed."
-us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model placed income at about 187% FPL, between the Medicaid limit and a roughly 314% PA CHIP limit, and concluded eligible. PolicyEngine agrees on Medicaid ineligibility but finds child2 failing CHIP's own criteria. Since age 10 meets the age rule, the model's income-test pass is the error."
-us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model placed income at about 186% FPL, under a roughly 314% PA CHIP limit and above the Medicaid limit, and answered eligible. PolicyEngine finds child2 failing CHIP's own criteria even though child2 is not Medicaid-eligible. With the age rule met, the model's conclusion that income passes the CHIP test is wrong."
-us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model placed household income inside an assumed PA CHIP band of 158-314% FPL and concluded child2 is eligible. PolicyEngine finds child2 failing CHIP's own age-or-income criteria. Age 10 satisfies the age rule, so the model's band-based income pass is the misapplied step."
-us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model compared $60,010 with a 300% FPL cutoff of $99,000 and declared the age-10 child CHIP-eligible. PolicyEngine finds child2 failing CHIP's own criteria. The age condition is met, so the model's income-below-cutoff test is the step that diverges from the engine's CHIP income determination."
-us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model stated that children under 19 in a family of four below 314% FPL qualify, and that $60,010 is under that threshold. PolicyEngine finds child2 failing CHIP's own criteria while meeting the under-19 age rule. The model's income-threshold pass is therefore wrong."
-us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model asserted with no computation that child2 is under 19 and that household income is within PA CHIP limits. PolicyEngine finds child2 failing CHIP's own age-or-income test. Age is satisfied, so the unsupported claim that income is within the CHIP limit is the error."
-us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model asserted without computation that child2 is under 19 and that household income is within PA CHIP limits. PolicyEngine finds child2 failing CHIP's own criteria despite meeting the age rule. The asserted income-limit pass is the wrong step.
-us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model submitted no value and no explanation for child2_chip_eligible, so it gave no substantive answer to score against the reference No."
-us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model put income at about 185% FPL, above the children's Medicaid threshold and within PA's CHIP limit, and answered eligible. PolicyEngine agrees child2 is not Medicaid-eligible but finds child2 failing CHIP's own criteria. With age 10 meeting the age rule, the model's income-within-limit conclusion is the error."
-us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model asserted that household income falls in Pennsylvania's higher CHIP income range and that age 10 qualifies. PolicyEngine finds child2 failing CHIP's own age-or-income test. Since age passes, the model's claim that income is in the CHIP range is the wrong step."
-us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model correctly found child2 not Medicaid-eligible but then declared CHIP eligibility because household MAGI is under about 314% FPL. PolicyEngine finds child2 failing CHIP's own criteria while meeting the age rule. The model's MAGI-under-limit pass on the CHIP income test is the error.
-us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly found child2 not Medicaid-eligible, then claimed MAGI is below PA's 314% FPL CHIP limit and answered eligible 'under income and age rules.' PolicyEngine finds child2 failing CHIP's own age-or-income criteria, and age 10 passes. The income-rule pass the model asserted is therefore wrong."
-us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model compared MAGI of $60,010 for a family of four with a 314% FPL PA CHIP limit and concluded child2 meets the eligibility rules. PolicyEngine finds child2 failing CHIP's own criteria while satisfying the age requirement. The model's income-test pass is the misapplied step."
-us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model put income at about 187% FPL, above PA's child Medicaid limit and below a roughly 319% CHIP ceiling, and answered eligible. PolicyEngine agrees child2 is not Medicaid-eligible but finds child2 failing CHIP's own criteria. With age 10 satisfying the age rule, the model's income-within-ceiling conclusion is the error."
-us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model counted $61,277 of income, which wrongly adds nontaxable child support to MAGI. It then placed that figure inside an assumed 138-319% FPL PA CHIP band and declared child2 eligible. PolicyEngine finds child2 failing CHIP's own criteria despite meeting the age rule, so the model's income-band pass is wrong."
-us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model counted $60,010, about 185% FPL for four people, as below Pennsylvania's CHIP income threshold and answered eligible. PolicyEngine finds child2 failing CHIP's own age-or-income criteria. Since child2 is under 19, the model's income-threshold pass is the step that diverges."
-us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model asserted, with no computation, that child2 is within Pennsylvania's CHIP income range. PolicyEngine finds child2 not Medicaid-eligible and failing CHIP's own criteria. Age 10 satisfies the age rule, so that unsupported income-range claim is the error."
+us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It concluded eligible only because income of about 185% FPL fell inside a 314% PA CHIP band. It never applied PolicyEngine's own CHIP child criteria, which fail for child2. It also ignored that child2 has employer-sponsored insurance, which disqualifies a targeted low-income child from CHIP."
+us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It said outright that CHIP eligibility holds 'regardless of current ESI enrollment' and relied only on income of about 192% FPL being under 314%. PolicyEngine's CHIP child test fails for child2, and the child's group-health (ESI) coverage counts against CHIP's targeted low-income child definition."
+us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It treated age under 19 plus income of about 187% FPL as enough, saying the child is eligible 'regardless of current enrollment'. It skipped CHIP's own child criteria, which fail in PolicyEngine for this ESI-covered 10-year-old, so is_chip_eligible is False."
+us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,claude-opus-5,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It checked only that the child is under 19 with income of about 190% FPL, inside PA's CHIP range. It never evaluated the remaining CHIP child criteria, including the child's employer-sponsored coverage, which make child2 fail PolicyEngine's CHIP test."
+us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It put eligibility in the gap between Medicaid and the 314% CHIP limit and treated that income band as decisive. PolicyEngine's CHIP child criteria fail for child2, who also holds employer-sponsored insurance, so the correct answer is not eligible."
+us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It answered eligible only because income of about 186% FPL sits between the Medicaid limit and the 314% CHIP limit. It ignored the CHIP child criteria that child2 fails in the engine, including the child's existing employer-sponsored coverage."
+us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It relied only on household income falling in PA's 158–314% FPL CHIP range. It did not apply CHIP's own child criteria, which child2 fails in PolicyEngine and which exclude a child already covered by employer-sponsored insurance."
+us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It reduced CHIP to two tests: age 10, and income of $60,010 below a 300% FPL cutoff. That skipped the CHIP child criteria the engine fails for child2, including disqualification for an ESI-covered child."
+us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It treated age under 19 and income of $60,010 below 314% FPL as sufficient. It never applied the rest of PolicyEngine's CHIP child test, which fails for child2, a child already enrolled in employer-sponsored insurance."
+us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It cited only age under 19 and income within PA CHIP limits. It ignored the CHIP child criteria that fail for child2 in the engine, including the exclusion for children with group-health (ESI) coverage, so is_chip_eligible is False."
+us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It answered eligible from age under 19 and income within PA's CHIP limit alone. It did not apply the CHIP child criteria that child2 fails in PolicyEngine, where the child's existing employer-sponsored coverage blocks targeted low-income child status."
+us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No value or explanation was returned for child2_chip_eligible, so there was no answer to score. The correct output is 0 because child2 fails PolicyEngine's CHIP child criteria and is not Medicaid-eligible."
+us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,glm-5.3,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It placed the child above the Medicaid children's threshold and within PA's CHIP income limit at about 185% FPL, then stopped there. It never applied the CHIP child criteria that child2 fails in the engine, including the exclusion for children already covered by employer-sponsored insurance."
+us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It relied on age 10 and income inside PA's higher CHIP range. It skipped the CHIP child criteria that child2 fails in PolicyEngine, which rule out a child with existing employer-sponsored coverage, so eligibility is 0."
+us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,grok-4.6,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It correctly found that child2 is not Medicaid-eligible, then wrongly assumed age plus MAGI below 314% FPL completes the CHIP test. It ignored the CHIP child criteria the engine fails for child2, including disqualification of a child already covered by ESI."
+us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,grok-4.7,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It noted Medicaid ineligibility and checked only age and MAGI against a 314% FPL limit. PolicyEngine's CHIP child criteria fail for child2, who has employer-sponsored coverage that excludes targeted low-income child status, so the answer is 0."
+us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It treated MAGI of $60,010 below 314% FPL plus age 10 as meeting every CHIP rule. It never applied the CHIP child criteria that child2 fails in the engine, including the exclusion for children with employer-sponsored insurance."
+us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,kimi-k3,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It said explicitly that 'current ESI coverage does not negate eligibility' and relied on income of about 187% FPL sitting below a 319% ceiling. Under PolicyEngine's CHIP child criteria, child2 fails, and group-health (ESI) coverage is disqualifying for a targeted low-income child."
+us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,minimax-m3,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It wrongly added the $1,267 of child support to income, getting $61,277. It then treated any income in a 138–319% FPL band as qualifying. It never applied the CHIP child criteria that child2 fails in PolicyEngine, including the exclusion for an ESI-covered child."
+us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It checked only age 10 and income of about 186% FPL against an assumed 300% FPL cap. It skipped the CHIP child criteria that child2 fails in the engine, where existing employer-sponsored coverage rules the child out."
+us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,ox-alpha,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It stated that 'current employer-sponsored coverage does not negate eligibility under PolicyEngine rules' and relied on income of about 185% FPL being below the PA threshold. PolicyEngine's CHIP child criteria fail for child2, and ESI coverage disqualifies a targeted low-income child, so the value is 0."
+us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It gave only an income-range justification. It never applied PolicyEngine's remaining CHIP child criteria, which child2 fails as an employer-insured 10-year-old who is also not Medicaid-eligible, so the correct answer is not eligible."
us,scenario_028,child2_early_head_start_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_028,child2_head_start_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_028,child2_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied an incorrect 215% FPL Medicaid threshold for Pennsylvania children. At the engine’s 1.82-times-FPL income level, Child 2 exceeds every applicable Medicaid threshold and receives no Medicaid category."
@@ -2513,26 +2601,27 @@ us,scenario_028,child2_medicare_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_
us,scenario_028,child2_wic_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no parseable child2_wic_eligible output, violating the required submission contract."
us,scenario_028,child2_wic_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model incorrectly treated age 10 as within WIC's child age category; WIC child eligibility ends at age five. It also failed to apply the 185%-of-poverty income ceiling, which this household's approximately $61,277 income exceeds."
us,scenario_028,child2_wic_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model incorrectly stated that a 10-year-old is within WIC's child age limit, which ends at age five. It also incorrectly classified the household as income-eligible despite approximately $61,277 exceeding the applicable 185%-of-poverty ceiling."
-us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It checked only that income (~185% FPL) falls between the Medicaid limit and PA's ~314% CHIP limit. It never applied the rule that a child covered by a group health plan is not a targeted low-income child, and Child 3's listed employer-sponsored insurance disqualifies them from CHIP."
-us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It correctly passed the age and income tests ($60,010 against a 314% FPL limit), then explicitly asserted that CHIP eligibility does not exclude children with ESI. That is the exact rule it got wrong: 42 U.S.C. 1397jj(b)(1)(C) excludes children covered by a group health plan, so Child 3's ESI makes them ineligible."
-us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,claude-opus-5,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It treated CHIP eligibility as age under 19 plus income (~190% FPL) within PA limits and ignored Child 3's employer-sponsored insurance. Group health plan coverage disqualifies a child from being a targeted low-income child, so the correct answer is 0."
-us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It placed income at about 187% FPL, above Medicaid and below the ~314% CHIP limit, and concluded eligible without applying the disqualifying-coverage test. Child 3's listed employer-sponsored insurance excludes them under the targeted low-income child definition."
-us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It stopped at the income band (about 186% FPL, between the Medicaid limit and ~314% CHIP limit). It skipped the requirement that the child have no group health plan coverage, and Child 3's employer-sponsored insurance fails that requirement."
-us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It placed income in a claimed 158-314% FPL CHIP band and concluded eligible, never applying the coverage exclusion. A child with employer-sponsored group health coverage, as Child 3 has, is not a targeted low-income child and is CHIP-ineligible."
-us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It applied only an age test and a 300% FPL ($99,000) income cap. It never checked the disqualifying-coverage rule, under which Child 3's employer-sponsored insurance bars CHIP eligibility."
-us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It reduced CHIP eligibility to age under 19 and income below 314% FPL, and it ignored that Child 3 has employer-sponsored insurance. Group health plan coverage excludes a child from the targeted low-income child definition, so the answer is 0."
-us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,health_coverage,False,It checked only age under 19 and income within PA CHIP limits. It omitted the coverage condition: Child 3's employer-sponsored insurance is disqualifying group health plan coverage under 42 CFR 457.310(b)(2)(ii).
-us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,health_coverage,False,It stopped at the age and income tests and never applied the uninsured requirement. Child 3's listed employer-sponsored insurance disqualifies them from CHIP as a targeted low-income child.
-us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value and no explanation for child3_chip_eligible, so there is no substantive answer to score. The correct derivation passes age and income (182% FPL) but fails on Child 3's employer-sponsored insurance, which yields 0."
-us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,glm-5.3,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It correctly found income (~185% FPL) above the children's Medicaid threshold and within PA's CHIP limit, but it never applied the disqualifying-coverage test. Child 3 has employer-sponsored insurance, which excludes them from CHIP."
-us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It concluded eligible from age 10 and income in PA's higher CHIP band alone. It ignored Child 3's employer-sponsored insurance, which is group health plan coverage that bars CHIP eligibility."
-us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,grok-4.6,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It correctly established that Child 3 is not Medicaid-eligible and that MAGI is below ~314% FPL. It then omitted the third CHIP condition, having no group health plan coverage, which Child 3's employer-sponsored insurance fails."
-us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,grok-4.7,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It explicitly limited its test to income and age rules (not Medicaid-eligible, MAGI below 314% FPL). It never applied the coverage exclusion, under which Child 3's employer-sponsored insurance makes them not a targeted low-income child."
-us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,kimi-k3,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It correctly placed income (~187% FPL) between PA's child Medicaid limit and the ~319% CHIP limit, then asserted that current ESI coverage does not negate eligibility. That reverses the rule: a child covered by a group health plan is excluded from CHIP under 42 U.S.C. 1397jj(b)(1)(C)."
-us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,minimax-m3,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It counted child support in income ($61,277 instead of $60,010 MAGI), which does not change the income result, and concluded eligible from the 138%-319% FPL band alone. It never applied the rule that Child 3's employer-sponsored insurance disqualifies CHIP eligibility."
-us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,ox-alpha,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It computed income correctly (~185% FPL) but explicitly declared that existing insurance coverage does not affect eligibility. Group health plan coverage is disqualifying for a targeted low-income child, so Child 3's ESI makes them CHIP-ineligible."
-us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It explicitly stated that employer-sponsored insurance does not disqualify CHIP eligibility in PA, and it wrongly claimed PA CHIP has no income limit. Federal CHIP rules exclude any child covered by a group health plan, so Child 3's ESI yields 0."
-us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"It based eligibility solely on income falling within the PA CHIP range. It ignored Child 3's employer-sponsored insurance, which is disqualifying group health plan coverage under 42 CFR 457.310(b)(2)(ii)."
+us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model correctly placed income at about 185% FPL, between the Medicaid and CHIP limits, but treated that as enough for eligibility. It ignored the listed employer-sponsored insurance. Group health coverage disqualifies a child from being a targeted low-income child (42 CFR 457.310(b)(2)(ii)), so the answer is ineligible."
+us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model said outright that PolicyEngine's CHIP rules do not exclude children with ESI. That is wrong: PolicyEngine applies a disqualifying-coverage test under 42 U.S.C. 1397jj(b)(1)(C), and Child 3's employer coverage fails it. It also used an outdated $32,150 guideline instead of $33,000, though income still passes either way."
+us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,claude-opus-5,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model checked only age (under 19) and income (about 190% FPL, within PA's limit). It never applied the rule that a child covered by employer-sponsored group insurance is not a targeted low-income child, which is the test that makes Child 3 ineligible."
+us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model correctly found income above the Medicaid limit and below PA's 314% CHIP limit. It skipped the CHIP requirement that the child have no group health coverage, and Child 3's listed employer-sponsored insurance fails that requirement."
+us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model based eligibility only on income (about 186% FPL, between the Medicaid and CHIP limits). It disregarded Child 3's employer-sponsored insurance, which disqualifies the child under 42 CFR 457.310(b)(2)(ii)."
+us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model treated an income in PA's 158–314% FPL CHIP band as enough for eligibility. It never applied the exclusion for children already covered by a group health plan, and Child 3's employer-sponsored insurance triggers that exclusion."
+us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model checked only age and income against a 300% FPL threshold. It ignored that Child 3 has employer-sponsored insurance, which makes the child not a targeted low-income child and so ineligible for CHIP."
+us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model concluded eligibility from age under 19 and income below 314% FPL alone. It omitted CHIP's disqualifying-coverage test, which Child 3 fails because of the employer-sponsored insurance."
+us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model applied only the age and income limits. It did not account for Child 3's employer-sponsored group coverage, which excludes the child from CHIP under 42 U.S.C. 1397jj(b)(1)(C)."
+us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model checked only age and income. It missed the rule that a child with employer-sponsored group health coverage is not a targeted low-income child, which makes Child 3 CHIP-ineligible."
+us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no value or explanation for child3_chip_eligible, so there was no answer to score. The correct derivation passes age and income (182% FPL against a 319% limit) but fails CHIP because Child 3 has employer-sponsored insurance."
+us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,glm-5.3,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model correctly placed income at about 185% FPL, above the children's Medicaid limit and within the CHIP limit. It never applied the disqualifying-coverage test, which Child 3's employer-sponsored insurance fails."
+us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model based eligibility only on age and PA's CHIP income range. It ignored the listed employer-sponsored insurance, which disqualifies Child 3 under 42 CFR 457.310(b)(2)(ii)."
+us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,grok-4.6,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model correctly found Child 3 not Medicaid-eligible and income below about 314% FPL. It then treated those two facts as enough and skipped the requirement that the child have no group health coverage, which Child 3's employer-sponsored insurance violates."
+us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,grok-4.7,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model concluded eligibility from the age and income rules alone, as its own reasoning says. It omitted CHIP's coverage test: a child with employer-sponsored group insurance is not a targeted low-income child, so Child 3 is ineligible."
+us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,kimi-k3,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model got the income test right (about 187% FPL against a 319% limit). It wrongly asserted that current ESI does not negate eligibility, when group health coverage disqualifies a child under 42 U.S.C. 1397jj(b)(1)(C)."
+us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,minimax-m3,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model counted the $1,267 of child support as income, giving $61,277 instead of $60,010 MAGI, although income still passes either way. The decisive error is that it ignored Child 3's employer-sponsored insurance, which disqualifies the child from CHIP."
+us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model checked only age and income, using a 300% FPL limit. It never applied the exclusion for children covered by a group health plan, and Child 3's employer-sponsored insurance triggers that exclusion."
+us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,ox-alpha,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model explicitly said existing insurance coverage does not affect eligibility. That is wrong: PolicyEngine's CHIP rules disqualify a child covered by employer-sponsored group insurance (42 CFR 457.310(b)(2)(ii)), so Child 3 is ineligible."
+us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model wrongly asserted that ESI does not disqualify a child from CHIP in PA. It also claimed PA CHIP has no income limit, but PolicyEngine applies a 319% FPL cap and excludes children with group health coverage. Child 3's employer-sponsored insurance makes the child ineligible."
+us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model relied only on income being within PA's CHIP range. It skipped the disqualifying-coverage test, which Child 3 fails because the child has employer-sponsored insurance."
us,scenario_028,child3_early_head_start_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_028,child3_head_start_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_028,child3_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model incorrectly treated a higher CHIP-funded coverage threshold of 215% FPL as a Medicaid threshold. Child3's 1.82-times-FPL MAGI exceeds the applicable Medicaid limits, and CHIP eligibility cannot be substituted for Medicaid eligibility."
@@ -2565,100 +2654,105 @@ us,scenario_028,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,
us,scenario_028,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed TCJA expired, used a 15% bracket and a $1,000-per-child CTC, and even left out the personal exemptions its own expiration premise requires. 2026 law uses the $24,150 HoH deduction and 10%/12% brackets, giving $3,949.20 of tax that the $6,600 CTC fully offsets."
us,scenario_028,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It submitted no value for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was no answer to score against the $0 reference."
us,scenario_028,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It used a $2,000-per-child CTC instead of $2,200 and subtracted $5,100 of refundable ACTC first, leaving only $900 as nonrefundable. The nonrefundable CTC is applied first up to the full tax liability, which zeroes out the roughly $3,950 tax."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Its own working reached $2,665 ACTC plus about $251 EITC (≈$2,916), but it submitted $5,100, which is just the $1,700 × 3 refundable cap. It also understated the EITC by using a $8,046 maximum and a $23,000 phase-out start instead of $8,231 and $23,890, which give $624.13."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The ACTC (~$2,645) was close to right, but the EITC phase-out used a $23,000 starting point instead of the 2026 $23,890 threshold. That gave $436.70 instead of $8,231 − 21.06% × $36,120 = $624.13."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It counted $1,267 of child support as income and wrongly concluded the EITC was fully phased out; the EITC is $624.13 at $60,010 AGI. Its $3,850 ACTC is an invented number that ignores the actual binding limit: $6,600 CTC minus $3,949.20 of tax = $2,650.80."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It claimed tax liability absorbs the whole CTC. In fact, pre-credit tax of $3,949.20 is well below the $6,600 CTC, leaving $2,650.80 refundable. It also wrongly zeroed the EITC, which is still $624.13 at $60,010 for three children."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the pre-OBBBA $2,000-per-child CTC ($6,000) instead of $2,200 ($6,600), so the unused refundable amount came out as $2,037 instead of $2,650.80. It also treated the EITC as fully phased out above ~$59,899, missing the $624.13 credit that remains under the 2026 $23,890 phase-out start."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Its reasoning overstated pre-credit tax at ~$4,800 and derived about $1,200 of ACTC, then submitted an unrelated $4,500. The correct figures are $3,949.20 of tax against a $6,600 CTC ($2,650.80 refundable) plus a $624.13 EITC it wrongly zeroed."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It paid the full $1,700-per-child refundable cap without limiting the ACTC to the CTC left after offsetting $3,949.20 of tax ($6,600 − $3,949.20 = $2,650.80). It also wrongly zeroed the $624.13 EITC."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $2,000-per-child CTC, a $22,500 HoH standard deduction and old brackets, giving $4,170 of tax and $1,830 ACTC. The correct inputs are $2,200 per child and a $24,150 deduction, giving $3,949.20 of tax and $2,650.80 ACTC. It also set the EITC to $0 using a stale ~$58,000 phase-out end, although the 2026 three-child credit is still $624.13 at $60,010."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It never computed the unused CTC: $6,600 − $3,949.20 = $2,650.80. It guessed $2,000 based on a $2,000-per-child framework, and it wrongly zeroed the EITC using a ~$56,838 phase-out end instead of the 2026 parameters that leave $624.13."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the $2,000-per-child CTC with an overstated $4,170 tax, giving $1,830 ACTC instead of $6,600 − $3,949.20 = $2,650.80. It also understated the EITC at ~$165 instead of $8,231 − 21.06% × ($60,010 − $23,890) = $624.13."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It asserted that tax liability exceeds the CTC. In fact, the $3,949.20 pre-credit tax is below the $6,600 CTC, leaving $2,650.80 refundable, and the EITC is $624.13, not phased out, at $60,010."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It claimed the CTC is fully used against tax and so dropped the $2,650.80 refundable CTC ($6,600 − $3,949.20). Its EITC of $662.87 also overstates the $624.13 that the $8,231 maximum and $23,890 phase-out start produce."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $6,000 CTC ($2,000 per child) instead of $6,600 and overstated tax at $4,073.20, giving $1,926.80 ACTC instead of $2,650.80. Its EITC parameters ($8,271 maximum, $24,024 threshold) produced $692.35 instead of $624.13."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It left only $66 of unused CTC, which grossly overstates tax relative to the CTC. Pre-credit tax is $3,949.20 against a $6,600 CTC, leaving $2,650.80. Its $524 EITC also falls short of the correct $624.13."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It assumed income rules out all refundable credits. The CTC of $6,600 exceeds the $3,949.20 tax by $2,650.80, which is refundable, and the three-child EITC is still $624.13 at $60,010."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It wrongly concluded the CTC is fully used against tax and so dropped the $2,650.80 unused refundable portion. It also slightly understated the EITC at $574 instead of $624.13."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the pre-TCJA $1,000-per-child CTC ($3,000) instead of the 2026 $2,200 per child ($6,600), so it found no unused CTC. It also wrongly treated $60,010 as above the three-child EITC limit, when the credit is still $624.13."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It zeroed all refundable credits without computing that the $6,600 CTC exceeds the $3,949.20 tax by $2,650.80. It also missed the $624.13 EITC that remains at $60,010 with three children."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $6,000 CTC ($2,000 per child) instead of $6,600, giving $1,910.80 ACTC instead of $2,650.80. It left out the $624.13 EITC entirely."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It assumed the CTC is fully absorbed and the EITC fully phased out. The $3,949.20 tax leaves $2,650.80 of the $6,600 CTC refundable, and the EITC is $624.13 because the three-child phase-out does not end until about $62,970."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $1,838.80 ACTC reflects a $2,000-per-child CTC and overstated tax; the correct figure is $6,600 − $3,949.20 = $2,650.80. Its $327.51 EITC understates the $624.13 that the 2026 $8,231 maximum and $23,890 threshold produce."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No value or explanation was returned for federal_refundable_credits, so there was no answer to score against the $3,274.93 reference."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an $1,800 per-child refundable cap instead of $1,700 and ignored the limit of the CTC left after offsetting $3,949.20 of tax, which is $2,650.80. It also wrongly zeroed the $624.13 EITC."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It treated the whole $2,000-per-child CTC as refundable. In fact, only the $2,650.80 not absorbed by the $3,949.20 tax is refundable, under the $1,700-per-child cap, and the $624.13 EITC is left out."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It assumed no refundable credits apply. The $6,600 CTC exceeds the $3,949.20 tax by $2,650.80, which is refundable, and the three-child EITC is still $624.13 at $60,010."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It understated pre-credit tax at $2,184.20 instead of $3,949.20 ($35,860 taxable income after the $24,150 HoH deduction), which inflated the unused CTC to ~$4,416. It also wrongly zeroed the $624.13 EITC."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It computed the $2,650.80 refundable CTC correctly but declared the EITC unavailable. The three-child EITC is still $8,231 − 21.06% × ($60,010 − $23,890) = $624.13."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It paid the full $1,700-per-child refundable cap without limiting the ACTC to the $2,650.80 of CTC left after the $3,949.20 tax offset. It also left out the $624.13 EITC."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The ACTC of $2,651 was right, but the EITC was rounded to ~$650 instead of being computed exactly: $8,231 − 21.06% × ($60,010 − $23,890) = $624.13. That overstated the total by about $26."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It computed the $2,650.80 refundable CTC exactly but left out the $624.13 EITC, which is still available at $60,010 with three children."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It claimed no refundable credits qualify. The $6,600 CTC exceeds the $3,949.20 tax by $2,650.80, which is refundable, and the three-child EITC is $624.13 at $60,010."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left only ~$40 of unused CTC, which implies pre-credit tax near the full credit. Tax is actually $3,949.20 against a $6,600 CTC, leaving $2,650.80. Its ~$660 EITC also overstates the $624.13."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its EITC of $636 was close, but it found only $48 of unused CTC, overstating pre-credit tax relative to the CTC. The correct refundable CTC is $6,600 − $3,949.20 = $2,650.80."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $6,900 total CTC ($2,300 per child) instead of $6,600 ($2,200 per child), giving $2,952 ACTC instead of $2,650.80. Its $661 EITC also overstates the $624.13."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the CTC reverted to $1,000 per child ($3,000), which is fully absorbed by tax. OBBBA sets $2,200 per child, so $2,650.80 of the $6,600 CTC is refundable. Its $739 EITC also used an inflated $8,302 maximum instead of $8,231."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The ACTC (~$2,649) was right, but the EITC was understated at ~$340. The 2026 parameters ($8,231 maximum, 21.06% phase-out from $23,890) give $624.13."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No value or explanation was returned for federal_refundable_credits, so there was no answer to score against the $3,274.93 reference."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The EITC was exactly right at $624.13, but pre-credit tax was understated at $3,838.10 instead of $3,949.20. The correct tax is 10% of $17,700 plus 12% of $18,160, on $35,860 taxable income after the $24,150 HoH deduction. That error inflated the ACTC to $2,761.90 instead of $2,650.80."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It set the ACTC to the $5,100 cap without limiting it to the CTC left after the $3,949.20 tax offset ($2,650.80). It also wrongly treated the EITC as fully phased out at $60,000 when it is $624.13."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The ~$2,650 ACTC was right, but the EITC was rounded to ~$650 instead of being computed exactly: $8,231 − 21.06% × ($60,010 − $23,890) = $624.13. The total of $3,300 overshoots."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The refundable CTC of $2,650.80 was right, but the EITC phase-out started at $22,210 instead of the 2026 $23,890 threshold (with an $8,234 maximum). That gave $273.32 instead of $624.13."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $2,000-per-child CTC ($6,000) and $4,081.20 of tax, giving $1,918.80 ACTC instead of $2,650.80. It also inflated the EITC to $1,042 with an invented $25,914 phase-out start and $8,222 maximum instead of $23,890 and $8,231, which give $624.13."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It claimed the earned-income formula limits the ACTC to $3,200. That formula allows $8,625; the binding limit is the $2,650.80 of the $6,600 CTC left after the $3,949.20 tax. It also left out the $624.13 EITC."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its own working reached about $2,916 (ACTC ≈ $2,665 plus EITC ≈ $251), but it submitted $5,100. That is just the 3 × $1,700 refundable cap and ignores that the refundable CTC is limited to the CTC left after offsetting the $3,949.20 tax ($2,650.80). Its EITC also used an $8,046 maximum and a $23,000 phase-out start instead of $8,231 and $23,890, which understated the $624.13 credit."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It started the EITC phase-out at $23,000 instead of the 2026 HoH threshold of $23,890, so it got $436.70 instead of $8,231 − 21.06% × ($60,010 − $23,890) = $624.13. Its refundable CTC of $2,644.80 was also slightly low because it used $3,955 of tax instead of $3,949.20, which gives $2,650.80."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It added non-taxable child support to income and declared the three-child EITC fully phased out, missing the $624.13 that remains at $60,010 because the 2026 phase-out runs to about $62,974. It also used $2,000 per child and produced an unsupported $3,850 for the refundable CTC, instead of the unused CTC $6,600 − $3,949.20 = $2,650.80."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"It claimed tax liability fully absorbs the CTC, but pre-credit tax is only $3,949.20 on $35,860 of taxable income, so $2,650.80 of the $6,600 CTC is refundable. It also wrongly treated the three-child EITC as zero, when $624.13 remains at $60,010."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the pre-OBBBA $2,000 per child ($6,000) instead of $2,200 ($6,600) and a $23,000 standard deduction instead of $24,150, which produced $2,037 rather than $6,600 − $3,949.20 = $2,650.80. It also applied the 2024 three-child EITC phase-out end of about $59,899 instead of the 2026 parameters ($8,231 maximum, $23,890 start), so it dropped the $624.13 EITC."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,other,False,"Its reasoning came to about $1,200 of ACTC (a $6,000 CTC minus a guessed $4,800 tax), but it submitted an unrelated $4,500. Pre-credit tax is $3,949.20 against a $6,600 CTC, so the refundable CTC is $2,650.80, and the three-child EITC is $624.13, not zero."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"It paid the full $1,700 × 3 = $5,100 ACTC cap and skipped the rule that the refundable CTC cannot exceed the CTC left after the nonrefundable credit offsets the $3,949.20 tax, which leaves $2,650.80. It also set the EITC to zero, though $624.13 remains at $60,010 with three children."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used $2,000 per child, the pre-OBBBA $22,500 HoH standard deduction and 2025 brackets, giving $4,170 of tax and a $1,830 ACTC instead of $6,600 − $3,949.20 = $2,650.80. It also treated the three-child EITC as ending near $57–58k, when the 2026 phase-out ($8,231 maximum, $23,890 start, 21.06%) still leaves $624.13."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $6,000 CTC ($2,000 per child) instead of $6,600 and assumed an EITC phase-out threshold of about $56,838, which zeroed out an EITC that is actually $624.13. It then submitted a rough $2,000 instead of computing the unused CTC, $6,600 − $3,949.20 = $2,650.80."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $6,000 CTC and $4,170 of tax, giving a $1,830 ACTC, instead of the $2,200-per-child $6,600 CTC minus $3,949.20 tax = $2,650.80. Its $165 EITC also understates the 2026 three-child credit of $8,231 − 21.06% × ($60,010 − $23,890) = $624.13."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,other,False,"It asserted tax liability exceeds the CTC, but pre-credit tax is $3,949.20 against a $6,600 CTC, which leaves $2,650.80 refundable. It also treated the EITC as phased out at $60,000, when the three-child credit is still $624.13 at $60,010."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,other,False,"It counted only an EITC of about $662.87 (the correct figure is $624.13) and said no refundable CTC remained. The $6,600 CTC exceeds the $3,949.20 pre-credit tax, so $2,650.80 is refundable within the $5,100 cap."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $6,000 CTC ($2,000 per child) and $4,073.20 of tax, giving a $1,926.80 ACTC instead of $6,600 − $3,949.20 = $2,650.80. Its EITC used an $8,271 maximum and a $24,024 phase-out start, which gave $692.35 instead of $624.13 from the 2026 values of $8,231 and $23,890."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It left only $66 of CTC after the tax offset, which means it used a CTC far below the $2,200-per-child $6,600, a tax far above $3,949.20, or both. With the correct figures the refundable CTC is $2,650.80. Its EITC of $524 also falls short of $624.13."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,other,False,"It assumed income and tax liability wipe out all refundable credits. The $3,949.20 pre-credit tax leaves $2,650.80 of the $6,600 CTC refundable, and the three-child EITC of $624.13 is still payable at $60,010."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,other,False,"It found an EITC of about $574 (the correct figure is $624.13) but claimed the CTC was fully used against tax. The $6,600 CTC exceeds the $3,949.20 pre-credit tax by $2,650.80, and that amount is refundable."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a $3,000 CTC ($1,000 per child, assuming the TCJA sunset), but OBBBA permanently set the 2026 CTC at $2,200 per child, so the total is $6,600 and $2,650.80 remains after the $3,949.20 tax. It also wrongly declared the household EITC-ineligible, when the three-child EITC is $624.13."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,other,False,"It returned zero by assuming both credits are eliminated by income and tax liability. The $6,600 CTC exceeds the $3,949.20 pre-credit tax, so $2,650.80 is refundable, and the three-child EITC at $60,010 is $624.13."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $6,000 CTC and $4,089.20 of tax, giving $1,910.80, instead of the $2,200-per-child $6,600 CTC minus $3,949.20 = $2,650.80. It also left out the $624.13 three-child EITC entirely."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,other,False,"It treated the CTC as fully absorbed and the EITC as phased out. Pre-credit tax of $3,949.20 leaves $2,650.80 of the $6,600 CTC refundable, and the 2026 three-child EITC phase-out runs to about $62,974, so $624.13 remains."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $1,838.80 ACTC implies a $6,000 CTC ($2,000 per child) and about $4,161 of tax, instead of $6,600 − $3,949.20 = $2,650.80. Its EITC of $327.51 also understates the correct $8,231 − 21.06% × ($60,010 − $23,890) = $624.13."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its EITC of $624 is correct, but it understated pre-credit tax as $3,837.60 instead of $3,949.20. The correct tax comes from $35,860 of taxable income after the $24,150 HoH deduction, at 10% up to $17,700 and 12% above. The understated tax overstated the refundable CTC by $111.60 ($2,762.40 vs $2,650.80)."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no parseable value for federal_refundable_credits, so there was no substantive answer to score against the correct $3,274.93 ($2,650.80 refundable CTC plus $624.13 EITC)."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,other,False,"It used an $1,800 per-child refundable cap (the 2026 cap is $1,700) and paid the whole cap without subtracting the CTC already used against the $3,949.20 tax. That limit holds the refundable CTC to $2,650.80. It also zeroed out the EITC, when $624.13 remains at $60,010 with three children."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,other,False,"It treated the whole $2,000 per child as refundable, ignoring both the nonrefundable offset against the $3,949.20 tax and the $1,700 per-child refundable cap. Applied correctly, the refundable CTC is $6,600 − $3,949.20 = $2,650.80. It also omitted the $624.13 EITC."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"It assumed no refundable credit applies at this income. The $6,600 CTC exceeds the $3,949.20 pre-credit tax by $2,650.80, which is refundable, and the three-child EITC at $60,010 is $624.13."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used only $2,184.20 of CTC against tax, badly understating the $3,949.20 pre-credit tax on $35,860 of taxable income. That inflated the refundable CTC to about $4,416 (rounded to $4,444) instead of $2,650.80. It also set the EITC to zero, though $624.13 remains."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Its refundable CTC of $2,650.80 is correct, but it called the EITC unavailable at this income. With three children the 2026 phase-out ($8,231 maximum, $23,890 start, 21.06%) leaves $624.13 at $60,010, so it omitted that amount."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,other,False,"It paid the full $1,700 × 3 = $5,100 refundable cap, ignoring that the refundable CTC is limited to the CTC left after offsetting the $3,949.20 tax, which is $2,650.80. It also left out the $624.13 three-child EITC."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Its $2,651 refundable CTC is right, but it rounded the EITC to about $650 instead of computing $8,231 − 21.06% × ($60,010 − $23,890) = $624.13. That overstated the total by about $26."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It correctly computed the $2,650.80 refundable CTC but left out the EITC entirely. With three children the EITC at $60,010 is still $624.13 under the 2026 phase-out, so it is missing from the total."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,other,False,"It said no refundable credit applies. The $6,600 CTC exceeds the $3,949.20 pre-credit tax, leaving $2,650.80 refundable, and the three-child EITC of $624.13 is still payable at $60,010."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It left only about $40 of ACTC, which reflects a CTC far below the $2,200-per-child $6,600 or an overstated tax. With the correct $3,949.20 tax the refundable CTC is $2,650.80. Its EITC of about $660 from guessed parameters also exceeds the correct $624.13."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It left only $48 of unused CTC, implying a CTC far below the $2,200-per-child $6,600 or an overstated tax; the correct figure is $6,600 − $3,949.20 = $2,650.80. Its EITC of $636 also used an $8,239 maximum and a $23,910 start instead of $8,231 and $23,890, which give $624.13."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $2,952 remainder after $3,948 of tax implies a $6,900 CTC ($2,300 per child) instead of the 2026 $2,200 per child ($6,600), which gives $2,650.80. Its EITC of $661 also overstates the correct $8,231 − 21.06% × ($60,010 − $23,890) = $624.13."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the CTC reverted to $1,000 per child ($3,000) and was fully used against tax. OBBBA set $2,200 per child, so $6,600 − $3,949.20 = $2,650.80 is refundable. Its EITC also used an $8,302 maximum and a $24,099 start, giving $739 instead of $624.13."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Its refundable CTC of $2,649 is essentially right, but it put the EITC at about $340. The 2026 three-child formula gives $8,231 − 21.06% × ($60,010 − $23,890) = $624.13."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no parseable value for federal_refundable_credits, so there was no substantive answer to score against the correct $3,274.93 ($2,650.80 refundable CTC plus $624.13 EITC)."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its EITC of $624.13 is exact, but it put pre-credit tax at $3,838.10 instead of $3,949.20. The correct tax comes from $35,860 of taxable income after the $24,150 HoH standard deduction, at 10% up to $17,700 and 12% above. That error inflated the refundable CTC to $2,761.90 instead of $2,650.80."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"It set the ACTC to min(15% earnings limit, $5,100 cap) and never applied the third limit: the CTC left after offsetting the $3,949.20 tax, which is $2,650.80. It also treated the EITC as fully phased out, though $624.13 remains at $60,010."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It overstated the EITC at about $1,500. The 2026 three-child credit at $60,010 is $8,231 − 21.06% × ($60,010 − $23,890) = $624.13. Its ACTC of $2,592 is also slightly below the correct $2,650.80."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It got the refundable CTC of about $2,650 right but rounded the EITC to roughly $650 instead of computing the exact $624.13. It then submitted a rounded $3,300 rather than $3,274.93."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Its refundable CTC of $2,650.80 is correct, but it started the EITC phase-out at $22,210 instead of the 2026 HoH threshold of $23,890. That cut the EITC to $273.32 instead of $624.13."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used $2,000 per child ($6,000) instead of $2,200 ($6,600), which gave a $1,918.80 ACTC instead of $2,650.80. It also inflated the EITC parameters (an $8,222 maximum and a $25,914 start), which produced $1,042 instead of $624.13."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,other,False,"It said the earned-income test limits the ACTC to $3,200, but that test allows $8,625 and does not bind. The binding limit is the CTC left after the $3,949.20 tax offset, which is $2,650.80. It also left out the $624.13 three-child EITC."
us,scenario_028,free_school_meals_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_028,head_chip_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_028,head_medicaid_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_028,head_medicare_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_028,head_wic_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_028,local_income_tax,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its reasoning got the correct total: FICA of $4,590 plus PA employee UC of 0.07% × $60,000 = $42, for $4,632. It then submitted $5,730, which none of its stated components support. This was an output-consistency error, not a mistake about the rule."
-us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only employee OASDI and Medicare ($4,590) and left out Pennsylvania's mandatory employee unemployment compensation contribution of 0.07% of all wages ($42). The correct total is $4,632."
-us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It said PA has no employee-side payroll tax, pointing to corporate taxes instead. PA does withhold an employee unemployment compensation contribution of 0.07% of all wages, which is $42 here, so the total should have been $4,632 rather than $4,590."
-us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It computed only federal FICA ($4,590) and left out Pennsylvania's mandatory 0.07% employee unemployment compensation tax on all wages ($42). The total should have been $4,632."
-us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It said PA has no mandatory employee payroll tax, but PA withholds a 0.07% employee unemployment compensation contribution on all wages. Missing that $42 understated the total, which is $4,632."
-us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It summed Social Security and Medicare ($4,590) and never applied Pennsylvania's employee UC tax of 0.07% × $60,000 = $42. The correct total is $4,632."
-us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only FICA at 7.65% and left out Pennsylvania's mandatory employee unemployment compensation contribution (0.07% of uncapped wages, $42). That understated the total by $42."
-us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It said PA has no separate employee payroll tax, but PA imposes a 0.07% employee unemployment compensation tax on all wages. That adds $42 to FICA, for a total of $4,632."
-us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It specifically claimed PA has no employee UI contribution. Pennsylvania is one of the few states that withholds employee UC tax, at 0.07% of all wages ($42 here), so the total is $4,632."
-us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It claimed no PA employee payroll tax is modeled, but PolicyEngine applies Pennsylvania's 0.07% employee unemployment compensation tax to the head's $60,000 of wages. That adds $42 to the $4,590 of FICA."
-us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It said there is no PA employee payroll tax and so left out Pennsylvania's 0.07% employee UC contribution on all wages ($42). The total should have been $4,632."
-us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only federal Social Security and Medicare and never added Pennsylvania's mandatory employee unemployment compensation tax of 0.07% × $60,000 = $42."
-us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It said there is no state payroll tax, but Pennsylvania withholds a 0.07% employee UC contribution on all wages. That adds $42, for a total of $4,632."
-us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It stopped at FICA ($4,590) and left out Pennsylvania's employee unemployment compensation tax (0.07% of uncapped wages, $42)."
-us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It computed only Social Security and Medicare and never applied Pennsylvania's mandatory 0.07% employee UC tax on the $60,000 of wages ($42)."
-us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,It applied only the 7.65% federal FICA rate and left out Pennsylvania's employee unemployment compensation contribution of $42 (0.07% of all wages).
-us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only FICA ($4,590) and missed Pennsylvania's mandatory employee UC tax of 0.07% × $60,000 = $42, which the requested output explicitly includes as a state payroll tax."
-us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no usable value or reasoning for payroll_tax. The correct answer is $3,720 Social Security + $870 Medicare + $42 PA employee UC = $4,632."
-us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It said PA has no mandatory employee state payroll tax, but PA withholds a 0.07% employee unemployment compensation contribution on all wages. That adds $42, for a total of $4,632."
-us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It said no mandatory state payroll tax applies in PA and so left out Pennsylvania's 0.07% employee UC tax ($42 on $60,000)."
-us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It made an arithmetic error: $3,720 + $870 is $4,590, not $4,600. It also left out Pennsylvania's 0.07% employee UC tax ($42), so it missed the correct total of $4,632."
-us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It deliberately excluded any PA employee payroll tax and applied only 7.65% FICA. Pennsylvania's mandatory employee UC contribution of 0.07% × $60,000 = $42 belongs in the total, which is $4,632."
-us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It correctly identified the PA employee unemployment tax but computed it as $7, which matches applying 0.07% to the $10,000 employer taxable wage base. The employee contribution applies to all wages with no cap, so it is 0.07% × $60,000 = $42 and the total is $4,632."
-us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,It applied only 7.65% FICA and left out Pennsylvania's mandatory 0.07% employee unemployment compensation tax on all wages ($42).
-us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrote that no mandatory employee state payroll tax is specified, but PA's employee UC tax comes from statute and doesn't need to be listed as a household fact. At 0.07% of $60,000 it adds $42."
-us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,It applied only the 7.65% federal FICA rate and never added Pennsylvania's employee unemployment compensation tax of 0.07% of wages ($42).
-us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It said there is no PA employee payroll tax, but Pennsylvania withholds a 0.07% employee UC contribution on all wages. That adds $42 to FICA, for a total of $4,632."
-us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It said PA has no mandatory employee state payroll tax and so left out the 0.07% employee unemployment compensation tax ($42 on $60,000)."
-us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It said Pennsylvania has no mandatory employee state payroll tax and so missed PA's 0.07% employee UC contribution on uncapped wages ($42). The total should have been $4,632."
-us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It computed only Social Security and Medicare and never applied Pennsylvania's mandatory employee unemployment compensation tax of 0.07% × $60,000 = $42."
-us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It stopped at federal FICA ($4,590) and left out Pennsylvania's 0.07% employee UC tax on all wages ($42)."
-us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no usable value or reasoning for payroll_tax. The correct answer is $3,720 Social Security + $870 Medicare + $42 PA employee UC = $4,632."
-us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It said PolicyEngine models no PA employee state payroll tax, but PolicyEngine applies Pennsylvania's 0.07% employee unemployment compensation contribution to all wages. That adds $42 to the $4,590 of FICA."
-us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It said PA has no mandatory employee state payroll tax and so left out the 0.07% employee UC tax on all wages ($42). The total is $4,632."
-us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only Social Security and Medicare and never added Pennsylvania's mandatory 0.07% employee unemployment compensation tax ($42 on $60,000)."
-us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It specifically claimed PA has no employee unemployment deduction beyond income tax withholding. Pennsylvania does withhold employee UC tax at 0.07% of all wages, which adds $42, for a total of $4,632."
-us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied only 7.65% FICA and left out Pennsylvania's mandatory employee unemployment compensation contribution of 0.07% × $60,000 = $42."
-us,scenario_028,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It counted the $61,277 correctly and first found it above the 185% line. It then switched to an assumed uprated 2026 guideline with 185% at about $61,300. 185% of the $33,000 guideline for four is $61,050, so $61,277 exceeds the reduced-price limit by $227 and the household does not qualify."
-us,scenario_028,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used $60,010 of income (wages plus interest) and left out the $1,267 of child support received, which counts as school-meal income. Countable income is $61,277, above the $61,050 threshold it cited itself, so the household is over 185% of the guideline and not eligible."
-us,scenario_028,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It counted $61,277 correctly but set 185% of the guideline at about $61,975, which implies a guideline of roughly $33,500. The correct limit is 185% of $33,000, or $61,050, and $61,277 exceeds it (ratio 1.86), so the household is not eligible for reduced-price meals."
-us,scenario_028,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no usable value or explanation for reduced_price_school_meals_eligible. The correct derivation counts $61,277 of wages, interest and child support. That is 1.86 times the $33,000 guideline, above the 185% reduced-price limit, so the answer is 0."
-us,scenario_028,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It counted about $61,300 (wages, child support and interest) but said this was just under 185% of the 2026 poverty line. 185% of the $33,000 guideline for four is $61,050, so $61,277 is above the reduced-price cutoff and the household is not eligible."
-us,scenario_028,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It counted $61,277 correctly but said this was within the reduced-price limit for four people. The limit is 185% of $33,000, or $61,050. Income exceeds it by $227 (1.86 times the guideline), so no reduced-price support applies."
-us,scenario_028,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said, without any figures, that income was within the reduced-price threshold for four, so its comparison put income at or below 185% of the guideline. Countable income including the $1,267 of child support is $61,277. That is 1.86 times the $33,000 guideline and above the $61,050 cutoff, so the household is not eligible."
-us,scenario_028,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used $60,010 of income and got 181% of the guideline (dividing by the correct $33,000), but it left out the $1,267 of child support received, which counts as school-meal income. With child support, income is $61,277, or 186% of the guideline, above the 185% reduced-price limit."
+us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its reasoning correctly summed $3,720 Social Security, $870 Medicare and $42 Pennsylvania employee UC (0.07% × $60,000) to $4,632, but it submitted 5,730. That number does not follow from any step it showed, so the submitted value contradicts its own correct derivation."
+us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only OASDI and Medicare ($4,590) and left out Pennsylvania's mandatory employee UC withholding of 0.07% on all wages, which adds $42 and brings the total to $4,632."
+us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly said Pennsylvania has no employee-side payroll tax and mixed up corporate taxes with employee withholding. Pennsylvania withholds unemployment compensation tax from employees at 0.07% of all wages ($42 here), so the total is $4,632, not $4,590."
+us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only employee FICA ($4,590) and never added Pennsylvania's mandatory employee UC contribution of 0.07% × $60,000 = $42."
+us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It said Pennsylvania has no mandatory employee payroll tax. Pennsylvania withholds employee unemployment compensation tax at 0.07% of uncapped wages, which adds $42 for a total of $4,632."
+us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It stopped at Social Security plus Medicare ($4,590) and left out Pennsylvania's 0.07% employee UC withholding on the $60,000 of wages ($42)."
+us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only the 7.65% FICA ($4,590) and missed Pennsylvania's mandatory employee unemployment compensation withholding of 0.07% on all wages, which adds $42."
+us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly said Pennsylvania has no separate employee payroll tax. Pennsylvania withholds UC tax from employees at 0.07% of gross wages with no wage cap, which adds $42 for a total of $4,632."
+us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly said Pennsylvania has no employee UI contribution. Pennsylvania withholds unemployment compensation tax at 0.07% of all employee wages ($42 on $60,000), so the total is $4,632."
+us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It said no Pennsylvania employee payroll tax is modeled, but the employee UC contribution of 0.07% × $60,000 = $42 is counted. The correct total is $4,632, not $4,590."
+us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It said there is no Pennsylvania state employee payroll tax and so left out the mandatory 0.07% employee UC withholding on all $60,000 of wages ($42)."
+us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only Social Security and Medicare ($4,590) and never applied Pennsylvania's 0.07% employee unemployment compensation tax, which adds $42."
+us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It said there is no state payroll tax and so dropped Pennsylvania's mandatory employee UC withholding of 0.07% × $60,000 = $42."
+us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only federal FICA ($4,590) and missed Pennsylvania's 0.07% employee unemployment compensation withholding on uncapped wages ($42)."
+us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only Social Security and Medicare and left out Pennsylvania's mandatory 0.07% employee UC contribution ($42), so it reported $4,590 instead of $4,632."
+us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied only the 7.65% federal FICA rate and missed Pennsylvania's employee UC withholding of 0.07% × $60,000 = $42."
+us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only federal FICA ($4,590) and never added Pennsylvania's mandatory employee unemployment compensation tax of 0.07% on all wages ($42)."
+us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only Social Security and Medicare and left out Pennsylvania's 0.07% employee UC withholding ($42 on $60,000)."
+us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It gave no usable payroll_tax value. The correct derivation is $3,720 Social Security + $870 Medicare + $42 Pennsylvania employee UC (0.07% of wages) = $4,632."
+us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly said Pennsylvania has no mandatory employee state payroll tax. Pennsylvania withholds UC tax from employees at 0.07% of all wages, which adds $42 for a total of $4,632."
+us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It said no mandatory state payroll tax applies in Pennsylvania. That leaves out the 0.07% employee unemployment compensation withholding on all $60,000 of wages ($42), so the total is $4,632."
+us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It added $3,720 and $870 wrongly, getting $4,600 instead of $4,590. It also left out Pennsylvania's 0.07% employee UC withholding ($42), which brings the correct total to $4,632."
+us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It explicitly excluded any Pennsylvania employee payroll tax. Pennsylvania's mandatory employee UC contribution of 0.07% × $60,000 = $42 belongs in the total, giving $4,632."
+us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It correctly included Pennsylvania's employee unemployment tax but computed only $7. That is 0.07% of the $10,000 employer UC taxable wage base. The employee withholding applies to all wages, so it is 0.07% × $60,000 = $42, for a total of $4,632."
+us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,It applied only the 7.65% FICA rate and missed Pennsylvania's employee unemployment compensation withholding of 0.07% on uncapped wages ($42).
+us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It reasoned that no state payroll tax was specified, but Pennsylvania law requires employee UC withholding of 0.07% of wages ($42 here), so the total is $4,632."
+us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied only 7.65% FICA to $60,000 and left out Pennsylvania's mandatory employee UC contribution of 0.07% ($42)."
+us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly said there is no Pennsylvania employee payroll tax. The 0.07% employee unemployment compensation withholding on all wages adds $42 to the $4,590 FICA, for $4,632."
+us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It said Pennsylvania has no mandatory employee state payroll tax and so left out the 0.07% employee UC withholding on $60,000 ($42)."
+us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly said Pennsylvania has no mandatory employee payroll tax. Pennsylvania withholds unemployment compensation tax from employees at 0.07% of gross wages, which adds $42."
+us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only Social Security and Medicare ($4,590) and never applied Pennsylvania's 0.07% employee UC tax on the $60,000 of wages ($42)."
+us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only federal FICA and missed Pennsylvania's mandatory employee unemployment compensation withholding of 0.07% × $60,000 = $42."
+us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It gave no usable payroll_tax value. The correct total is $3,720 Social Security + $870 Medicare + $42 Pennsylvania employee UC (0.07% of $60,000) = $4,632."
+us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It said no PolicyEngine-modeled employee state payroll tax applies in Pennsylvania, but the PA employee UC contribution of 0.07% of wages ($42) is modeled and counted."
+us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly said Pennsylvania has no mandatory employee state payroll tax and so left out the 0.07% employee UC withholding ($42) on the $60,000 of wages."
+us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only Social Security and Medicare ($4,590) and never added Pennsylvania's 0.07% employee unemployment compensation tax, which adds $42."
+us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It stopped at federal FICA and missed Pennsylvania's mandatory employee UC withholding of 0.07% on uncapped wages ($42), so it reported $4,590 instead of $4,632."
+us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly said Pennsylvania deducts no unemployment tax from employees. Pennsylvania withholds UC tax from employee wages at 0.07% with no cap, which adds $42 for $4,632."
+us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied only the 7.65% FICA rate and left out Pennsylvania's 0.07% employee unemployment compensation contribution on $60,000 ($42)."
+us,scenario_028,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model counted the $61,277 of income correctly and first found it above the 185% limit using the 2025 guideline. It then switched to a made-up uprated 2026 guideline that put the limit at about $61,300. With the actual 2026 guideline of $33,000 for four, the limit is $61,050, so $61,277 is over it and the model's invented uprating flipped the answer to Yes."
+us,scenario_028,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model tested only wages plus interest ($60,010) and left out the $1,267 of child support, which counts as income for school meals. With child support included, income is $61,277, which is above the model's own 185% limit of $61,050."
+us,scenario_028,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model counted $61,277 of income correctly but put the 185% limit at about $61,975, which implies a guideline of roughly $33,500. The 2026 guideline for four is $33,000, so the reduced-price limit is $61,050 and the household is over it."
+us,scenario_028,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no value and no explanation for reduced_price_school_meals_eligible, so there was nothing to score. The correct derivation counts $61,277 of income, which is above the $61,050 limit (185% of the $33,000 guideline), giving 0."
+us,scenario_028,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model counted wages, child support and interest (about $61,300) correctly but said this was just under 185% of the 2026 poverty line. 185% of the $33,000 guideline for four is $61,050, so income is just over the reduced-price limit, not under it."
+us,scenario_028,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model counted $61,277 of income correctly but said it was within the reduced-price limit without working the limit out. The 2026 limit for four is 185% of $33,000, or $61,050, which is $227 below the household's income, so the household is not eligible."
+us,scenario_028,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model said income was within the reduced-price limit but gave no figures. The correct comparison is $61,277 (child support included) against 185% of $33,000, which is $61,050, so the household is over. A Yes answer matches either testing only wages plus interest ($60,010) or using an inflated guideline."
+us,scenario_028,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model said income was within 185% FPL without stating the income or the limit. Countable income, including the $1,267 of child support, is $61,277, which is above the $61,050 reduced-price limit for four, so its Yes matches either dropping child support or using a guideline above $33,000."
+us,scenario_028,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model measured income as $60,010 and left out the $1,267 of child support, which counts as income for school meals. That omission put the household under the 185% limit. Counted correctly, income is $61,277, which is above the $61,050 limit for four."
us,scenario_028,self_employment_tax,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_028,snap,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_028,ssi,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
@@ -2673,51 +2767,53 @@ us,scenario_028,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_erro
us,scenario_028,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model treated PA tax as a federal-style calculation with a standard deduction and graduated rates. PA has no standard deduction and taxes all income at a flat 3.07%. Its $3,480 implies about $113,000 of income taxed at 3.07%, or an effective rate of about 5.8% on $60,010, either of which is wrong. The correct tax is $1,842.31."
us,scenario_028,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted a made-up $17,800 PA head-of-household standard deduction. PA has no standard deduction, so 3.07% applies to the full $60,010, giving $1,842.31 instead of $1,296."
us,scenario_028,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,other,False,"The model correctly computed $1,842.31 and then subtracted a made-up $1.55 PA Child and Dependent Care credit. The household has no dependent care expenses, so no such credit exists. Because PA's dependent care credit is refundable, it would not reduce tax before refundable credits in any case."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said PA has no state EITC and offers only nonrefundable Tax Forgiveness. It missed the refundable Working Pennsylvanians Tax Credit, which pays 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model only checked the PA child and dependent care credit, which is $0 with no child-care expenses. It missed the refundable PA state EITC, which pays 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed the PA earned income credit is nonrefundable. The Working Pennsylvanians Tax Credit is refundable at 10% of the federal EITC, so this household's $624.13 federal EITC produces a $62.41 refundable credit."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model found no applicable refundable PA credit. It missed PA's refundable state EITC at 10% of the federal EITC, which is $62.41 on this household's $624.13 federal EITC."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model looked only at Tax Forgiveness, which this income rules out, and concluded no PA refundable credit applies. It missed the refundable Working Pennsylvanians Tax Credit at 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated Tax Forgiveness as PA's only relief mechanism and said no other refundable credits exist. It missed PA's refundable state EITC, equal to 10% of the federal EITC ($624.13), which gives $62.41."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said PA has no applicable refundable credits. It missed the Working Pennsylvanians Tax Credit, a refundable 10% match of the household's $624.13 federal EITC, which equals $62.41."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said outright that Pennsylvania has no state EITC. PA's refundable EITC equals 10% of the federal credit, so the $624.13 federal EITC for this three-child head of household yields $62.41."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said PA has no state EITC and analyzed only the nonrefundable Tax Forgiveness credit. It missed the refundable Working Pennsylvanians Tax Credit at 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model concluded no PA refundable credit applies. It missed PA's refundable state EITC, which is 10% of the household's $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said PA offers no refundable credit at this income. The federal three-child EITC has not fully phased out at about $60,010 of AGI ($624.13), so PA's 10% refundable EITC match pays $62.41."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model tested only the Tax Forgiveness income thresholds. It missed the refundable PA state EITC at 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model concluded PA provides no refundable credit for this household. It missed the Working Pennsylvanians Tax Credit, which refunds 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed PA has no refundable individual income tax credits. That ignores the refundable PA state EITC at 10% of the federal EITC, which is $62.41 here."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no PA refundable credits apply for 2026. PA's refundable EITC equals 10% of the federal EITC, and the household's $624.13 federal EITC produces $62.41."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model found no state refundable credits. It missed PA's refundable Working Pennsylvanians Tax Credit at 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model checked only the PA child and dependent care enhancement credit, which is $0 with no child-care costs. It missed the refundable PA state EITC at 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said the household qualifies for no PA refundable credit. It missed PA's refundable state EITC, a 10% match of the $624.13 federal EITC, which is $62.41."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model found no state refundable credits. PA's refundable EITC at 10% of the household's $624.13 federal EITC gives $62.41.
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model concluded the household does not qualify for PA refundable credits. It missed the Working Pennsylvanians Tax Credit at 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model concluded no PA refundable credit applies. It missed PA's refundable state EITC, which is 10% of the federal EITC ($624.13) for a three-child head of household near $60k AGI, or $62.41."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said the household is ineligible for any PA refundable credit. It missed PA's refundable state EITC at 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no usable value or explanation for state_refundable_credits. The correct answer is PA's refundable state EITC at 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model looked only at the Property Tax/Rent Rebate, which requires age 65+ or disability, and concluded no refundable credit applies. It missed PA's refundable state EITC at 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model found no indicated PA refundable credits. PA's refundable EITC pays 10% of the federal EITC, and this household's $624.13 federal EITC produces $62.41."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model assumed income was too high for any major refundable credit. At about $60,010 of AGI with three children, the federal EITC is still $624.13, so PA's 10% refundable match pays $62.41."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model linked PA refundable credits only to child-care expenses. It missed the refundable PA state EITC, 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, which needs only earned income and qualifying children and equals $62.41 here."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model concluded no PA refundable credit applies. It missed the Working Pennsylvanians Tax Credit at 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model concluded no PA refundable credit applies to these facts. It missed PA's refundable state EITC at 10% of the household's $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated this income as too high for any PA refundable credit. The three-child federal EITC is still $624.13 at about $60,010 of AGI, so PA's 10% refundable EITC is $62.41."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model correctly used PA's refundable EITC at 10% of the federal EITC, but rounded the federal EITC to about $650. Computing the three-child head-of-household phase-out exactly at about $60,010 of AGI gives a federal EITC of $624.13, so the PA credit is $62.41, not $65."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model found no indicated PA refundable credit. It missed PA's refundable state EITC at 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model asserted there are no state refundable credits. PA's refundable EITC pays 10% of the household's $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no PA refundable personal income tax credits apply. It missed the Working Pennsylvanians Tax Credit at 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said PA has no applicable refundable credits. PA's refundable state EITC equals 10% of the federal EITC, which is $62.41 on this household's $624.13 federal EITC."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model said PA has no refundable earned income credit and looked only at nonrefundable Tax Forgiveness. PA's refundable EITC at 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC gives $62.41.
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said explicitly that PA has no state EITC. The Working Pennsylvanians Tax Credit is a refundable 10% match of the federal EITC, which is $62.41 on $624.13."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated nonrefundable Tax Forgiveness as the only PA credit to test. It missed the refundable PA state EITC at 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model checked only the Tax Forgiveness income limits. It missed PA's refundable state EITC, which pays 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed PA has no state EITC. PA's refundable Working Pennsylvanians Tax Credit pays 10% of the federal EITC, which is $62.41 on this household's $624.13 federal EITC."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model found no applicable PA refundable credits. It missed the refundable PA state EITC at 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said there is no state EITC amount for PA. PA's refundable EITC equals 10% of the household's $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model looked only at Tax Forgiveness eligibility at $60,010 of income. It missed the refundable PA state EITC at 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said PA has no refundable EITC. The Working Pennsylvanians Tax Credit is a refundable 10% match of the federal EITC, which is $62.41 on the household's $624.13 federal EITC."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model concluded no PA refundable credits apply. It missed PA's refundable state EITC at 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said PA has no state EITC and only checked the nonrefundable Tax Forgiveness program. It missed the refundable Working Pennsylvanians Tax Credit, which equals 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model only checked the PA child and dependent care credit and stopped when it found no child care costs. It missed PA's refundable state EITC, which is 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model called the PA EIC nonrefundable, but the Working Pennsylvanians Tax Credit is refundable and equals 10% of the federal EITC. With a $624.13 federal EITC, the state credit is $62.41."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no PA refundable credit applies and missed PA's refundable state EITC. That credit is 10% of this household's $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model only tested PA Tax Forgiveness and missed the refundable Working Pennsylvanians Tax Credit, which is 10% of the federal EITC. The federal EITC stays positive at $624.13 for a head of household with three children at $60,010 AGI, so the PA credit is $62.41."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated Tax Forgiveness as PA's only relief and missed the refundable state EITC, which is 10% of the federal EITC. That credit equals $62.41 here, based on a $624.13 federal EITC."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no PA refundable credit applies and missed PA's refundable state EITC, which is 10% of the federal EITC. With a $624.13 federal EITC, the state credit is $62.41."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model stated outright that PA has no state EITC. PA's Working Pennsylvanians Tax Credit is a refundable credit equal to 10% of the federal EITC, which gives $62.41 on this household's $624.13 federal EITC."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said PA has nothing like a state EITC and only reviewed Tax Forgiveness. It missed the refundable Working Pennsylvanians Tax Credit, which is 10% of the federal EITC, or $62.41 here."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no PA refundable credit applies and missed PA's refundable state EITC. That credit is 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated this income level as too high for any PA refundable credit. The federal EITC for three children is still $624.13 at $60,010 AGI, and PA's refundable state EITC pays 10% of it, or $62.41."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model only tested the Tax Forgiveness income limits, and it also miscounted the family as four people instead of five. It missed PA's refundable state EITC, which is 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said PA has no refundable credit for this household and missed the Working Pennsylvanians Tax Credit. That credit is 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said PA has no refundable individual income tax credits, but PA's state EITC is refundable and equals 10% of the federal EITC. That gives $62.41 on a $624.13 federal EITC."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no PA refundable credits apply for 2026 and missed PA's refundable state EITC. That credit is 10% of the household's $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no state refundable credits apply and missed PA's refundable state EITC. That credit is 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model only checked the PA child and dependent care credit and missed the refundable Working Pennsylvanians Tax Credit. That credit is 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said the household qualifies for no PA refundable credit, but PA's state EITC equals 10% of the federal EITC. With a $624.13 federal EITC, the state credit is $62.41."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no state refundable credits are available and missed PA's refundable state EITC. That credit is 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said the household qualifies for no PA refundable credit. PA's refundable state EITC is 10% of the federal EITC, which gives $62.41 on a $624.13 federal EITC."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said the household qualifies for no PA refundable credit and missed the Working Pennsylvanians Tax Credit. That credit is 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said the household is ineligible for any PA refundable credit and missed PA's state EITC. That credit is 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model only checked the child-care-based PA credit and missed PA's refundable state EITC. That credit is 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no value for state_refundable_credits. The correct answer is $62.41, which is PA's 10% refundable state EITC on a $624.13 federal EITC."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model only checked the PA property tax and rent rebate, which has age and disability rules, and missed PA's refundable state EITC. That credit is 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model found no PA refundable credit and missed PA's state EITC, which is 10% of the federal EITC. That gives $62.41 on this household's $624.13 federal EITC."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model assumed the income was too high for any major refundable credit. A head of household with three children still gets a $624.13 federal EITC at $60,010 AGI, and PA's refundable state EITC pays 10% of that, or $62.41."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model only looked for child-care-based PA credits and missed PA's refundable state EITC. That credit is 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no PA refundable credit applies and missed the Working Pennsylvanians Tax Credit. That credit is 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no PA refundable credit applies and missed PA's refundable state EITC. That credit is 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model assumed no PA credit applies at this income. The three-child federal EITC is still $624.13 at $60,010 AGI, and PA's refundable state EITC pays 10% of it, or $62.41."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model correctly applied PA's refundable state EITC at 10% of the federal EITC but estimated the federal EITC at about $650 instead of computing it. The three-child credit phases out at 21.06% on $60,010 AGI, leaving a federal EITC of $624.13 and a PA credit of $62.41, not $65."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no PA refundable credit applies and missed the Working Pennsylvanians Tax Credit. That credit is 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said there are no state refundable credits and missed PA's refundable state EITC. That credit is 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no PA personal income tax credit is refundable here and missed PA's state EITC. That credit is 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said PA has no applicable refundable credits and missed the Working Pennsylvanians Tax Credit. That credit is 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said PA has no refundable earned income credit and only checked Tax Forgiveness. PA's refundable state EITC is 10% of the federal EITC, which gives $62.41 here."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model stated that PA has no state EITC, but PA's refundable Working Pennsylvanians Tax Credit is 10% of the federal EITC. On a $624.13 federal EITC, that is $62.41."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model only checked the nonrefundable Tax Forgiveness program and missed PA's refundable state EITC. That credit is 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model only tested the Tax Forgiveness limits, and it also miscounted the family as four people. It missed PA's refundable state EITC, which is 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model stated that PA has no state EITC, but PA's refundable Working Pennsylvanians Tax Credit pays 10% of the federal EITC. That is $62.41 on this household's $624.13 federal EITC."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said none of PA's limited refundable credits apply and missed the state EITC. That credit is 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no PA refundable credits apply and missed PA's refundable state EITC. That credit is 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said there is no state EITC amount, but PA's refundable Working Pennsylvanians Tax Credit is 10% of the federal EITC. That gives $62.41 on a $624.13 federal EITC."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model only checked Tax Forgiveness and missed PA's refundable state EITC. That credit is 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model stated that PA has no refundable state EITC, but the Working Pennsylvanians Tax Credit is refundable at 10% of the federal EITC. That gives $62.41 on this household's $624.13 federal EITC."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no PA refundable credits apply and missed PA's refundable state EITC. That credit is 10% of the $624.13 federal EITC, or $62.41."
us,scenario_028,tanf,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_029,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It stated ""AGI is $50,312 ($50,000 taxable financial assistance + $312 taxable interest),"" treating the non-taxable financial-assistance input as ordinary taxable income when that variable enters no AGI component, leaving actual AGI at $312 of taxable interest alone. It compounded this by applying a pre-TCJA 2026 schedule — an $8,600 single standard deduction with 10%/15% brackets — instead of the 2026 single standard deduction of about $16,100 under the permanent OBBBA rates. Either correction alone puts the $312 of interest below the standard deduction, yielding $0 rather than $5,676.80."
us,scenario_029,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It explicitly ""treated [the $50,000 financial assistance] as taxable income for federal tax purposes"" and added it to the $312 of interest, but financial assistance is a non-taxable receipt that contributes nothing to AGI, so the return reports only $312 of taxable interest. Its $5,236 is consistent with running a bracket schedule on roughly $45,700 of taxable income after subtracting a standard deduction from a $50,312 base. The correct derivation is $312 AGI minus the 2026 single standard deduction of about $16,100, giving $0 taxable income and $0 tax before refundable credits."
@@ -2747,52 +2843,53 @@ us,scenario_029,snap,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"The model skip
us,scenario_029,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model built Oklahoma taxable income of $50,312 by adding the $50,000 of financial assistance to the $312 of taxable interest, but financial assistance is a non-taxable transfer that is excluded from federal AGI, which is Oklahoma's starting point, so Oklahoma AGI is $312. It compounded this with an $8,600 standard deduction in place of Oklahoma's single standard deduction plus the $1,000 personal exemption, then ran the graduated 0.25%–4.75% schedule over $41,712 of income that does not exist; with only $312 of interest, Oklahoma taxable income is zero and the tax is $0.00."
us,scenario_029,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model gave no arithmetic, but $1,827 is what Oklahoma's graduated schedule yields on roughly $43,000 of taxable income — $50,312 of gross income less about $7,350 of standard deduction and personal exemption — which is reachable only by treating the $50,000 of financial assistance as taxable income. Financial assistance is non-taxable and never enters federal AGI or Oklahoma AGI; the sole taxable item is $312 of interest, which falls below Oklahoma's standard deduction and produces $0.00 of tax."
us,scenario_029,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's $36,662 base is exactly $50,312 minus a $13,650 deduction, showing it counted the non-taxable $50,000 financial assistance as Oklahoma taxable income and then subtracted a federal-style standard deduction rather than Oklahoma's single standard deduction plus $1,000 personal exemption. Excluding the non-taxable assistance leaves $312 of taxable interest, below every Oklahoma deduction and filing threshold, so the correct liability is $0.00 instead of $1,160."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It identified the Sales Tax Relief Credit and the $20,000 single-filer limit. It then added the $50,000 of financial assistance to gross income, but the credit's income measure is only the $312 of interest. At $312 the filer qualifies for $40 × 1 exemption = $40."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It claimed Oklahoma has no refundable individual credits, which is wrong. The refundable Sales Tax Relief Credit pays $40 per exemption to filers with gross income at or below $20,000, so a single filer with $312 of income gets $40."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It assumed refundable credits require earned income, but the Sales Tax Relief Credit has no such requirement. It pays $40 per exemption when gross income is at or below $20,000, which gives $40 on $312 of interest."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted the $50,000 of financial assistance (and mentioned assets) against the $20,000 Sales Tax Relief Credit limit. The credit's gross income is only the $312 of interest, and assets are not tested. That yields $40 × 1 exemption = $40."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It ruled out the Sales Tax Relief Credit because of the assets and financial assistance and because there was no earned income. The credit has no asset test, no earned-income requirement, and its gross income here is $312, so the filer is under the $20,000 limit and gets $40."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated take-up of the sales tax relief credit as zero, even though the prompt says to assume filing and take-up. It also said the threshold was not met, when $312 is well under the $20,000 limit, so the refundable credit is $40."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It assumed Oklahoma refundable credits require earned income or dependents. The Sales Tax Relief Credit pays $40 per exemption to any single filer with gross income at or below $20,000, so this filer gets $40."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It checked only the Oklahoma EITC and never applied the refundable Sales Tax Relief Credit. That credit pays $40 per exemption when gross income ($312 here) is at or below $20,000."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly believed the credit requires elderly or disabled status or dependents. The refundable Sales Tax Relief Credit is open to any filer under the $20,000 gross income limit, which gives $40 for this single filer with $312 of income."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It said no refundable credit applies at this income level, which gets the low-income Sales Tax Relief Credit backwards. A single filer with $312 of gross income is under the $20,000 limit and receives $40 per exemption."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated zero tax liability as ruling out refundable credits. The Sales Tax Relief Credit is paid regardless of liability: $40 per exemption when gross income is at or below $20,000, which gives $40 here."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,It checked only the Oklahoma EITC (5% of a $0 federal EITC) and missed the refundable Sales Tax Relief Credit. That credit pays $40 for one exemption when gross income is $312.
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It looked only at the EITC and left out the Sales Tax Relief Credit. That credit is $40 per exemption for gross income at or below $20,000, which gives $40 for this single filer."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It tied all Oklahoma refundable credits to the federal EITC and missed the Sales Tax Relief Credit, which does not depend on earned income. That credit pays $40 when gross income of $312 is under the $20,000 limit."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It computed gross income as $50,312 by adding the $50,000 of financial assistance. The Sales Tax Relief Credit's gross income is just the $312 of interest, which is under the $20,000 limit and yields $40."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It missed the refundable Sales Tax Relief Credit, which pays $40 per exemption to a single filer with gross income at or below $20,000. That gives $40 for this household."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted the $50,000 of financial assistance toward the Sales Tax Relief Credit's $20,000 limit. The credit's gross income is only the $312 of interest, so the single filer qualifies for $40."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It missed the refundable Sales Tax Relief Credit, which gives $40 per exemption when gross income is at or below $20,000. With $312 of income, this filer receives $40."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It gave no basis for $0 and left out the Sales Tax Relief Credit. That credit is $40 × 1 exemption for a single filer whose gross income ($312) is under $20,000."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It treated age 65+, disability, or dependents as a requirement for the Sales Tax Relief Credit. Those factors only raise the income limit to $50,000. A 21-year-old single filer qualifies under the $20,000 limit, and with $312 of income receives $40."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It missed the refundable Sales Tax Relief Credit. The credit is $40 per exemption for gross income at or below $20,000, which gives $40 on $312 of interest."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It looked only at the Oklahoma EITC and missed the Sales Tax Relief Credit. That credit does not require earned income and pays $40 per exemption when gross income is at or below $20,000."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It claimed no refundable credit applies, but the Sales Tax Relief Credit pays $40 per exemption to a single filer under the $20,000 gross income limit. That gives $40 here."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,It reported no refundable Oklahoma credits and missed the Sales Tax Relief Credit. That credit is $40 for one exemption with gross income of $312.
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It found no fact supporting a refundable credit, but the only facts needed for the Sales Tax Relief Credit are residency and gross income at or below $20,000. Both are met, which gives $40."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It defaulted to zero for lack of explicit eligibility facts. Low gross income ($312, under $20,000) is enough for the refundable Sales Tax Relief Credit of $40 per exemption."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It required earned income or some other qualifying basis, but the Sales Tax Relief Credit is based only on gross income at or below $20,000. This filer qualifies for $40."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It assumed Oklahoma refundable credits require earned income or a dependent. The Sales Tax Relief Credit pays $40 per exemption to a single filer with gross income at or below $20,000, which gives $40."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It said earned income or dependents were required and missed the Sales Tax Relief Credit, which depends only on gross income at or below $20,000. That gives $40 for one exemption."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It found no eligibility basis, but $312 of gross income is under the $20,000 limit for the refundable Sales Tax Relief Credit. That gives $40 × 1 exemption = $40."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $50,000 of financial assistance to household income for the sales tax relief test. The credit's gross income is only the $312 of interest, which is under $20,000 and yields $40."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated qualifying children or earned income as prerequisites. The Sales Tax Relief Credit requires neither and pays $40 per exemption when gross income is at or below $20,000."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It looked for earnings or children and missed the Sales Tax Relief Credit, which is based only on gross income ($312, under $20,000). That gives $40."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It assumed refundable credits need earned income, dependents, or specific expenses. The Sales Tax Relief Credit pays $40 per exemption to any filer with gross income at or below $20,000."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated qualifying children as necessary for a refundable credit. A childless single filer with $312 of gross income qualifies for the $40 Sales Tax Relief Credit under the $20,000 limit."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted the $50,000 of financial assistance and the investment assets against the sales tax relief limit. The credit has no asset test and uses only the $312 of gross income, which is under $20,000 and yields $40."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $50,000 of financial assistance to gross household resources for the Sales Tax Relief Credit. The credit's income measure is the $312 of interest, so the filer is under $20,000 and gets $40."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It missed the refundable Sales Tax Relief Credit, which pays $40 per exemption to a single filer with gross income at or below $20,000. That gives $40 here."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It ruled out the low-income credit based on income and assets. The Sales Tax Relief Credit has no asset test, and its gross income here is $312, below the $20,000 limit, so it pays $40."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It treated being under 65, not disabled, and without dependents as disqualifying for the Sales Tax Relief Credit. Those statuses only raise the income limit to $50,000. The base $20,000 limit applies here, and the filer's $312 qualifies for $40."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted the $50,000 of financial assistance toward the $20,000 sales tax relief limit for an under-65 filer. The credit's gross income is only the $312 of interest, which gives $40 × 1 exemption = $40."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly claimed Oklahoma has no state income tax. Oklahoma has an income tax and a refundable Sales Tax Relief Credit of $40 per exemption for gross income at or below $20,000, which gives $40 here."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It required earned income or a qualifying child, but the Sales Tax Relief Credit depends only on gross income at or below $20,000. That pays $40 for this single filer."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It named the Sales Tax Relief Credit but wrongly treated it as requiring earned income. The credit pays $40 per exemption whenever gross income ($312) is at or below $20,000."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It considered only EITC and child-related credits and missed the Sales Tax Relief Credit. That credit pays $40 per exemption to a single filer with gross income under $20,000."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It found no indicated refundable credit and missed the Sales Tax Relief Credit, which is $40 for one exemption when gross income ($312) is below the $20,000 limit."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly identified the $40-per-exemption Sales Tax Relief Credit and the $20,000 single-filer limit. It then added the $50,000 of financial assistance to income for the test. The credit's gross income measure is only the $312 of interest, so the head qualifies for $40."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed Oklahoma has no refundable individual credits. It missed the refundable Sales Tax Relief Credit, which pays $40 per exemption to a filer with $312 of gross income, under the $20,000 limit."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model assumed refundable Oklahoma credits require earned income. The Sales Tax Relief Credit has no earnings requirement and pays $40 for one exemption when gross income ($312) is under $20,000."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted the $50,000 of financial assistance (and mentioned the assets) when applying the Sales Tax Relief Credit's $20,000 income limit. The credit's gross income is only the $312 of taxable interest, and there is no asset test, so the $40 single-exemption credit applies."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated the Sales Tax Relief Credit as blocked by the lack of earned income and by the assets and financial assistance. The credit needs no earnings, has no asset test, and measures income as gross income of $312, so it pays $40."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said the sales tax relief thresholds were not met and that take-up was zero, even though the prompt says to assume take-up. With $312 of gross income under the $20,000 limit, the head gets the $40 single-exemption credit."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model assumed only earned-income or dependent-based credits exist. It skipped the refundable Sales Tax Relief Credit, which pays $40 per exemption to a single filer with $312 of gross income."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model checked only the Oklahoma EITC. It left out the refundable Sales Tax Relief Credit, which pays $40 for one exemption because gross income of $312 is under the $20,000 limit."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed Oklahoma has no general refundable credit for this filer. The Sales Tax Relief Credit is refundable, applies to filers under 65 without a disability or dependents if income is under $20,000, and pays $40 here."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no refundable credit applies at this income level. The very low $312 gross income is exactly what qualifies the head for the $40 Sales Tax Relief Credit, since it is under the $20,000 limit."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model tied refundable credits to tax liability. The refundable Sales Tax Relief Credit is paid even with zero tax and gives $40 for one exemption with $312 of gross income.
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly found the state EITC to be $0 but wrongly concluded no other refundable credit applies. It missed the $40 Sales Tax Relief Credit for a filer with gross income of $312, under $20,000."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model looked only at the EITC-based refundable credit. It omitted the Sales Tax Relief Credit, which gives $40 for one exemption because gross income of $312 is under the $20,000 limit."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated Oklahoma's refundable credits as only the EITC. It missed the $40 Sales Tax Relief Credit, which needs no earned income and applies with $312 of gross income."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model added the $50,000 of financial assistance to income, getting $50,312 for the Sales Tax Relief Credit test. The credit's gross income is only the $312 of interest, which is under $20,000, so the $40 credit applies."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model gave $0 with no analysis. It missed the refundable Sales Tax Relief Credit, worth $40 for one exemption at $312 of gross income."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted the financial assistance in the Sales Tax Relief Credit's income test. That test uses gross income of $312, which is under the $20,000 single limit, so the credit is $40."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no refundable credit applies. It missed the Oklahoma Sales Tax Relief Credit, which pays $40 per exemption to a filer with $312 of gross income, under $20,000."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model gave $0 without considering the refundable Sales Tax Relief Credit. That credit gives $40 to a single filer with $312 of gross income.
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model wrongly made age 65+, disability, or dependents a requirement for the Sales Tax Relief Credit. Those factors only raise the income limit to $50,000; every other filer qualifies at the $20,000 limit, so the 21-year-old with $312 of income gets $40."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model concluded no refundable Oklahoma credit applies. It missed the Sales Tax Relief Credit, which gives $40 for one exemption when gross income of $312 is under the $20,000 limit."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model checked only the EITC, which is $0. It skipped the refundable Sales Tax Relief Credit, worth $40 at $312 of gross income."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Oklahoma offers no refundable credit for this household. The refundable Sales Tax Relief Credit gives $40 for one exemption because gross income is $312, under $20,000."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model gave $0 with no analysis. It missed the $40 Sales Tax Relief Credit, for which a single filer with $312 of gross income qualifies."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said the facts support no refundable credit. The facts given (Oklahoma resident, single filer, $312 gross income) are enough for the $40 Sales Tax Relief Credit."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model defaulted to zero for lack of eligibility facts. Oklahoma residency plus $312 of gross income under the $20,000 limit is enough for the $40 Sales Tax Relief Credit."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model required earned income for any refundable credit. The Sales Tax Relief Credit has no earnings requirement and pays $40 at $312 of gross income.
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model tied refundable credits to earned income or dependents. The Sales Tax Relief Credit needs neither and gives a single filer with $312 of gross income $40.
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model required earnings or dependents for a refundable credit. It missed the Sales Tax Relief Credit, which pays $40 per exemption when gross income ($312) is under $20,000."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model said no listed fact supports a refundable credit. Oklahoma residency and $312 of gross income qualify the head for the $40 Sales Tax Relief Credit.
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted the financial assistance in the sales tax relief income test. The credit uses gross income of $312, which is under $20,000, so it pays $40."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model assumed refundable credits require children or earned income. The Sales Tax Relief Credit gives $40 to a childless single filer with $312 of gross income.
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model required earnings or children for a refundable credit. It missed the Sales Tax Relief Credit, which pays $40 for one exemption when gross income is $312."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model required earned income, dependents, or specific expenses. The refundable Sales Tax Relief Credit needs none of these and pays $40 at $312 of gross income."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model required qualifying children for a refundable credit. It missed the Sales Tax Relief Credit, which gives a single filer under the $20,000 income limit $40."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted the $50,000 of financial assistance and the investment assets against the sales tax relief limit. The credit has no asset test and measures income as gross income of $312, so it pays $40."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model added the $50,000 of financial assistance to income for the sales tax relief test. Only the $312 of gross income counts, which is under the $20,000 limit, so the credit is $40."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model gave $0 with no analysis. It missed the refundable Sales Tax Relief Credit, worth $40 for one exemption at $312 of gross income."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said income and assets rule out the low-income credit. The Sales Tax Relief Credit has no asset test and uses gross income of $312, under $20,000, so it pays $40."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model treated being under 65 with no disability or dependents as disqualifying for the Sales Tax Relief Credit. Those conditions only raise the income limit to $50,000; the 21-year-old qualifies under the standard $20,000 limit with $312 of income and gets $40."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted the $50,000 of financial assistance toward the sales tax relief income limit. The credit's income measure is gross income of $312, which is under $20,000, so it pays $40."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model falsely claimed Oklahoma has no state income tax. Oklahoma has an individual income tax that includes the refundable Sales Tax Relief Credit, worth $40 here."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model gave $0 without considering the Sales Tax Relief Credit. That credit pays $40 for one exemption when gross income ($312) is under $20,000."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model required earned income or a qualifying child. The refundable Sales Tax Relief Credit needs neither and gives a single filer with $312 of gross income $40.
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model named the Sales Tax Relief Credit but wrongly assumed it requires earned income. The credit applies whenever gross income is under $20,000, which it is at $312, and pays $40 for one exemption."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model considered only the EITC and child-related credits. It missed the Sales Tax Relief Credit, which pays $40 per exemption to a low-income single filer with $312 of gross income."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model said the facts indicate no refundable credit. A single Oklahoma filer with $312 of gross income qualifies for the $40 Sales Tax Relief Credit.
us,scenario_030,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model incorrectly included the $5,000 of educational assistance and $12,000 of financial assistance in AGI, inflating it from $13,000 to $30,000. With only $13,000 of taxable wages, the single-filer standard deduction eliminates all taxable income, so applying the 10% and 12% brackets to $14,600 was erroneous."
us,scenario_030,federal_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model calculated a phased-out childless EITC without first applying the minimum-age requirement. At age 23, the filer is ineligible for the 2026 childless EITC, so the phase-in and phaseout arithmetic never applies."
us,scenario_030,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model treated the 23-year-old as eligible for the childless EITC despite the minimum-age requirement. It also mislabeled $1,940 as the childless maximum and submitted that amount even though its own 7.65% calculation produced $994.50."
@@ -2821,54 +2918,56 @@ us,scenario_030,head_wic_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_outpu
us,scenario_030,local_income_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_030,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model miscalculated Medicare tax: 1.45% of $13,000 is $188.50, not $189 or $189.90. It then compounded the arithmetic error by stating that $806 plus $189 equals $995.90; the exact component sum is $994.50."
us,scenario_030,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_030,snap,claude-fable-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Counted income correctly at about $2,083/month but applied the 130% FPL gross test, which does not apply here. Texas BBCE (TANF non-cash categorical eligibility) raises the gross limit to 165% FPL, and the household is at 1.60×. It therefore stays eligible and gets the $24/month minimum allotment ($288/year)."
-us,scenario_030,snap,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Correctly computed net income of about $1,658 and saw that the 30% contribution exceeds the $298 maximum. It then applied the net income test, which BBCE waives, and left out the $24 minimum allotment for eligible one-person households. That floor gives $288/year."
-us,scenario_030,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Counted educational assistance as income for a $30,000 total, although SNAP excludes it. It then tested against 130% FPL and ignored Texas BBCE's 165% limit. Countable income is $25,000 (1.60× FPL), so the household is eligible for the $24/month minimum."
-us,scenario_030,snap,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Gave no real derivation, and its $0 implies it treated the household as ineligible under standard gross/net tests. Under Texas BBCE the household passes at 1.60× FPL. Its $498 contribution exceeds the $298 maximum, so the $24 minimum applies, giving $288/year."
-us,scenario_030,snap,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Recognized Texas BBCE at 165% FPL but put the limit at about $2,072/month. The correct figure is 1.65 × $1,304.17 = $2,152, so gross income of $2,083 (1.60× FPL) passes. The household then gets the $24 minimum allotment, not $0."
-us,scenario_030,snap,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Excluded the $12,000 financial assistance, which PolicyEngine counts as $1,000/month of unearned income. It also contradicted its own math by computing about $99/month and then submitting close to the maximum. With the assistance counted, net income is $1,658 and the contribution is $498, which exceeds $298, so only the $24 minimum is paid."
-us,scenario_030,snap,claude-opus-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Counted only wages and dropped the $12,000 financial assistance, which counts as $1,000/month of unearned income. Including it raises net income to $1,658 and the contribution to $498, above the $298 maximum. The benefit falls to the $24 minimum, not $134/month."
-us,scenario_030,snap,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Explicitly excluded the financial assistance, but SNAP counts it as $1,000/month of unearned income. That raises net income from $658 to $1,658. The contribution of $498 then exceeds the $298 maximum, leaving the $24 minimum ($288/year)."
-us,scenario_030,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Counted income correctly at $2,083/month but wrongly said Texas has no BBCE. Texas confers categorical eligibility through TANF non-cash benefits at 165% FPL, and the household's 1.60× ratio passes. The income tests are waived, and the $24/month minimum allotment is paid."
-us,scenario_030,snap,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Left out the $1,000/month financial assistance from countable income. It also made an arithmetic error: $298 minus a contribution of about $200 is about $98, not $350. With the assistance counted, the contribution is $498, which exceeds the maximum, so the benefit is the $24 minimum."
-us,scenario_030,snap,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Treated the financial assistance as excluded, but SNAP counts it as $1,000/month of unearned income. Net income is therefore $1,658, not $658, and the $498 contribution exceeds the $298 maximum. Only the $24 minimum allotment remains."
-us,scenario_030,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Counted the $5,000 educational assistance, which SNAP excludes, and applied the 130% FPL gross test instead of Texas BBCE's 165% limit. Countable gross income is $2,083/month (1.60× FPL), so the household is eligible and gets the $24 minimum."
-us,scenario_030,snap,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Counted educational assistance for a $30,000 total, then applied the 130% FPL gross test that Texas BBCE waives. Countable income is $25,000 (1.60× FPL), under the 165% BBCE limit. The household therefore gets the $24/month minimum."
-us,scenario_030,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Wrongly counted the excluded educational assistance. It also stopped at a contribution above the maximum allotment, missing that a categorically eligible one-person household receives the $24 minimum allotment ($288/year)."
-us,scenario_030,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Counted the pregnant head as a two-person SNAP household, but an unborn child does not add to SNAP household size. With size 1 the maximum is $298, and the correctly computed $497 contribution exceeds it. The benefit is the $24 minimum, not $546 − $497 = $49."
-us,scenario_030,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Correctly used a one-person household and $25,000 countable income but applied the 130% FPL gross test. Texas BBCE uses 165% FPL, and $25,000 is 1.60× the guideline. The household is eligible and gets the $24 minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_030,snap,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Based the benefit only on the $13,000 of earnings and left out the $12,000 financial assistance ($1,000/month unearned). Its $217/month result does not follow the standard formula. With all income counted, net income is $1,658 and the $498 contribution exceeds $298, so only the $24 minimum is paid."
-us,scenario_030,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied the 130% FPL gross limit, which Texas BBCE replaces with a 165% FPL limit through TANF non-cash eligibility. Gross income is 1.60× FPL and passes. The one-person household then gets the $24 minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_030,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Correctly invoked Texas BBCE at 165% FPL but miscomputed the limit as $24,849. The correct limit is 1.65 × $15,650 = $25,822, so $25,000 of countable income (1.60×) passes. The household is eligible for the $24/month minimum."
-us,scenario_030,snap,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Gave no derivation; its $0 implies it applied the standard income tests or let a negative formula result stand. Under Texas BBCE the household is eligible at 1.60× FPL, and the $24 minimum allotment covers the case where the $498 contribution exceeds the $298 maximum."
-us,scenario_030,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied the net income limit, which BBCE categorical eligibility waives. It also missed that an eligible one-person household whose formula benefit is zero or negative still receives the $24 minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_030,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Treated net income above the threshold as disqualifying, but Texas BBCE waives the net income test. The categorically eligible one-person household receives the $24/month minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_030,snap,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Correctly counted the financial assistance but concluded that net income above the threshold gives $0. Under BBCE the household remains eligible. With the $498 contribution above the $298 maximum, the $24 minimum allotment applies ($288/year)."
-us,scenario_030,snap,glm-5.2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Counted the unborn child to make a two-person household. It also deducted medical expenses, although that deduction is limited to elderly or disabled members and the 23-year-old head is neither. With size 1 and no medical deduction, net income is $1,658, the contribution is $498, and the benefit falls to the $24 minimum."
-us,scenario_030,snap,glm-5.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Counted income correctly but applied the federal gross and net limits that Texas BBCE waives. Gross income is 1.60× FPL, under the 165% BBCE limit. The household is eligible and receives the $24 minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_030,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Described the household as having very low countable cash income, ignoring $1,083/month of wages and $1,000/month of financial assistance. Counting both gives net income of $1,658 and a $498 contribution above the $298 maximum. The benefit is the $24 minimum, not about $176/month."
-us,scenario_030,snap,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Gave no substantive derivation; its $0 implies it found the household ineligible or let the formula result stand. The household is categorically eligible under Texas BBCE, and its $498 contribution exceeds the $298 maximum, so it gets the $24 minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_030,snap,gpt-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Correctly found that 30% of net income exceeds the one-person maximum but stopped at $0. A household that stays eligible through Texas BBCE gets the $24 minimum allotment for one- and two-person households, which is $288/year."
-us,scenario_030,snap,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied a gross income limit that Texas BBCE raises to 165% FPL. Countable gross income of $2,083/month is 1.60× the guideline and passes. The household receives the $24 minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_030,snap,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Correctly counted the financial assistance and excluded the educational assistance, but wrongly concluded the household exceeds the Texas gross limit. The Texas BBCE limit is 165% FPL ($2,152/month), and $2,083 passes. The household gets the $24 minimum."
-us,scenario_030,snap,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Tested $25,000 against the standard one-person gross limit instead of the 165% FPL limit under Texas BBCE through TANF non-cash eligibility. At 1.60× FPL the household passes and receives the $24 minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_030,snap,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied the federal income limits, which BBCE categorical eligibility waives. It also missed that the eligible one-person household receives the $24 minimum allotment even though its $498 contribution exceeds the $298 maximum."
-us,scenario_030,snap,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Correctly found the 30% contribution above the one-person maximum but returned $0. A household categorically eligible under Texas BBCE gets the $24/month minimum allotment, or $288/year."
-us,scenario_030,snap,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied the benefit formula to wages only and left out the $1,000/month financial assistance that SNAP counts as unearned income. Counting it raises net income to $1,658 and the contribution to $498, above the $298 maximum. Only the $24 minimum is paid."
-us,scenario_030,snap,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Concluded the income was too high for any allotment, missing the $24 minimum benefit. That floor applies to one- and two-person households that remain eligible, and this household is eligible through Texas BBCE."
-us,scenario_030,snap,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Gave no derivation; its $0 implies it treated the household as ineligible. It passes the $190 asset test and the 165% FPL BBCE gross limit at 1.60×. With the $498 contribution above the $298 maximum, the $24 minimum applies."
-us,scenario_030,snap,grok-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Correctly counted $25,000 of income but applied the 130% FPL gross test. Texas BBCE replaces that test with a 165% FPL limit, which the household meets at 1.60×. The result is the $24 minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_030,snap,grok-4.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Leaned toward counting educational assistance, which SNAP excludes, and wrongly said income exceeds the Texas BBCE 165% limit. Countable income of $25,000 is 1.60× the $15,650 guideline, under the $25,822 limit. The household is eligible for the $24 minimum."
-us,scenario_030,snap,grok-4.7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Correctly counted income and deductions but treated failing the 100% FPL net income test as disqualifying. Texas BBCE waives the net test, so the household remains eligible and receives the $24/month minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_030,snap,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Correctly counted $25,000 of income and excluded educational assistance, but applied the 130% FPL gross limit. Under Texas BBCE the limit is 165% FPL, which the household meets at 1.60×. It gets the $24 minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_030,snap,inkling,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Counted the $5,000 educational assistance, which SNAP excludes, and applied the 130% FPL gross test instead of Texas BBCE's 165% limit. Countable income is $25,000 (1.60× FPL), so the household is eligible for the $24 minimum."
-us,scenario_030,snap,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Returned no SNAP value or explanation, so no answer could be parsed. The correct output is $288: twelve months of the $24 minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_030,snap,kimi-k3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Correctly computed $2,083.33/month of countable income but applied the standard one-person gross limit. Texas BBCE uses 165% FPL ($2,152/month), which the household meets. It receives the $24 minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_030,snap,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Compared an annual figure ($10,400) against a monthly net limit ($1,255) and ignored both the standard deduction and the $1,000/month financial assistance. Correctly computed, monthly net income is $1,658. The household is categorically eligible under BBCE and gets the $24 minimum."
-us,scenario_030,snap,muse-wonder,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied the net income limit, which Texas BBCE categorical eligibility waives. It also missed that an eligible one-person household gets the $24 minimum allotment when the 30% contribution exceeds the maximum."
-us,scenario_030,snap,ox-alpha,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Correctly counted $25,000 but tested it against the 130% FPL gross limit instead of the 165% FPL limit under Texas BBCE through TANF non-cash eligibility. At 1.60× FPL the household is eligible for the $24 minimum."
-us,scenario_030,snap,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Left out the $1,000/month financial assistance and the standard deduction. It then submitted $2,576, which contradicts its own $372–$384 arithmetic. Counted correctly, net income is $1,658 and the contribution is $498, above the $298 maximum, so only the $24 minimum is paid."
-us,scenario_030,snap,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Counted the unborn child to make a two-person household and claimed net income of $0, ignoring $2,083/month of countable income. It then submitted $3,576, which does not match its own $4,272. A one-person household with $1,658 net income gets only the $24 minimum."
+us,scenario_030,snap,claude-fable-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model counted gross income correctly at $2,083/month but used the 130% FPL gross test. It missed Texas's TANF non-cash categorical eligibility (BBCE), whose limit is 165% FPL; at 1.6× FPL the household passes and gets the $24/month minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_030,snap,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model correctly found $1,658 net income and that 30% of it exceeds the $298 maximum. It then applied a net income test that Texas BBCE waives, and missed that a categorically eligible one-person household gets the $24 minimum allotment instead of $0."
+us,scenario_030,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model wrongly counted the $5,000 of educational assistance, for a total of $30,000. It compared income to a 130% FPL limit and missed that Texas BBCE (165% FPL) makes the household eligible. The household gets the $24 monthly minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_030,snap,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model gave $0 with no derivation. The correct path counts $2,083/month gross income, which passes the Texas 165% FPL BBCE limit. The $498 contribution exceeds the $298 maximum, so the $24 minimum allotment applies, or $288 a year."
+us,scenario_030,snap,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model computed net income of $1,657 correctly and considered Texas BBCE. However, it put the 165% FPL limit at about $2,072; the real limit is $1,304.17 × 1.65 = $2,151.88, so the $2,083 gross passes. The household is then eligible for the $24 minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_030,snap,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model excluded the $12,000 of financial assistance, which SNAP counts as $1,000/month of unearned income. With that income, net income is $1,658 and the $498 contribution exceeds the $298 maximum, leaving only the $24 minimum. Its $2,298 also contradicts its own ~$99/month figure."
+us,scenario_030,snap,claude-opus-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model counted only the $13,000 of wages and dropped the $12,000 of financial assistance, which is countable unearned income. Including it raises net income to $1,658, so the $498 contribution exceeds the $298 maximum and the benefit is the $24 minimum, not $134/month."
+us,scenario_030,snap,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model assumed the financial assistance is not SNAP income. The $1,000/month counts as unearned income, which raises net income from $657.67 to $1,658. That drives the $498 contribution above the $298 maximum, leaving the $24 minimum."
+us,scenario_030,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model stated that Texas has no broad-based categorical eligibility. Texas confers BBCE through TANF non-cash benefits at 165% FPL, so the household's 1.6× FPL gross income passes. It is eligible for the $24 minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_030,snap,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model excluded the $1,000/month of financial assistance from countable income. It also made an arithmetic error: $298 minus about $200 cannot produce a $350 monthly benefit. Correctly counted, net income of $1,658 gives a $498 contribution above the $298 maximum, so the benefit is the $24 minimum."
+us,scenario_030,snap,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated the $12,000 of financial assistance as excluded. SNAP counts it as unearned income, which raises net income to $1,658 and the contribution to $498, above the $298 maximum. The benefit is the $24 minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_030,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model counted the excluded educational assistance, putting gross income at $2,500 instead of $2,083.33. It then applied a 130% gross test and missed Texas BBCE at 165% FPL, which this household passes. The household gets the $24 minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_030,snap,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model included the excluded $5,000 of educational assistance and applied the 130% FPL gross test. Countable income is $25,000, which passes Texas's 165% FPL BBCE limit, so the household is eligible for the $24/month minimum."
+us,scenario_030,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,The model counted the educational assistance and set the benefit to $0 because the contribution exceeded the maximum allotment. It missed the $24 minimum allotment that a categorically eligible one-person household receives even when 30% of net income exceeds $298.
+us,scenario_030,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model counted the pregnant head as a two-person SNAP household. SNAP does not count an unborn child, so the unit size is 1 with a $298 maximum. Its $497 contribution exceeds that maximum, so the benefit is the $24 minimum, not $49."
+us,scenario_030,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model applied the 130% FPL gross income limit to $25,000 of income. It missed that Texas BBCE raises the limit to 165% FPL (about $25,822 per year), which the household passes, making it eligible for the $24 minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_030,snap,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model based the benefit only on $13,000 of earnings and ignored the $12,000 of financial assistance, which counts as unearned income. Including it gives net income of $1,658 and a $498 contribution above the $298 maximum, so the benefit is the $24 minimum."
+us,scenario_030,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model applied the federal 130% FPL gross test. It missed Texas TANF non-cash BBCE at 165% FPL, under which 1.6× FPL gross income qualifies. The household receives the $24 monthly minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_030,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model correctly used Texas's 165% FPL BBCE limit but understated it as $24,849. The correct limit is $1,304.17 × 1.65 × 12, about $25,822, so $25,000 of gross income passes. The household gets the $24 minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_030,snap,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model asserted $0 without a derivation. The household is categorically eligible through Texas BBCE at 1.6× FPL. The $498 contribution exceeds the $298 maximum, which yields the $24/month minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_030,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated the household as over the net income limit and paid $0. Texas BBCE waives the net income test, and a categorically eligible one-person household whose contribution exceeds the maximum gets the $24 minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_030,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model applied a net income threshold that Texas BBCE (TANF non-cash, 165% FPL) waives. It also missed that eligible one-person households receive the $24 minimum benefit when the computed allotment is zero or negative."
+us,scenario_030,snap,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model correctly counted the financial assistance but concluded net income disqualifies the household. Under Texas BBCE the net test does not apply, and the categorically eligible one-person household receives the $24 minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_030,snap,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model counted only earnings and omitted $1,000/month of financial assistance, which is countable unearned income. It also used a $292 maximum instead of $298. With the assistance counted, net income is $1,658, the $498 contribution exceeds the maximum, and the benefit is the $24 minimum."
+us,scenario_030,snap,glm-5.2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model counted the unborn child to make a two-person unit. It also took a medical deduction that only elderly or disabled members qualify for. Correctly, this is a one-person unit with no medical deduction: net income is $1,658, the contribution is $498 against a $298 maximum, and the benefit is the $24 minimum."
+us,scenario_030,snap,glm-5.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model counted income correctly but applied the standard gross and net limits. Texas BBCE at 165% FPL replaces both tests, and the household's 1.6× FPL gross income qualifies. It is eligible for the $24 minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_030,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated countable income as very low, ignoring the $12,000 of financial assistance that counts as unearned income. With it, net income is $1,658 and the $498 contribution exceeds the $298 maximum, leaving only the $24 minimum."
+us,scenario_030,snap,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model gave $0 without applying any eligibility pathway. Texas BBCE makes the household categorically eligible at 1.6× FPL, and the $24 one-person minimum allotment applies because the $498 contribution exceeds the $298 maximum."
+us,scenario_030,snap,gpt-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model correctly found that 30% of net income exceeds the $298 maximum but set the benefit to $0. It missed the SNAP minimum benefit rule: eligible one- and two-person households, here categorically eligible through Texas BBCE, receive at least $24/month."
+us,scenario_030,snap,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model applied a standard gross income limit and found the household ineligible. Texas BBCE sets the limit at 165% FPL, which the 1.6× FPL household passes, entitling it to the $24 minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_030,snap,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model claimed $25,000 exceeds the applicable Texas gross income limit. Texas's BBCE limit is 165% FPL (about $2,152/month), and $2,083/month passes. The household is eligible for the $24 minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_030,snap,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model applied the regular one-person gross income limit. It missed Texas TANF non-cash BBCE at 165% FPL, under which $25,000 qualifies, so the household gets the $24/month minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_030,snap,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model concluded the household exceeds the SNAP income limits. Texas BBCE waives the 130% gross and 100% net tests up to 165% FPL, and the eligible one-person household receives the $24 minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_030,snap,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model correctly found the 30% contribution exceeds the one-person maximum but returned $0. Categorically eligible one-person households receive the $24 minimum allotment, or $288 a year."
+us,scenario_030,snap,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model counted only wages and omitted $1,000/month of financial assistance, which is countable unearned income. Including it gives net income of $1,658 and a $498 contribution above the $298 maximum, so the benefit is the $24 minimum."
+us,scenario_030,snap,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,The model concluded that income is too high for a positive allotment. It missed the $24 minimum benefit that categorically eligible (Texas BBCE) one-person households get when the computed allotment is zero.
+us,scenario_030,snap,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model asserted $0 with no derivation. The household passes Texas BBCE at 1.6× FPL, and its $498 contribution exceeds the $298 maximum, so the $24 monthly minimum allotment applies."
+us,scenario_030,snap,grok-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model applied the 130% FPL gross test to $25,000. It missed Texas BBCE at 165% FPL, which the household passes, so it receives the $24 minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_030,snap,grok-4.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model claimed the household exceeds Texas's 165% FPL BBCE limit, which is about $25,822 per year for one person. Countable income of $25,000 is below it, since educational assistance is excluded. The household is eligible for the $24 minimum."
+us,scenario_030,snap,grok-4.7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model correctly computed net income but applied the 100% FPL net income test, which Texas BBCE waives. The categorically eligible one-person household receives the $24 minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_030,snap,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model applied the 130% FPL gross limit of about $20,800. Texas BBCE raises the limit to 165% FPL, which $25,000 passes, so the household gets the $24/month minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_030,snap,inkling,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model counted the excluded educational assistance and applied the 130% FPL gross test. Countable income of $25,000 passes Texas's 165% FPL BBCE limit, giving the $24 minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_030,snap,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no SNAP value or explanation, so there was no answer to score."
+us,scenario_030,snap,kimi-k3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model correctly computed $2,083.33/month gross income but used the regular one-person gross limit. That figure is 1.6× FPL, under Texas's 165% BBCE limit, so the household is eligible for the $24 minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_030,snap,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model compared an annual $10,400 net figure to a monthly $1,255 limit. It also ignored the financial assistance and the standard deduction, and applied a net test that Texas BBCE waives. The correct path gives $1,658/month net income, a $498 contribution above the $298 maximum, and the $24 minimum."
+us,scenario_030,snap,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model applied the 130% FPL gross test to $25,000. Texas BBCE at 165% FPL makes the household categorically eligible, so it receives the $24 monthly minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_030,snap,muse-wonder,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,The model applied a net income limit that Texas BBCE waives. The categorically eligible one-person household gets the $24 minimum allotment even though its $498 contribution exceeds the $298 maximum.
+us,scenario_030,snap,ox-alpha,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model used the 130% FPL gross limit of about $20,350. It missed Texas TANF non-cash BBCE at 165% FPL, which $25,000 passes, so the household receives the $24/month minimum."
+us,scenario_030,snap,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model excluded the $1,000/month of financial assistance and skipped the standard deduction. Its final $2,576 also contradicts its own $31–32/month figures. Correctly, net income is $1,658 and the $498 contribution exceeds the $298 maximum, so the benefit is the $24 minimum."
+us,scenario_030,snap,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model counted the unborn child as a second member and claimed net income is $0, ignoring $2,083/month of countable income. Its submitted $3,576 also contradicts its own $4,272 figure. As a one-person unit with $1,658 net income, the household gets only the $24 minimum."
us,scenario_030,ssi,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_030,tanf,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no TANF output, violating the required structured-output contract rather than making a substantive benefit calculation."
us,scenario_030,tanf,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model incorrectly counted the unborn child as a current dependent child and constructed a two-person Texas TANF assistance unit. A pregnant adult with no born dependent child does not satisfy the family-with-dependent-children requirement, so the $271 monthly grant schedule does not apply."
@@ -2876,51 +2975,53 @@ us,scenario_031,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_er
us,scenario_031,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model wrongly denied the listed alimony deduction and used an estimated $10,207 post-TCJA-reversion standard deduction. PolicyEngine deducts the $1,165 alimony expense and applies the applicable 2026 single age-65-or-older standard deduction, leaving no taxable income."
us,scenario_031,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,other,False,"The model's own calculation produced zero taxable income, zero tax, and zero nonrefundable credits, but it submitted $1,268.50. Its numeric output directly contradicts every computation step in its explanation."
us,scenario_031,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model incorrectly treated $5,357.50 of Social Security as taxable even though provisional income is below the $25,000 single-filer base, and it then failed to follow its own calculation that the elderly credit reduced tax to zero. The alimony adjustment yields $13,243 of AGI, the standard deduction eliminates taxable income, and the submitted $2,439 has no support in its stated arithmetic."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It subtracted the $1,165 of alimony paid, which SSI-based counting does not allow. It also applied only generic SSI-style disregards instead of California's $230 monthly disregard, which leaves countable income of $1,757.79 a month, under the 138% FPL limit of $1,835.40 a month. Its ~$1,800 monthly limit was also too low."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It subtracted SSI's $240-a-year general exclusion instead of California's $230 monthly ($2,760 annual) disregard, which replaces it. It also understated 138% FPL as ~$21,600 when the 2026 figure is $22,024.80. With the correct disregard, countable income is $21,093.47, which is under the limit."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used ~$18,564 for 138% FPL instead of $22,024.80 and compared gross income without California's $2,760 annual disregard. It also suggested $4,200 in bank assets could exceed the resource limit, but California's individual limit is $130,000."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It assumed that being Medicare-age rules out Medicaid and never tested the aged non-MAGI pathway. Medicare eligibility bars only the 19–64 expansion group, and the head passes the senior-or-disabled income and asset tests."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a 100% FPL limit (~$15,650) to the aged pathway, but the limit is 138% FPL ($22,024.80). It also skipped California's $230 monthly disregard, which brings countable income down to $21,093.47."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It compared gross income of $23,853 to a limit of $15,650–$21,600 without California's $2,760 annual disregard. It also understated the 2026 138% FPL limit, which is $22,024.80. Countable income of $21,093.47 is within the limit."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It tested gross income of $23,853 against an understated limit of ~$21,600 and never applied California's $230 monthly disregard. That disregard leaves $21,093.47 of countable income, under the $22,024.80 limit."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It treated the MAGI expansion test as decisive and also considered a 100% FPL Aged & Disabled limit, using a 138% FPL figure of $20,783. It never applied California's $230 monthly disregard under the 138% FPL ($22,024.80) senior-or-disabled test, which countable income of $21,093.47 passes."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It wrongly excluded most of the Social Security income, which SSI rules count in full. It then tested against an SSI federal-benefit-rate limit (~$13,596) instead of the 138% FPL limit ($22,024.80). Applying the correct limit after California's $2,760 disregard to the full $23,853.47 gives eligibility."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It claimed the head is not in a categorical group, but age 67 alone qualifies them as aged for the senior-or-disabled pathway. It also compared gross income to 138% FPL without California's $230 monthly disregard, which brings countable income under the limit."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It compared gross income of $23,853 directly to 138% FPL and omitted California's $2,760 annual disregard. That disregard reduces countable income to $21,093.47, below the $22,024.80 limit."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used gross monthly income of $1,987.75 against an estimated limit of $1,732. After California's $230 monthly disregard, countable income is $1,757.79 a month, and the 2026 138% FPL limit is $1,835.40 a month."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It treated the lack of SSI receipt as relevant and tested gross income of $23,853. The aged pathway needs no SSI receipt, and California's $230 monthly disregard brings countable income to $21,093.47, under the $22,024.80 limit."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It compared gross income of $23,853 to a 138% FPL figure of $22,218 and skipped California's $2,760 annual disregard. The correct comparison is $21,093.47 of countable income against a $22,024.80 limit, which passes."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It compared gross income of $23,853 to ~$22,080 without applying California's $230 monthly disregard. The disregard lowers countable income to $21,093.47, under the $22,024.80 limit."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It gave no computation, and its answer is consistent with testing gross income against an adult limit. The correct test is the aged pathway: countable income of $21,093.47 after California's $2,760 disregard, against a $22,024.80 limit (138% FPL), which passes."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It compared gross income of $23,853 to 138% FPL and never subtracted California's $230 monthly disregard. With the disregard, countable income is $21,093.47, under the $22,024.80 limit."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It tested gross monthly income against 138% FPL without California's $230 monthly disregard. That disregard leaves $1,757.79 a month, below the $1,835.40 limit."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It gave no computation and concluded ineligibility. It missed that the 67-year-old head qualifies for the aged pathway, with countable income of $21,093.47 after California's $2,760 disregard, under the 138% FPL limit of $22,024.80."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It compared gross income of $23,853 to the aged threshold and omitted California's $230 monthly disregard. The disregard reduces countable income to $21,093.47, within the $22,024.80 limit."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It asserted that income exceeds the non-MAGI limit without applying California's $230 monthly disregard. That disregard reduces countable income to $21,093.47, under the 138% FPL limit of $22,024.80."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It compared total income to 138% FPL without California's $2,760 annual disregard. Countable income after the disregard is $21,093.47, below the $22,024.80 limit."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,glm-5.2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It assumed Medicare eligibility at 65+ rules out Medicaid, but in PolicyEngine Medicare bars only the adult expansion group. The aged senior-or-disabled pathway stays open, and the head passes its income and asset tests."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,glm-5.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the adult expansion group's MAGI test, but that group covers only ages 19–64 and the head is 67. It also overstated income at ~199% FPL. The applicable aged pathway uses SSI-based counting with California's $230 monthly disregard, giving $21,093.47 against a $22,024.80 limit."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It required disability or another qualifying flag, but age 67 alone meets the aged condition of the senior-or-disabled pathway. Countable income after California's $2,760 disregard is $21,093.47, within the 138% FPL limit."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It evaluated a medically needy/spend-down standard instead of California's Aged & Disabled 138% FPL program. That program's $230 monthly disregard brings countable income to $21,093.47, under $22,024.80."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It declared income above the threshold without applying California's $230 monthly disregard. The disregard reduces countable income to $21,093.47, below the $22,024.80 senior-or-disabled limit."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It treated gross retirement income of $23,853 as countable and never subtracted California's $2,760 annual disregard. That leaves $21,093.47, under the aged pathway's 138% FPL limit of $22,024.80."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It tested income against an SSI-linked income level, but the senior-or-disabled pathway's limit is 138% FPL ($22,024.80). Countable income of $21,093.47, after California's $230 monthly disregard, passes that limit."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied SSI's $20 general income exclusion, but California replaces that with a $230 monthly disregard. With the correct disregard, countable income is $21,093.47, below the $22,024.80 limit."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It compared retirement income to the aged threshold without California's $230 monthly disregard. That disregard brings countable income to $21,093.47, within the 138% FPL limit of $22,024.80."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied the SSI $20 general income exclusion instead of California's $230 monthly disregard, which replaces it. The correct disregard reduces countable income to $21,093.47, under the $22,024.80 limit."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It assumed PolicyEngine excludes Medicare-eligible people from Medicaid, but Medicare eligibility bars only the 19–64 expansion group. The aged senior-or-disabled pathway stays open, and the head qualifies through it."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.5,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"It claimed $4,200 in bank assets exceeds the aged resource limit, but California's individual limit is $130,000. It also tested gross income of $23,853 without the $2,760 annual disregard, which brings countable income under $22,024.80."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It treated $23,853 as countable income for the Aged & Disabled FPL test and omitted California's $230 monthly disregard. With the disregard, countable income is $21,093.47, under the $22,024.80 limit."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It subtracted only the $20 monthly SSI exclusion, but California applies a $230 monthly disregard instead. That leaves $1,757.79 a month, under the $1,835.40 monthly limit (138% FPL)."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"It applied a $2,000 asset limit, but California's 2026 senior-or-disabled resource limit is $130,000 for an individual. The $4,200 bank balance passes easily."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a 100% FPL limit (~$15,650), but California's aged pathway allows income up to 138% FPL ($22,024.80). It also tested gross income without the $2,760 annual disregard, which brings countable income to $21,093.47."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It ruled out the non-MAGI aged pathway because the head is not disabled, blind or an SSI recipient. Age 67 alone satisfies the aged condition, and the head passes the income test (after California's $230 monthly disregard) and the asset test."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It judged retirement income to be above the aged limit without applying California's $230 monthly disregard. The disregard reduces countable income to $21,093.47, below the $22,024.80 limit."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It guessed that income exceeds the limit without computing it. Correctly, the full $23,853.47 minus California's $2,760 disregard gives $21,093.47, under the $22,024.80 limit (138% FPL)."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It subtracted only the $20 SSI disregard, getting ~$1,967 a month, but California uses a $230 monthly disregard. That disregard gives $1,757.79 a month, under the $1,835.40 limit."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,ox-alpha,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"It applied SSI's $2,000 resource limit, but California's senior-or-disabled limit is $130,000. It also compared gross income without the $230 monthly disregard, which brings countable income under 138% FPL."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It treated Medicare eligibility and the absence of disability or SSI as barriers, but age alone qualifies the head as aged. It also tested gross income of $23,853 without California's $2,760 disregard, which leaves $21,093.47, under $22,024.80."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It concluded the 67-year-old head lacks an eligibility category, but being 65 or older is itself the aged category of the senior-or-disabled pathway. Countable income after California's $230 monthly disregard is within 138% FPL."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model subtracted the $1,165 alimony expense, but SSI-based counting does not deduct alimony paid. It also never applied California's $230/month ($2,760/yr) disregard. With that disregard, countable income is $21,093.47, below the $22,024.80 (138% FPL) limit."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model subtracted only the SSI $20/month ($240/yr) general income exclusion instead of California's $230/month ($2,760/yr) disregard, which replaces it. It also used a ~$21,600 limit instead of $22,024.80. The correct countable income is $21,093.47, which is under the limit."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model understated 138% FPL as ~$18,564 (it is $22,024.80) and applied no $230/month California disregard, which brings countable income down to $21,093.47. It also suggested $4,200 could exceed the resource limit, but California's limit is $130,000 for an individual."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated being Medicare-age as ruling out Medicaid and never ran the aged pathway. In the engine, Medicare eligibility bars only the 19–64 expansion group. The senior-or-disabled pathway passes: $21,093.47 countable income against a $22,024.80 limit."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used a 100% FPL limit (~$15,650) for the aged pathway. California's Aged & Disabled limit is 138% FPL ($22,024.80). The model also skipped the $230/month disregard, which reduces countable income to $21,093.47."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model compared gross income of $23,853 to the limit without California's $230/month ($2,760/yr) disregard. With the disregard, countable income is $21,093.47, under the $22,024.80 138% FPL limit."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model tested gross income of $23,853 against ~$21,600 and never subtracted California's $230/month disregard. That disregard brings countable income to $21,093.47, below the actual $22,024.80 limit."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model tested a 67-year-old under the 138% FPL expansion/MAGI pathway, which covers only ages 19–64, and also cited a 100% FPL Aged & Disabled limit. It never applied the SSI-based count with California's $230/month disregard: $23,853.47 − $2,760 = $21,093.47, below $22,024.80."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model excluded most Social Security, but SSI-based counting includes it in full. It then tested against an SSI-benefit-level limit (~$13,596) instead of the 138% FPL Aged & Disabled limit of $22,024.80. Correct countable income after the $230/month disregard is $21,093.47, which passes."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said the head is not in a categorical group, but age 65+ alone qualifies for the senior-or-disabled pathway. It also compared gross income of $23.9k to 138% FPL without California's $230/month disregard, which leaves $21,093.47, under $22,024.80."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model compared gross income of $23,853 to 138% FPL and left out California's $230/month ($2,760/yr) disregard. Countable income is actually $21,093.47, within the $22,024.80 limit."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model compared gross monthly income of $1,987.75 to an understated $1,732 limit. The actual limit is $1,835.40/month, and the model never subtracted California's $230/month disregard. Countable income is $1,757.79/month, which is eligible."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used gross countable income of $23,853 and treated the lack of SSI receipt as relevant, but the aged pathway does not require SSI. After California's $230/month disregard, countable income of $21,093.47 is under the $22,024.80 limit."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model compared gross income of $23,853 to a ~$22,218 limit and never subtracted California's $2,760/yr ($230/month) disregard. The resulting $21,093.47 is below the $22,024.80 limit."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model set gross income of $23,853 against a ~$22,080 limit without California's $230/month disregard. Countable income is $21,093.47, under the $22,024.80 138% FPL limit."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model gave no calculation; its answer implies gross income was compared to the limit. Under California's Aged & Disabled rules, the $230/month disregard reduces $23,853.47 to $21,093.47, below the $22,024.80 limit, so the head is eligible."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model compared gross income of $23,853 to the 138% FPL threshold without California's $230/month ($2,760/yr) disregard. Countable income of $21,093.47 falls under the $22,024.80 limit."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model compared gross monthly income to the non-MAGI 138% FPL threshold without subtracting California's $230/month disregard. Countable monthly income is $1,757.79, against a $1,835.40 limit."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model gave no income test; its answer implies gross income was treated as disqualifying. Age 67 qualifies for the Aged & Disabled pathway, where SSI-based countable income less California's $230/month disregard is $21,093.47, within the $22,024.80 limit."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated gross income of $23,853 as the countable amount and never applied California's $230/month disregard. Countable income is $21,093.47, below the 138% FPL limit of $22,024.80."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said income exceeds the non-MAGI limit without applying California's $230/month disregard, which replaces the $20 SSI exclusion. With it, countable income is $21,093.47, under the $22,024.80 limit."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model compared total income to 138% FPL with no deduction. California's $230/month Aged & Disabled disregard reduces countable income to $21,093.47, below $22,024.80."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated gross monthly income of $1,987.75 as countable and never subtracted California's $230/month disregard. Countable income is $1,757.79, below the actual $1,835.40 monthly limit."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,glm-5.2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model assumed Medicare eligibility rules out Medicaid at 65+. In the engine, Medicare bars only the 19–64 expansion group. The head qualifies through the senior-or-disabled pathway: $21,093.47 countable income, within the $22,024.80 limit."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,glm-5.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model tested the head against the ACA expansion limit, a pathway for ages 19–64 that does not apply at 67, and never evaluated the Aged & Disabled pathway. Under that pathway, SSI-based income less California's $230/month disregard is $21,093.47, under $22,024.80."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model required a disability or low-income flag, but age 65+ alone satisfies the senior-or-disabled category. After California's $230/month disregard, countable income of $21,093.47 passes the $22,024.80 limit."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model judged the head against a medically needy/spend-down standard and skipped the full-scope Aged & Disabled FPL program. That program's $230/month disregard leaves countable income of $21,093.47, under the 138% FPL limit of $22,024.80."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model asserted income exceeds the threshold without applying California's $230/month disregard. With it, the head's SSI-based countable income is $21,093.47, below the $22,024.80 Aged & Disabled limit."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated the $23,853 of retirement income as countable in full. California's Aged & Disabled pathway subtracts a $230/month disregard, leaving $21,093.47, within the $22,024.80 limit."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model tested income against an SSI-linked level instead of California's 138% FPL Aged & Disabled limit of $22,024.80. It also never applied the $230/month disregard, which reduces countable income to $21,093.47."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied SSI's $20/month general income exclusion, but California replaces it with a $230/month disregard. That disregard brings countable income to $21,093.47, under the $22,024.80 limit."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated retirement income as above the aged threshold without applying California's $230/month ($2,760/yr) disregard. Countable income is $21,093.47, below $22,024.80."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model subtracted only the SSI general income exclusion ($20/month). California uses a $230/month disregard in its place, which leaves $21,093.47 of countable income, within the $22,024.80 limit."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model claimed PolicyEngine excludes dual eligibles from Medicaid. In fact Medicare eligibility bars only the 19–64 expansion group. The head passes the senior-or-disabled income test ($21,093.47 against $22,024.80) and the asset test ($4,200 against $130,000)."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.5,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"The model said $4,200 in bank assets exceeds the aged resource limit, but California's limit is $130,000 for an individual. It also used gross income instead of income after the $230/month disregard, which is $21,093.47, under the $22,024.80 limit."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used gross income of $23,853 as countable income for the Aged & Disabled FPL test. It skipped California's $230/month disregard, which reduces income to $21,093.47, below $22,024.80. The Medicare Savings Program limits it cited do not bear on Medicaid eligibility."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied the $20/month SSI disregard instead of California's $230/month disregard, which replaces it. With the correct disregard, countable income is $21,093.47, within the $22,024.80 138% FPL limit."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"The model applied SSI's $2,000 resource limit. California's Aged & Disabled resource limit is $130,000 for an individual, so $4,200 passes. Income after the $230/month disregard ($21,093.47) also passes."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used a 100% FPL limit (~$15,650), but California's Aged & Disabled limit is 138% FPL ($22,024.80). The model also omitted the $230/month disregard that brings countable income to $21,093.47."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model held that the non-MAGI aged pathway requires disability, blindness, or SSI receipt, but age 65+ alone meets is_ssi_aged_blind_disabled. Countable income of $21,093.47 after the $230/month disregard passes the $22,024.80 limit."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated retirement income as over the aged Medi-Cal limit without California's $230/month disregard. Countable income of $21,093.47 falls under the $22,024.80 limit."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model guessed that ~$24k of income exceeds the limit and never ran the Aged & Disabled income test. After the $230/month disregard, countable income is $21,093.47, below the $22,024.80 limit."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used a MAGI-style figure ($23,853 less $1,165 alimony = $22,688), but a 67-year-old is assessed under SSI-based non-MAGI rules. Those rules ignore alimony paid and subtract California's $2,760/yr disregard, giving $21,093.47, under $22,024.80."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model subtracted only the $20/month SSI disregard, leaving ~$1,967. California uses a $230/month disregard instead, which gives $1,757.79/month, under the $1,835.40 monthly limit."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,ox-alpha,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"The model applied SSI's $2,000 resource limit instead of California's $130,000 individual limit. It also left out the $230/month income disregard, which reduces countable income to $21,093.47, within the $22,024.80 limit."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model required disability, nursing-home, or SSI status, but age 65+ alone qualifies for the senior-or-disabled pathway. It also compared gross income of $23,853 without California's $230/month disregard; the correct countable income is $21,093.47, under $22,024.80."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said the head is in no eligibility category, but age 67 meets the aged condition of the senior-or-disabled pathway. After California's $230/month disregard, income is $21,093.47, within the $22,024.80 limit."
us,scenario_031,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated gross income under 200% FPL as automatic BBCE eligibility and never ran the net income test PolicyEngine applies to this elderly household. Net income of about $1,779/mo ($1,987.75 minus the $209 standard deduction, with no shelter or medical deduction) is above the roughly $1,305/mo net limit. The household is ineligible, so the $23/mo minimum benefit ($276/yr) does not apply."
us,scenario_031,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model assumed BBCE at 200% FPL makes a 1-person household categorically eligible and entitled to the minimum benefit. It skipped the 100% FPL net income test that PolicyEngine applies to this elderly household. Net income of about $1,779/mo is above the roughly $1,305/mo limit, so the household is ineligible and gets $0, not $276."
us,scenario_031,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model treated countable income as very low. In fact, all $23,853 of Social Security, pension and IRA income counts as unearned income, which is $1,987.75/mo gross. Its $144/mo ($1,728/yr) benefit only works if net income is about $513/mo, which means it left out most of the pension and Social Security income. The real net income of about $1,779/mo fails the net income test, and 30% of it ($534) is more than the $298 maximum allotment, so SNAP is $0."
@@ -2965,69 +3066,73 @@ us,scenario_032,child1_wic_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibilit
us,scenario_032,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model incorrectly assumed that the TCJA rules expired for 2026, substituted a roughly $16,150 MFJ standard deduction and a $1,000 CTC, and thereby produced $1,477 of pre-credit tax minus $1,000. Under the applicable 2026 parameters, the $2,200 CTC supplies $500 of nonrefundable credit, which fully reduces the liability to $0; its remaining $1,700 and the EITC are refundable and do not enter this output."
us,scenario_032,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model supplied no parseable value or explanation for the requested output. The required computation applies $500 of nonrefundable CTC to eliminate the positive pre-credit liability, yielding $0 before refundable credits."
us,scenario_032,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model supplied no parseable value or explanation for the requested output. The required computation applies $500 of nonrefundable CTC to eliminate the positive pre-credit liability, yielding $0 before refundable credits."
-us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly identified the $4,427 one-child EITC maximum and full plateau eligibility, plus the $1,700 ACTC. It then rounded the EITC down to $4,420 and submitted $6,120 instead of $4,427 + $1,700 = $6,127."
-us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It treated the 18-year-old spouse as a qualifying dependent and used a three-child EITC frame. Then it applied an invented phaseout to reach $3,995. The spouse is a joint filer, not a dependent, so only the 6-year-old qualifies, which gives the full one-child EITC of $4,427 plus the $1,700 ACTC."
-us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It denied all refundable credits, even though a joint return with $29,000 of earnings and a 6-year-old qualifying child is eligible for both the EITC and the ACTC. Those credits are the full $4,427 EITC and the $1,700 refundable CTC."
-us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It cited the $4,427 maximum but then used $4,328 (the 2025 maximum) for the EITC. It also added an arbitrary $215 'estimate refinement' that matches no credit. The correct total is $4,427 + $1,700 = $6,127."
-us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It phased the one-child EITC down to $3,372, as if $29,000 were well into the phaseout range. Under the joint-filer threshold, AGI of $30,916 is still below the 2026 MFJ phaseout start, so the full $4,427 applies. Its $1,700 ACTC was correct."
-us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It placed $29,000 in the phaseout range and cut the EITC to $3,412, when the full $4,427 applies below the MFJ phaseout start. It also added a nonexistent '$1,100 remaining' credit on top of the $1,700 ACTC."
-us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It computed taxable Social Security with the $34,000 single-filer second threshold instead of the joint $32,000/$44,000 bases, and used a $30,000 standard deduction instead of $32,200, which created phantom tax of $156. It then set the ACTC at $1,844 without the $1,700 per-child refundable cap. It also phased the EITC to $4,329 from an underestimated MFJ phaseout start of $28,329, when the full $4,427 applies."
-us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It reached about $6,000 from the EITC plus the $1,700 ACTC. It then inflated the total to $8,200 by adding an invented refundable credit for the spouse as a 'qualifying dependent'. A joint-filing spouse generates no refundable credit, and the EITC is $4,427, which gives $6,127."
-us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a wrong one-child EITC maximum of $5,177 (the actual 2026 maximum is $4,427) and a $27,460 MFJ phaseout threshold, ending with an EITC of $4,625. AGI of $30,916 sits below the actual 2026 MFJ phaseout start, so the EITC is exactly $4,427."
-us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the pre-TCJA ACTC rules ($1,000 cap, 15% of earnings over $3,000) instead of the OBBBA rules for 2026, under which the refundable CTC is $1,700. It also overstated the EITC maximum as $4,488 instead of $4,427."
-us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It phased the EITC down to $3,797 even though AGI of $30,916 is below the MFJ phaseout start, where the full $4,427 applies. It also used the pre-TCJA $1,000 refundable CTC instead of the $1,700 OBBBA cap. Its submitted $5,430 does not even match its own stated $4,797 total."
-us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It started the EITC phaseout at about $23,052, which is the single-filer threshold, without the joint-filer increase, and cut the EITC to $3,040. With the MFJ threshold, AGI of $30,916 is still on the plateau, so the EITC is the full $4,427. Its $1,700 ACTC was correct."
-us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It phased the EITC down to $3,599.34, when the full $4,427 applies below the 2026 MFJ phaseout start. It also used the sunset-era $1,000 refundable CTC instead of the $1,700 cap that OBBBA set for 2026."
-us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $5,462 matches an EITC of about $4,462 plus a $1,000 pre-TCJA refundable CTC. Under 2026 law the refundable CTC is $1,700 and the one-child EITC is $4,427, for a total of $6,127."
-us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It explicitly applied the pre-TCJA $1,000 Additional Child Tax Credit, ignoring OBBBA's permanent extension with a $1,700 refundable cap for 2026. It also overstated the EITC maximum as $4,440 instead of $4,427."
-us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It understated the EITC at $4,014 instead of the full $4,427, which applies because AGI is below the MFJ phaseout start. It also used a $1,000 ACTC instead of the $1,700 refundable cap in effect for 2026."
-us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $3,745 is below even the full $4,427 one-child EITC on its own. That is consistent with applying an EITC phaseout that does not reach a joint return at $30,916 AGI, and with dropping or shrinking the $1,700 refundable CTC."
-us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed TCJA had expired for 2026 and used a $1,000 CTC with a refundable portion of 15% over $3,000. OBBBA extended the CTC with a $1,700 refundable cap, so the ACTC is $1,700. Its EITC of $4,428 was off by $1 from $4,427."
-us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $5,248 matches an EITC of about $4,248 plus a $1,000 sunset-era ACTC. The correct components are the full $4,427 EITC and the $1,700 refundable CTC under 2026 law."
-us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $4,056 is far below the correct $4,427 EITC plus $1,700 ACTC. That is consistent with phasing out an EITC that is not in its phaseout range at $30,916 joint AGI, and with using the $1,000 pre-TCJA ACTC."
-us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It submitted no value and no explanation for federal_refundable_credits, so there was nothing to score against the $6,127 reference."
-us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It treated the entire $2,200 CTC as refundable. The refundable portion is capped at $1,700 per child for 2026. It also understated the plateau EITC as $4,095 instead of the $4,427 maximum."
-us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It identified no refundable credit, missing that $29,000 of earned income with a 6-year-old qualifying child on a joint return gives the full $4,427 EITC and a $1,700 refundable CTC."
-us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It assumed zero refundable credits because none were 'specified'. The EITC and ACTC are computed from earnings and the qualifying child: $4,427 plus $1,700."
-us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got the full $4,427 EITC right but used a refundable CTC cap of $1,800. The 2026 refundable CTC limit is $1,700 per child, so the total is $6,127, not $6,227."
-us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It identified the right two credits but submitted $6,047, which implies an EITC of about $4,347 alongside the $1,700 ACTC. That is consistent with an inflation-adjusted 2025 maximum rather than the published 2026 one-child maximum of $4,427."
-us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave an unsupported round $2,500 with no computation. The correct derivation is the full one-child EITC of $4,427 (joint AGI below the phaseout start) plus the $1,700 refundable CTC."
-us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the post-sunset $1,000 CTC with a refundable portion of 15% over $3,000, instead of OBBBA's $1,700 refundable cap. It also projected the EITC maximum at $4,436 instead of the actual 2026 figure of $4,427."
-us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the post-sunset $1,000 additional CTC instead of the $1,700 refundable cap that OBBBA set for 2026. It also understated the one-child EITC maximum as $4,318 instead of $4,427."
-us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its structure was correct: full EITC plus the $1,700 ACTC. However, it projected the 2026 one-child EITC maximum as $4,436 instead of the published $4,427, which overshot by $9."
-us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $1,000 CTC as the refundable amount, ignoring OBBBA's $2,200 CTC with its $1,700 refundable cap for 2026. It also overstated the EITC maximum as $4,439 instead of $4,427."
-us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly applied the full EITC and the $1,700 ACTC cap but overestimated the 2026 one-child EITC maximum as $4,449 instead of $4,427."
-us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It submitted no value and no explanation for federal_refundable_credits, so there was nothing to score against the $6,127 reference."
-us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It used the two-child EITC schedule, although the household has only one qualifying child, the 6-year-old. It also dropped the refundable CTC from its total despite computing it. The correct total is the one-child EITC of $4,427 plus the $1,700 ACTC."
-us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied an EITC phaseout at $30,916 AGI and reduced the credit to $4,257. That AGI is below the 2026 MFJ phaseout start, so the full $4,427 applies. Its $1,700 ACTC was correct."
-us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It started the EITC phaseout at about $22,190, roughly the single-filer threshold, without the joint-filer increase, and cut the EITC to $3,348. Under the MFJ threshold, the full $4,427 applies. Its $1,700 ACTC was correct."
-us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used inflated EITC maxima ($5,386 to $5,640) with a phaseout starting near $22,000 to $23,500 and arrived at $4,509. It then dropped the refundable CTC to an unsupported $800, after its own work had shown the $1,700 cap applies. The correct total is $4,427 + $1,700."
-us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It drastically understated both credits, with an EITC of $1,171 and an ACTC of $937. The correct amounts are the full one-child EITC of $4,427 (joint AGI below the phaseout start) and the full $1,700 ACTC, since 15% of earnings over $2,500 equals $3,975, which is above the cap."
-us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model compared $42,664 to the federal 130% FPL free-meal limit and checked for SNAP/TANF categorical eligibility, then stopped. It never applied Minnesota's universal free school meals program, which makes the K-12 child eligible for free meals at any income."
-us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model ruled out free meals using the federal 130% FPL threshold and the lack of direct certification. It missed that Minnesota provides free school meals to every K-12 student, so the household gets FREE-tier support even at 1.56x FPL."
-us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used only the federal 130% FPL free-meal limit. It ignored Minnesota's universal free school meals program, which gives the 6-year-old K-12 student free meals regardless of the household being at about 156% FPL."
-us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said that free meals in Minnesota require income at or below 130% FPL. That is wrong: Minnesota has universal free school meals for all K-12 students, so the income test does not apply and the child qualifies for the FREE tier."
-us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model denied free meals because income was above 130% FPL for a family of 3. It did not account for Minnesota's universal free school meals program, which gives every K-12 student free meals with no income test."
-us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model applied only the federal 130% FPL free-meal threshold to income at about 157% FPL. It missed that Minnesota's universal free school meals program makes the K-12 child eligible regardless of income.
-us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model's only test was $42,664 against 130% FPL. It ignored Minnesota's universal free school meals law, which puts every Minnesota K-12 student in the FREE tier."
-us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model ruled out free meals because income exceeded 130% FPL for 3. It skipped Minnesota's universal free school meals program, under which the enrolled 6-year-old gets free meals regardless of income."
-us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model applied the federal 130% FPL free-meal test and stopped there. Minnesota's universal free school meals program overrides the federal income test and gives the K-12 child free meals.
-us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly totaled $42,664 in income and compared it to 130% FPL, but it treated that federal income test as the only route to free meals. Minnesota's universal free school meals program makes every K-12 student eligible."
-us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model ruled out free meals because income was about 153% FPL, above the 130% cutoff. It missed Minnesota's universal free school meals program, which gives free meals to all K-12 students with no income test."
-us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no because there was no SNAP/TANF categorical eligibility. It overlooked that Minnesota provides universal free school meals, so the K-12 child qualifies without categorical eligibility or an income test."
-us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model found the school-age child but then applied only the federal free-meal income limit and the categorical test. It did not recognize that Minnesota's universal free school meals program gives that child free meals at any income.
-us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied only the federal free-meal income threshold. It missed that Minnesota is a universal free school meals state, which puts the household's K-12 student in the FREE tier regardless of income."
-us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model relied on the federal income threshold and direct certification and found neither met. It missed Minnesota's universal free school meals program, which makes the K-12 child eligible independent of both tests."
-us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied only the federal free-meal income threshold for a three-person household. It ignored Minnesota's universal free school meals program, which gives every K-12 student free meals."
-us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model correctly put income at about 156% FPL but treated the federal 130% limit as decisive. Minnesota's universal free school meals program makes the K-12 child eligible regardless of that ratio.
-us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model checked only the 130% FPL limit and SNAP/TANF categorical eligibility. It missed the third route PolicyEngine uses: Minnesota's universal free school meals flag, which sets the tier to FREE."
-us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model ruled out the federal income test and the categorical route through zero SNAP/TANF. It never considered Minnesota's universal free school meals program, which gives the K-12 child free meals regardless of income or benefit receipt."
-us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model compared income to the 130% FPL federal free-meal threshold and stopped. It missed that Minnesota provides universal free school meals, so the household's K-12 student qualifies for the FREE tier."
-us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied only the federal 130% FPL test. It did not apply Minnesota's universal free school meals program, which gives the enrolled 6-year-old free meals regardless of household income."
-us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no usable value or explanation for free_school_meals_eligible. The correct answer is 1, because Minnesota's universal free school meals program puts the household's K-12 child in the FREE tier."
-us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed to use PolicyEngine's federal income test, but PolicyEngine also checks state_has_universal_free_school_meals, which is True for Minnesota. That check puts the child in the FREE tier despite income at 156% FPL."
-us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model ruled out free meals because income exceeded the 130% of poverty limit. It missed Minnesota's universal free school meals program, which removes the income test for all K-12 students."
-us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model ruled out both the 130% FPL income route and the SNAP/TANF categorical route. It did not consider Minnesota's universal free school meals program, which gives the K-12 child free meals regardless of either."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly found the full one-child maximum EITC of $4,427 and the $1,700 ACTC, but rounded the EITC down to $4,420 for no reason. The total came out at $6,120 instead of $4,427 + $1,700 = $6,127."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It treated the 18-year-old spouse as a dependent and used 3-child EITC rules, even though a spouse filing jointly can never be a qualifying child. It then made up a phase-out reduction at $29,000. The correct figure is the one-child maximum EITC of $4,427 plus a $1,700 ACTC."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly said a joint filer with a 6-year-old and $29,000 of wages gets no refundable credit. This household qualifies for the full $4,427 one-child EITC and the $1,700 refundable ACTC."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 one-child EITC maximum ($4,328) instead of the 2026 maximum of $4,427, even though income is below the phase-out. It then added an arbitrary $215 'refinement', giving $6,243 instead of $6,127."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It phased the EITC down to $3,372 at $29,000 of earnings, using a phase-out start that leaves out the joint-filer increase. The 2026 MFJ one-child phase-out starts above the $30,916 AGI, so the full $4,427 applies. Its $1,700 ACTC was correct."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It wrongly put $29,000 inside the MFJ one-child EITC phase-out, cutting the credit to about $3,412 instead of the $4,427 maximum. It then added an unexplained extra $1,100 on top of the $1,700 ACTC."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used pre-OBBBA CTC rules ($2,000 credit with no $1,700 refundable cap), so it got an ACTC of $1,844 instead of $1,700. It also used the 2025 $30,000 standard deduction, which created a false $156 tax liability. Using a $34,000 threshold for taxable Social Security instead of the MFJ $32,000/$44,000 tiers overstated AGI, and a $28,329 phase-out start cut the EITC to $4,329 instead of $4,427."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Its own working reached about $6,000 from the EITC plus the $1,700 ACTC. It then inflated the total to $8,200 by adding an invented refundable credit for the spouse, who cannot be a dependent on a joint return."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an EITC maximum of $5,177, far above the 2026 one-child maximum of $4,427, and a $27,460 MFJ phase-out start that is too low. That produced $4,625 instead of the full $4,427. Its $1,700 ACTC was correct."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset rules (a $1,000 ACTC at 15% of earnings over $3,000), but OBBBA keeps a $1,700 refundable cap for 2026. It also overstated the one-child EITC maximum as $4,488 instead of $4,427."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the post-sunset $1,000 refundable CTC instead of the 2026 cap of $1,700, and wrongly phased the EITC down to $3,797. Its submitted $5,430 also contradicts the $4,797 total in its own explanation."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It started the EITC phase-out at about $23,052, which is the single/HOH threshold without the joint-filer increase, and reduced the EITC to $3,040. The MFJ threshold is above the $30,916 AGI, so the full $4,427 applies."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It wrongly reduced the EITC to $3,599 even though the MFJ phase-out starts above this household's AGI, so the full $4,427 applies. It also used the TCJA-sunset $1,000 refundable CTC instead of the 2026 $1,700 cap."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $5,462 total matches an EITC near $4,462 plus a TCJA-sunset $1,000 ACTC. The correct 2026 figures are the $4,427 maximum EITC and the $1,700 refundable CTC cap, totaling $6,127."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It explicitly applied the 'pre-TCJA' $1,000 Additional Child Tax Credit. For 2026 the refundable CTC is capped at $1,700 per child, and it also overstated the EITC maximum as $4,440 instead of $4,427."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave an EITC of $4,014 instead of the full $4,427 one-child maximum, which applies because AGI is below the MFJ phase-out start. It also used a $1,000 ACTC instead of the 2026 refundable cap of $1,700."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It submitted $3,745 with no derivation, which is far below the correct total. The correct total is the full $4,427 one-child EITC (AGI below the MFJ phase-out) plus the $1,700 refundable CTC, or $6,127."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its EITC of $4,428 was essentially right, but it assumed the TCJA expired and used a $1,000 CTC/ACTC. OBBBA set the 2026 CTC at $2,200 with a $1,700 refundable cap, so the ACTC is $1,700."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $5,248 total matches a TCJA-sunset $1,000 ACTC plus an EITC of about $4,248. The correct 2026 figures are the $1,700 refundable CTC and the full $4,427 one-child EITC."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It submitted $4,056 with no derivation, which understates both credits. The correct total is the full $4,427 one-child EITC plus the $1,700 refundable CTC, or $6,127."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $1,000 refundable CTC (TCJA-sunset assumption) instead of the 2026 $1,700 cap, and understated the EITC as $4,361 instead of the full $4,427 one-child maximum."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no usable value for federal_refundable_credits. The correct derivation gives a $4,427 EITC plus a $1,700 ACTC, or $6,127."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It treated the whole $2,200 CTC as refundable, ignoring the $1,700 per-child cap on the refundable portion. It also understated the one-child EITC maximum as $4,095 instead of $4,427."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It found no refundable credit at all, missing that a joint filer with a 6-year-old and $29,000 of wages gets the full $4,427 EITC and the $1,700 refundable CTC."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It assumed zero refundable credits because no credit amounts were listed. The EITC ($4,427) and ACTC ($1,700) are computed from wages and the qualifying child and do not need to be listed as inputs."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $4,427 EITC was correct, but it used $1,800 as the refundable CTC cap. The 2026 cap is $1,700, so the total is $6,127, not $6,227."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $6,047 total matches the $1,700 ACTC plus an EITC of about $4,347, which is $80 too low. AGI of about $30,916 is below the MFJ phase-out start, so the full $4,427 one-child maximum applies."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It submitted $2,500 with no derivation, which grossly understates both credits. The correct total is the full $4,427 one-child EITC plus the $1,700 refundable CTC."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the TCJA-sunset $1,000 CTC and the ACTC formula with a $3,000 threshold. The 2026 law has a $1,700 refundable cap and a $2,500 earnings threshold. It also overstated the EITC maximum as $4,436 instead of $4,427."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a 'post-sunset' $1,000 ACTC instead of the 2026 $1,700 refundable cap. It also used a one-child EITC maximum of $4,318 instead of $4,427."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The structure was correct (full EITC plus the $1,700 ACTC), but it overstated the 2026 one-child EITC maximum as $4,436 instead of $4,427. That put the total $9 too high."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $1,000 refundable CTC instead of the 2026 $1,700 refundable cap, and overstated the EITC maximum as $4,439 instead of $4,427."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly took the full EITC and a $1,700 ACTC, but overstated the 2026 one-child EITC maximum as $4,449 instead of $4,427. That put the total $22 too high."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no usable value for federal_refundable_credits. The correct derivation gives a $4,427 EITC plus a $1,700 ACTC, or $6,127."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It computed the EITC for two qualifying children when there is only one, and then left the refundable CTC out of the total. The correct total is the $4,427 one-child EITC plus the $1,700 ACTC."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It approximated the EITC as about $4,400 instead of the exact 2026 one-child maximum of $4,427. That left the total at $6,100 instead of $6,127, even though its $1,700 ACTC was right."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It applied an EITC phase-out at $30,916 AGI and cut the credit to $4,257. The 2026 MFJ one-child phase-out starts above that AGI, so the full $4,427 applies."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It used a joint-filer phase-out start of about $22,190, which leaves out the MFJ increase, and reduced the EITC to $3,348. The household's AGI is below the actual MFJ threshold, so the full $4,427 applies. Its $1,700 ACTC was correct."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used inflated EITC maximums ($5,386–$5,640) with a phase-out start of about $22,000–$23,500. It then dropped its own $1,700 ACTC figure in favor of an unsupported $800. The correct values are a $4,427 EITC and a $1,700 ACTC."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It phased the EITC down to $1,171 and cut the ACTC to $937. AGI of about $30,916 is below the MFJ one-child phase-out start, so the full $4,427 EITC applies, and 15% of earnings above $2,500 ($3,975) exceeds the $1,700 cap, so the ACTC is $1,700."
+us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied only the federal 130% FPL free-meal test and the SNAP/TANF categorical pathway. It never applied Minnesota's universal free school meals program, which puts the household's K-12 child in the FREE tier regardless of the $42,664 income."
+us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Concluded ineligible because income exceeds 130% FPL and no direct certification applies. It ignored that Minnesota provides universal free school meals, so the household's 6-year-old qualifies for FREE meals no matter the income."
+us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Treated the 130% FPL federal income limit as the only path to free meals. It missed Minnesota's universal free school meals law, which makes the K-12 child FREE-eligible at 156% FPL."
+us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Correctly computed $42,664 as above the federal 130% FPL threshold. However, it explicitly framed Minnesota eligibility through the federal NSLP income test only and missed that Minnesota has run universal free school meals since 2023, which gives the child FREE meals regardless of income."
+us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Compared countable income to 130% FPL and stopped there. It never applied Minnesota's universal free school meals program, which overrides the income test and puts the household in the FREE tier."
+us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Used only the federal 130% FPL free-meal threshold, at roughly 157% FPL. It missed Minnesota's universal free school meals program, which makes the K-12 child FREE-eligible regardless of income."
+us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Compared $42,664 to a 130% FPL limit of $35,326 and concluded ineligible. It ignored Minnesota's statewide universal free school meals program, which grants FREE meals without any income test."
+us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied only the federal 130% FPL income limit for a 3-person household. It missed that Minnesota provides universal free school meals, so the child qualifies for FREE meals despite the household being over the income limit."
+us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Explicitly assessed only federal free-meal eligibility against 130% FPL. It never considered Minnesota's universal free school meals law, which makes every K-12 student in the state FREE-eligible."
+us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Considered only the federal 130% FPL test and categorical eligibility through SNAP/TANF. It missed the third pathway, Minnesota's universal free school meals program, which gives the household FREE-tier meals regardless of income."
+us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Correctly summed wages and Social Security to $42,664, then applied only the federal 130% FPL cutoff. It missed that Minnesota's universal free school meals program sets the tier to FREE for K-12 children regardless of income."
+us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Stopped at the federal 130% FPL cutoff, with income at about 153% FPL. It never applied Minnesota's universal free school meals program, which makes the K-12 child FREE-eligible."
+us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Assumed free meals require categorical SNAP/TANF eligibility and returned 0 because there was none. It ignored Minnesota's universal free school meals program, which gives FREE meals to the household's K-12 child with no income or categorical test."
+us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied only the federal free-meal income limit and categorical status. Although it noted the school-age child, it missed that Minnesota's universal free school meals program qualifies that child for FREE meals regardless of income."
+us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Relied on the federal free-meal income threshold alone. It missed Minnesota's universal free school meals program, under which PolicyEngine returns positive free-meal support for any K-12 child in the state."
+us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied the federal free-meal income threshold and direct certification only. It never applied Minnesota's universal free school meals rule, which assigns the FREE tier regardless of income."
+us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Concluded no free-meal support because income exceeds the free-meal limit. It ignored that Minnesota offers universal free school meals, which makes the household's K-12 child FREE-eligible at any income."
+us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Correctly placed income at about 156% FPL but treated the federal 130% limit as decisive. It missed Minnesota's universal free school meals program, which overrides the income test."
+us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied the 130% FPL limit and SNAP/TANF categorical eligibility, then asserted PolicyEngine returns no free-meal support. In fact, PolicyEngine flags Minnesota as a universal free school meals state and sets the tier to FREE regardless of income."
+us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Checked only the federal 130% FPL limit and the SNAP/TANF categorical pathway. It never applied Minnesota's universal free school meals program, which makes the child FREE-eligible at 156% FPL."
+us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,Compared income to 130% of a 2026 FPL for a 3-person household and concluded ineligible. It missed that Minnesota's universal free school meals program grants FREE meals with no income test.
+us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Used only the federal 130% FPL free-meal limit, which it put at $33,566. It ignored Minnesota's universal free school meals law, which places the household's K-12 child in the FREE tier regardless of income."
+us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No answer or explanation was returned for free_school_meals_eligible, so the output was missing rather than wrong on substance. The correct value is 1, because Minnesota's universal free school meals program covers the K-12 child."
+us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied only what it called PolicyEngine's federal school-meal income test, with income at about 156% of poverty. It missed that PolicyEngine also checks state_has_universal_free_school_meals, which is True for Minnesota and sets the tier to FREE."
+us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Compared gross income to the 130% FPL free-meal limit only. It never applied Minnesota's universal free school meals program, which qualifies the K-12 child for FREE meals regardless of income."
+us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Treated the 130% of poverty limit as the only route to free meals. It missed Minnesota's universal free school meals program, which gives the household positive free-meal support despite income above the limit."
+us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,Correctly found income above the 130% cutoff and no SNAP/TANF categorical pathway. It overlooked the state pathway: Minnesota's universal free school meals program sets the FREE tier for K-12 students regardless of income.
us,scenario_032,head_chip_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_032,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model claimed Social Security benefits are excluded from MAGI and counted only the ~$29,000 in wages. Medicaid MAGI adds back the non-taxable portion of Social Security, so the full $13,664 counts. That makes MAGI $42,664, about 156% FPL, which is above the 138% limit."
us,scenario_032,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly counted $42,664 including Social Security and saw that this is above 138% FPL. It then made the head eligible through a higher Minnesota threshold for parents and caretakers, which does not exist. Minnesota Medical Assistance covers parents at the same 133%+5% (138%) FPL limit, and MinnesotaCare is a Basic Health Program, not Medicaid."
@@ -3047,75 +3152,79 @@ us,scenario_032,head_medicaid_eligible,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_dedu
us,scenario_032,head_medicaid_eligible,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model first counted $42,664 and then dropped the Social Security benefits on the theory that a child's benefits are excluded. The benefits are listed as the head's income, so they count in full in the head's MAGI. That puts income at 156% FPL, above the 138% limit."
us,scenario_032,head_medicare_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_032,head_wic_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model invented a household-level “WIC-eligible context” pathway and transferred eligibility to the head based on living with a child. The head is age 50, is not pregnant, postpartum, or breastfeeding, and therefore fails WIC's person-specific categorical requirement; moreover, the only child is age 6 and is not categorically eligible either."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It computed FICA of $2,218.50 correctly but said Minnesota has no mandatory employee state payroll tax in 2026. That missed the Minnesota Paid Leave premium that began in 2026. PolicyEngine treats the 0.44% employee share ($127.60) as withheld, and the prompt does not say whether the employer pays it instead."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It applied 7.65% to $29,000 and said there was no modeled mandatory Minnesota employee payroll tax. That left out the Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution of 0.44% × $29,000 = $127.60. PolicyEngine includes this amount by assuming the employer withholds the maximum employee share."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It derived $2,218.50 in FICA several times, then cut the figure to $2,175.90 with no basis, citing unspecified 'state-specific considerations'. It also left out the Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution (0.44% × $29,000 = $127.60), which raises the total to $2,346.10, not lowers it."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It rounded 7.65% FICA to $2,219 and said Minnesota has no mandatory employee payroll tax. That left out the 2026 Minnesota Paid Leave employee share of 0.44% × $29,000 = $127.60. PolicyEngine counts this amount, assuming maximum employer withholding."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It computed 7.65% FICA of $2,218.50 and said Minnesota has no mandatory employee payroll tax. That left out the Minnesota Paid Leave contribution (0.44% of $29,000 = $127.60), which PolicyEngine adds as employee state payroll tax."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Its Social Security ($1,798) and Medicare ($420.50) figures are correct, and it said Minnesota has no mandatory employee payroll tax. It never applied the 2026 Minnesota Paid Leave employee share of 0.44% × $29,000 = $127.60, which PolicyEngine includes by assuming the employer withholds it."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It stopped at employee FICA of $2,218.50 and said there was no mandatory Minnesota employee payroll tax. That left out the $127.60 Minnesota Paid Leave contribution (0.44% of wages), which PolicyEngine treats as withheld from the employee."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It applied only the 7.65% federal FICA rate to $29,000. It never considered the 2026 Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution of 0.44% ($127.60), which PolicyEngine counts as employee state payroll tax."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It said Minnesota has no employee-side payroll tax beyond the federal ones. That missed the Minnesota Paid Leave premium starting in 2026, where PolicyEngine withholds the 0.44% employee share ($127.60) on the head's $29,000 in wages."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It reported $2,218.50 and said no state disability or paid family leave employee contribution applied in this scenario. Minnesota Paid Leave premiums began January 1, 2026; the frozen reference assumes a $127.60 employee deduction, but the employer may pay that share itself and the prompt does not specify its choice."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It assumed no mandatory Minnesota employee state payroll tax was modeled and answered $2,218.50. The frozen reference assumes a $127.60 Minnesota Paid Leave deduction (0.44% of wages); the employer may pay it instead, and the unspecified choice also permits federal tax alone, $2,218.50."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It said no employee state payroll tax applies and stopped at 7.65% FICA. That left out the Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution of 0.44% × $29,000 = $127.60, which PolicyEngine includes."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It added a Minnesota Paid Leave share at 0.35% ($101.50), giving $2,320. The frozen reference assumes the maximum deduction, half of the 0.88% premium or 0.44% of wages ($127.60), so its answer is $26.10 below that reference; the employer may deduct less or pay the share itself, and the prompt does not specify its choice."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It submitted $2,320, which matches a 0.35% Minnesota Paid Leave share ($101.50) on top of FICA, while its explanation says no state payroll tax applies and gives $2,218.50. The frozen reference adds the maximum deductible employee share, half of the 0.88% premium or 0.44% of wages ($127.60), for $2,346.10; the employer may pay that share itself, and the prompt does not specify its choice."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It applied only 7.65% FICA to $29,000. It left out the Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution (0.44% × $29,000 = $127.60), which PolicyEngine counts as employee state payroll tax."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It computed only federal FICA, rounded to $2,219. It never added the 2026 Minnesota Paid Leave employee share of 0.44% × $29,000 = $127.60, which PolicyEngine includes."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It computed 0.0765 × $29,000 = $2,218.50 and ignored state payroll taxes. That left out the Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution of 0.44% ($127.60), which PolicyEngine adds by assuming the employer withholds it."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only the 7.65% FICA employee share. It left out the Minnesota Paid Leave employee premium of 0.44% × $29,000 = $127.60, which PolicyEngine includes in payroll_tax."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It reported only Social Security and Medicare tax ($2,218.50). It left out the 2026 Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution of $127.60 (0.44% of $29,000), which PolicyEngine treats as withheld."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It applied 7.65% FICA only. It left out the Minnesota Paid Leave employee share of 0.44% × $29,000 = $127.60, which PolicyEngine includes as mandatory employee state payroll tax."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It stopped at 7.65% FICA ($2,218.50). It never applied the 0.44% Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution ($127.60), which PolicyEngine adds for 2026."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Its Social Security ($1,798) and Medicare ($420.50) figures are correct, but it left out the Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution of 0.44% × $29,000 = $127.60. PolicyEngine includes that contribution in payroll_tax."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value or explanation for payroll_tax. The frozen reference is $1,798 Social Security + $420.50 Medicare + $127.60 Minnesota Paid Leave = $2,346.10, assuming the maximum employer deduction; the employer may pay that share itself, giving $2,218.50, and the prompt does not specify its choice."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It computed 7.65% FICA and correctly ruled out Additional Medicare Tax, but it never considered state payroll taxes. That left out the 2026 Minnesota Paid Leave employee share of 0.44% × $29,000 = $127.60."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Its explanation lists only the 6.2% and 1.45% employee rates on $29,000 ($2,218.50), yet it submitted $4,428.60. That is roughly the combined employer-plus-employee 15.3% FICA rate and contradicts its own reasoning. It also left out the $127.60 Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It correctly computed 7.65% × $29,000 = $2,218.50, then dropped it for a made-up 5.24% rate. It justified that with a nonexistent 'capped Social Security wage base interaction', even though $29,000 is far below the wage base. The frozen reference assumes a $127.60 Minnesota Paid Leave deduction (0.44% of wages); the employer may pay it instead, and the unspecified choice also permits federal tax alone, $2,218.50."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It said no state payroll tax applies and stopped at $2,218.50 in FICA. That left out the Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution (0.44% × $29,000 = $127.60), which PolicyEngine includes."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It applied 7.65% FICA (rounded to $2,219) and ignored state payroll taxes. That left out the 2026 Minnesota Paid Leave employee share of 0.44% × $29,000 = $127.60."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It reported federal tax alone, $2,218.50, saying no other employee-side payroll tax was indicated. The frozen reference assumes a $127.60 Minnesota Paid Leave deduction (0.44% of wages); the employer may pay it instead, and the unspecified choice also permits federal tax alone, $2,218.50."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It computed only 7.65% FICA on $29,000. It left out the Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution of 0.44% ($127.60), which PolicyEngine counts as employee state payroll tax."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It applied only the 6.2% Social Security and 1.45% Medicare rates. It left out the 2026 Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution of 0.44% × $29,000 = $127.60."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It said no mandatory Minnesota employee payroll tax applies. That missed the Minnesota Paid Leave premium, whose 0.44% employee share ($127.60) PolicyEngine treats as withheld from the head's wages."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It said Minnesota has no employee-side payroll tax. Minnesota Paid Leave, effective 2026, has a 0.44% employee contribution ($127.60 on $29,000), which PolicyEngine adds to FICA."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It recognized Minnesota Paid Leave but excluded it because the employer can choose whether to withhold the employee share. PolicyEngine assumes the maximum 0.44% employee share is withheld ($127.60), and the prompt does not say which choice the employer makes."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It computed FICA of $2,218.50 and never checked for state payroll taxes. That left out the Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution of 0.44% × $29,000 = $127.60."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It said no state employee payroll taxes apply. That left out the 2026 Minnesota Paid Leave employee share of 0.44% × $29,000 = $127.60, which PolicyEngine includes."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value or explanation for payroll_tax. The frozen reference is $1,798 Social Security + $420.50 Medicare + $127.60 Minnesota Paid Leave = $2,346.10, assuming the maximum employer deduction; the employer may pay that share itself, giving $2,218.50, and the prompt does not specify its choice."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It computed FICA of $2,218.50, rounded it to $2,219, and considered no state payroll tax. That left out the Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution (0.44% × $29,000 = $127.60)."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It applied 7.65% FICA only. It left out the 2026 Minnesota Paid Leave employee share of 0.44% × $29,000 = $127.60, which PolicyEngine counts in payroll_tax."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It said Minnesota levies no mandatory employee payroll tax. That missed the Minnesota Paid Leave premium starting in 2026, whose 0.44% employee share ($127.60) PolicyEngine treats as withheld."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It ruled out Minnesota payroll tax because Minnesota has no CA/NY-style disability insurance tax. That overlooked the Minnesota Paid Leave program, whose 0.44% employee share ($127.60) PolicyEngine includes."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It submitted 7.65% FICA ($2,218.50); its text misstated Medicare as $419.50 instead of $420.50. It left out the Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution of 0.44% × $29,000 = $127.60."
-us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Placed income in the federal 130–185% FPL reduced-price band but ignored Minnesota's universal free school meals program. That program puts the household in the FREE tier, which supersedes reduced-price eligibility, so the correct value is 0."
-us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied the federal 185% FPL reduced-price test and missed that Minnesota provides universal free meals, which puts the household in the FREE tier instead of reduced-price. It also miscounted the household as 4 people with 2 children when there are 3 people and 1 child."
-us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Concluded reduced-price eligibility from income falling between 130% and 185% FPL, overlooking Minnesota's universal free school meals law. Under that law every student gets free meals, so the household's tier is FREE and reduced-price eligibility is 0."
-us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Used only the federal 130–185% income band and never applied Minnesota's universal free school meals program. That program classifies the household as FREE tier, so reduced-price support is zero."
-us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Treated an income near 170% FPL as decisive for reduced-price meals and ignored that Minnesota gives all students free meals regardless of income. The household is in the FREE tier, not reduced-price."
-us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,Applied the federal 130–185% reduced-price band to a 160% FPL income and missed Minnesota's universal free school meals. Those meals put the household in the FREE tier and make reduced-price eligibility 0.
-us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,Repeatedly checked federal FPL thresholds for a 3-person household and never considered Minnesota's universal free school meals program. That program assigns the FREE tier to every student and supersedes the reduced-price classification.
-us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Found income above 130% but below 185% FPL and called it reduced-price, missing that Minnesota's universal free meals put the household in the FREE tier. Reduced-price eligibility is therefore 0."
-us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Used the federal income bands, putting the household at about 157% FPL, without applying Minnesota's universal free school meals. Those meals give the child the FREE tier, which supersedes reduced-price eligibility."
-us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Tested only income against the 185% FPL reduced-price ceiling and ignored that Minnesota provides free meals to all students. That places the household in the FREE tier, so reduced-price eligibility is 0."
-us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,Applied the federal 130–185% FPL band and missed Minnesota's universal free school meals program. Under that program the household is FREE tier rather than reduced-price.
-us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Classified the child as reduced-price from the federal 130–185% income band, overlooking Minnesota's universal free meals. Those meals assign the FREE tier and override reduced-price eligibility."
-us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Used the federal 130–185% FPL test and ignored Minnesota's universal free school meals program. That program makes the household's tier FREE, so reduced-price eligibility is 0."
-us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,Placed income at about 153% FPL in the reduced-price band but never applied Minnesota's universal free school meals. Those meals put the household in the FREE tier instead.
-us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,Relied on the federal free and reduced-price income limits and missed that Minnesota provides universal free meals regardless of income. The household is therefore FREE tier with no reduced-price support.
-us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied the federal reduced-price income threshold without Minnesota's universal free school meals override. That override classifies the household as FREE tier, so reduced-price eligibility is 0."
-us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,Used the federal reduced-price income range and ignored that Minnesota gives free meals to all students. That makes the household FREE tier rather than reduced-price.
-us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Placed income in the federal reduced-price range and missed Minnesota's universal free school meals program. Under that program the household gets the FREE tier, which supersedes reduced-price."
-us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,Compared income at about 156% FPL to the 185% reduced-price limit without applying Minnesota's universal free school meals. Those meals put the household in the FREE tier and make reduced-price eligibility 0.
-us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,Used the federal 130–185% FPL band and never applied Minnesota's universal free meals program. That program classifies the household as FREE tier rather than reduced-price.
-us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,Applied the federal income band to a school-age child and missed that Minnesota provides free meals to all students. The FREE tier supersedes reduced-price eligibility.
-us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Tested income at about 156.7% FPL against the 185% reduced-price limit only, ignoring Minnesota's universal free school meals. Those meals assign the FREE tier, so reduced-price eligibility is 0."
-us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,Used the federal 130–185% FPL dollar band and missed Minnesota's universal free school meals program. That program puts the household in the FREE tier instead of reduced-price.
-us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,Returned no value or explanation for reduced_price_school_meals_eligible. The correct answer is 0 because Minnesota's universal free school meals put the household in the FREE tier.
-us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Placed income at about 156% of poverty in the federal reduced-price band but ignored Minnesota's universal free school meals. Those meals give the household the FREE tier, which supersedes reduced-price."
-us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied the federal free and reduced-price income limits without Minnesota's universal free meals override. That override classifies the household as FREE tier, so reduced-price eligibility is 0."
-us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Compared income at about 160% FPL to the 185% reduced-price cutoff and missed that Minnesota provides universal free school meals. The household is FREE tier, not reduced-price."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model computed FICA correctly at $2,218.50. It said Minnesota has no mandatory employee state payroll tax in 2026, so it left out the 0.44% Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution ($127.60) that PolicyEngine adds by assuming the employer withholds the maximum employee share."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied only the 7.65% FICA rate. It said Minnesota has no modeled mandatory employee payroll tax, so it dropped the 0.44% Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution on $29,000 ($127.60) that PolicyEngine includes."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly worked out FICA of $2,218.50, then for no stated reason changed it to $2,175.90 with a vague 'state-specific considerations' adjustment. It still missed the $127.60 Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution (0.44% × $29,000) that brings the total to $2,346.10."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Minnesota has no mandatory employee state payroll tax, so it left out the 0.44% Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution ($127.60). It also rounded the FICA total of $2,218.50 to $2,219."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied only the 7.65% FICA rate and said Minnesota has no mandatory employee payroll tax. That left out the 0.44% Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution on $29,000 ($127.60), which PolicyEngine counts as withheld from the employee."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model computed the $1,798 Social Security and $420.50 Medicare correctly. It treated Minnesota as having no employee payroll tax and so left out the $127.60 Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution (0.44% of wages), which started in 2026."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model stopped at FICA ($2,218.50) because it said there is no mandatory Minnesota employee payroll tax. That omitted the 0.44% Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution ($127.60) included in the reference."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied only the 7.65% FICA rate to $29,000. It never added the 0.44% Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution ($127.60) that PolicyEngine counts as a state payroll tax withheld from the employee."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Minnesota imposes no employee payroll tax beyond the federal ones. That missed the Minnesota Paid Leave premium starting in 2026, whose 0.44% employee share on $29,000 adds $127.60."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Minnesota has no paid family leave employee contribution in 2026, which is wrong. The Minnesota Paid Leave employee share of 0.44% applies to the $29,000 in wages and adds $127.60 to the $2,218.50 in FICA."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model assumed no Minnesota employee payroll tax and stopped at FICA of $2,218.50. That omitted the 0.44% Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution ($127.60), which PolicyEngine includes by assuming the employer withholds the maximum employee share."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,The model said no employee state payroll tax applies and charged only the 7.65% FICA. That left out the 0.44% Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution of $127.60.
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly included the Minnesota paid leave employee share but used a 0.35% rate, giving $101.50. The 2026 rate is 0.44%, half of the 0.88% total premium, which gives $127.60 and a total of $2,346.10."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model's explanation describes FICA only ($2,218.50), but it submitted $2,320. That figure matches adding a Minnesota paid leave employee share at a wrong 0.35% rate ($101.50) instead of the 0.44% rate that gives $127.60."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied only the 7.65% FICA rate to $29,000. It did not add the 0.44% Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution ($127.60) that PolicyEngine counts toward payroll tax."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model computed only the employee Social Security and Medicare shares, rounded to $2,219. It left out the 0.44% Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution ($127.60)."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied only 7.65% FICA to $29,000. It never considered the Minnesota Paid Leave premium, whose 0.44% employee share adds $127.60."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted only FICA at 7.65% of $29,000. It omitted the 0.44% Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution ($127.60) that PolicyEngine includes as a state payroll tax."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted only Social Security and Medicare on $29,000. It left out the 0.44% Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution ($127.60)."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied only the 7.65% FICA rate. It never added the 0.44% Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution on $29,000 ($127.60)."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model computed FICA only ($2,218.50). It left out the 0.44% Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution ($127.60) that PolicyEngine treats as withheld from wages in 2026."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model summed $1,798 in Social Security and $420.50 in Medicare but never added the 0.44% Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution ($127.60)."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,gemini-4-argon,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted only FICA at 7.65%. It did not include the 0.44% Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution on $29,000 ($127.60) that is part of the reference total."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no payroll_tax value and no explanation, so nothing could be scored. The correct total is $2,346.10: $1,798 in Social Security, $420.50 in Medicare and $127.60 for Minnesota Paid Leave."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,The model applied 7.65% FICA and checked the Additional Medicare Tax but never considered state payroll levies. That omitted the 0.44% Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution ($127.60).
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model's explanation describes the employee 6.2% + 1.45% rates, but it submitted $4,428.60. That is about twice the employee FICA, consistent with wrongly adding the employer share. It also omitted the $127.60 Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly computed 7.65% × $29,000 = $2,218.50, then dropped it for a made-up 5.24% rate based on a nonexistent wage-base interaction, giving $1,520. It also left out the $127.60 Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said there is no state payroll tax and stopped at $2,218.50 in FICA. That omitted the 0.44% Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution ($127.60)."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied only 7.65% FICA, rounded to $2,219. It left out the 0.44% Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution ($127.60)."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no other employee-side payroll tax applies and stopped at 7.65% FICA. That omitted the 0.44% Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution on $29,000 ($127.60)."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted only the 7.65% FICA on $29,000. It left out the 0.44% Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution ($127.60) included in the reference."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,The model applied only the employee Social Security and Medicare rates. It never added the 0.44% Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution ($127.60).
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no mandatory Minnesota employee payroll tax applies. That excluded the 0.44% Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution ($127.60), which PolicyEngine treats as withheld in 2026."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Minnesota has no employee-side payroll tax. That missed the Minnesota Paid Leave premium starting in 2026, whose 0.44% employee share on $29,000 is $127.60."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model recognized the Minnesota Paid Leave program but excluded it because the employer can choose not to withhold the employee share. PolicyEngine assumes the employer withholds the maximum 0.44% employee share, which adds $127.60."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model computed only employee FICA on $29,000. It never added the 0.44% Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution ($127.60)."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no state employee payroll taxes apply. That omitted the 0.44% Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution on $29,000 ($127.60)."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no payroll_tax value and no explanation, so nothing could be scored. The correct total is $2,346.10: $1,798 in Social Security, $420.50 in Medicare and $127.60 for Minnesota Paid Leave."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model computed FICA only and rounded it to $2,219. It left out the 0.44% Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution ($127.60)."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,muse-spark-1.3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model summed only Social Security ($1,798) and Medicare ($420.50). It omitted the 0.44% Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution ($127.60)."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied only 7.65% FICA. It did not add the 0.44% Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution on $29,000 ($127.60) that PolicyEngine counts as a state payroll tax."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Minnesota levies no mandatory employee payroll tax. That excluded the 0.44% Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution ($127.60), which starts in 2026."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Minnesota has no state employee payroll tax like California's or New York's. That missed the Minnesota Paid Leave premium, whose 0.44% employee share adds $127.60. It also rounded FICA to $2,219."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted only 7.65% FICA (its $419.50 Medicare figure is a typo, but the $2,218.50 total is right). It left out the 0.44% Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution ($127.60)."
+us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model placed income of $42,664 between 130% and 185% FPL for 3 people and concluded the household gets reduced-price meals. It ignored Minnesota's universal free school meals program, which gives every student the FREE tier, so reduced-price eligibility is 0."
+us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied only the federal 185% FPL reduced-price test, and it also miscounted the household as 4 people with 2 children when there are 3. It missed that Minnesota's universal free school meals program puts the household in the FREE tier, which replaces reduced-price eligibility."
+us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly put $42,664 in the federal 130-185% FPL band but stopped at the federal tiers. Minnesota's universal free school meals program assigns the FREE tier to all students, so the household is not reduced-price eligible."
+us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used only the federal 130%/185% poverty bands to place the 6-year-old in reduced-price meals. Minnesota's statewide universal free meals override those bands and give the household the FREE tier, so reduced-price eligibility is 0."
+us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model assigned reduced-price meals from an income of about 170% FPL alone. It did not apply Minnesota's universal free school meals program, which gives the household the FREE tier instead."
+us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated income of about 160% FPL as automatically reduced-price under federal NSLP bands. It missed that Minnesota provides free meals to all students, which places the household in the FREE tier and zeroes out reduced-price eligibility."
+us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model went back and forth over exact FPL figures for the 130-185% band but never considered state policy. Minnesota's universal free school meals program gives the household the FREE tier whatever its income, so reduced-price eligibility is 0."
+us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model placed income of about $42,700 between 130% and 185% FPL and declared reduced-price eligibility. It ignored Minnesota's universal free school meals program, which assigns the FREE tier and replaces reduced-price status."
+us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used only the federal 130-185% FPL reduced-price band at about 157% FPL. It missed that Minnesota's universal free school meals program gives all students free meals, which makes reduced-price eligibility 0."
+us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model checked only that $42,664 is under 185% FPL and concluded reduced-price eligibility. It never applied Minnesota's universal free meals program, which assigns the household the FREE tier instead."
+us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model relied on the federal 130%/185% FPL income bands alone. Minnesota's universal free school meals program places the household in the FREE tier, so reduced-price eligibility is 0."
+us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model placed $42,664 in the federal reduced-price band for 3 people without checking state policy. Minnesota's universal free school meals give every student the FREE tier, which replaces reduced-price eligibility."
+us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied only the federal 130-185% FPL test. It missed Minnesota's universal free school meals program, under which PolicyEngine assigns the FREE tier and returns no reduced-price support."
+us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model concluded reduced-price eligibility because income falls between 130% and 185% of the 2026 FPL. It ignored that Minnesota provides universal free school meals, which puts the household in the FREE tier."
+us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used the federal reduced-price band at about 153% FPL and stopped there. Minnesota's universal free school meals program assigns the FREE tier to all students, so reduced-price eligibility is 0."
+us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model compared income only to the federal free and reduced-price limits for 3 people. It missed Minnesota's universal free school meals program, which overrides those limits and assigns the FREE tier."
+us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied only the federal reduced-price income threshold for 3 people. Minnesota's universal free school meals program gives the household the FREE tier, so PolicyEngine returns no reduced-price support."
+us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model placed household income in the modeled reduced-price range using federal bands alone. It did not account for Minnesota's universal free school meals program, which puts the household in the FREE tier."
+us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model assigned reduced-price meals from the federal income range for 3 people. Minnesota's universal free school meals program gives all students free meals, which zeroes out reduced-price eligibility."
+us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly computed income at about 156% FPL but applied only the federal 185% reduced-price limit. It missed Minnesota's universal free school meals program, which assigns the FREE tier."
+us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model placed income at about 156% FPL in the federal 130-185% band and returned reduced-price eligibility. PolicyEngine applies Minnesota's universal free school meals and assigns the FREE tier instead.
+us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used only the federal 130%/185% FPL bands for a school-age child. It ignored Minnesota's universal free school meals program, which gives the household the FREE tier and makes reduced-price eligibility 0."
+us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model computed about 156.7% FPL and applied the federal 185% reduced-price threshold. It missed that Minnesota's universal free school meals program places the household in the FREE tier.
+us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model placed $42,664 between federal 130% and 185% FPL dollar limits ($33,566-$47,767) and concluded reduced-price. It never applied Minnesota's universal free school meals program, which assigns the FREE tier to all students."
+us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no parseable value or explanation for reduced_price_school_meals_eligible, so no substantive answer was recorded. The correct answer is 0 because Minnesota's universal free school meals program puts the household in the FREE tier."
+us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated the federal 130% free-meal limit as decisive and placed income at about 156% FPL in the reduced-price band. Minnesota's universal free school meals program makes the household FREE regardless of income, so reduced-price eligibility is 0."
+us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied only the federal 130-185% FPL reduced-price band. It missed Minnesota's universal free school meals program, which assigns the FREE tier and replaces reduced-price eligibility."
+us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated the household as above the free-meal limit using federal income tests alone. Minnesota's universal free school meals program removes that limit and puts the household in the FREE tier, so reduced-price support is 0."
+us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model placed income at about 160% FPL under the federal 185% reduced-price cutoff. It ignored Minnesota's universal free school meals program, which assigns the FREE tier instead of reduced-price."
us,scenario_032,self_employment_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_032,snap,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model incorrectly used Minnesota broad-based categorical eligibility to bypass the failed SNAP gross-income screen, then contradicted its own calculation showing that net income produced a negative allotment. It replaced that result with an unsupported $493 monthly benefit despite no listed shelter expense or other deduction capable of generating it."
us,scenario_032,snap,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model incorrectly treated Minnesota broad-based categorical eligibility as sufficient to pass the household through the gross-income screen. Its own max-allotment-minus-30%-of-net-income calculation was negative, but it then invented a $476 monthly benefit; SNAP's minimum benefit does not convert a negative allotment for this ineligible three-person household into that amount."
@@ -3129,23 +3238,24 @@ us,scenario_032,spouse_chip_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_elig
us,scenario_032,spouse_chip_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,The model treated being under 19 and below Minnesota's CHIP income threshold as sufficient for CHIP eligibility. It failed to apply the Medicaid-exclusion step: the spouse qualifies for Medicaid as an OLDER_CHILD and therefore cannot qualify for CHIP.
us,scenario_032,spouse_chip_eligible,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model concluded that age, income, and lack of other listed health coverage established CHIP eligibility. It never tested the controlling exclusion for Medicaid-eligible children; the spouse is Medicaid-eligible under the OLDER_CHILD category, so CHIP eligibility is false."
us,scenario_032,spouse_chip_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model provided no spouse_chip_eligible value or explanation, violating the required structured-output contract. The required result is 0 because the spouse's Medicaid eligibility under the OLDER_CHILD category precludes CHIP eligibility."
-us,scenario_032,spouse_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Tested the spouse against the 138% FPL adult expansion limit and did not recognize that an 18-year-old is under 19, which makes the spouse Medicaid-eligible as a child. Minnesota's older-child (ages 6-18) income limit is well above the household's 1.56x FPL MAGI."
-us,scenario_032,spouse_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Computed household MAGI correctly at about 157% FPL but called the 18-year-old spouse an adult and applied the 138% FPL expansion limit. Being under 19 puts the spouse in Minnesota's older-child Medicaid category, whose limit covers 156% FPL."
-us,scenario_032,spouse_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Reused the adult income limit it had applied to Head (""same income limit exceeded"") and never considered that the spouse, at 18, qualifies under the under-19 child category. Minnesota's older-child limit is well above the spouse's 1.56x FPL MAGI."
-us,scenario_032,spouse_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,other,False,"Its explanation correctly placed the 18-year-old spouse under Minnesota's under-19 child Medical Assistance limit and concluded eligible, ending in value = 1. The recorded answer is No (0), which contradicts that explanation, so the miss comes from the submitted value field and not from the eligibility reasoning."
-us,scenario_032,spouse_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Compared the $42,664 household MAGI with 138% FPL for a family of 3 (about $37,950), which is the adult expansion test, and never applied the child category that covers the 18-year-old spouse. Under Minnesota's older-child limit, 1.56x FPL is eligible."
-us,scenario_032,spouse_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,age_disability,False,Applied the 138% FPL adult expansion limit to the spouse and missed that someone aged 18 is still in Medicaid's child category. Minnesota's older-child income limit is well above the household's 1.56x FPL MAGI.
-us,scenario_032,spouse_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Treated the 18-year-old spouse as an adult under the 138% FPL expansion limit. Being under 19 puts the spouse in Minnesota's older-child (ages 6-18) Medicaid category, whose limit covers 1.56x FPL."
-us,scenario_032,spouse_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Correctly put household income at about 155% FPL but measured it against the 138% adult expansion limit. The 18-year-old spouse falls in the under-19 child category, where Minnesota's limit is well above that income."
-us,scenario_032,spouse_medicaid_eligible,glm-5.2,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Measured the $42,664 household income against a 138% FPL threshold of $37,812, which is the adult expansion test, and never applied the child category that covers an 18-year-old spouse. Minnesota's older-child limit covers 1.56x FPL, so the spouse is eligible."
-us,scenario_032,spouse_medicaid_eligible,glm-5.3,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Placed the spouse in the parent/caretaker category and tested about 153% FPL against that roughly 138% limit. It missed that at 18 the spouse qualifies under the under-19 child category, where Minnesota's older-child limit is well above the household's MAGI."
-us,scenario_032,spouse_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Looked only for a low-income adult category for the 18-year-old spouse and found none. It overlooked the MAGI child category for people under 19, which in Minnesota covers the spouse's 1.56x FPL income."
-us,scenario_032,spouse_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Searched only non-MAGI pathways (disability, pregnancy, SSI, TANF) and ignored the MAGI child category that covers the 18-year-old spouse. Minnesota's older-child limit is well above the household's 1.56x FPL MAGI."
-us,scenario_032,spouse_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Noted that the spouse is 18 but still compared the $42,664 household income ($29,000 wages plus $13,664 Social Security dependent benefits) with an adult-level Minnesota limit. The correct limit for an 18-year-old is the older-child limit, which covers 1.56x FPL."
-us,scenario_032,spouse_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Applied Minnesota's adult Medicaid income limit to the spouse. At 18 the spouse is under 19 and falls in the older-child category, whose income limit covers the household's 1.56x FPL MAGI."
-us,scenario_032,spouse_medicaid_eligible,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Compared household income, including the Social Security benefits, with Minnesota's adult Medicaid limit. It missed that the 18-year-old spouse falls in the under-19 older-child category, whose limit is well above 1.56x FPL."
-us,scenario_032,spouse_medicaid_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Returned no value and no explanation for spouse_medicaid_eligible. The correct answer is eligible (1), because the 18-year-old spouse falls in Minnesota's older-child Medicaid category at 1.56x FPL MAGI."
-us,scenario_032,spouse_medicaid_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Concluded ineligible from household income without naming a category, which implies it used an adult income limit. The 18-year-old spouse qualifies in Minnesota's under-19 older-child category, whose limit is well above the 1.56x FPL MAGI."
+us,scenario_032,spouse_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model applied the 138% FPL adult expansion threshold to the spouse even though they are 18. Under Minnesota's under-19 child category (OLDER_CHILD, about 275% FPL), the 1.56× FPL MAGI qualifies."
+us,scenario_032,spouse_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model calculated MAGI correctly at about 157% FPL but classified the 18-year-old spouse as an adult under the 138% expansion limit. Because the spouse is under 19, the correct test is Minnesota's older-child category limit of about 275% FPL, which they meet."
+us,scenario_032,spouse_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model reused the adult 138% FPL limit for the spouse and never applied the age-based child category. An 18-year-old falls in Minnesota's OLDER_CHILD group, whose limit of about 275% FPL is well above the household's 1.56× FPL MAGI."
+us,scenario_032,spouse_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,other,False,"The model's explanation found the right pathway: an 18-year-old under Minnesota's under-19 child Medical Assistance limit, ending in 'value = 1'. The scored value, however, was No/0. The submitted numeric value contradicted the model's own explanation, so it was graded as ineligible."
+us,scenario_032,spouse_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model compared the $42,664 MAGI only to 138% FPL for a household of 3, which is the adult expansion test. The 18-year-old spouse qualifies under Minnesota's older-child category, whose limit of about 275% FPL covers 1.56× FPL."
+us,scenario_032,spouse_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated the spouse as an expansion adult under the 138% FPL limit. At age 18, the spouse qualifies under Minnesota's under-19 child category (about 275% FPL), and the household's 1.56× FPL MAGI is below that limit."
+us,scenario_032,spouse_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model applied the adult 138% FPL expansion limit and did not check age-based categories. The 18-year-old spouse falls in Minnesota's OLDER_CHILD group, and the 1.56× FPL MAGI is well under its limit of about 275% FPL."
+us,scenario_032,spouse_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model estimated income correctly at about 155% FPL but tested it only against the 138% adult expansion limit. Because the spouse is 18, Minnesota's child Medical Assistance threshold of about 275% FPL applies, and the spouse is eligible."
+us,scenario_032,spouse_medicaid_eligible,glm-5.2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model compared $42,664 to a 138% FPL threshold of about $37,812, which is the adult expansion test. The spouse is under 19 and falls in Minnesota's OLDER_CHILD category, whose limit of about 275% FPL exceeds 1.56× FPL."
+us,scenario_032,spouse_medicaid_eligible,glm-5.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model classified the 18-year-old spouse as a parent/caretaker under the roughly 138% limit. Age-based child eligibility applies first: Minnesota covers people under 19 up to about 275% FPL, and the 1.56× FPL MAGI qualifies."
+us,scenario_032,spouse_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model recognized the spouse is 18 but concluded no qualifying category existed. It missed that Minnesota's MAGI child coverage group extends through age 18, and the household's 1.56× FPL is within that group's limit of about 275% FPL."
+us,scenario_032,spouse_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model looked only for disability, pregnancy, SSI, or TANF pathways for the 18-year-old spouse. It missed the age-based OLDER_CHILD category, which makes the spouse eligible with MAGI at 1.56× FPL under Minnesota's child limit of about 275% FPL."
+us,scenario_032,spouse_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model noted the spouse is 18 but still applied the adult Medicaid income limit. Under-19 individuals in Minnesota are tested against the child limit of about 275% FPL, and the household's 1.56× FPL MAGI is under it."
+us,scenario_032,spouse_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model tested the spouse against Minnesota's adult limit (138% FPL). The spouse is 18 and qualifies under the older-child category, whose limit of about 275% FPL covers the household's 1.56× FPL MAGI."
+us,scenario_032,spouse_medicaid_eligible,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model measured income against the adult Medicaid limit. At age 18, the spouse falls in Minnesota's OLDER_CHILD MAGI group with a threshold of about 275% FPL, so the 1.56× FPL income is eligible."
+us,scenario_032,spouse_medicaid_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,The model returned no value or explanation for spouse_medicaid_eligible. The correct answer is eligible (1) under Minnesota's older-child category at 1.56× FPL MAGI.
+us,scenario_032,spouse_medicaid_eligible,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model called the 18-year-old spouse an adult and applied the 138% FPL expansion limit to MAGI of about $42,664. Minnesota's under-19 child category, with a limit of about 275% FPL, covers this spouse at 1.56× FPL."
+us,scenario_032,spouse_medicaid_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model gave a generic ineligible verdict without testing the age-based child pathway. An 18-year-old falls in Minnesota's OLDER_CHILD category, and the household's 1.56× FPL MAGI is below that category's limit of about 275% FPL."
us,scenario_032,spouse_medicare_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_032,spouse_wic_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model correctly stated that the spouse lacks pregnancy, postpartum, and breastfeeding status and therefore is not categorically eligible, but then submitted 1 in direct contradiction to its reasoning. WIC adjunctive eligibility does not create categorical status through another household member."
us,scenario_032,spouse_wic_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated being an 18-year-old woman of childbearing age in a low-income household with a child as a WIC category. WIC requires the adult woman herself to be pregnant, breastfeeding, or postpartum, and none of those statuses is present."
@@ -3157,92 +3267,96 @@ us,scenario_032,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,sta
us,scenario_032,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model asserted that Minnesota AGI equals federal AGI ""with no modifications,"" discarding the Minnesota Social Security subtraction that removes the entire $1,916 of federally taxable benefits at this income, and it also omitted the Minnesota dependent exemption of roughly $5,300 for Child 1. Applying that subtraction against its own $30,699 standard deduction gives $29,000 − $30,699 < 0, so taxable income is zero and the tax is $0, not the $217 base it taxed at 5.35%."
us,scenario_032,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no value and no explanation for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so the required key was absent from the submitted outputs object. This is a failure to deliver the answer under the output contract, not a substantive error in the Minnesota computation."
us,scenario_032,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model declared the full $13,664 of Social Security ""fully taxable"" for Minnesota purposes, contradicting the §86 provisional-income formula (provisional income $35,832 against the $32,000 joint base makes only $1,916 taxable) and the Minnesota Social Security subtraction that removes even that $1,916, and it used a $28,500 joint standard deduction below Minnesota's 2026 amount with no dependent exemption. Its own stated chain of $42,664 − $28,500 at 5.35% yields $758, not the $128 it submitted, so the figure is an unsupported approximation layered on an inflated income base; the correct $29,000 base falls below the deduction and yields $0."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a working-family component of about $925, which comes from the repealed EITC-style WFC schedule. The CWFC working-family piece is 4% of earnings capped at about $365 (indexed). It also applied a vague reduction even though AGI of $30,916 is below the joint phaseout threshold. The correct total is $2,187.60, not $2,337."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It added a one-child working-family add-on of about $950 from the pre-2023 WFC structure. Under the CWFC, the working-family amount is only 4% of earnings capped at about $365, with no per-child add-on for a child under 19. The correct total is about $1,823 + $365 = $2,187.60, not $3,100."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It stated that Minnesota has no refundable individual income tax credits. In fact, Minnesota's Child and Working Families Credit is fully refundable. This household has one qualifying 6-year-old and AGI below the phaseout threshold, so it receives $2,187.60."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It found no Minnesota refundable credit and missed the fully refundable Child and Working Families Credit. With one qualifying child and $29,000 of earnings, the household receives the full indexed child amount plus the capped 4% working-family amount: $2,187.60."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the correct CWFC structure but did not index the $1,750 child amount to 2026 (about $1,823). It also set the working-family cap at $410 instead of the indexed cap of about $365 (base $350). That gave $2,160 instead of $2,187.60."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It counted only the unindexed $1,750 child amount. It dropped the working-family component (4% of $29,000, capped at about $365) that is part of the same refundable CWFC, and it did not index the child amount to 2026. The correct total is $2,187.60."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It took the unindexed $1,750 child amount and then reduced the working-family portion through a shared phaseout it assumed began around $31,000. The joint-filer CWFC threshold is well above the $30,916 AGI, so no phaseout applies. The full indexed amounts give $2,187.60, not $2,185."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the right components (child amount plus 4% of earnings, capped) but at their unindexed base values of $1,750 and $350. It did not apply the inflation indexing to 2026, which raises the total to $2,187.60."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It modeled the MN credit as the repealed WFC, a percentage of the federal EITC, and left out the child amount entirely. The 2023 CWFC replaced that structure with a per-child amount plus 4% of earnings capped at about $365, which totals $2,187.60. It also overstated AGI by treating 85% of the Social Security benefits as taxable, when only $1,916 is taxable."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It concluded that refundable MN credits require rent, property tax, or education expenses, and so missed the Child and Working Families Credit. That credit requires only a qualifying child and earned income. This household qualifies for the full $2,187.60."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It added a working-family credit of about $1,900 from the old EITC-style WFC schedule. The CWFC working-family amount is 4% of earnings capped at about $365. With the indexed child amount of about $1,823, the correct total is $2,187.60, not $3,700."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It computed the WFC as 45% of the federal EITC, which is the repealed pre-2023 formula, and stacked it on a $1,750 child credit. The CWFC working-family piece is 4% of earnings capped at about $365. The correct total is $2,187.60, not $3,831."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It over-indexed the child amount to $1,912 and added a WFC equal to 33% of the federal EITC, a formula Minnesota no longer uses. The CWFC is about $1,823 for the child plus 4% of earnings capped at about $365, for $2,187.60."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $1,633 WFC from the old EITC-linked schedule and a $1,950 child credit, overstating both pieces. Under the CWFC, the indexed child amount is about $1,823 and the working-family cap is about $365, for $2,187.60."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It computed the WFC as 45% of the federal EITC ($1,368), which is the repealed formula, and added it to $1,750. The CWFC working-family amount is 4% of earnings capped at about $365. The correct total is $2,187.60."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It phased the child amount down to $983.60 even though the household's $30,916 AGI is below the joint-filer CWFC phaseout threshold. It also used a $550 working-family amount instead of the cap of about $365. With no phaseout, the full credit is $2,187.60."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It found no refundable credits and missed Minnesota's Child and Working Families Credit. The household has a qualifying 6-year-old and earnings under the phaseout threshold, so it receives $2,187.60."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It doubled the working-family amount to $700 by treating it as a per-taxpayer credit for the couple. The CWFC working-family amount is a single per-return cap (about $365 indexed), and the child amount is also indexed (about $1,823). The correct total is $2,187.60."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It estimated a working-family credit of about $1,200 using the old EITC-style WFC magnitudes. The CWFC working-family amount is 4% of earnings capped at about $365. With the indexed child amount, the correct total is $2,187.60, not $2,950."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Its $600 answer is consistent with counting only a small working-family credit and leaving out the child amount (about $1,823). The correct total, with the child amount plus the working-family cap of about $365, is $2,187.60."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It counted only the unindexed $1,750 child credit. It omitted the working-family component (4% of earnings, capped at about $365) and the 2026 inflation indexing, which together bring the CWFC to $2,187.60."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It added a working-family credit of $1,085 to the $1,750 child credit. The CWFC working-family amount is capped at about $365 (4% of earnings, base $350). The correct total is $2,187.60, not $2,835."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Its $2,450 is consistent with $1,750 plus a doubled $700 working-family amount, applied per spouse instead of once per return. The indexed CWFC is about $1,823 plus about $365, for $2,187.60."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It over-indexed the child amount to $1,912 and said no other refundable credit applies. That missed the CWFC working-family component of 4% of earnings, capped at about $365. The correct total is about $1,823 + $365 = $2,187.60."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It applied the $29,500 phaseout threshold for non-joint filers and reduced the child amount by about $170. This household files jointly, and its $30,916 AGI is below the joint threshold, so no phaseout applies. It also understated the working-family amount at $180 instead of the full cap of about $365. The correct total is $2,187.60."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It identified no refundable MN credit and missed the Child and Working Families Credit. The household qualifies through its 6-year-old dependent and $29,000 of earnings and receives $2,187.60."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated refundable credits as absent because no explicit credit amounts were listed. Minnesota's CWFC is computed from the listed facts (one qualifying child, $29,000 of earnings, AGI below the phaseout threshold) and equals $2,187.60."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the correct CWFC components at their unindexed base values, $1,750 child amount and $350 working-family cap. It did not apply the 2026 inflation indexing, which raises the total to $2,187.60."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It computed the working-family credit as 25% of a federal EITC, a formula Minnesota abandoned in 2023. The CWFC working-family piece is 4% of earnings capped at about $365. The correct total is $2,187.60, not $2,856.75."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $1,675 Working Family Credit from the old EITC-style schedule. The CWFC caps the working-family amount at about $365. With the indexed child amount, the correct total is $2,187.60, not $3,425."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $3,572 is consistent with a $1,750 child credit plus an old-style EITC-linked WFC of about $1,800. The CWFC working-family component is 4% of earnings capped at about $365, for a total of $2,187.60."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the unindexed $1,750 child amount instead of the 2026 indexed amount of about $1,823, and set the working-family cap at $388 instead of about $365. That gave $2,138 instead of $2,187.60."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $4,500 overstates the CWFC by more than double, consistent with stacking an old EITC-sized WFC on the child credit. The working-family piece is capped at about $365, for a total of $2,187.60."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It added a $1,275 working-family credit from the repealed EITC-linked structure to $1,750. The CWFC working-family cap is about $365 and the indexed child amount is about $1,823, for $2,187.60."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the unindexed $1,750 child amount instead of about $1,823 for 2026, and a $387 working-family amount instead of the indexed cap of about $365. That gave $2,137 instead of $2,187.60."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It counted only a working-family credit of about $500 and left out the child amount of the CWFC (about $1,823 indexed) for the qualifying 6-year-old. The correct total is $2,187.60."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It computed the WFC as 40% of the federal EITC ($1,774), which is the repealed pre-2023 formula. The CWFC working-family piece is 4% of earnings capped at about $365. The correct total is $2,187.60, not $3,524."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It added a $1,560 working-family credit from the old EITC-style schedule to $1,750. The CWFC caps the working-family amount at about $365, so the correct total is $2,187.60."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a one-child WFC maximum of $1,577 from the pre-2023 schedule. The CWFC has no child-based WFC tier for a 6-year-old; its working-family amount is 4% of earnings capped at about $365. The correct total is $2,187.60."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It computed the WFC as 33% of the federal EITC ($1,465), which is the repealed formula, and added $1,750. The CWFC working-family cap is about $365, giving $2,187.60."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It estimated a one-child WFC of about $1,300 from the old EITC-linked schedule. The CWFC working-family amount is 4% of earnings capped at about $365. With the indexed child amount of about $1,823, the correct total is $2,187.60."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It gave no parseable value or explanation for state_refundable_credits, so no answer was scored against the $2,187.60 CWFC."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a full one-child WFC of $1,250 from the old schedule. Under the CWFC, the working-family amount is 4% of earnings capped at about $365. With the indexed child amount, the correct total is $2,187.60."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly concluded that household income exceeds the eligibility thresholds and that the spouse's lack of earnings blocks the credit. The CWFC uses the head's $29,000 of earnings, and the $30,916 AGI is below the joint phaseout threshold. The full $2,187.60 applies."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It estimated an $870 working-family credit. The CWFC working-family amount is 4% of earnings capped at about $365, and the child amount is indexed to about $1,823. The correct total is $2,187.60, not $2,620."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed a WFC maximum of about $2,900 from the old schedule and reduced it by a phaseout to $1,650. The CWFC working-family cap is about $365, and no phaseout applies below the joint threshold. The correct total is $2,187.60."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It computed only an EITC-percentage WFC of $1,895 and never included the CWFC child amount for the 6-year-old. The current credit is about $1,823 for the child plus 4% of earnings capped at about $365, for $2,187.60."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $1,648 WFC from the old EITC-linked schedule and added a $241 dependent care credit even though the household has no care expenses. It also omitted the CWFC child amount. The correct total is about $1,823 + $365 = $2,187.60."
-us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the $243 state tax refund as non-taxable, which put AGI at $83,208 instead of $83,451.23 and taxable income at $35,708. It then threw out its own $3,789 result and reported an unexplained $3,699. Including the refund gives $35,951.23 of taxable income and $3,818.15 of tax."
-us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI and the $47,500 standard-plus-senior deduction match, but it also took the $1,225 auto loan interest as a deduction. That deduction doesn't apply to this household. The extra $1,225 × 12% = $147 explains its $3,671.12 versus $3,818.15."
-us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It wrongly treated the $11,400 self-employment loss as a capital loss capped at $3,000, when the full amount offsets ordinary income. It also used only a $30,400 basic standard deduction, leaving out the $3,300 aged additions and the $12,000 senior deduction. It then reported $5,661, which doesn't follow from its own calculation."
-us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no workings. $2,050 implies taxable income of about $20,500, which over-deducts by roughly $15,000. The correct $83,451.23 AGI minus $47,500 of standard, aged, and senior deductions leaves $35,951.23, for $3,818.15 of tax."
-us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $243 state tax refund (AGI $83,208) and used an outdated $24,150 top for the 10% bracket instead of the 2026 MFJ $24,800. Its own result was $3,801.96, but it then swapped in an arbitrary $3,416."
-us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added up its pre-Social Security income as $67,618 instead of $68,618, a $1,000 error that put AGI at $82,451. It also used a $31,500 base standard deduction instead of the 2026 $32,200. Its working pointed to about $3,798, but it reported an unrelated $4,575."
-us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It made two arithmetic errors. It computed AGI before Social Security as $66,131 instead of $67,131, understating taxable income by $1,000. It then added $2,480 + $1,218 and got $3,080 instead of $3,698. The correct $35,951.23 of taxable income gives $3,818.15."
-us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It got AGI right at $83,451 but used 2025 pre-OBBBA standard deduction figures ($30,000 + 2 × $1,600) and left out the $6,000-per-senior deduction for both spouses. That put taxable income at $50,251 instead of $35,951.23."
-us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $243 state tax refund, used $1,600 aged additions, and never applied the $12,000 senior deduction. Its own working reached $5,241, and it then substituted an unexplained $3,800."
-us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $83,451 is correct, but it used a $31,000 base standard deduction instead of $32,200 and left out the OBBBA $6,000 deduction for each spouse aged 65+. That left taxable income at $49,151 instead of $35,951.23."
-us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied 2024 law to a 2026 return: 2024 standard deduction amounts, the 2024 10% bracket top of $23,200, and no $12,000 senior deduction. That produced taxable income of $50,351 instead of $35,951.23."
-us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed TCJA expired in 2026, so it used the pre-TCJA $16,700 standard deduction, $10,700 of personal exemptions, and a 15% second bracket. OBBBA made the TCJA rates and the $32,200 standard deduction permanent and added the $12,000 senior deduction, which leaves $35,951.23 taxed at 10% and 12%."
-us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the TCJA-sunset rules (a $16,600 standard deduction, personal exemptions, and a 15% bracket), but OBBBA kept the 10%/12% brackets and the $32,200 MFJ standard deduction for 2026. It also missed the $12,000 senior deduction."
-us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed TCJA expired, so it used a $16,000 standard deduction, $10,000 of personal exemptions, and a 15% bracket instead of OBBBA's $32,200 base, $3,300 aged additions, $12,000 senior deduction, and 12% bracket. It also left out the $243 state tax refund."
-us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It understated AGI at $78,818 instead of $83,451.23, used a $32,500 standard deduction, and left out the aged additions and the $12,000 senior deduction. The $3,724 it reported doesn't match its own $46,318 of taxable income."
-us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no workings. $6,762 matches the TCJA-sunset results from other models (pre-TCJA standard deduction, personal exemptions, 15% bracket) rather than OBBBA's $47,500 of deductions and 10%/12% brackets, which give $3,818.15."
-us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed TCJA expired, so it used a $16,500 standard deduction, $10,500 of personal exemptions, and pre-TCJA brackets instead of OBBBA's permanent $32,200 standard deduction, aged additions, and $12,000 senior deduction. It also left out the $243 state tax refund."
-us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed deductions, exemptions, and credits wipe out all tax. In fact the $47,500 standard-plus-senior deduction leaves $35,951.23 taxable out of $83,451.23 AGI, and no nonrefundable credit applies, so tax is $3,818.15."
-us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $243 state tax refund (AGI $83,208) and used a $34,000 standard deduction with no $6,000-per-senior deduction. That put taxable income at $49,208 instead of $35,951.23."
-us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $243 refund and subtracted personal exemptions, which OBBBA repealed permanently. Its $5,045 implies about $46,000 of taxable income, so it never applied the $12,000 senior deduction on top of the $35,500 standard deduction."
-us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $83,451 is correct, but it used 2025 pre-OBBBA figures (a $30,000 base, $1,600 aged additions, and a $23,850 10% bracket) and left out the $12,000 senior deduction. That gave taxable income of $50,251."
-us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $83,451 is correct, but it used a guessed $34,030 standard deduction and left out the $6,000-per-senior deduction for both spouses. That put taxable income at $49,421 instead of $35,951.23."
-us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a non-existent $64,000 threshold for Social Security taxation, which gave $12,085 taxable instead of the 85% cap of $16,320. It also left out the $3,300 in aged additions, deducting $44,200 instead of $47,500, and used $24,500 as the top of the 10% bracket."
-us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed itemized deductions for mortgage interest, but only a mortgage balance is listed, so mortgage interest is $0 and the $47,500 standard-plus-senior deduction governs. Its $3,677 implies about $1,175 of extra deductions beyond $47,500."
-us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated Social Security as nontaxable and arrived at zero tax. Provisional income is far above the $44,000 MFJ threshold, so $16,320 is taxable, and taxable income after $47,500 of deductions is $35,951.23."
-us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used post-TCJA-sunset deductions and personal exemptions totaling $29,900 and a 15% bracket. 2026 law keeps the 12% bracket and gives $47,500 of standard, aged, and senior deductions."
-us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the $1,000 gap between the spouse's $53,000 wages and $25 × 40 × 52 = $52,000 as overtime and took a $333.33 qualified-overtime deduction. With usual hours of 40 a week there are no hours above 40, so there is no qualifying overtime and the deduction is $0."
-us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied only the standard deduction. $5,523 implies taxable income of about $50,000, so it left out the $12,000 senior deduction for the two spouses aged 65+."
-us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $83,451 is correct, but it deducted only a $34,030 standard deduction. It never applied the $6,000-per-senior deduction for both spouses, which brings total deductions to $47,500."
-us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed TCJA expired, so it used a $16,600 standard deduction, $5,300 personal exemptions, and a 15% second bracket instead of OBBBA's permanent $32,200 base, $12,000 senior deduction, and 12% bracket."
-us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $243 state tax refund, putting taxable income at $35,708 instead of $35,951.23. It also ended the 10% bracket at $24,400 instead of the 2026 MFJ $24,800."
-us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $83,451 is correct, but it deducted only a $34,196 standard deduction and left out the $12,000 senior deduction, which put taxable income at $49,255."
-us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted $1,225 of auto loan interest as an adjustment, which doesn't apply to this household. It also added a non-existent 'temporary $1,500' on top of the $32,200 base, which inflated the standard deduction to $37,000."
-us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It gave no answer and no explanation for this variable, so there is nothing to score against $3,818.15."
-us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added two deductions that don't apply: $1,225 of auto loan interest, and $333.33 of overtime inferred from the gap between wages and the hourly rate × 40 hours. Neither applies, and they reduced taxable income to $34,392.67 instead of $35,951.23."
-us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It dropped the $11,400 SE loss from income and left out the $12,000 senior deduction, which led to about $10,800 of tax. It then reported an arbitrary −$250, but this tax measure can't be negative for a household with positive taxable income and no nonrefundable credits."
-us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left the −$11,400 SSTB loss out of AGI (giving $96,095), dropped the $243 refund, and never applied the $12,000 senior deduction. It then reported $5,998, which doesn't match its own $6,748."
-us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the standard deduction and a Social Security 'subtraction' reduce taxable income to zero. In fact 85% ($16,320) of benefits is taxable, and AGI of $83,451.23 minus $47,500 of deductions leaves $35,951.23 taxable."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It added a WFC part of about $925 for one child, which follows the old per-child WFC schedule. Under the 2023 CWFC, the WFC is 4% of earnings capped at $350 indexed (about $365). Its total of $2,337 overstates the WFC part by about $220 compared with the indexed $1,750 + $350 = $2,187.60."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It added a 'one-child add-on' of about $950 on top of the 4% WFC. The current CWFC's only add-on is for qualifying older children (ages 19–23), not for a 6-year-old. The correct total is the indexed child amount (about $1,823) plus the indexed $350 WFC cap (about $365) = $2,187.60."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It said Minnesota has no refundable individual income tax credits. Minnesota's CWFC is fully refundable, and this household receives $2,187.60 from it for the 6-year-old and the head's $29,000 of earnings."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It found no refundable Minnesota credit and missed the refundable CWFC. This joint filer with one child and AGI of $30,916 (below the phase-out threshold) receives the full indexed child amount plus the WFC: $2,187.60."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2023 child amount of $1,750 without 2026 inflation indexing (indexed: about $1,823). It also set the WFC at $410 instead of the indexed $350 cap (about $365). The correct no-phase-out total is $2,187.60, not $2,160."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It reported only the $1,750 child credit and dropped the WFC part (4% of $29,000, capped at the indexed $350, about $365). It also did not index the child amount to 2026, which leaves it about $440 short of $2,187.60."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It placed the phase-out start at about $31,000, which is the non-joint threshold, and reduced the WFC through a 'shared phaseout'. The joint threshold is above $36,000, so there is no reduction. It also used the unindexed $1,750 child amount, giving $2,185 instead of the full indexed $2,187.60."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the 2023 dollar amounts ($1,750 child credit + $350 WFC cap = $2,100) without the inflation indexing required for 2026. Indexing raises the total by about 4.2% to $2,187.60."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It modeled the WFC as 35% of the federal EITC, which is the repealed pre-2023 structure. It also left out the Minnesota child credit part of the CWFC entirely. In addition, it overstated AGI by treating 85% of Social Security benefits as taxable; only $1,916 is taxable."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It said a refundable credit requires rent, education expenses, or additional inputs. The CWFC requires only a qualifying child and earned income, and here it pays the full indexed child amount plus the capped WFC ($2,187.60)."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It estimated the WFC at about $1,900 for one child, following the old EITC-like WFC schedule. The current WFC is 4% of earnings capped at about $365 in 2026, so its $3,700 overstates the $2,187.60 total."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It computed the WFC as 45% of the federal EITC ($2,081), which is a repealed formula. The CWFC's WFC part is 4% of earnings capped at the indexed $350 (about $365), so the correct total is $2,187.60, not $3,831."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It computed the WFC as 33% of the federal EITC ($1,481) instead of 4% of earnings capped at about $365. It also over-indexed the child amount to $1,912 (the correct 2026 amount is about $1,823)."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used a WFC of $1,633 and a child credit of $1,950. Both are overstated: the 2026 CWFC is about $1,823 for the child plus a WFC capped at about $365, totaling $2,187.60."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It set the WFC at 45% of the federal EITC ($1,368), a repealed formula. Under the current CWFC, the WFC is 4% of earnings capped at the indexed $350 (about $365), added to an indexed child amount of about $1,823."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It cut the child credit to $983.60 through a phase-out it says starts at $35,000, even though the household's $30,916 AGI is below the joint threshold. It also set the WFC at $550, above the roughly $365 indexed cap."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It said no refundable Minnesota credits apply. A married couple with a 6-year-old and $29,000 of earnings qualifies for the full refundable CWFC of $2,187.60."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It doubled the WFC to $700 'for the taxpaying couple'. The WFC is a single amount per return, equal to 4% of earnings capped at the indexed $350 (about $365). It also left the child amount at the unindexed $1,750."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It estimated the WFC at about $1,200 using an EITC-style schedule. The current WFC is 4% of earnings capped at about $365, so the correct total is $2,187.60, not $2,950."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"With no breakdown, its $600 matches a WFC-only estimate that leaves out the CWFC child part (about $1,823 indexed). The correct total is the child amount plus the capped WFC: $2,187.60."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only the unindexed $1,750 child credit and left out the WFC part (4% of earnings capped at about $365). It also missed the 2026 inflation indexing of the child amount."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It implies a WFC of about $1,085, consistent with the old EITC-linked WFC. The current WFC is 4% of earnings capped at about $365, so the correct total is $2,187.60, not $2,835."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its $2,450 is the $1,750 child credit plus a $700 WFC, double the per-return cap. The WFC is 4% of earnings capped at the indexed $350 (about $365), and the child amount should be indexed to about $1,823."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a phase-out that does not apply at AGI $30,916 under the joint threshold. It also used amounts close to the unindexed 2023 values. The full indexed credit is ($1,750 + $350) × ~1.042 = $2,187.60, not $2,110."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It said no other refundable credit applies beyond the child credit and left out the CWFC's WFC part (4% of earnings capped at about $365). It also over-indexed the child amount to $1,912 using an assumed 3% per year instead of the actual indexed amount of about $1,823."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It phased out the credit from a $29,500 threshold, which applies to non-joint filers, even though this married couple files jointly with a threshold above $36,000. That cut the credit to $1,760 instead of the full $2,187.60."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It identified no refundable Minnesota credit and missed the CWFC. The CWFC pays the indexed child amount plus the capped WFC, $2,187.60, to this joint filer with one child and earnings."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It returned $0 because no credit amounts were stated in the facts. The CWFC follows directly from the facts given (one child age 6, $29,000 of earnings, AGI below the phase-out) and equals $2,187.60."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2023 base amounts ($1,750 child + $350 WFC = $2,100) without indexing them to 2026. The indexed total is $2,187.60."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It computed the WFC as 25% of the federal EITC ($1,106.75), a repealed formula. Under the CWFC, the WFC is 4% of earnings capped at the indexed $350 (about $365)."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used a WFC of $1,675 from the old EITC-style schedule. The current WFC is capped at about $365, so the correct total is $2,187.60, not $3,425."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its $3,572 matches a child credit of about $1,750 plus a WFC of about $1,800 from the repealed EITC-linked schedule. The current WFC is 4% of earnings capped at about $365."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It indexed the WFC ($388) but left the child amount at the 2023 value of $1,750 instead of the 2026 indexed amount of about $1,823. The two parts should total $2,187.60."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It gave a $4,500 WFC plus child credit with no basis in the current CWFC schedule. The correct amount is about $1,823 for the child plus a WFC capped at about $365, totaling $2,187.60."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used a WFC of $1,275, consistent with the old EITC-based WFC. The current WFC part is 4% of earnings capped at the indexed $350 (about $365)."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It left the child credit at the unindexed $1,750 instead of the 2026 indexed amount of about $1,823. With the WFC part, that understates the full $2,187.60."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only a $500 WFC and left out the CWFC's child part entirely, about $1,823 indexed for the 6-year-old."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It computed the WFC as 40% of the federal EITC ($1,774), a repealed formula. The current WFC is 4% of earnings capped at about $365, and the child amount is indexed to about $1,823."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It estimated the WFC at $1,560 using the old EITC-like schedule. The current WFC is capped at about $365, so the correct total is $2,187.60."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied a one-child WFC maximum of $1,577, which comes from the pre-2023 WFC structure. Under the CWFC, the WFC is 4% of earnings capped at the indexed $350 (about $365)."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It set the WFC at 33% of the federal EITC ($1,465), a repealed formula. The current WFC is 4% of earnings capped at about $365."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It estimated the WFC at about $1,300 for one child using the old per-child schedule. The current WFC is 4% of earnings capped at about $365, added to the indexed child amount of about $1,823."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No answer or reasoning was returned for state_refundable_credits, so there is no value to score."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It assumed a full one-child WFC of $1,250. The current WFC is 4% of earnings capped at the indexed $350 (about $365), and the child amount is indexed to about $1,823."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It said the household is above the eligibility thresholds and that the spouse's lack of earnings disqualifies it. Joint AGI of $30,916 is below the CWFC's joint phase-out threshold, and the head's earnings alone qualify for the full $2,187.60."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It estimated the WFC at about $1,100, using the old EITC-like amount. The current WFC is capped at about $365, so the correct total is $2,187.60."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It estimated the WFC at about $870, which is far above the 4%-of-earnings cap of the indexed $350 (about $365). It also left the child amount unindexed at $1,750."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used a WFC maximum of about $2,900, reduced by a 12% phase-out to about $1,650. The current WFC is 4% of earnings capped at about $365, and there is no phase-out at $30,916 for joint filers."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It modeled only an EITC-percentage WFC (about $1,895) and left out the CWFC child part (about $1,823). It also overstated the WFC, which is capped at about $365."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted a $1,648 EITC-style WFC and a $241 dependent care credit even though no care expenses are listed. It left out the CWFC child part of about $1,823 and overstated the WFC, which is capped at about $365."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left the $243 state tax refund out of income, which put AGI at $83,208 and taxable income at $35,708 instead of $35,951.23. It then computed $3,789 on its own taxable income but submitted an unexplained $3,699."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI ($83,451), standard deduction ($35,500) and senior deduction ($12,000) all match the reference. However, it also subtracted $1,225 of auto-loan interest as a qualified vehicle-loan interest deduction, even though no qualifying new-vehicle purchase is given. That cut taxable income to $34,726 instead of $35,951 and the tax to $3,671 instead of $3,818."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the standard deduction inside AGI and used a $30,400 standard deduction with no aged additions and no $12,000 senior deduction. It also treated the $11,400 business loss as a capital loss capped at $3,000. Its final $5,661 doesn't follow from any of its own intermediate figures."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation. The correct taxable income is $35,951 ($83,451 AGI minus $47,500 of deductions), which gives $3,818. Its $2,050 implies roughly $20,500 of taxable income, so it overstated deductions or understated taxable Social Security by about $15,000."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $243 state refund (AGI $83,208) and ended the 10% bracket at $24,150 instead of the 2026 MFJ figure of $24,800. It computed $3,801.96, then submitted an arbitrary $3,416."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added non-Social Security income as $67,618 instead of $68,618, a $1,000 arithmetic slip. It used the 2025 base standard deduction ($31,500 instead of $32,200) and ended the 10% bracket at $24,000 instead of $24,800. It reached about $3,798 and then submitted an unrelated $4,575."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added up its pre-Social Security AGI as $66,131 instead of $67,131, understating taxable income by $1,000 ($34,951 instead of $35,951). It then added $2,480 + $1,218 and got $3,080 instead of $3,698."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $83,451 is correct. It left out the OBBBA $6,000-per-senior deduction and used 2025 figures ($30,000 base and $1,600 aged additions instead of $32,200 and $1,650). That left taxable income at $50,251 instead of $35,951."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It dropped the $243 refund, used $1,600 aged additions, and never applied the $12,000 senior deduction, so taxable income came out at $47,808. It computed $5,241 and then submitted an unsupported $3,800."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $83,451 is correct. It used a $31,000 base standard deduction instead of $32,200 and left out the $6,000-per-senior OBBBA deduction, so it taxed $49,151 instead of $35,951."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied 2024 rules: a $33,100 standard deduction and a 10% bracket ending at $23,200. It left out the 2026 $32,200 base, the $1,650 aged additions and the $12,000 senior deduction, so it taxed $50,351 instead of $35,951."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the TCJA expires in 2026 and applied a pre-TCJA $16,700 standard deduction, personal exemptions and a 15% bracket. OBBBA made the TCJA standard deduction and rates permanent and added the $6,000-per-senior deduction, so the correct taxable income is $35,951, taxed at 10%/12%."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset law: a $16,600 standard deduction, $10,600 of personal exemptions and a 15% second bracket. It missed that OBBBA kept the $32,200 MFJ standard deduction and the 12% bracket and added the $12,000 senior deduction for this couple."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired in 2026, using a $16,000 standard deduction, $10,000 of personal exemptions and a 15% bracket, and it also dropped the $243 refund. Under OBBBA, a $47,500 deduction (standard + aged + senior) applies and the second bracket is 12%."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It understated AGI as $78,818 instead of $83,451 and used a $32,500 deduction, leaving out the $3,300 aged additions and the $12,000 senior deduction. Its $3,724 doesn't even match its own $46,318 taxable income at 10%/12%."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation. Its $6,762 matches the TCJA-sunset calculations other models made: about $53,000 of taxable income after pre-TCJA deductions and exemptions, taxed at 10%/15%. The OBBBA $47,500 deduction stack and 12% bracket give $3,818."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired in 2026, applying a $16,500 standard deduction, $10,500 of personal exemptions and reverted brackets, and it also dropped the $243 refund. OBBBA's permanent $32,200 standard deduction, the $3,300 aged additions, the $12,000 senior deduction and the 12% bracket apply instead."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed deductions and credits wipe out the tax. But $83,451 of AGI less the $47,500 standard, aged and senior deductions leaves $35,951 of taxable income, and no nonrefundable credit applies, so the tax is $3,818, not $0."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It dropped the $243 refund (AGI $83,208), used a $34,000 standard deduction, and never applied the OBBBA $6,000-per-senior deduction, so it taxed $49,208 instead of $35,951."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It dropped the $243 refund and applied personal exemptions, which OBBBA permanently eliminated, instead of the $12,000 senior deduction. That produced $5,045 instead of tax on $35,951 of taxable income."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $83,451 is correct. It used 2025 amounts ($30,000 base, $1,600 aged additions, 10% bracket ending at $23,850) and left out the $6,000-per-senior deduction, so it taxed $50,251 instead of $35,951."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left the $11,400 SSTB self-employment loss out of AGI ($94,851 instead of $83,451). It also subtracted $1,225 of auto-loan interest, which isn't a deductible item here. Together these errors put taxable income at $46,126 instead of $35,951."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $83,451 is correct. It underestimated the standard deduction as $34,030 instead of $35,500 and left out the OBBBA $6,000-per-senior deduction for both spouses, so it taxed $49,421 instead of $35,951."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It misapplied the Social Security taxability formula, getting $12,085 taxable instead of $16,320. With provisional income far above $44,000, 85% of benefits is taxable. It also left out the $1,650 aged addition for each spouse and ended the 10% bracket at $24,500 instead of $24,800."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It cited itemized mortgage-interest and SALT amounts even though no mortgage interest or deductible taxes are given; only a loan balance is listed. Its $3,677 implies about $34,775 of taxable income, roughly $1,176 below the correct $35,951 (AGI $83,451 less the $47,500 standard, aged and senior deductions)."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated Social Security as non-taxable. With provisional income around $76,700, $16,320 (85%) is taxable, giving $83,451 of AGI and $35,951 of taxable income, so the tax is $3,818, not $0."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied post-TCJA-sunset law: $29,900 of standard/age deductions plus personal exemptions, with a 15% second bracket. It missed OBBBA's permanent $32,200 standard deduction, the 12% bracket and the $12,000 senior deduction."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Everything else matches the reference, but it added a $333.33 qualified-overtime deduction by inferring overtime from $53,000 of wages versus $25/hour × 40 hours × 52 weeks. No overtime income is listed, so that deduction is zero, and taxable income stays at $35,951.23."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation. Its $5,523 implies about $49,500 of taxable income, which is what results from leaving out the $12,000 OBBBA senior deduction; the correct taxable income is $35,951."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $83,451 is correct. It applied only a $34,030 standard deduction and left out the $6,000-per-senior deduction for both spouses, so it taxed $49,421 instead of $35,951."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset law: a $16,600 standard deduction, $5,300 personal exemptions and a 15% bracket. OBBBA made the $32,200 standard deduction and 12% bracket permanent and added the $12,000 senior deduction."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the $243 state refund as non-taxable, which put AGI at $83,208 and taxable income at $35,708 instead of $35,951. It also ended the 10% bracket at $24,400 instead of the 2026 MFJ figure of $24,800."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $83,451 is correct. It used a $34,196 standard deduction and left out the OBBBA $6,000-per-senior deduction, so it taxed $49,255 instead of $35,951."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted $1,225 of auto-loan interest above the line and added a nonexistent 'temporary $1,500' to the standard deduction ($37,000 instead of $35,500). Those errors cut taxable income to $33,226 instead of $35,951."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value or explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was no answer to score."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI and the $47,500 standard, aged and senior deductions match the reference. It then also subtracted $1,225 of auto-loan interest and a $333.33 overtime deduction inferred from the hourly wage; neither applies. That dropped taxable income to $34,392.67 instead of $35,951.23."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $11,400 SE loss, mixed in fully taxable Social Security, and left out the $12,000 senior deduction, reaching about $10,800. It then submitted −$250, a negative number that is impossible for tax before refundable credits."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its method matches the reference ($83,451 AGI less $47,500 of deductions). But it rounded taxable income to about $36,000 instead of carrying the exact $35,951.23, so it submitted $3,820 instead of $3,818.15."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left the $11,400 SSTB self-employment loss out of AGI ($94,608 instead of $83,451) and left out the $12,000 senior deduction. It computed $6,748 and then submitted an unsupported $5,998."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the standard deduction and a Social Security 'subtraction' zero out taxable income. Federal law includes 85% of benefits ($16,320) here, leaving $35,951 of taxable income and $3,818 of tax."
us,scenario_033,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_033,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly computed $1,612 + $377 + $3,286 + $768.50 = $6,043.50. It then added a made-up $64.15 'rounding adjustment' that has no basis in any payroll tax rule, and submitted $6,107.65."
us,scenario_033,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly computed $4,054.50 + $1,989 = $6,043.50 in FICA. It then stated 6044 and submitted 6045, rounding up for no reason instead of reporting the exact $6,043.50."
@@ -3256,112 +3370,116 @@ us,scenario_033,payroll_tax,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"It explicitly deri
us,scenario_033,payroll_tax,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly computed $1,989 + $4,054.50 = $6,043.50, then 'rounded' to $6,042. That moves the value in the wrong direction and away from the exact amount it had already found."
us,scenario_033,payroll_tax,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,other,False,"It named the correct rates (6.2% + 1.45%) and the correct $79,000 base, but its $6,123 equals 7.75% × $79,000. It multiplied with a mistaken combined rate instead of 7.65%, which gives $6,043.50."
us,scenario_033,self_employment_tax,minimax-m3,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model correctly recognized that a self-employment loss produces no self-employment tax, then contradicted that rule by reporting an invented negative liability. A negative SSTB amount cannot be multiplied by the 15.3% rate to create a self-employment tax credit; the correct liability is floored at zero."
-us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"It computed the correct figure: $16,100 deduction, $43,120 taxable income and $1,240 + $3,686 = $4,926. It then dropped that result for an unsupported 'projected bracket indexing' figure of $4,849. The correct parameters were already in its own calculation."
-us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a stale $15,000 standard deduction instead of the 2026 OBBBA amount of $16,100. Its bracket arithmetic is also incoherent: it applied 2024 thresholds and still got $8,074, which is far more than 10%/12% rates can produce on about $44,000 of taxable income. The correct result is $1,240 + 12% × $30,720 = $4,926.40."
-us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"It used the correct $16,100 deduction but rounded taxable income to about $43,100 and gave a loose $4,950. It never actually applied the brackets. Doing so gives $1,240 (10% up to $12,400) + 12% × $30,720 = $4,926.40."
-us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It overstated the 2026 single standard deduction as $16,600 instead of $16,100 and got about $4,866. It then cut that by an unexplained 'bracket inflation' amount to $4,297. The correct result is $4,926.40 on $43,120 of taxable income."
-us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,other,False,"It derived the correct $4,926 from the $16,100 deduction and the $12,400/$50,400 brackets. It then 'rounded' to $4,969 for no reason. The right answer was its own calculation, $4,926.40."
-us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly computed $43,120 of taxable income and $4,926 of tax. It then replaced that with an unexplained $5,194. No other parameter applies, and the tax is $4,926.40."
-us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used $15,750 (the 2025 OBBBA amount) as the 2026 standard deduction instead of $16,100, and a 2025-level 10% bracket of about $11,950 instead of $12,400. That produced $43,470 of taxable income and $4,977. With 2026 parameters the tax is $1,240 + 12% × $30,720 = $4,926.40."
-us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its reasoning computed exactly $4,926.40 using the right $16,100 deduction and $12,400/$50,400 brackets. It then submitted $6,499, which has no basis in its own work."
-us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $43,820 of taxable income implies a $15,400 standard deduction instead of the 2026 single amount of $16,100. It also used a lower 10% bracket threshold, giving $5,020 instead of $4,926.40."
-us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the pre-OBBBA 2025 parameters: a $15,000 standard deduction and a 10% bracket ending at $11,925. The 2026 values are a $16,100 deduction and a 10% bracket ending at $12,400. That overstated taxable income at $44,220 and tax at $5,067.90."
-us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA would sunset and applied an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,300 personal exemption and a 15% second bracket. OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent, so 2026 has a $16,100 deduction, no personal exemption and a 12% bracket up to $50,400. The tax is $4,926.40."
-us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It understated both 2026 parameters: a $15,600 deduction instead of $16,100, and a 10% bracket ending at $12,200 instead of $12,400. That produced $43,620 of taxable income and $4,990.40 instead of $4,926.40."
-us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It treated 2026 as post-TCJA-sunset, with an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,300 personal exemption and a 15% second bracket. OBBBA kept the $16,100 deduction, no exemption and the 12% bracket, so the tax is $4,926.40."
-us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $5,122 matches 2024 parameters exactly: a $14,600 deduction and a 10% bracket ending at $11,600, giving $1,160 + 12% × $33,020. It did not use the 2026 values of a $16,100 deduction and a $12,400 10% bracket, which yield $4,926.40."
-us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA would expire in 2026 and reinstated an $8,350 standard deduction, a $5,050 personal exemption and a 15% bracket. OBBBA made the TCJA rates and deduction permanent: a $16,100 deduction, no exemption and 12% on taxable income up to $50,400, giving $4,926.40."
-us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the TCJA-sunset law: an $8,300 deduction, a $5,050 exemption and a 15% bracket. OBBBA kept the 2026 single standard deduction at $16,100 with no personal exemption and a 12% bracket, so the tax is $4,926.40, not $6,300.50."
-us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $3,858 implies about $34,200 of taxable income, which means roughly $25,000 of deductions plus an exemption it said it applied. The only deduction available is the $16,100 standard deduction. There is no personal exemption and no itemizable mortgage interest, so taxable income is $43,120 and tax is $4,926.40."
-us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used post-TCJA-sunset parameters: an $8,300 deduction, a $5,300 exemption and a 15% bracket above $11,925. Under OBBBA, 2026 has a $16,100 deduction, no exemption and 12% up to $50,400, so the tax is $4,926.40."
-us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used post-TCJA-sunset parameters: an $8,300 deduction, a $5,300 exemption and a 15% bracket above $11,925. Under OBBBA, 2026 has a $16,100 deduction, no exemption and 12% up to $50,400, so the tax is $4,926.40."
-us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the pre-OBBBA 2025 parameters: a $15,000 deduction and a 10% bracket ending at $11,925. The 2026 values are a $16,100 deduction and a 10% bracket ending at $12,400. That overstated taxable income at $44,220 and tax at $5,067.90."
-us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It explicitly used the 2024 $14,600 deduction and 2024 brackets ($11,600/$47,150) as stand-ins for 2026. With the 2026 values of a $16,100 deduction and a $12,400 10% bracket, taxable income is $43,120 and tax is $4,926.40."
-us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It mixed the 2023 $13,850 deduction with an invented medical adjustment and applied 15%/22% rates under 2025 rules. Medical costs here fall below the 7.5%-of-AGI floor, and the 2026 single brackets are 10% to $12,400 and 12% to $50,400 after a $16,100 deduction. That gives $4,926.40."
-us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $3,344 implies only about $29,900 of taxable income, meaning roughly $29,000 of deductions. That is far above the $16,100 standard deduction, which is the only deduction available because no mortgage interest is listed. The correct taxable income is $43,120 and the tax is $4,926.40."
-us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $3,720 implies about $33,000 of taxable income, meaning roughly $26,000 of deductions. Only the $16,100 standard deduction applies here, so taxable income is $43,120 and tax is $4,926.40."
-us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed a mortgage-interest deduction, but only a mortgage balance is listed and no interest paid. Itemizing therefore does not beat the $16,100 standard deduction. Its $4,966 does not match the correct $1,240 + 12% × $30,720 = $4,926.40."
-us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA would sunset, applying an $8,300 deduction, a $5,300 exemption and a 15% rate above $12,400. OBBBA kept a $16,100 deduction, no exemption and a 12% bracket to $50,400, so the tax is $4,926.40."
-us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied 'current-law TCJA sunset' parameters: an $8,532 deduction, a $5,442 exemption and a 15% bracket. OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent, with a $16,100 deduction, no exemption and 12% to $50,400, giving $4,926.40."
-us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the right $16,100 deduction and $43,120 taxable income. However, it set the 10% bracket end at $12,200 instead of the 2026 single threshold of $12,400. That gave $4,930.40 instead of $1,240 + 12% × $30,720 = $4,926.40."
-us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied pre-TCJA rules: an $8,315 deduction, a $5,303 exemption and a 15% bracket. OBBBA keeps a $16,100 standard deduction with no exemption and a 12% bracket in 2026, so the tax is $4,926.40."
-us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It explicitly used the 2025 $15,000 deduction and the 2025 $11,925 10% bracket as proxies for 2026. The 2026 values are a $16,100 deduction and a $12,400 10% bracket, giving $43,120 of taxable income and $4,926.40 of tax."
-us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,other,False,"It identified the correct $16,100 deduction and $43,120 taxable income but never finished the bracket arithmetic, and submitted $4,936. The exact calculation is $1,240 + 12% × $30,720 = $4,926.40."
-us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used $15,750 (the 2025 amount) instead of the 2026 standard deduction of $16,100, and a $12,150 10% bracket instead of $12,400, and got about $4,973. It then arbitrarily raised that to $6,437. The correct tax is $4,926.40."
-us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It invented an elderly credit, which requires age 65 or older or a disability, for a 56-year-old. It also added a medical-expense 'item' on top of the tax, which is not how tax is computed. The tax on $43,120 of taxable income is just $1,240 + 12% × $30,720 = $4,926.40, with no credits."
+us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly derived taxable income of $43,120 and tax of $1,240 + $3,686 = $4,926 using the 2026 parameters ($16,100 standard deduction, 10% bracket to $12,400). It then dropped that result for an invented 'projected bracket indexing' figure of $4,849, which no parameter supports."
+us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the outdated $15,000 standard deduction and the 2024 $11,600 10% bracket instead of the 2026 values ($16,100 and $12,400). It then reported $8,074, which matches no bracket computation; even its own taxable income of $44,220 gives only about $5,100."
+us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the correct $16,100 standard deduction but never applied the exact 2026 brackets. On $43,120 of taxable income, those brackets give $1,240 + 12% × $30,720 = $4,926.40, not the rough $4,950 it reported."
+us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It overstated the 2026 single standard deduction as $16,600 instead of $16,100 and computed $4,866. It then cut the figure arbitrarily to $4,297 for 'bracket inflation', even though the bracket thresholds were already 2026 values."
+us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,other,False,"It computed exactly $1,240 + $3,686 = $4,926 from the correct 2026 deduction and brackets. It then reported $4,969 as a 'rounding' adjustment that has no basis in the parameters."
+us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"It derived the correct $4,926 from the $16,100 standard deduction and the $12,400/$50,400 bracket thresholds. It then inflated the answer to $5,194 for unspecified 'bracket parameter estimates'."
+us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 OBBBA standard deduction of $15,750 and a 10% bracket of about $11,950 instead of the 2026 values ($16,100 and $12,400). That inflated taxable income to $43,470 and the tax to $4,977. It also spent effort imputing mortgage interest from the loan balance, although no interest paid is listed."
+us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its own calculation with the correct 2026 parameters gave $1,240 + $3,686.40 = $4,926.40. It then submitted $6,499 as the final value, which contradicts its stated computation."
+us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its taxable income of $43,820 implies a standard deduction of about $15,400 instead of the 2026 single amount of $16,100. Taxing that overstated base produced $5,020 rather than $4,926.40."
+us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the pre-OBBBA 2025 standard deduction of $15,000 and the 2025 10% bracket top of $11,925. The 2026 values are $16,100 and $12,400, so it overstated taxable income at $44,220 and reported $5,067.90."
+us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired in 2026 and applied an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,300 personal exemption and a 15% bracket. OBBBA made the TCJA permanent, so the correct structure is a $16,100 standard deduction, no exemption, and 10%/12% rates on $43,120."
+us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,600 standard deduction and a $12,200 10% bracket instead of the 2026 single values of $16,100 and $12,400. That overstated taxable income at $43,620 and gave $4,990.40."
+us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the pre-TCJA sunset structure: an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,300 personal exemption and a 15% second bracket. OBBBA made the TCJA permanent, so 2026 uses a $16,100 standard deduction with 10%/12% brackets, giving $4,926.40."
+us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $5,122 matches the 2024 parameters: a $14,600 standard deduction, taxable income of $44,620 and a $11,600 10% bracket. The 2026 values are a $16,100 deduction and a $12,400 10% bracket."
+us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired and used an $8,350 standard deduction, a $5,050 personal exemption and a 15% bracket. OBBBA made the TCJA permanent, so 2026 has a $16,100 standard deduction, no exemption and a 12% rate on income from $12,400 to $43,120."
+us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the TCJA-sunset structure: an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,050 exemption and a 15% bracket above $11,600. The 2026 single filer actually gets a $16,100 standard deduction and 10%/12% brackets with thresholds at $12,400 and $50,400."
+us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Under the 2026 brackets, $3,858 corresponds to taxable income of about $34,200, which implies roughly $25,000 of deductions. The only allowable deduction is the $16,100 standard deduction: no mortgage interest is listed and medical costs are below the 7.5% floor. That leaves $43,120 taxable and $4,926.40 of tax."
+us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired and used an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,300 personal exemption and a 15% bracket above $11,925. OBBBA kept the TCJA structure, so 2026 uses a $16,100 standard deduction and 10%/12% rates."
+us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the post-sunset structure: an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,300 exemption and a 15% bracket. The 2026 law, made permanent by OBBBA, gives a single filer a $16,100 standard deduction with 10% up to $12,400 and 12% up to $50,400."
+us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the pre-OBBBA 2025 values: a $15,000 standard deduction and a 10% bracket topping out at $11,925. The 2026 values are $16,100 and $12,400, so its $44,220 taxable income and $5,067.90 tax are both overstated."
+us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It explicitly applied a personal exemption along with the standard deduction. Its $6,247 matches the TCJA-sunset computation with a 15% bracket. OBBBA made the TCJA permanent, so 2026 has no personal exemption, a $16,100 standard deduction and a 12% marginal rate here."
+us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2024 values, a $14,600 standard deduction and a $11,600 10% bracket, as proxies for 2026. The 2026 values are $16,100 and $12,400, which give $43,120 taxable and $4,926.40 of tax."
+us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It mixed the 2023 $13,850 standard deduction with a phantom medical adjustment and a 15%/22% bracket scheme that does not exist in current law. Its own arithmetic also contradicts its $4,407 result. The correct computation is $59,220 − $16,100 = $43,120, taxed at 10%/12%."
+us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $3,344 corresponds to taxable income of only about $29,900 under 2026 brackets, which implies roughly $29,000 of deductions. The only allowable deduction is the $16,100 standard deduction, because no mortgage interest is listed. With $43,120 taxable, the tax is $4,926.40."
+us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $3,720 implies taxable income of about $33,100, which means roughly $26,000 of deductions. Only the $16,100 single standard deduction applies, so taxable income is $43,120 and the tax is $4,926.40."
+us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed itemized deductions 'including mortgage interest' even though only a loan balance is listed and mortgage interest paid is $0. The $16,100 standard deduction therefore applies. Its $4,966 corresponds to a deduction of about $15,800, not $16,100."
+us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired and used an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,300 exemption and a 15% rate above $12,400. OBBBA made the TCJA permanent, so the 2026 computation is a $16,100 standard deduction with 12% on taxable income from $12,400 to $43,120."
+us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a 'current-law TCJA sunset': an $8,532 standard deduction, a $5,442 personal exemption and a 15% bracket. OBBBA eliminated the sunset, so 2026 uses a $16,100 standard deduction, no exemption and 10%/12% brackets."
+us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the correct $16,100 standard deduction and $43,120 taxable income but ended the 10% bracket at $12,200 instead of the 2026 single threshold of $12,400. That moved $200 into the 12% bracket and added $4, giving $4,930.40."
+us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the pre-TCJA structure: an $8,315 standard deduction, a $5,303 personal exemption and a 15% bracket. OBBBA made the TCJA permanent, so 2026 has a $16,100 standard deduction and 10%/12% rates."
+us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It explicitly used the 2025 pre-OBBBA $15,000 standard deduction and the $11,925 10% bracket as stand-ins for 2026. The 2026 values are $16,100 and $12,400, so its taxable income was $44,220 instead of $43,120."
+us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 OBBBA standard deduction of $15,750 and the 2025 10% bracket of $11,925 instead of the 2026 values, $16,100 and $12,400. Taxable income rose to $43,470 and the tax to $4,978."
+us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the correct $16,100 deduction and $43,120 taxable income but applied the 2025 10% bracket top of $11,925 instead of the 2026 threshold of $12,400. That gives $1,192.50 + 12% × $31,195 ≈ $4,936 instead of $4,926.40."
+us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,750 standard deduction and a $12,150 10% bracket, which gave about $4,973. It then arbitrarily inflated the result to $6,437 for 'bracket threshold adjustments'. The correct computation is $16,100 deducted, then 10% to $12,400 and 12% above, for $4,926.40."
+us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,other,False,"It started from the correct $43,120 taxable income but invented a 22% bracket starting at $43,100. It then subtracted an elderly credit the 56-year-old is not eligible for and added a medical-expense 'item' to the tax. The result was $8,440.50 instead of 10% on $12,400 plus 12% on $30,720, which is $4,926.40."
us,scenario_036,head_medicaid_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model incorrectly declared the $59,220 pension income below a New Jersey adult Medicaid threshold without converting the household's MAGI to its income-to-FPL level or identifying a qualifying category. The correct computation places MAGI at 3.71 times FPL and assigns medicaid_category NONE, so the head is not eligible."
us,scenario_036,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model correctly stated that no wages were provided and that payroll tax therefore equals zero, but submitted $3,715 instead. That amount applies a payroll-tax-style rate to the $59,220 taxable private pension, which is not employee compensation subject to payroll tax."
us,scenario_036,self_employment_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted the $1,000 'excluding Part B' premium line on top of the $1,000 other-premium line. That gave $2,100 of medical costs and a $916 deduction above the 2% floor, so it computed $1,673.55. It then submitted 187, which its own work doesn't support. Countable expenses are only $1,100, which is under the $1,184.40 floor, so taxable income is $58,220 and the tax is $1,724.16."
-us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a federal-style standard deduction, which NJ doesn't have. It also taxed the $35,000-$60,000 range at 3.5%, when the single 5.525% bracket starts at $40,000. It then submitted an unsupported $3,185. The correct calculation is $59,220 minus the $1,000 exemption, which gives $58,220 of taxable income and $1,724.16 of tax."
-us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly found the pension fully taxable at age 56 but never ran the brackets, and its $1,000 figure is a guess. Applying 1.4%/1.75%/3.5%/5.525% to $58,220 ($59,220 minus the $1,000 exemption) gives $1,724.16."
-us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reached the correct $1,724.15 and then dropped it to subtract an $8,405 medical deduction. That deduction is built from $9,589 that includes the $7,389 of ESI premiums, the duplicated $1,000 premium line, and OTC spending. Only $1,100 counts, which is under the 2% floor, so no medical deduction applies."
-us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took an $8,405 medical deduction from $9,589 of expenses that included the ESI premiums, the duplicated premium line, and OTC costs. It then cut the result further to $613 based on an invented ESI-premium treatment. No medical deduction applies because countable costs of $1,100 fall below the $1,184.40 floor, so taxable income stays at $58,220."
-us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated all $9,589 of listed health costs as NJ medical expenses, including the $7,389 of ESI premiums, both premium lines, and OTC. That produced an $8,404.60 deduction and $49,815.40 of taxable income. Countable expenses are $1,100, which is below the 2% floor, so taxable income is $58,220 and the tax is $1,724.16."
-us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It applied NJ's retirement income exclusion to a 56-year-old, but the exclusion requires age 62 or disability. It then submitted an unexplained $1,591 'phase-out remainder'. The full $59,220 is taxable, and after the $1,000 exemption the tax is $1,724.16."
-us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted $2,200 of medical costs by adding both $1,000 premium lines plus OTC spending, and took a $1,016 deduction above the 2% floor. Countable expenses are $1,000 of premiums plus $100 of other medical, or $1,100. That doesn't reach the $1,184.40 floor, so taxable income is $58,220."
-us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It ran the single brackets on the full $59,220 and left out the $1,000 single personal exemption. That overstated the 5.525% slice by $1,000, giving $1,779 instead of $1,724.16 on $58,220."
-us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It applied the NJ pension exclusion to the whole $59,220 even though the head is 56 and not disabled, and the exclusion requires age 62 or disability. The pension is fully taxable, and the tax on $58,220 after the exemption is $1,724.16."
-us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted $2,100 of medical costs by adding the 'excluding Part B' premium line on top of the identical other-premium line, which gave a $915.60 deduction. The premium counts once, so countable expenses are $1,100. That is below the $1,184.40 floor, so no medical deduction applies and the tax is $1,724.16."
-us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted $8,404.60 of medical expenses based on $9,589 that included the ESI premiums, both premium lines, and OTC costs. Countable expenses of $1,100 don't exceed the 2% floor. Taxable income is $59,220 − $1,000 = $58,220, which gives $1,724.16."
-us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation, and $1,113 corresponds to taxable income of roughly $47,000, which means an unexplained deduction of about $11,000. The only subtraction is the $1,000 exemption, so taxable income is $58,220 and the tax is $1,724.16."
-us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It applied the NJ pension exclusion based only on the income limit and ignored that the head must be 62 or older or disabled. At 56, the full $59,220 is taxable, which gives $1,724.16 after the $1,000 exemption."
-us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It treated part of the pension as excluded, but the NJ pension exclusion isn't available below age 62 without a disability. With the full $59,220 taxable and only the $1,000 exemption subtracted, the tax is $1,724.16, not $1,057."
-us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly found taxable income of $58,220 but used non-existent rates of 2% and 2.5% for the first two single brackets. The actual rates are 1.4% on the first $20,000 and 1.75% on $20,000-$35,000. With those rates, the tax is $1,724.16, not $1,956.66."
-us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It invented a $20,000 NJ standard deduction and taxed everything above it at a flat 5.525%. It also subtracted a property-tax credit derived from the mortgage balance, but no property taxes were listed. NJ has no standard deduction, so the graduated brackets apply to $58,220 and give $1,724.16."
-us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave no computation, and $2,860 is far above what NJ's single brackets produce at this income. Applying 1.4%/1.75%/3.5%/5.525% to $58,220 after the $1,000 exemption gives $1,724.16."
-us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It cut the tax to $600 using unspecified 'standard credits', but no NJ nonrefundable credits apply to this household. The tax on $58,220 of taxable income is $1,724.16."
-us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It included the $7,389 of ESI premiums in $8,489 of 'qualifying' medical costs and took a $7,304.60 deduction. ESI premiums aren't out-of-pocket deductible expenses here. The countable $1,100 falls below the 2% floor, so taxable income is $58,220 and the tax is $1,724.16."
-us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It fully excluded the private pension under NJ's pension exclusion, which requires the taxpayer to be 62 or older or disabled. The 56-year-old head doesn't qualify, so $58,220 is taxable after the exemption and the tax is $1,724.16."
-us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took a medical deduction of roughly $900 by treating the reported premium lines as separate out-of-pocket costs above the 2% threshold. The premium counts once, and $1,000 of premiums plus $100 of other medical costs is under the $1,184.40 floor. That leaves taxable income of $58,220 and tax of $1,724.16."
-us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It called the head an 'eligible' filer for the NJ pension exclusion, but the exclusion requires age 62 or disability and the head is 56. The whole pension is taxable, so the tax is $1,724.16."
-us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation, and $1,125 corresponds to roughly $47,000 of taxable income, which means unexplained deductions of about $11,000. The only subtraction is the $1,000 exemption, so taxable income is $58,220 and the tax is $1,724.16."
-us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted $8,405 of medical expenses based on $9,589 that included the ESI premiums, both premium lines, and OTC costs. It then used an invented '350 plus 2.75%' rate formula. No medical deduction applies, and the 1.4%/1.75%/3.5%/5.525% brackets on $58,220 give $1,724.16."
-us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted an $8,405 medical deduction built from ESI premiums, duplicated premiums, and OTC costs. It also miscalculated the brackets on its own $49,815 figure, which gives $1,259.80, not $1,008.54. With no medical deduction, taxable income is $58,220 and the tax is $1,724.16."
-us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The answer had no parseable value and no explanation, so there was no figure to compare with the $1,724.16 bracket tax on $58,220."
-us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It acknowledged that the pension exclusion is for taxpayers 62 and older, then applied it to the 56-year-old head anyway. The pension is fully taxable, which gives $1,724.16 on $58,220."
-us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took a medical deduction of about $8,405 by counting the ESI premiums, both premium lines, and OTC costs against the 2% floor. Countable costs of $1,100 don't exceed $1,184.40, so taxable income is $58,220, not $49,815, and the tax is $1,724.16."
-us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted $2,200 of medical costs by adding the 'excluding Part B' premium line on top of the identical other-premium line and including OTC spending, then deducted $1,015.60. Countable expenses are $1,100, which is below the floor. Taxable income is therefore $58,220 and the tax is $1,724.16."
-us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly computed $1,724.16 on $58,220 after the $1,000 exemption. It then discarded that result for an unsupported $2,283.06 based on a 'withholding-style flat estimation'."
-us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted a $16,100 'standard deduction' that NJ doesn't have, used a 5.5% rate in place of 5.525%, and added an invented property-tax item. The only subtraction is the $1,000 exemption, and the single brackets on $58,220 give $1,724.16."
+us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted the $1,000 premium twice ($1,000 + $1,000 + $100 = $2,100) and took a $915.60 medical deduction. The actual qualifying expenses do not clear the 2% floor of $1,184.40, so the deduction should be zero. It then submitted $187, which contradicts its own $1,673.55 calculation. The correct tax on $58,220 is $1,724.16."
+us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a federal-style $6,500 standard deduction, which New Jersey does not have. It also used a made-up 3.5% bracket running to $60,000. Then it inflated its own $1,417.50 result to an unexplained $3,185, instead of taxing $58,220 (after the $1,000 exemption) on the 1.4%–5.525% schedule to get $1,724.16."
+us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly found the pension fully taxable at age 56, but it never ran the NJ rate schedule and submitted a round $1,000 guess. Taxing $58,220 at 1.4%/1.75%/3.5%/5.525% gives $1,724.16."
+us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It first got $1,724.15 correctly. It then dropped that result for an $8,405 medical deduction that counted the $7,389 ESI premiums and counted the $1,000 premium twice. ESI premiums are not out-of-pocket expenses, and the remaining qualifying expenses do not clear the $1,184.40 2% floor, so the NJ medical deduction is zero."
+us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took an $8,405 medical deduction by counting the $7,389 ESI premiums and counting the $1,000 premium twice. It then cut the tax further to $613 by citing a nonexistent PolicyEngine 'ESI premium deduction.' With no medical deduction, taxable income is $58,220 and the tax is $1,724.16."
+us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted the employer-sponsored insurance premiums ($7,389) as deductible and also counted the $1,000 premium twice. That produced an $8,404.60 medical deduction and $49,815.40 of taxable income. The qualifying out-of-pocket expenses do not exceed 2% of gross income, so taxable income is $58,220 and the tax is $1,724.16."
+us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It applied New Jersey's retirement income exclusion to a 56-year-old. That exclusion requires age 62 or disability, so the full $59,220 pension is taxable. Its $1,591 figure also contradicts its own claim that the pension was fully excluded."
+us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took a $1,016 medical deduction based on $2,200 of costs, which counts the $1,000 premium twice. The actual qualifying expenses do not exceed the $1,184.40 2% floor, so there is no medical deduction, taxable income is $58,220, and the tax is $1,724.16."
+us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It ran the NJ brackets on the full $59,220 and left out the $1,000 single personal exemption. Taxable income is $58,220, so the 5.525% bracket applies to $18,220, not $19,220, which gives $1,724.16."
+us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It excluded the whole pension under New Jersey's pension exclusion and ignored that the exclusion requires age 62 or disability. At 56 the head does not qualify, so the full $59,220 is taxable."
+us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted the $1,000 premium twice to reach $2,100 of medical costs and took a $915.60 deduction. The actual qualifying expenses do not clear the $1,184.40 2% floor, so taxable income is $58,220, not $57,304.40."
+us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly made the pension taxable, but it then claimed an $8,404.60 medical deduction from $9,589 of expenses. That total counts the $7,389 ESI premiums, which are not out-of-pocket costs, and counts the $1,000 premium twice. With no medical deduction, the tax on $58,220 is $1,724.16."
+us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $1,113 implies roughly $47,000 of taxable income, which means it subtracted about $11,000 of deductions or exclusions on top of the $1,000 exemption. The only subtraction available is the $1,000 exemption, which leaves $58,220 taxable and $1,724.16 of tax."
+us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It applied New Jersey's $75,000 pension exclusion using only the income test and skipped the requirement that the taxpayer be 62 or older (or disabled). The 56-year-old head does not qualify, so the $59,220 pension is fully taxable."
+us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It taxed only the pension income 'above the NJ pension exclusion,' which treats the head as eligible for a partial exclusion. That exclusion requires age 62 or disability. The full $59,220 less the $1,000 exemption is taxable, giving $1,724.16 instead of $1,057."
+us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its taxable income of $58,220 is correct. However, it used 2% and 2.5% for the first two single brackets when New Jersey's rates there are 1.4% and 1.75%. That raised the result to $1,956.66 instead of $1,724.16."
+us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It invented a $20,000 standard deduction (New Jersey has none) and applied a flat 5.525% instead of the graduated schedule. It also subtracted a property-tax credit built from the mortgage balance even though no property taxes are listed."
+us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave no calculation and submitted $2,860, which is more than $1,100 above what the NJ 1.4%–5.525% schedule produces on $58,220 of taxable income ($59,220 pension less the $1,000 exemption). The correct figure is $1,724.16."
+us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"It cut the tax to about $600 using unnamed 'standard credits,' but no NJ nonrefundable credit applies to this household. The tax on $58,220 of taxable income is $1,724.16."
+us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $8,489 of 'qualifying' medical costs includes the $7,389 employer-sponsored insurance premiums, which are not out-of-pocket expenses. That produced a $7,304.60 medical deduction. Without the ESI premiums, expenses fall below the $1,184.40 2% floor, so taxable income is $58,220."
+us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It treated the private pension as fully excluded under New Jersey's pension exclusion using only an income threshold and ignored the age-62-or-disabled requirement. The 56-year-old head owes tax on the full $59,220."
+us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $1,674.42 implies a medical deduction of about $900, which it got by counting the $1,000 premium twice. The qualifying out-of-pocket expenses do not exceed the $1,184.40 2% floor, so the only subtraction is the $1,000 exemption and the tax is $1,724.16."
+us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It applied New Jersey's pension exclusion to the entire $59,220 even though the head is 56. The exclusion requires age 62 or disability."
+us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $1,125 implies about $11,000 of deductions on top of the $1,000 exemption, consistent with an inflated medical deduction. New Jersey allows only the $1,000 exemption here, which leaves $58,220 taxable and $1,724.16 of tax."
+us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took an $8,405 medical deduction that counted the $7,389 ESI premiums and counted the $1,000 premium twice. It then applied a made-up '350 plus 2.75% over $20,000' formula instead of NJ's 1.4%/1.75%/3.5%/5.525% brackets. The correct base is $58,220."
+us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took an $8,405 medical deduction that counted the $7,389 ESI premiums and counted the $1,000 premium twice. It then made a bracket arithmetic error, getting $1,008.54 even on its own $49,815 base. With no medical deduction, $58,220 taxes to $1,724.16."
+us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No answer or explanation was returned for this variable, so there is nothing to compare with the $1,724.16 reference."
+us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It acknowledged that the exclusion is for those aged 62 and over, then still excluded the full pension under a nonexistent income-only exclusion. The 56-year-old head does not qualify, so the full $59,220 is taxable."
+us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the correct $58,220 base but the wrong single brackets: 1.75% up to $40,000 and 3.5% on everything above. New Jersey taxes $35,000–$40,000 at 3.5% and income over $40,000 at 5.525%."
+us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reduced taxable income to about $49,815 with a medical deduction that counted the $7,389 ESI premiums and counted the $1,000 premium twice. Qualifying out-of-pocket expenses do not exceed the 2% floor, so taxable income is $58,220."
+us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted $2,200 of medical expenses, which includes the $1,000 premium twice, and took a $1,015.60 deduction. The actual qualifying expenses do not clear the $1,184.40 2% floor, so taxable income is $58,220 and the tax is $1,724.16."
+us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,other,False,"It reached exactly $1,724.16 on $58,220 of taxable income. It then dropped that result for an unexplained $2,283.06 'withholding-style' figure that matches no NJ calculation."
+us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted a federal-style $16,100 standard deduction, which New Jersey does not have, instead of the $1,000 exemption. It also used a wrong rate schedule and added a made-up property-tax amount to the tax. The correct base is $58,220."
us,scenario_036,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It stated that the $9,629 FLSA overtime premium is not deductible, so it missed the 2026 OBBBA qualified overtime deduction. It also subtracted the $5,789 ESI premiums from wages and used the 2024 $14,600 standard deduction and $11,600 10% bracket instead of $16,100 and $12,400. It computed $2,308, then submitted $1,646, a figure its own arithmetic does not support."
-us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted the overtime premium twice by adding it on top of wages that already include it ($51,572). It then claimed tax is $0. In fact, after the $16,100 standard deduction and the $9,629 overtime deduction, $15,810 of taxable income remains, which produces $1,649.25 at the 10%/12% rates."
-us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It got AGI ($41,539), the standard deduction ($16,100) and the bracket ($12,400) right, but it never subtracted the $9,629 qualified overtime deduction. That overstated taxable income at $25,439 instead of $15,810. It then raised its own $2,805 result to $2,884 with no basis."
-us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It omitted the $9,629 OBBBA qualified overtime deduction and taxed $25,439 instead of $15,810. It then raised its correctly computed $2,805 to $3,160 by an unexplained 'recheck'."
-us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It recognized the overtime deduction but reduced tax by only about $235. Deducting the full $9,629 at the 12% marginal rate cuts tax by $1,155, from $2,805 to $1,649.25."
-us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the overtime deduction but used the 2025 $15,000/$15,750 standard deduction and an $11,925–$12,150 10% bracket instead of the 2026 values of $16,100 and $12,400. It then submitted $1,569, which contradicts its own final $1,700 computation."
-us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It never subtracted the $9,629 qualified overtime deduction, so it taxed $25,439 instead of $15,810. It used a $12,150 10% bracket instead of $12,400. It then replaced its own $2,809.68 result with an arbitrary $1,808."
-us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It omitted the $9,629 qualified overtime deduction. It also used a $15,600 standard deduction and the 2025 $11,925 bracket instead of 2026's $16,100 and $12,400, which produced $25,939 of taxable income instead of $15,810."
-us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA would sunset in 2026 and applied a pre-TCJA $8,250 standard deduction, a personal exemption and a 15% bracket. OBBBA made the $16,100 standard deduction and the 10%/12% brackets permanent. It also subtracted ESI premiums from wages and omitted the $9,629 overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied pre-TCJA sunset parameters ($8,250 standard deduction, $5,300 exemption, 15% bracket) instead of the OBBBA-permanent $16,100 standard deduction and 12% bracket. It also omitted the $9,629 qualified overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA sunset ($8,000 standard deduction plus a $5,000 exemption, 15% bracket) instead of OBBBA's $16,100 standard deduction and 10%/12% brackets. It also never deducted the $9,629 qualified overtime premium."
-us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used pre-TCJA sunset parameters ($8,300 standard deduction, $5,300 exemption, 15% rate) instead of OBBBA's $16,100 standard deduction and 12% bracket. It subtracted the $5,789 ESI premiums from wages, which lowered AGI to $35,750 instead of $41,539, and it omitted the $9,629 overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It omitted the $9,629 qualified overtime deduction and the $18 IRA deduction and used a $15,800 standard deduction. Its stated $25,757 of taxable income yields about $2,800 of tax, so the submitted $1,109 is inconsistent with its own inputs."
-us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA sunset (personal exemptions, 15% bracket) instead of OBBBA's $16,100 standard deduction and 12% bracket. It subtracted ESI premiums from wages, omitted the $9,629 overtime deduction, and claimed a $50 Saver's Credit that the true $41,539 AGI rules out because it exceeds the single-filer ceiling."
-us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset parameters ($8,500 standard deduction, $5,150 exemption, 15% bracket) instead of OBBBA's permanent $16,100 standard deduction and 12% bracket. It also subtracted ESI premiums from wages and never deducted the $9,629 qualified overtime premium."
-us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its reasoning mentions only wages less the standard deduction, so it omitted the $9,629 qualified overtime deduction. Subtracting that deduction lowers taxable income to $15,810 and tax to $1,649.25. Its $2,301 is consistent with taxing income near $21,000, well above that figure."
-us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $5,789 ESI premiums from the stated gross wages and omitted the $9,629 qualified overtime deduction. It also used a $15,450 standard deduction and the 2025 $11,925 bracket instead of $16,100 and $12,400."
-us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reduced wages by the ESI premiums and omitted the $9,629 qualified overtime deduction. It also applied a Saver's Credit, but the correct $41,539 AGI is above the single-filer Saver's Credit ceiling."
-us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It omitted the $9,629 qualified overtime deduction. It also used the 2025 $15,000 standard deduction and $11,925 10% bracket instead of 2026's $16,100 and $12,400, and so taxed $26,539 instead of $15,810."
-us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It omitted the $9,629 qualified overtime deduction and used the 2024 $14,600 standard deduction and $11,600 bracket instead of 2026's $16,100 and $12,400. That produced $26,939 of taxable income instead of $15,810."
-us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It treated the overtime deduction as above the line, which lowered AGI to $31,910. That led it to claim a $50 Saver's Credit, but the deduction is taken below the line, and AGI of $41,539 exceeds the single Saver's Credit limit. It also used a $15,300 standard deduction and a $12,200 10% bracket instead of $16,100 and $12,400."
-us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It asserted the standard deduction and credits wipe out all liability. Even after the $16,100 standard deduction and the $9,629 overtime deduction, $15,810 of taxable income remains, and a childless single filer has no offsetting nonrefundable credits, so tax is $1,649.25."
-us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the standard deduction as a credit and assumed unspecified credits erase the liability. In fact, $15,810 of taxable income remains after the $16,100 standard deduction and the $9,629 overtime deduction, and no nonrefundable credit applies, giving $1,649.25."
-us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It omitted the $9,629 qualified overtime deduction and left out the $386 traditional 401(k) exclusion. It also used the 2025 $15,750 standard deduction instead of $16,100, and so taxed $26,175 instead of $15,810."
-us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $5,789 ESI premiums from the stated gross wages, which lowered AGI to $35,750 instead of $41,539 and taxable income to $10,021 instead of $15,810. The artificially low AGI also led it to claim a $50 Saver's Credit that the true AGI rules out."
-us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the ESI premiums from gross wages, which understated AGI at $35,750 instead of $41,539 and taxable income at $10,021 instead of $15,810. Based on that understated AGI, it applied a $50 Saver's Credit that a $41,539 AGI does not qualify for."
-us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted only the standard deduction and the 401(k)/IRA contributions and omitted the $9,629 OBBBA qualified overtime deduction. Its $2,894 matches taxing roughly $26,000 instead of the correct $15,810."
-us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset rules ($8,300 standard deduction plus a $5,300 exemption, 15% bracket) instead of OBBBA's $16,100 standard deduction and 10%/12% brackets. It also omitted the $9,629 qualified overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the overtime deduction correctly but used a $15,400 standard deduction and a $12,250 10% bracket instead of 2026's $16,100 and $12,400. That overstated taxable income at $16,510 instead of $15,810."
-us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It reached the correct $15,810 of taxable income but used a $12,200 10% bracket instead of $12,400. It then subtracted a $50 Saver's Credit because it treated the overtime deduction as reducing AGI to $31,910. The overtime deduction does not reduce AGI, and the true $41,539 AGI exceeds the single Saver's Credit limit."
-us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed reverted pre-TCJA brackets with a personal exemption and a 15% rate instead of OBBBA's $16,100 standard deduction and 12% bracket. It also subtracted ESI premiums from wages and omitted the $9,629 qualified overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $5,789 ESI premiums from wages and never applied the $9,629 qualified overtime deduction. It also claimed a Saver's Credit even though the correct $41,539 AGI exceeds the single eligibility ceiling."
-us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No value or reasoning was returned for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there is no answer to evaluate against the $1,649.25 result."
-us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed $41,557 of wages falls below the standard deduction and added a personal exemption that OBBBA eliminated. In fact, $15,810 of taxable income remains after the $16,100 standard deduction and the $9,629 overtime deduction, which yields $1,649.25."
-us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the correct AGI, standard deduction and brackets but never subtracted the $9,629 OBBBA qualified overtime deduction. That left taxable income at $25,439 instead of $15,810."
-us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It explicitly noted that wages include overtime but did not apply the $9,629 qualified overtime deduction. It also dropped the $18 IRA deduction and used a $15,600 standard deduction and the $11,925 bracket instead of $16,100 and $12,400."
-us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied a Child Tax Credit to a single 44-year-old filer with no children, which wiped out the liability. With no qualifying child, no nonrefundable credit applies, and the $15,810 of taxable income yields $1,649.25."
+us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $5,789 ESI premiums from wages, used the 2024 $14,600 standard deduction and $11,600 bracket, and said the $9,629 FLSA overtime premium was not deductible, even though the 2026 qualified overtime deduction removes it from taxable income. Its own math gave $2,308, but it submitted an unconnected $1,646. Correct taxable income is $15,810.43 ($41,539.45 AGI − $16,100 − $9,629.03), which gives $1,649.25."
+us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model counted the overtime premium twice by adding it on top of wages that already include it ($51,572), then claimed tax was $0. Taxable income after the $16,100 standard deduction and the $9,629 overtime deduction is $15,810.43, which produces $1,649.25 in tax."
+us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model got AGI ($41,539), the $16,100 standard deduction, and the $12,400 10% bracket right, but left out the 2026 qualified overtime deduction of $9,629. That left taxable income at $25,439 instead of $15,810. It then submitted $2,884, which does not match its own $2,805 computation."
+us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left out the $9,629 qualified overtime deduction, so taxable income came out at $25,439 instead of $15,810.43. It also raised its own computed $2,805 to $3,160 with no basis."
+us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model recognized the OBBBA overtime deduction but applied only part of it, cutting tax from $2,805 to $2,570. Taking the full $9,629 off taxable income removes $1,155 at the 12% rate. That brings taxable income to $15,810.43 and tax to $1,649.25."
+us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model excluded the overtime premium correctly, but it used the 2025 standard deduction ($15,000 or $15,750) and a 10% bracket of $11,925–$12,150 instead of the 2026 values of $16,100 and $12,400. It then submitted $1,569, which does not match any of its own computations (about $1,700)."
+us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model never applied the $9,629 qualified overtime deduction, so taxable income stayed at $25,439. It computed $2,809.68 and then submitted an unrelated $1,808. Subtracting the overtime deduction gives taxable income of $15,810.43 and tax of $1,649.25."
+us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left out the $9,629 qualified overtime deduction and used a stale $15,600 standard deduction and $11,925 10% bracket instead of the 2026 values of $16,100 and $12,400. As a result, taxable income was $25,939 instead of $15,810.43."
+us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model assumed TCJA expired in 2026 and applied an $8,250 standard deduction, a personal exemption, and a 15% bracket, but OBBBA made the TCJA parameters permanent: a $16,100 standard deduction and a 12% bracket. It also wrongly subtracted the $5,789 ESI premiums from the stated gross wages and left out the $9,629 overtime deduction."
+us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the pre-TCJA sunset parameters ($8,250 standard deduction, $5,300 personal exemption, 15% second bracket) instead of OBBBA's permanent $16,100 standard deduction and 12% bracket. It also left out the $9,629 qualified overtime deduction."
+us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model assumed TCJA had sunset and applied an $8,000 standard deduction, a $5,000 personal exemption, and a 15% bracket instead of the 2026 OBBBA values: a $16,100 standard deduction and a 12% bracket above $12,400. It also never subtracted the $9,629 overtime deduction."
+us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the expired-TCJA parameters ($8,300 standard deduction, $5,300 exemption, 15% bracket) instead of the permanent $16,100 standard deduction and 12% bracket. It also subtracted the $5,789 ESI premiums from the stated gross wages and left out the $9,629 qualified overtime deduction."
+us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left out the $18 IRA deduction and the $9,629 qualified overtime deduction and used a $15,800 standard deduction. Its own inputs imply about $25,757 of taxable income and roughly $2,800 of tax, so the submitted $1,109 does not follow from its setup. Correct taxable income is $15,810.43, which gives $1,649.25."
+us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model assumed TCJA had sunset and used a personal exemption and a 15% bracket, subtracted ESI premiums from wages, and left out the $9,629 overtime deduction. It also took a $50 Saver's Credit, but the true AGI of $41,539 is above the 2026 single-filer eligibility limit."
+us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the pre-TCJA sunset values ($8,500 standard deduction, $5,150 exemption, 15% bracket) instead of OBBBA's permanent $16,100 standard deduction and 12% bracket. It also subtracted the $5,789 ESI premiums from the stated gross wages and never applied the $9,629 qualified overtime deduction."
+us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's $2,301 matches taxable income of about $20,000–$21,000, which is what you get by subtracting ESI premiums and an older standard deduction while skipping the $9,629 qualified overtime deduction. Correct taxable income is $15,810.43 ($41,539.45 − $16,100 − $9,629.03), which yields $1,649.25."
+us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $5,789 ESI premiums from the stated gross wages, used a $15,450 standard deduction and an $11,925 10% bracket instead of $16,100 and $12,400, and left out the $9,629 qualified overtime deduction."
+us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model reduced wages by the ESI premiums, never applied the $9,629 qualified overtime deduction, and took a Saver's Credit. That credit is unavailable because AGI of $41,539 is above the 2026 single-filer limit. The correct path gives taxable income of $15,810.43 and tax of $1,649.25."
+us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the 2025 $15,000 standard deduction and $11,925 bracket instead of the 2026 values of $16,100 and $12,400. It also never subtracted the $9,629 qualified overtime deduction, so taxable income came out at $26,539 instead of $15,810.43."
+us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the 2024 $14,600 standard deduction and $11,600 bracket and left out the 2026 qualified overtime deduction of $9,629. That inflated taxable income to $26,939 instead of $15,810.43."
+us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the overtime deduction but used a $15,300 standard deduction and a $12,200 10% bracket instead of the 2026 values of $16,100 and $12,400. It also treated the overtime deduction as above the line, which lowered AGI to $31,910 and let it claim a $50 Saver's Credit. The overtime deduction is taken below the line, so AGI stays at $41,539, which is above the credit limit."
+us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model claimed the standard deduction and credits wipe out all tax, but $41,539 of AGI minus the $16,100 standard deduction and $9,629 overtime deduction leaves $15,810.43 of taxable income. No nonrefundable credit applies, so the tax is $1,649.25."
+us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model treated the standard deduction as a credit and claimed tax was fully offset, but after the $16,100 standard deduction and the $9,629 overtime deduction, $15,810.43 of taxable income remains. That is taxed at $1,649.25, with no nonrefundable credits available."
+us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left out both the $386 pre-tax 401(k) exclusion and the $9,629 qualified overtime deduction, and used a $15,750 standard deduction instead of the 2026 value of $16,100. That produced $26,175 of taxable income instead of $15,810.43."
+us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $5,789 ESI premiums from the stated gross wages, which cut AGI to $35,750 instead of $41,539.45. It also claimed a $50 Saver's Credit, which is unavailable at the true AGI because that is above the 2026 single-filer limit. The $16,100 standard deduction and $9,629 overtime deduction were applied correctly."
+us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model took the $5,789 ESI premiums out of the stated gross wages, which understated AGI at $35,750 and taxable income at $10,021 instead of $15,810.43. It then subtracted a $50 Saver's Credit, which is unavailable because the true AGI of $41,539 is above the 2026 single-filer limit."
+us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's $2,894 matches taxable income of about $26,000: AGI minus only a standard deduction, with no $9,629 qualified overtime deduction. Subtracting both the $16,100 standard deduction and the overtime deduction leaves $15,810.43 of taxable income and $1,649.25 of tax."
+us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model assumed TCJA sunset in 2026 and used an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,300 exemption, and a 15% bracket instead of OBBBA's permanent $16,100 standard deduction and 12% bracket. It also left out the $9,629 qualified overtime deduction."
+us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the overtime deduction correctly but used a $15,400 standard deduction and a $12,250 10% bracket instead of the 2026 values of $16,100 and $12,400. As a result, taxable income came out at $16,510 instead of $15,810.43."
+us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model reached the correct $15,810 of taxable income but used a $12,200 10% bracket instead of $12,400. It also subtracted a $50 Saver's Credit because it treated the overtime deduction as above the line, which lowered AGI to $31,910. The overtime deduction is taken below the line, so AGI stays at $41,539, which is above the 2026 single-filer Saver's Credit limit, and no credit applies."
+us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model assumed reverted pre-TCJA brackets with a personal exemption and a 15% rate instead of OBBBA's permanent $16,100 standard deduction and 12% bracket. It also subtracted ESI premiums from the stated gross wages and left out the $9,629 qualified overtime deduction."
+us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $5,789 ESI premiums from the stated gross wages, never applied the $9,629 qualified overtime deduction, and claimed a $40.40 Saver's Credit. That credit is unavailable because the true AGI of $41,539 is above the 2026 single-filer limit."
+us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no value or explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was no answer to score against the $1,649.25 result."
+us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model claimed $41,557 of wages falls below the standard deduction, which is false: the 2026 single standard deduction is $16,100. Even after the $9,629 overtime deduction, $15,810.43 of taxable income remains, which produces $1,649.25 of tax."
+us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the 2025 $15,750 standard deduction instead of $16,100 and left out the $9,629 qualified overtime deduction, which leaves $25,789 of taxable income instead of $15,810.43."
+us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used every 2026 parameter correctly ($16,100 standard deduction, $12,400 bracket, no Saver's Credit) but left out the OBBBA qualified overtime deduction for the $9,629 FLSA premium. Subtracting it cuts taxable income from $25,439 to $15,810 and tax from $2,804.68 to $1,649.25."
+us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left out the $18 IRA deduction and the $9,629 qualified overtime deduction, and used a stale $15,600 standard deduction and $11,925 bracket instead of the 2026 values of $16,100 and $12,400. That produced $25,957 of taxable income instead of $15,810.43."
+us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model applied a Child Tax Credit to a single 44-year-old filer with no children, which wiped out all of the tax. With no qualifying child, the CTC is zero, so the $1,649.25 of tax on $15,810.43 of taxable income stands."
us,scenario_037,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,The model supplied no parseable output for federal_refundable_credits and therefore failed the required submission contract.
us,scenario_037,federal_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model invented dependent-child credit eligibility despite the household containing only one 44-year-old adult: refundable CTC is $0 because there is no qualifying child. It also applied a child-based EITC amount even though the filer has no qualifying children, and $41,943 exceeds the childless EITC income limit, so EITC is $0."
us,scenario_037,head_medicaid_eligible,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model treated North Carolina’s adoption of Medicaid expansion as sufficient for eligibility and failed to compare the head’s MAGI income of 2.60 times FPL with the expansion-adult income limit. The head exceeds that limit and has no alternative Medicaid pathway, yielding medicaid_category NONE and ineligibility."
@@ -3380,41 +3498,42 @@ us,scenario_037,payroll_tax,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The
us,scenario_037,payroll_tax,inkling,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model treated the $5,789 of employer-sponsored health premiums as excluded from FICA wages and computed tax on $36,154. Without a listed cafeteria-plan salary reduction, Social Security and Medicare apply to the full $41,943."
us,scenario_037,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no payroll_tax value and no reasoning, so its answer couldn't be parsed. The correct value is 7.65% of $41,943 in gross wages, or $3,208.67."
us,scenario_037,payroll_tax,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"The model correctly computed about $2,601 in Social Security and $608 in Medicare on the full $41,943, but added them to $3,213 instead of $3,209. That is an arithmetic slip on top of a correct method."
-us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used the outdated $10,750 NC standard deduction instead of $12,750 and a 4.5% rate instead of 2026's 3.99%. It then set its own $1,386 figure to $0 by citing nonrefundable credits that do not exist for this filer. The correct calculation is 3.99% × $28,789.45 = $1,148.70."
-us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,missing_output,False,"Submitted a $0 placeholder and never calculated NC tax. The correct steps are AGI of $41,539.45 minus the $12,750 standard deduction, taxed at the 3.99% flat rate, which gives $1,148.70."
-us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Got about $1,149 at first, then reversed itself by assuming the listed gross wages already excluded the traditional 401(k) contribution. It dropped the $386 401(k) and $18 IRA reductions and taxed $29,193 instead of $28,789.45. The listed amount is gross wages, so both contributions reduce AGI."
-us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Found the correct $28,789 NC taxable income but used a 4.0% rate instead of the 2026 rate of 3.99%. It then added an unexplained bump to $1,180 for 'traditional contribution effects' that NC does not apply."
-us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Correctly reached $28,789 × 3.99% ≈ $1,149, then cut it to $883 by citing NC 'decoupling/deduction treatment.' No NC addition or subtraction applies to this wage-only filer, so the made-up adjustment caused the error."
-us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Computed the correct $1,148.68 partway through, then based its final answer on an invented $21,500 2026 NC standard deduction and left out the $18 IRA deduction. That gives $20,057 × 3.99%. The actual NC single standard deduction is $12,750."
-us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used a 4.25% rate (the 2025 rate) instead of 2026's 3.99% on the correct $28,789 base. It then raised the result to $1,685 with no stated calculation."
-us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used a $13,750 NC single standard deduction instead of $12,750. That understated taxable income by $1,000, giving $27,789 × 3.99% = $1,109 instead of $28,789.45 × 3.99% = $1,148.70."
-us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Started from an AGI of $35,750, which means it subtracted the $5,789 employer-sponsored insurance premium from gross wages. The listed gross wages are reduced only by the traditional 401(k) and IRA amounts, so AGI is $41,539.45 and NC taxable income is $28,789.45."
-us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used a $15,400 NC single standard deduction instead of the actual $12,750, so taxable income came out at $26,139 instead of $28,789.45."
-us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Subtracted the $5,789 employer-sponsored insurance premium from wages to get an AGI of $35,750, and also used a $12,850 standard deduction instead of $12,750. The correct NC taxable income is $41,539.45 − $12,750 = $28,789.45."
-us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied a made-up 4.3% rate to about $41,570, which is roughly full AGI with no $12,750 NC standard deduction taken off. The correct calculation is 3.99% on $28,789.45."
-us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used an AGI of $35,750 by treating the $5,789 employer-sponsored insurance premium as a pre-tax wage exclusion. Only the $386 traditional 401(k) and $18 IRA reduce the $41,943 gross wages, so AGI is $41,539.45."
-us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Started from a state AGI of $35,750 that removes the $5,789 employer-sponsored insurance premium from wages. AGI is $41,539.45, so taxable income is $28,789.45, not $23,000."
-us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used a 4.25% NC rate instead of the 2026 flat rate of 3.99%, and its $1,281 implies a taxable base of about $30,141 instead of $28,789.45. The answer is wrong on both the rate and the base."
-us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Started from an NC AGI of $35,750, which subtracts the $5,789 employer-sponsored insurance premium. Gross wages are reduced only by the $404 in traditional 401(k)/IRA contributions, so AGI is $41,539.45."
-us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $917.70 equals 3.99% × $23,000, meaning NC AGI was $35,750 after subtracting the $5,789 employer-sponsored insurance premium. The correct AGI is $41,539.45, which gives a $28,789.45 base."
-us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Had the correct $41,539 AGI and 3.99% rate but used a $15,500 NC single standard deduction instead of $12,750."
-us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Reduced federal AGI by the $9,629 overtime premium to get $31,910. The federal qualified-overtime deduction comes off federal taxable income, not AGI, so it never enters NC's AGI-based starting point. NC taxable income is $28,789.45."
-us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Gave no derivation. The correct calculation is 3.99% × ($41,539.45 − $12,750) = $1,148.70. Its $1,268 matches applying about 4.4% to the correct base, or taking too small a standard deduction."
-us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Claimed wage income was low compared with NC standard deductions and credits. In fact the $41,539 AGI is far above the $12,750 single standard deduction, and no NC nonrefundable credit applies, leaving $28,789.45 taxable at 3.99%."
-us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"Its reasoning reached the correct $28,789 × 3.99% = $1,148.68. It then submitted $1,147, a rounding/transcription slip that does not match its own result."
-us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $19,160 taxable income comes from subtracting the $9,629 federal overtime-premium deduction before the NC standard deduction. That deduction is below the line, outside federal AGI, so it does not reduce NC's base of $41,539.45 − $12,750 = $28,789.45."
-us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Correctly excluded the overtime deduction from the NC base but started from an AGI of $35,750 by subtracting the $5,789 employer-sponsored insurance premium from gross wages. AGI is $41,539.45."
-us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used an AGI of $35,750, which treats the $5,789 employer-sponsored insurance premium as a wage exclusion. Only the traditional 401(k) and IRA contributions reduce gross wages, so AGI is $41,539.45 and taxable income is $28,789.45."
-us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Gave no derivation. Its $1,370 matches $30,789 × 4.45%, meaning it used the outdated $10,750 standard deduction and an above-2026 rate, instead of $12,750 and 3.99%."
-us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Started from an AGI of $31,910 that subtracts the $9,629 overtime premium. The federal overtime deduction does not reduce AGI, so the NC base is $41,539.45 − $12,750 = $28,789.45."
-us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Explicitly treated the overtime deduction as already reflected in federal AGI ($31,910). The qualified-overtime deduction is taken below the line, after AGI, so it never reaches NC's AGI starting point."
-us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Started from an AGI of $35,750 that subtracts the $5,789 employer-sponsored insurance premium, and used a 4% rate instead of 3.99%. The correct base is $28,789.45."
-us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used a federal AGI of $35,750, which removes the $5,789 employer-sponsored insurance premium from gross wages. AGI is $41,539.45, so NC taxable income is $28,789.45, not $23,000."
-us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Explicitly subtracted the $5,789 employer-sponsored insurance premium as a pre-tax exclusion from the listed gross wages. Only the $386 traditional 401(k) and $18 IRA reduce AGI, which is $41,539.45."
-us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used a 4.5% rate instead of 3.99% and claimed taxable income was near zero. AGI of $41,539 minus the $12,750 standard deduction leaves $28,789.45 taxable."
-us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its explanation computes the correct $1,148.68, but the submitted value of $1,223.53 equals $28,789 × 4.25%. The numeric answer therefore used the 2025 rate instead of 2026's 3.99%."
-us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used a 4.5% rate instead of 3.99% and left out the $18 IRA deduction, getting $1,296.32. It then submitted an unrelated $1,773.56 that does not follow from any step it showed."
-us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Gave no derivation. The correct calculation is 3.99% × ($41,539.45 − $12,750) = $1,148.70. Its $1,234 matches applying about 4.29% to the correct base, meaning it used a rate above 2026's 3.99%."
+us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the outdated $10,750 standard deduction and a 4.5% rate instead of $12,750 and 3.99%, which gave about $1,386. It then dropped that to $0 by citing nonrefundable credits that do not exist for this single filer with no dependents. The correct figure is $28,789.45 × 3.99% = $1,148.70."
+us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,missing_output,False,"It submitted a $0 placeholder without computing North Carolina tax. AGI of $41,539.45 minus the $12,750 standard deduction, taxed at 3.99%, gives $1,148.70."
+us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It first reached about $1,149, then reversed itself by assuming the listed gross wages already excluded the 401(k). It then started from the full $41,943 without subtracting the $386 traditional 401(k) or the $18 traditional IRA. The listed wages are gross, so AGI is $41,539.45 and the tax is $1,148.70, not $1,165."
+us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its taxable income of $28,789 was correct, but it applied a 4.0% rate instead of the 2026 rate of 3.99%. It then added an unexplained bump to $1,180 for 'traditional contribution effects', even though those contributions were already deducted."
+us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly computed $28,789 × 3.99% ≈ $1,149, then cut the answer to $883 by citing an 'NC decoupling/deduction treatment'. No such adjustment applies: North Carolina taxable income is simply federal AGI minus the $12,750 standard deduction."
+us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It reached $28,789 × 3.99% = $1,148.68 several times but did not keep that answer. Its final answer used an invented $21,500 standard deduction and also dropped the $18 IRA deduction, which gave about $800, reported as $803. The 2026 single standard deduction is $12,750."
+us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a 4.25% rate instead of 3.99% to the correct $28,789 base, which gave $1,223.50. It then inflated that to $1,685 with no stated basis."
+us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $13,750 standard deduction instead of the 2026 single amount of $12,750. That understated taxable income by $1,000, so it got $27,789 × 3.99% = $1,109 instead of $1,148.70."
+us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It cut AGI to $35,750 by subtracting the $5,789 employer-sponsored insurance premium from wages. The engine does not reduce gross wages for that premium, so AGI is $41,539.45 and the tax is $1,148.70, not $917.70."
+us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $41,539 AGI and 3.99% rate were correct, but it used a $15,400 standard deduction instead of $12,750. That understated taxable income by $2,650."
+us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $5,789 employer-sponsored insurance premium to get an AGI of $35,750. It also used a $12,850 standard deduction instead of $12,750. Correct taxable income is $28,789.45, which gives $1,148.70."
+us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $1,787.52 equals a 4.3% rate applied to roughly the full $41,557 of wages after the 401(k). That means it never subtracted the $12,750 standard deduction and also used the wrong rate instead of 3.99%."
+us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started from an AGI of $35,750, which means it subtracted the $5,789 employer-sponsored insurance premium from gross wages. AGI is $41,539.45, giving taxable income of $28,789.45 and tax of $1,148.70."
+us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used $35,750 as state AGI, which means it took the $5,789 employer-sponsored insurance premium out of wages. Only the $386 401(k) and $18 IRA reduce AGI, which leaves $41,539.45."
+us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a 4.25% rate instead of the 2026 rate of 3.99%, and its implied taxable income (about $30,141) does not match $41,539.45 minus $12,750. Both the rate and the base are wrong."
+us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its starting AGI of $35,750 reflects subtracting the $5,789 employer-sponsored insurance premium from gross wages. The correct AGI is $41,539.45, so taxable income is $28,789.45 and tax is $1,148.70."
+us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $917.70 equals 3.99% of $23,000, which means it started from an AGI of $35,750 after wrongly subtracting the $5,789 employer-sponsored insurance premium. The correct AGI is $41,539.45."
+us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $41,539 AGI and 3.99% rate were correct, but it used a $15,500 standard deduction instead of the 2026 single amount of $12,750."
+us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $9,629 overtime premium to reach an AGI of $31,910. That federal overtime deduction is taken below the line, after AGI, and North Carolina does not adopt it, so North Carolina starts from $41,539.45."
+us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave no computation. $1,268 equals about 4.4% of the correct $28,789 base, which is consistent with using an outdated pre-2026 rate instead of 3.99% (correct answer $1,148.70)."
+us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the wage income was low relative to North Carolina's standard deduction. In fact, $41,539.45 of AGI far exceeds the $12,750 deduction, leaving $28,789.45 taxable, and no North Carolina nonrefundable credits apply."
+us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly computed $28,789 × 3.99% = $1,148.68 but submitted $1,147. That figure contradicts its own arithmetic, so the error is in reporting the result, not in the tax rules."
+us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $19,160 taxable income comes from also subtracting the $9,629 overtime premium. North Carolina does not allow the federal overtime deduction, which is taken after AGI, so taxable income is $28,789.45."
+us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly left out the overtime deduction but used an AGI of $35,750, which subtracts the $5,789 employer-sponsored insurance premium from gross wages. The correct AGI is $41,539.45."
+us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used an AGI of $35,750, wrongly treating the $5,789 employer-sponsored insurance premium as a reduction to gross wages. The correct AGI is $41,539.45, giving tax of $1,148.70."
+us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"$1,370 equals ($41,539 − $10,750) × 4.45%. That is consistent with using the outdated $10,750 standard deduction and the 2024 rate of 4.45% instead of $12,750 and 3.99%."
+us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started from an AGI of $31,910, which subtracts the $9,629 overtime premium. That deduction is federal, taken after AGI, and not adopted by North Carolina, so the North Carolina base is $41,539.45 minus $12,750."
+us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It explicitly treated the overtime deduction as already reducing AGI and subtracted the $9,629. The federal overtime deduction is taken after AGI and North Carolina does not adopt it, so taxable income is $28,789.45, not $19,160."
+us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used an AGI of $35,750, which subtracts the $5,789 employer-sponsored insurance premium. It also applied a 4% rate instead of 3.99%."
+us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its federal AGI of about $35,750 reflects subtracting the $5,789 employer-sponsored insurance premium from gross wages. Only the traditional 401(k) and IRA reduce AGI, which leaves $41,539.45."
+us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It explicitly subtracted the $5,789 employer-sponsored insurance premium from gross wages. The engine treats the listed wages as AGI wages reduced only by the $386 401(k) and $18 IRA, so AGI is $41,539.45 and tax is $1,148.70."
+us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed taxable income was near zero after the standard deduction, which is false: $41,539.45 minus $12,750 leaves $28,789.45. It also used a 4.5% rate instead of 3.99%."
+us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $13,000 standard deduction instead of $12,750 and a 4% rate instead of 3.99%."
+us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,other,False,"Its explanation correctly derives $28,789 × 3.99% = $1,148.68, but the value it submitted was $1,223.53. That number equals $28,789 × 4.25%, so the value field reflects the wrong rate and contradicts its own explanation."
+us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a 4.5% rate instead of 3.99% and dropped the $18 IRA deduction, which gave $1,296.32. It then submitted an unexplained $1,773.56 that does not follow from any of its own figures."
+us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave no computation. $1,234 is close to the 4.25% rate applied to roughly the correct base (4.25% of $28,789 is $1,223.53), which is consistent with an outdated pre-2026 rate. At 3.99% the result is $1,148.70."
us,scenario_038,child1_chip_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model found income of $22,993 below 200% FPL and called Child 1 CHIP-eligible. It never applied the rule that a child who qualifies for Medicaid is excluded from CHIP. At about 73% FPL, the 7-year-old falls in Louisiana's OLDER_CHILD Medicaid category, so CHIP eligibility is 0."
us,scenario_038,child1_chip_eligible,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model concluded CHIP eligibility from 'under 19 in a low-income household' alone. It skipped the step that sends children with income below the Medicaid limit to Medicaid instead of CHIP. Child 1's income of about 73% FPL qualifies them for Medicaid as an older child, which rules out CHIP."
us,scenario_038,child1_chip_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model compared income only against a roughly 250% FPL CHIP ceiling. It did not recognize that CHIP covers only children who fail the Medicaid income test. At about 73% FPL, Child 1 meets the Louisiana OLDER_CHILD Medicaid limit, so they are Medicaid-eligible and not CHIP-eligible."
@@ -3448,48 +3567,50 @@ us,scenario_038,child2_wic_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibili
us,scenario_038,child2_wic_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model incorrectly placed a six-year-old within the modeled WIC child age category. Because eligibility ends at the fifth birthday, Child 2 fails the categorical age test."
us,scenario_038,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,The model supplied no parseable output for the requested variable and therefore failed the required submission contract.
us,scenario_038,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,other,False,"The model's reasoning correctly derived zero taxable income, zero tax before credits, and zero nonrefundable credits used, but its submitted value of -$1,644 contradicts that derivation. It inserted an unsupported negative amount even though nonrefundable credits cannot reduce liability below zero and refundable credits are excluded from this output."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly computed the refundable CTC as $2,909 and placed earned income in the EITC plateau. It then swapped its $7,428 EITC estimate for an invented $7,239 maximum. The 2026 two-child EITC maximum is $7,316, so the total is $10,225, not $10,148."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It capped the EITC at a 40% phase-in on $15,628 ($6,251) and subtracted a $1,656 phase-out that does not apply. Earned income of about $21,896 is in the plateau below the MFJ phase-out start, so the full $7,316 applies. It also took the $3,400 CTC cap without the 15%-over-$2,500 limit ($2,909), and its own components add to $7,995, not the $3,995 it submitted."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It assumed tax liability fully absorbed the CTC and gave only a small $1,500 EITC. Income tax before credits is $0, so the refundable CTC is the full 15% × ($21,896 − $2,500) = $2,909. Earned income is in the plateau, so the EITC is the full $7,316."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an EITC of about $7,150 instead of the 2026 two-child maximum of $7,316. It correctly found that the ACTC formula gives $2,909 under the $3,400 cap, then entered an unexplained $2,383 in its total."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It put the household below the EITC plateau ($5,500), but earned income of about $21,896 is past the phase-in end, so the full $7,316 applies. It computed a refundable CTC of $3,074 and then inexplicably used $1,527. The correct ACTC is 15% × ($21,896 − $2,500) = $2,909."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an EITC of about $7,000 instead of the 2026 maximum of $7,316. It computed the ACTC on gross SE income ($3,074) instead of earned income net of the deductible half of SE tax ($2,909). Its $9,199 total does not even match its own components."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It computed the refundable CTC correctly at $2,909. For the EITC it used $6,604, an outdated two-child maximum it took to be 2025's, as the 2026 value. The 2026 two-child maximum is $7,316, which accounts for the $712 shortfall."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It estimated the EITC at about $6,900, below the $7,316 plateau maximum, and measured earned income as 92.35% of SE income instead of SE income minus half the SE tax. It then dropped its own $9,796 sum to an arbitrary $8,500 with no rule supporting the cut."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an EITC maximum of $7,430 instead of the 2026 two-child value of $7,316. It also took earned income as wages plus 92.35% of SE income ($21,805) instead of SE income minus the deductible half of SE tax ($21,896), so its ACTC was $2,895.80 instead of $2,909.35."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the pre-2018 $1,000-per-child CTC with a $3,000 earnings threshold, capping the ACTC at $2,000. The 2026 CTC refunds up to $1,700 per child and uses the $2,500 threshold, giving $2,909. Its $7,354 EITC also exceeds the $7,316 maximum."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It treated the 2026 CTC as having reverted to $1,000 per child with a $3,000 threshold, giving a $2,000 ACTC. The 2026 law allows $1,700 refundable per child with 15% phase-in above $2,500, giving $2,909. Its $7,344 EITC also exceeds the $7,316 two-child maximum."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an EITC maximum of $7,350 instead of $7,316. It computed the ACTC on earned income of $21,805 (92.35% of SE income) instead of $21,896 (SE income minus the deductible half of SE tax), so the ACTC came out at $2,895.80 instead of $2,909.35."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the expired $1,000-per-child refundable CTC with a $3,000 threshold, a $2,000 total. The 2026 rules refund up to $1,700 per child at 15% above $2,500, which gives $2,909. It also understated the EITC at $7,300 instead of $7,316."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It treated the whole $4,000 CTC as refundable, ignoring the $1,700-per-child refundable cap and the 15%-over-$2,500 limit, which together give $2,909. Its $4,100 EITC also misses that earned income of about $21,896 is in the plateau, where the full $7,316 applies."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $2,000 CTC, the expired $1,000-per-child figure, instead of the 2026 refundable CTC of 15% × ($21,896 − $2,500) = $2,909 under the $3,400 cap. It also estimated the EITC at $7,300 instead of the $7,316 maximum."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the expired $1,000-per-child ACTC ($2,000) instead of the 2026 refundable CTC of $2,909, which is capped at $1,700 per child and phases in at 15% above $2,500. It also understated the EITC at $7,250 instead of $7,316."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The correct total is the $7,316 EITC plus a $2,909 refundable CTC. Its $7,466 is only $150 above the EITC alone, which matches dropping nearly all of the refundable CTC, $2,909 for a family with $21,896 of earned income and no income tax liability."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Its $9,753.44 is $472 short of the $7,316 maximum EITC plus the $2,909.35 refundable CTC. That matches an EITC reduced to about $6,844 even though earned income of about $21,896 is in the plateau below the MFJ phase-out start."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $10,185 is $40 below the correct $7,316 EITC plus $2,909.35 refundable CTC. That matches using an EITC maximum of about $7,276 instead of the 2026 two-child value of $7,316."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $2,000 refundable CTC ($1,000 per child), as if the 2017 tax-law (TCJA) changes had expired, instead of the 2026 rules, which give 15% × ($21,896 − $2,500) = $2,909 under a $1,700-per-child cap. It also overstated the EITC at $7,326 instead of $7,316."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no usable value for federal_refundable_credits, so nothing could be scored against the $7,316 EITC plus $2,909.35 refundable CTC."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an EITC of $7,300 instead of the 2026 two-child maximum of $7,316. It measured earned income as 92.35% of SE income ($21,805) instead of SE income minus the deductible half of SE tax ($21,896), so the ACTC came out at $2,896 instead of $2,909.35."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Its $8,724 is about $1,500 short of the correct $7,316 EITC plus $2,909 refundable CTC. That matches an EITC below the plateau maximum or a refundable CTC under the 15% × ($21,896 − $2,500) amount, even though both credits are fully available at this income."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It concluded that no refundable credits arise. A married couple with two children under 17 and about $21,896 of earned income gets the full $7,316 EITC and a $2,909 refundable CTC, because income tax liability is $0."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Its $7,316 EITC is correct. For the refundable CTC it used $1,800 per child ($3,600), which is the wrong cap ($1,700 per child), and it skipped the 15%-over-$2,500 earned income limit, which caps the credit at $2,909.35."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an $8,231 EITC, near the three-or-more-child maximum, instead of the $7,316 two-child maximum. It also computed the ACTC on gross wages plus SE income ($22,993) instead of earned income net of the deductible half of SE tax ($21,896), which overstates it at $3,073.95 instead of $2,909.35."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $7,316 EITC is correct. Its $2,731.32 ACTC implies earned income of about $20,709, meaning it cut SE income twice: once by the 92.35% factor and again by half the SE tax. The correct earned income is $15,525 − $1,097 + $7,468 ≈ $21,896, which gives $2,909.35."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Its $7,316 EITC is correct. It granted the full $1,700-per-child refundable CTC ($3,400) without the 15%-over-$2,500 earned income limit, which binds at 15% × ($21,896 − $2,500) = $2,909.35."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its refundable CTC of about $2,909 is correct. It used an EITC maximum of $7,427 instead of the 2026 two-child value of $7,316, which overstates the total by about $111."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It read the instruction not to infer unlisted facts as a bar on computing credits and returned $0. The listed wages, SE income, and two qualifying children directly produce the $7,316 EITC and the $2,909 refundable CTC."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It capped the ACTC at $2,000 under the expired $1,000-per-child rule. The 2026 refundable cap is $1,700 per child ($3,400), so the 15% × ($21,896 − $2,500) = $2,909 phase-in amount applies. Its uprated EITC of $7,312 is also slightly below the $7,316 maximum."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the CTC reverted to $1,000 per child with a $3,000 threshold, giving a $2,000 ACTC. Under 2026 law the refundable CTC is $2,909 (15% above $2,500, with a $1,700-per-child cap). It also used $7,330 instead of the $7,316 EITC maximum."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a post-2025 reversion to a $1,000-per-child CTC, giving a $2,000 refundable amount. The 2026 CTC refunds up to $1,700 per child at 15% of earnings above $2,500, which is $2,909 here. It also used $7,332 instead of the $7,316 EITC maximum."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the reverted $1,000-per-child CTC with a $3,000 threshold ($2,000) instead of the 2026 refundable CTC of $2,909. It also used an EITC of $7,338 instead of $7,316, and treated gross SE income as earned income without subtracting half the SE tax."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It overstated the EITC at about $7,422 instead of the $7,316 two-child maximum. Its ACTC of $2,879 implies an earned income figure below the correct $21,896 (wages plus SE income minus half SE tax), which gives $2,909.35."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no usable value for federal_refundable_credits, so nothing could be scored against the $7,316 EITC plus $2,909.35 refundable CTC."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $7,316 EITC is correct. It computed the ACTC on gross earnings of $22,993 instead of earned income net of the deductible half of SE tax ($21,896), which overstates the refundable CTC at $3,073.95 instead of $2,909.35."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It understated the EITC at about $6,500 instead of the $7,316 plateau maximum. It also granted the full $3,400 ACTC cap without the 15%-over-$2,500 earned income limit, which yields $2,909."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an EITC of about $7,148, close to the 2025 two-child maximum, instead of the 2026 value of $7,316. It computed the ACTC on earned income of $21,805 (92.35% of SE income) instead of $21,896, so the ACTC came out at $2,896 instead of $2,909.35."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $2,910 refundable CTC is correct. It overstated the EITC maximum at about $7,370 instead of the 2026 two-child value of $7,316, which inflates the total by about $55."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It at one point reached about $7,152 EITC plus $3,074 ACTC, then abandoned that and submitted $6,868.75. That figure leaves out the refundable CTC entirely and treats about $21,370 as the start of the EITC phase-out, a misremembered threshold. The correct values are the full $7,316 EITC (earned income is in the plateau) plus a $2,909 refundable CTC."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It claimed earned income of $22,993 exceeds the EITC phase-out and gave a $46 EITC. The MFJ two-child phase-out begins well above about $21,896, so the full $7,316 applies. It also rounded the ACTC to $3,000 using gross earnings instead of 15% × ($21,896 − $2,500) = $2,909."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got the ACTC right at $2,909, but then cut its own $7,428 EITC estimate down to an invented $7,239 to arrive at $10,148. The 2026 two-child EITC maximum is $7,316, and earned income of $21,896 is on the plateau."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It ended the 40% phase-in at $15,628 for an EITC of $6,251, then subtracted a $1,656 phase-out that does not exist, since AGI of about $21,896 is below the MFJ phase-out start. It also took the refundable CTC as a flat $3,400 and never applied the 15% × (earned income − $2,500) limit of $2,909.35. The correct total is $7,316 EITC plus $2,909.35."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It assumed the CTC was fully absorbed by tax liability, but income tax before credits is $0, so the whole credit goes through the refundable calculation: $2,909.35. It also put the EITC at a token amount, although $21,896 of earned income sits on the two-child plateau at $7,316."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It placed income on the plateau but used an EITC of $7,150 instead of the 2026 maximum of $7,316. It also calculated the ACTC correctly as $2,909 (below the $3,400 cap) and then entered an unexplained $2,383."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It put the EITC at about $5,500, although earned income of $21,896 is past the end of the phase-in, so the full $7,316 applies. It also cut its own ACTC figure to an arbitrary $1,527. The ACTC is 15% × ($21,896 − $2,500) = $2,909.35, using earned income net of half SE tax rather than the gross $22,993 it started from."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an EITC of about $7,000 instead of the 2026 plateau maximum of $7,316. It based the ACTC on gross earnings ($3,074) instead of earned income net of the half-SE-tax deduction ($2,909.35). Its $9,199 total does not even match its own two components."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It computed the ACTC correctly at $2,909, but used $6,604 as the EITC maximum. That is an outdated figure, not the 2026 two-child maximum of $7,316, which applies on the plateau at $21,896 of earned income."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It measured SE earned income as 92.35% of SE income ($21,806 total) instead of SE income minus half of SE tax ($21,896), and used an EITC of about $6,900 instead of $7,316. It then cut its own $9,796 sum to an arbitrary $8,500."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It overstated the 2026 two-child EITC maximum as $7,430; the correct figure is $7,316. It also counted SE earned income as 92.35% of SE income ($21,805) instead of SE income minus half of SE tax ($21,896), which gave an ACTC of $2,895.80 instead of $2,909.35."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied pre-TCJA sunset rules ($1,000 per child, $3,000 threshold) and capped the ACTC at $2,000. In 2026 the CTC is $2,200 with a $1,700-per-child refundable cap and a $2,500 threshold, which gives $2,909.35. It also overstated the EITC as $7,354 instead of $7,316."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It capped the ACTC at $2,000 using the reverted $1,000-per-child, $3,000-threshold rules. Under 2026 law the cap is $1,700 per child, so the 15% × ($21,896 − $2,500) = $2,909.35 limit is what binds. It also used an EITC of $7,344 instead of $7,316."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an EITC maximum of $7,350 instead of the 2026 two-child figure of $7,316. It also counted 92.35% of SE income as earned income instead of SE income minus half of SE tax, which put the ACTC at $2,895.80 instead of $2,909.35."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a sunset CTC of $1,000 per child with a $3,000 threshold, capping the refundable credit at $2,000. Under 2026 law the cap is $1,700 per child with a $2,500 threshold, so the refundable CTC is $2,909.35. It also rounded the EITC to $7,300 instead of $7,316."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It treated the full $4,000 CTC as refundable, ignoring both the per-child refundable cap and the 15% × (earned income − $2,500) limit, which yields $2,909.35. It also put the EITC at $4,100, although earned income on the plateau gets the full $7,316."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $2,000 refundable CTC based on the reverted $1,000-per-child rule, instead of the 2026 15%-of-earnings-over-$2,500 amount of $2,909.35 (cap $1,700 per child). It also rounded the EITC to $7,300 instead of $7,316."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It capped the ACTC at $2,000 ($1,000 per child, sunset law) instead of using the 2026 refundable limit, where the 15% earned-income test binds at $2,909.35. It also understated the EITC as $7,250 instead of $7,316."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The correct total is the $7,316 plateau EITC plus a $2,909.35 refundable CTC (15% of $19,396 of earned income above $2,500). Its $7,466 is about the size of the EITC alone, which is consistent with dropping almost all of the refundable CTC."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The correct total is the 2026 two-child plateau EITC of $7,316 plus a refundable CTC of 0.15 × ($21,896 − $2,500) = $2,909.35. Its $9,753.44 is $472 short, which is consistent with an EITC of about $6,844, below the 2026 maximum, alongside an ACTC near the correct amount."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The correct total is the $7,316 EITC plus a $2,909.35 refundable CTC. Its $10,185 is $40 short, which is consistent with an EITC of about $7,276 instead of the 2026 maximum of $7,316, or with an ACTC computed from earned income below the correct $21,896 (SE income minus half of SE tax)."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a sunset-law ACTC of $2,000 ($1,000 per child). The 2026 refundable CTC is the lesser of $1,700 per child and 15% × ($21,896 − $2,500), which is $2,909.35. It also overstated the EITC as $7,326 instead of $7,316."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It had the EITC right at $7,316 but used a $2,000 refundable CTC from the reverted $1,000-per-child rule. Under 2026 law the cap is $1,700 per child and the 15% × ($21,896 − $2,500) limit binds at $2,909.35."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value and no explanation for federal_refundable_credits, so there is no answer to compare with the $7,316 EITC plus $2,909.35 refundable CTC."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted SE earned income as 92.35% of SE income ($14,337) instead of SE income minus half of SE tax ($14,428), which put the ACTC at $2,896 instead of $2,909.35. It also rounded the EITC to $7,300 instead of the 2026 maximum of $7,316."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The correct total is the $7,316 plateau EITC plus 0.15 × ($21,896 − $2,500) = $2,909.35 of refundable CTC. Its unexplained $8,724 is $1,501 short, which is consistent with understating the EITC well below its 2026 maximum or capping the refundable CTC too low."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It said no refundable credits arise. In fact $21,896 of earned income with two qualifying children puts the household on the EITC plateau ($7,316), and zero income tax leaves a refundable CTC of $2,909.35."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It had the EITC right at $7,316, but gave a flat refundable CTC of $1,800 per child ($3,600). The 2026 refundable cap is $1,700 per child, and the 15% × ($21,896 − $2,500) earned-income limit binds at $2,909.35."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used $8,231, the EITC maximum for three or more children, instead of the two-child maximum of $7,316. It also ran the ACTC phase-in on gross earnings of $22,993 instead of earned income net of the half-SE-tax deduction ($21,896), which overstated the ACTC at $3,073.95 instead of $2,909.35."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It had the EITC right at $7,316, but its $2,731.32 ACTC implies earned income of about $20,709. That figure reduces SE income twice, by the 92.35% factor and by half of SE tax. The correct SE amount is $15,525 minus $1,097, for $21,896 in total and an ACTC of $2,909.35."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It had the EITC right at $7,316, but gave the full $1,700-per-child refundable cap ($3,400) without applying the 15% × ($21,896 − $2,500) earned-income limit. That limit binds at $2,909.35."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It computed the refundable CTC correctly at about $2,909, but overstated the two-child EITC as $7,427 instead of the 2026 maximum of $7,316."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It read the instruction not to infer unlisted inputs as a reason to report zero credits. The listed wages and SE income alone give $21,896 of earned income, which qualifies for the $7,316 plateau EITC and a $2,909.35 refundable CTC."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It capped the ACTC at $2,000 under a post-TCJA reversion. 2026 law keeps the $1,700-per-child refundable cap, so the 15% × ($21,896 − $2,500) = $2,909.35 limit applies. It also projected the EITC at $7,312 instead of the actual $7,316."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied sunset rules ($1,000 per child, $3,000 threshold) and capped the ACTC at $2,000, instead of using the 2026 $1,700 cap and $2,500 threshold, which give $2,909.35. It also projected the EITC at $7,330 instead of $7,316."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a reverted $1,000-per-child CTC and a $2,000 refundable total. The 2026 CTC is $2,200 per child with a $1,700 refundable cap, and the 15% earned-income limit sets the refundable amount at $2,909.35. It also overstated the EITC as $7,332 instead of $7,316."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It capped the ACTC at $2,000 under assumed post-TCJA reversion rules instead of the 2026 $1,700-per-child cap, under which the 15% × ($21,896 − $2,500) limit gives $2,909.35. It also used an EITC of $7,338 instead of $7,316 and measured earned income gross of the half-SE-tax deduction."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It overstated the two-child EITC as $7,422 instead of the 2026 maximum of $7,316. It understated the ACTC at $2,879 instead of 0.15 × ($21,896 − $2,500) = $2,909.35."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value and no explanation for federal_refundable_credits, so there is no answer to compare with the $7,316 EITC plus $2,909.35 refundable CTC."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It had the EITC right at $7,316, but ran the ACTC phase-in on gross earnings of $22,993. Earned income for the refundable CTC is net SE earnings minus the deduction for half of SE tax, so $21,896, which gives $2,909.35 instead of $3,073.95."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It understated the plateau EITC as $6,500 instead of $7,316. It also gave the full $3,400 refundable CTC without applying the 15% × ($21,896 − $2,500) earned-income limit, which caps it at $2,909.35."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It used an outdated EITC maximum of $7,152 instead of the 2026 figure of $7,316. It also gave the flat $1,700 × 2 = $3,400 refundable CTC, ignoring the 15% × ($21,896 − $2,500) limit, which binds at $2,909.35."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an EITC of about $7,148, roughly the 2025 maximum, instead of the 2026 two-child maximum of $7,316. It also computed the ACTC as $2,896 from 92.35% of SE income instead of SE income minus half of SE tax; the correct figure is $2,909.35."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It computed the refundable CTC correctly at $2,910, but overstated the 2026 two-child EITC maximum as $7,370 instead of $7,316."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It cycled through several EITC parameter sets, including the three-child maximum and a $21,370 phase-out start, and at one point reached about $10,226. It then dropped that work and submitted an arbitrary $6,868.75 that leaves out the ACTC. The correct total is the $7,316 plateau EITC plus a $2,909.35 refundable CTC."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It said earned income of $22,993 exceeds the EITC phase-out and gave only $46, but the 2026 MFJ two-child phase-out starts well above $21,896, so the full $7,316 applies. It also rounded the refundable CTC to $3,000 instead of 0.15 × ($21,896 − $2,500) = $2,909.35."
us,scenario_038,free_school_meals_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model asserted nonqualification without applying either qualifying pathway. PolicyEngine derives categorical eligibility from the household's $7,286.94 annual SNAP benefit and independently derives income eligibility because the school-meal FPG ratio is 0.70, below 1.30."
us,scenario_038,free_school_meals_eligible,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model correctly computed gross income below 130% FPG but then incorrectly imposed SNAP receipt or direct certification as an additional requirement and treated an unlisted SNAP input as proof of no SNAP participation. Income at or below 130% FPG independently qualifies the children for free meals, and PolicyEngine also computes $7,286.94 of SNAP under the assumed-take-up instruction, which supplies categorical eligibility and produces positive meal support."
us,scenario_038,head_chip_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
@@ -3516,46 +3637,48 @@ us,scenario_038,self_employment_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,Fals
us,scenario_038,self_employment_tax,grok-4.3,llm_error,other,False,"It labeled its answer approximate and gave $2,192 instead of computing exactly. The exact figure is $15,525 × 0.9235 × 0.153 = $2,193.61."
us,scenario_038,self_employment_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It submitted no value or explanation for self_employment_tax, so there was nothing to score. The correct result is $15,525 × 0.9235 × 0.153 = $2,193.61."
us,scenario_038,self_employment_tax,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It correctly reached $2,193.61, then applied the deduction for half of SE tax ($1,096.81) a second time, iteratively reducing the SE tax base itself and ending at $2,054.08. Under IRC §164(f) that deduction reduces only AGI for income tax. The 92.35% factor already accounts for it, so the SE tax stays at $2,193.61."
-us,scenario_038,snap,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its own derivation used a $212 standard deduction and a $1,000 maximum allotment and came to about $7,236. It then submitted $4,200, a number that does not follow from any step it showed. The correct inputs ($223 standard deduction, $994 maximum) give $601 a month."
-us,scenario_038,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the 20% earned income deduction and used a $194 standard deduction instead of $223. It also invented a $400 shelter deduction from the mortgage balance, although no mortgage payment, property tax or utility costs were given. It then dropped that result and asserted $84 a month with no derivation, far below the correct $994 − $393 = $601."
-us,scenario_038,snap,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"It gave a round $300 a month ($3,600 a year) with no calculation. The correct figure is $994 minus 30% of $1,310 net income (after the $383 earned income deduction and $223 standard deduction), which is $601 a month. Even with no deductions at all the benefit would be about $419 a month, so $300 follows from no valid calculation."
-us,scenario_038,snap,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,period_annualization,False,"It subtracted a monthly standard deduction (about $224) from annual net earned income of $18,394, so the deduction was effectively only about $19 a month, giving net income of $1,514 instead of $1,310. It then raised the benefit to $759 a month with no basis, rather than computing $994 − $393 = $601."
-us,scenario_038,snap,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,other,False,"Its own inputs ($1,916 gross, $383 earned income deduction, $217 standard deduction, $994 maximum) give about $599 a month. It submitted $654 a month ($7,848), which does not follow from those inputs. It also used $217 instead of the FY2026 standard deduction of $223."
-us,scenario_038,snap,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It estimated $564 a month without stating its parameters. The correct calculation is net income of $1,310 (after the $383 earned income deduction and $223 standard deduction) against the $994 FY2026 maximum, which gives $601. Its figure matches an outdated lower maximum allotment and/or smaller deductions."
-us,scenario_038,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used FY2025 parameters: a $975 maximum allotment and a $204 standard deduction. The FY2026 values are $994 and $223, so its net income was $1,329 instead of $1,310 and its benefit $576 a month instead of $601."
-us,scenario_038,snap,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reduced self-employment income by 20% before computing gross income and then applied the 20% earned income deduction again. It also added dependent-care and medical deductions, even though there are no dependent-care costs and no elderly or disabled members. Finally, its $6,800 does not follow from its own stated net-income range."
-us,scenario_038,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It cut gross income to $21,896 by subtracting the deductible half of self-employment tax, which SNAP does not allow. It also used an inflated maximum allotment of $13,164 a year ($1,097 a month) instead of $994 a month."
-us,scenario_038,snap,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $1,050 maximum allotment instead of the FY2026 four-person maximum of $994, and a $208 standard deduction instead of $223. This overstated the benefit at $652.54 a month, and it also skipped whole-dollar rounding."
-us,scenario_038,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used FY2025 parameters: a $975 maximum allotment and a $204 standard deduction, instead of the FY2026 $994 and $223. That gave $576.34 a month instead of $601, and it did not round net income or the benefit to whole dollars."
-us,scenario_038,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $213 standard deduction instead of $223 and a $1,000 maximum allotment instead of $994. It also did not round net income to $1,310 or the benefit to whole dollars, so it got $604.04 a month instead of $601."
-us,scenario_038,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It invented a $310 monthly 'dependent deduction', although no dependent-care costs were given and SNAP has no per-dependent deduction. It also used the 2024 $973 maximum allotment and a $198 standard deduction instead of the FY2026 $994 and $223."
-us,scenario_038,snap,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,other,False,"It gave a round $750 a month ($9,000 a year) with no calculation. The correct calculation is $994 − 30% × $1,310 = $601 a month. Its figure implies net income of only about $813, which no allowable deductions in this case produce."
-us,scenario_038,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It described the right formula but reached $573 a month. That matches outdated FY2025 parameters (about a $975 maximum and a $204 standard deduction), not the FY2026 $994 maximum and $223 standard deduction that give $601."
-us,scenario_038,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a standard deduction of about $200 (net income $1,333) instead of $223 (net income $1,310), and a $990 maximum allotment instead of $994. That gave $590 a month instead of $601."
-us,scenario_038,snap,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly concluded the benefit is zero. Gross income of $1,916 a month is about 72% of the poverty guideline, net income of $1,310 is about 49%, and the household is categorically eligible through BBCE (non-cash TANF). The benefit is $994 − $393 = $601 a month."
-us,scenario_038,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly found the household eligible but gave $523 a month. Against the $994 maximum, that implies net income of about $1,570, which matches applying only one of the two deductions instead of both the $383 earned income deduction and the $223 standard deduction (net $1,310, benefit $601)."
-us,scenario_038,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave $809 a month with no derivation. Against the $994 maximum, that implies net income of only about $617, which requires a shelter or other deduction the facts do not support. With only the $383 earned income deduction and the $223 standard deduction, net income is $1,310 and the benefit $601."
-us,scenario_038,snap,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It named the correct deductions but reached $580.50 a month. That matches outdated FY2025 maximum-allotment and standard-deduction values instead of FY2026's $994 and $223, which give $601."
-us,scenario_038,snap,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $1,020 maximum allotment instead of the FY2026 four-person value of $994, and a $220 standard deduction instead of $223. It also skipped whole-dollar rounding, which gave $626.14 a month instead of $601."
-us,scenario_038,snap,glm-5.3,llm_error,other,False,"It reached net income of about $1,310 but used a $995 maximum and a $394 contribution, then rounded to 'about $600 a month'. The exact figures are $994 − $393 = $601, or $7,212 a year."
-us,scenario_038,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly treated the household as getting no benefit. Gross income ($1,916 a month) and net income ($1,310) are far below the 130% and 100% poverty limits, assets are $500, and the household is categorically eligible through BBCE. The benefit is $994 − $393 = $601 a month."
-us,scenario_038,snap,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It assumed no positive benefit without applying the SNAP tests. The household passes both income tests and the asset test and is categorically eligible through BBCE, so it receives $994 − 30% × $1,310 = $601 a month."
-us,scenario_038,snap,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a four-person maximum allotment of $879 instead of the FY2026 value of $994. It also used a slightly low standard deduction, giving net income of $1,316 instead of $1,310. The result was $484 a month instead of $601."
-us,scenario_038,snap,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It described the right formula but reached $609.74 a month. That implies a maximum allotment above $994 and no whole-dollar rounding; the correct calculation is $994 − 30% × $1,310 = $601."
-us,scenario_038,snap,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $595 a month matches using the FY2025 $204 standard deduction (net $1,329, contribution $399) instead of the FY2026 $223 deduction (net $1,310, contribution $393). The correct benefit is $601."
-us,scenario_038,snap,grok-4.3,llm_error,other,False,"It misread the no-inference instruction as a reason not to apply SNAP's program rules at all and entered 0. Program parameters are not household inputs. Applying them gives $994 − 30% × $1,310 = $601 a month."
-us,scenario_038,snap,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a projected $1,000 maximum allotment instead of $994 and a $225 standard deduction instead of $223, giving $608 a month. It also annualized that inconsistently as $7,280."
-us,scenario_038,snap,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly used the $223 standard deduction and $1,310 net income, but used a $993 maximum allotment instead of the FY2026 four-person value of $994. That left it $1 a month short: $600 instead of $601."
-us,scenario_038,snap,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used FY2025 values: an $11,700 annual maximum ($975 a month) and a $2,604 annual standard deduction ($217 a month). The FY2026 values are $994 and $223, so it got $6,963 instead of $7,212."
-us,scenario_038,snap,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $3,985 annual standard deduction (about $332 a month) instead of $223 a month, and a $12,337 annual maximum allotment (about $1,028 a month) instead of $994 a month. Both overstated the benefit."
-us,scenario_038,snap,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used about a $1,000 maximum allotment instead of $994 and a standard deduction near $217 instead of $223 (net income $1,316 instead of $1,310). That gave $605 a month instead of $601."
-us,scenario_038,snap,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $208 standard deduction instead of the FY2026 $223, and a $1,020 maximum allotment instead of $994. That gave $622 a month instead of $601."
-us,scenario_038,snap,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly used the $223 standard deduction but used a $997 maximum allotment instead of $994. It also did not round net income to $1,310 or the benefit to whole dollars, giving $604.04 instead of $601 a month."
-us,scenario_038,snap,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $1,050 maximum allotment instead of the FY2026 four-person value of $994. It also used a smaller standard deduction (net $1,329 instead of $1,310), overstating the benefit at about $651 a month."
-us,scenario_038,snap,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a standard deduction of about $217 instead of the FY2026 four-person value of $223. That gave net income of $1,316 instead of $1,310 and a benefit of $599 instead of $601 a month."
-us,scenario_038,snap,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $207 standard deduction instead of the FY2026 $223, so net income came out at $1,326 instead of $1,310 and the benefit at $596 instead of $601 a month. It also annualized imprecisely, giving $7,155."
-us,scenario_038,snap,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its own calculation with the 2024 $973 maximum gave $572.54 a month. It then raised that to $879 a month by citing a shelter deduction, even though no rent, mortgage payment or utility costs were given. It also used a $198 standard deduction instead of $223."
-us,scenario_038,snap,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It set net income to $0 through a shelter deduction, although the household has no listed shelter costs; net income is actually $1,310 after the earned income and standard deductions. It also used a $964 maximum allotment instead of $994."
+us,scenario_038,snap,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its own reasoning used a $212 standard deduction and a $1,000 maximum allotment to reach about $7,236 a year, then submitted $4,200, which has no basis in that computation. The correct parameters ($223 standard deduction, $994 maximum) give $601 a month."
+us,scenario_038,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the 20% earned income deduction and used a $194 standard deduction instead of $223. It also invented a $400 shelter deduction from the $75,000 mortgage balance, even though no mortgage payment, tax or utility cost was listed. It then dropped its own $648-a-month result for an unexplained $84 a month."
+us,scenario_038,snap,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"The $3,600 answer works out to $300 a month, about half the correct $994 − 30% × $1,310 = $601. It gave no computation, and no valid set of deductions applied to $1,916 of monthly earnings yields that figure."
+us,scenario_038,snap,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted a monthly standard deduction (~$224) from annual net earnings ($18,394), so only about $19 a month was actually deducted and net income came out at $1,514 instead of $1,310. It then submitted an unsupported $759 a month instead of the $601 that $994 − $393 gives."
+us,scenario_038,snap,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,other,False,"Its stated parameters ($217 standard deduction, $994 maximum) give net income of about $1,316 and a benefit of about $599 a month. It nonetheless submitted $654 a month ($7,848), which implies net income roughly $180 lower than its own deductions produce."
+us,scenario_038,snap,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The $6,768 answer implies $564 a month, $37 below the correct $994 − $393 = $601. That shortfall matches using the FY2025 $975 maximum allotment and a standard deduction below the FY2026 $223."
+us,scenario_038,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used FY2025 values (a $975 maximum allotment and a $204 standard deduction) instead of the FY2026 $994 and $223. That gave net income of $1,329 and $576 a month, instead of $1,310 and $601."
+us,scenario_038,snap,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It cut self-employment income by 20% before computing gross income and then applied the 20% earned income deduction again. It also invented dependent-care and medical deductions that don't apply to this non-elderly, non-disabled household. Its $6,800 answer does not even follow from its own $994-minus-$300 arithmetic."
+us,scenario_038,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It understated annual gross income ($21,896 instead of $22,993) and used an annual maximum allotment of $13,164 ($1,097 a month) instead of $994 × 12 = $11,928. As a result it overstated the benefit at about $725 a month instead of $601."
+us,scenario_038,snap,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $1,050 maximum allotment instead of the FY2026 four-person $994 and a $208 standard deduction instead of $223. That produced $652.54 a month instead of $994 − $393 = $601."
+us,scenario_038,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used FY2025 values (a $975 maximum allotment and a $204 standard deduction) instead of FY2026's $994 and $223. It also did not round net income or the allotment to whole dollars, so it got $576.34 a month instead of $601."
+us,scenario_038,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $1,000 maximum allotment instead of $994 and a $213 standard deduction instead of $223, and skipped whole-dollar rounding. That gave $604.04 a month instead of $601."
+us,scenario_038,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It invented a $310-a-month 'dependent deduction', but SNAP's dependent-care deduction requires actual care costs and none were listed. It also used the 2024 $973 maximum and a $198 standard deduction instead of $994 and $223, which drove net income down to $1,025 and inflated the benefit."
+us,scenario_038,snap,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,other,False,"It gave no computation. The $9,000 answer implies $750 a month, which would require net income of about $813 instead of the correct $1,310 ($1,916 minus the $383 earned income deduction and the $223 standard deduction)."
+us,scenario_038,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The $6,878 answer implies about $573 a month, matching FY2025 values (a $975 maximum and a $204 standard deduction) rather than FY2026's $994 maximum and $223 standard deduction, which give $601 a month."
+us,scenario_038,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a standard deduction of about $200 instead of $223, which put net income at $1,333 instead of $1,310. It also used a $990 maximum instead of $994, giving $590 a month instead of $601."
+us,scenario_038,snap,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It wrongly concluded that net income disqualifies the household. Net income of $1,310 is 49% of the poverty guideline, well under the 100% net income limit, and gross income is 72% of the guideline. That leaves a $601 monthly benefit."
+us,scenario_038,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The $6,276 answer implies $523 a month, which requires net income of about $1,570 against the $994 maximum. That is roughly what results from dropping the $223 standard deduction, which brings net income down to the correct $1,310."
+us,scenario_038,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,other,False,"It gave no computation. The $9,708 answer implies $809 a month, which would require net income of only about $617, half the correct $1,310 left after the 20% earned income deduction and the $223 standard deduction."
+us,scenario_038,snap,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The $6,966 answer implies about $580 a month, consistent with FY2025 values ($975 maximum, $204 standard deduction) instead of FY2026's $994 maximum and $223 standard deduction."
+us,scenario_038,snap,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,other,False,"The $7,203 answer implies $600.25 a month, which cannot be a SNAP allotment because allotments are whole dollars. The correct steps round net income to $1,310 and the contribution to $393, giving exactly $601 a month and $7,212 a year."
+us,scenario_038,snap,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $1,020 maximum allotment instead of the FY2026 $994 and a $220 standard deduction instead of $223. That produced $626.14 a month instead of $601."
+us,scenario_038,snap,glm-5.3,llm_error,other,False,"It derived net income of $1,310 correctly but put the contribution at $394 instead of $393 (30% × $1,310) and the maximum at $995 instead of $994. It then rounded the result to 'about $600', submitting $7,200 instead of $601 × 12 = $7,212."
+us,scenario_038,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It denied SNAP even though gross income is 72% of the poverty guideline and assets are only $500. The household is also categorically eligible through Louisiana's TANF non-cash broad-based categorical eligibility, so it qualifies for $601 a month."
+us,scenario_038,snap,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It returned $0 without applying the eligibility tests. The household passes the gross, net and asset tests and is categorically eligible through TANF non-cash eligibility, giving $994 − 30% × $1,310 = $601 a month."
+us,scenario_038,snap,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an outdated $879 four-person maximum allotment instead of the FY2026 $994. It also used a standard deduction of about $217 instead of $223, giving $484 a month instead of $601."
+us,scenario_038,snap,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The $7,316.88 answer implies $609.74 a month, about $9 above the correct $601. That is consistent with projecting a maximum allotment above the actual FY2026 $994 and skipping whole-dollar rounding of net income and the allotment."
+us,scenario_038,snap,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The $595-a-month answer matches using the FY2025 $204 standard deduction instead of the FY2026 $223. That raises net income to $1,329 and the contribution to $399, while the $994 maximum gives $601 a month at the correct net income of $1,310."
+us,scenario_038,snap,grok-4.3,llm_error,other,False,"It wrongly treated SNAP as not calculable and returned $0, misreading 'treat unlisted inputs as 0' to cover program parameters. The standard formula, $994 maximum minus 30% of $1,310 net income, gives $601 a month."
+us,scenario_038,snap,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It projected a $1,000 maximum allotment instead of the FY2026 $994 and a $225 standard deduction instead of $223, getting $608 a month. It then annualized to $7,280, which does not match its own $608 × 12."
+us,scenario_038,snap,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got the $223 standard deduction and $1,310 net income right but used a $993 maximum allotment instead of $994. That gave $600 a month instead of $994 − $393 = $601."
+us,scenario_038,snap,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the FY2025 annual maximum of $11,700 ($975 a month) instead of FY2026's $994 a month. It also used a $217-a-month standard deduction ($2,604 a year) instead of $223, which understated the benefit at $6,963."
+us,scenario_038,snap,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a standard deduction of about $332 a month ($3,985 a year) instead of $223 and an annual maximum of about $12,337 ($1,028 a month) instead of $994 × 12. Both errors push the benefit above the correct $601 a month."
+us,scenario_038,snap,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It projected a $1,000 maximum allotment instead of the FY2026 $994 and a standard deduction of about $217 instead of $223 (net income $1,316 instead of $1,310). That gave $605 a month instead of $601."
+us,scenario_038,snap,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $1,020 maximum allotment instead of the FY2026 $994 and a $208 standard deduction instead of $223. That produced $622 a month instead of $601."
+us,scenario_038,snap,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the correct $223 standard deduction but a $997 maximum allotment instead of $994. It also skipped rounding net income to $1,310 and the contribution to $393, giving $604.04 a month instead of $601."
+us,scenario_038,snap,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $1,050 maximum allotment instead of the FY2026 $994 and a standard deduction of about $204 instead of $223 (net income $1,329 instead of $1,310). That gave $651 a month instead of $601."
+us,scenario_038,snap,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used FY2025 values (net income of $1,329 from a $204 standard deduction, and the $975 maximum), getting $576 a month. The FY2026 $223 standard deduction and $994 maximum give $601 a month."
+us,scenario_038,snap,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a standard deduction of about $217 instead of the FY2026 four-person $223, which put net income at $1,316 instead of $1,310. That gave $599 a month instead of $994 − $393 = $601."
+us,scenario_038,snap,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the correct $994 maximum but a standard deduction of about $207 instead of the FY2026 $223, which raised net income to $1,326. That lowered the benefit to $596 a month instead of $601."
+us,scenario_038,snap,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It first computed $572.54 a month using the outdated $973 maximum and a $198 standard deduction. It then raised the result to $879 a month by citing a shelter deduction, but no rent, mortgage payment or utility expense was listed, so the excess shelter deduction is $0."
+us,scenario_038,snap,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It set net income to $0 by assuming a shelter deduction, but no rent, mortgage payment or utility costs were given, so only the standard and earned income deductions apply and net income is $1,310. It also used a $964 maximum instead of $994."
us,scenario_038,spouse_chip_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model applied only the CHIP age and income conditions and skipped the prerequisite that the person not qualify for Medicaid. At age 18, the spouse is Medicaid-eligible under the OLDER_CHILD category, which makes the spouse ineligible for CHIP."
us,scenario_038,spouse_chip_eligible,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model treated the absence of listed Medicaid coverage as the absence of Medicaid eligibility, despite the question asking about eligibility rather than enrollment. The spouse qualifies for Medicaid under the OLDER_CHILD category, and that eligibility bars CHIP even though the spouse is under 19 and below the CHIP income limit."
us,scenario_038,spouse_chip_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model concluded that satisfying the CHIP age and income ceiling was sufficient and never evaluated Medicaid eligibility first. The spouse is Medicaid-eligible under the OLDER_CHILD category, so the mutually exclusive CHIP pathway yields No."
@@ -3578,159 +3701,166 @@ us,scenario_038,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,s
us,scenario_038,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It invented a $4,500 per-person exemption for all four members, totaling $18,000, and a 1.75% 'post-2024' bottom rate. The post-2024 reform actually set a flat 3% rate with a $25,000 MFJ standard deduction. That deduction exceeds the $21,896 AGI, so tax is $0 rather than $68."
us,scenario_038,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value and no explanation for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits. The correct derivation is AGI of about $21,896 minus Louisiana's $25,000 MFJ standard deduction, which gives zero taxable income and $0 tax."
us,scenario_038,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used the pre-reform $4,500 per-spouse exemptions and $1,000 dependent exemptions, then taxed $10,896 at the pre-2022 2%/4% bracket rates with a wrong $10,000 bracket break. It never applied the 2025 reform's $25,000 MFJ standard deduction and flat 3% rate, which bring taxable income to zero on AGI of $21,896."
-us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the correct 5% rate and correctly found the household on the EITC plateau. But it put the 2026 two-child federal EITC maximum at about $7,478 instead of $7,316, which inflated the result to $374 instead of $365.80."
-us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Louisiana has no refundable earned income credit. In fact Louisiana's EITC is refundable and equals 5% of the federal EITC. On the $7,316 federal credit that comes to $365.80, not $0."
-us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no refundable Louisiana credit applies and missed the refundable Louisiana EITC, which is 5% of the federal EITC. On this household's $7,316 federal credit that is $365.80."
-us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model correctly identified the refundable 5% Louisiana EITC and roughly $21,400 of earned income. It then put the federal EITC at about $3,680, roughly half the real amount. Earned income near $21,900 sits on the two-child plateau, below the joint-filer phase-out threshold, so the federal credit is the full $7,316 and the Louisiana credit is $365.80."
-us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model computed combined earned income of about $21,896 correctly, then cut the federal EITC to about $2,640 as though the credit were deep in its phase-out. Joint-filer AGI of about $21,900 is below the 2026 phase-out start, so the federal credit is the full $7,316 and 5% of it is $365.80."
-us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the correct 5% refundable rate to a federal EITC of about $7,000. The 2026 maximum for two children, which this plateau household receives, is $7,316, so the answer should be $365.80, not $350."
-us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed Louisiana eliminated its refundable EITC. Louisiana still has a refundable EITC of 5% of the federal credit, which gives $365.80 on the $7,316 federal EITC."
-us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated Louisiana's EITC as nonrefundable. It is refundable at 5% of the federal EITC, so this household gets $365.80 regardless of its Louisiana tax liability."
-us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model had the correct federal EITC of $7,316 but applied a 50% Louisiana match instead of the actual 5%. That inflated the credit tenfold to $3,658 instead of $365.80."
-us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used Louisiana's old 3.5% EITC match instead of the current 5%. It also overstated the federal EITC as $7,430 instead of $7,316, producing $260.05 instead of $365.80."
-us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the correct 5% refundable rate but put the 2026 two-child federal EITC maximum at $7,354 instead of $7,316. That gave $367.70 instead of $365.80."
-us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no refundable Louisiana credit applies and missed the refundable Louisiana EITC of 5% of the federal credit. On the $7,316 federal EITC that is $365.80."
-us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed Louisiana eliminated its state EITC. Louisiana's refundable EITC remains in force at 5% of the federal credit, which is $365.80 for this household."
-us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no Louisiana refundable credit applies and missed the refundable Louisiana EITC, which is 5% of the $7,316 federal EITC, or $365.80."
-us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the correct 5% rate to a federal EITC of $7,250. The household is on the two-child plateau, where the 2026 maximum is $7,316, so the answer should be $365.80, not $362.50."
-us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model returned $0 and missed the refundable Louisiana EITC of 5% of the federal credit. On this household's $7,316 federal EITC that is $365.80."
-us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's $353.43 implies a federal EITC of about $7,069 at the 5% rate. The household gets the full 2026 two-child maximum of $7,316, so the answer should be $365.80."
-us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's $350 implies a federal EITC of about $7,000 at the 5% Louisiana rate. The household's plateau federal credit is the full $7,316, so the answer should be $365.80."
-us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated the Louisiana EITC as nonrefundable and capped it at zero liability. It is refundable at 5% of the federal EITC, so it pays $365.80 even with no state tax owed."
-us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model called the Louisiana EITC nonrefundable and zeroed it out because the household owes no state tax. The credit is refundable at 5% of the $7,316 federal EITC, or $365.80."
-us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model looked for explicit refundable-credit inputs and missed that the Louisiana EITC follows automatically from federal EITC eligibility. At 5% of the $7,316 federal credit it is $365.80."
-us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model assumed no Louisiana refundable credit at this income. In fact low earned income is exactly what produces the maximum federal EITC of $7,316 here, and Louisiana refunds 5% of it, or $365.80."
-us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model required explicit refundable-credit inputs and missed that the Louisiana EITC derives from the federal EITC. It is 5% of the $7,316 federal credit, or $365.80."
-us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the correct 5% rate to a federal EITC of $8,231, which matches the three-or-more-children maximum. This household has two qualifying children and a $7,316 maximum, so the answer should be $365.80."
-us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model had the correct federal EITC of $7,316 but applied Louisiana's old 3.5% match instead of the current 5%. That gave $256.06 instead of $365.80."
-us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the correct 5% rate but put the federal EITC at $7,427 instead of the 2026 two-child maximum of $7,316. That gave $371.35 instead of $365.80."
-us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no Louisiana refundable credit is triggered and missed the refundable Louisiana EITC, which is 5% of the $7,316 federal EITC, or $365.80."
-us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed Louisiana has no state EITC. Louisiana has a refundable EITC of 5% of the federal credit, which is $365.80 here."
-us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed Louisiana has no refundable EITC. The Louisiana EITC is refundable at 5% of the $7,316 federal EITC, or $365.80."
-us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the correct 5% rate but a federal EITC of $7,332 instead of $7,316, and it rounded to whole dollars. That gave $367 instead of $365.80."
-us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said there was no EITC match. Louisiana does match the federal EITC, refundably, at 5%, giving $365.80 on the $7,316 federal credit."
-us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the correct 5% refundable rate but put the federal EITC at about $7,422 instead of the 2026 two-child maximum of $7,316. That gave $371 instead of $365.80."
-us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no usable value or explanation for state_refundable_credits. The correct derivation is 5% of the $7,316 federal EITC, or $365.80."
-us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the correct 5% rate to a federal EITC of $6,500, well below the 2026 two-child maximum of $7,316 that this plateau household receives. That gave $325 instead of $365.80."
-us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the correct 5% rate to a federal EITC of about $7,148 instead of the 2026 two-child maximum of $7,316. That gave $357.40 instead of $365.80."
-us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model tied Louisiana refundable credits to taxable income and child care activity, and so missed the refundable Louisiana EITC. That credit is 5% of the federal EITC and pays $365.80 regardless of state tax liability."
-us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly placed the household on the plateau and used the 5% rate. But it put the 2026 two-child federal EITC maximum at $7,430 instead of $7,316, which gave $371.50 instead of $365.80."
-us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Louisiana offers no refundable credit for this household and missed the refundable Louisiana EITC, which is 5% of the $7,316 federal EITC, or $365.80."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model actually reached the correct single-filer result of $8,596, then dropped it. It switched to qualifying-surviving-spouse treatment even though there is no dependent child, used the MFJ $32,000/$44,000 Social Security thresholds (taxable SS $25,187) and the $32,200 joint deduction, and ended at about $4,488."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It applied qualifying-surviving-spouse joint brackets and the $32,200 joint standard deduction, but that status requires a dependent child and none is listed. The correct treatment is single: $16,100 deduction, taxable income $63,109, with the top slice taxed at 22% above $50,400."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It overstated AGI at $84,395 instead of $79,209 and invented an extra standard deduction for disability. It then claimed an elderly/disabled credit wipes out the tax, but that credit is fully phased out at this AGI and Social Security level. Correct single taxable income is $63,109, which owes $8,596."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the standard deduction and add-ons leave no taxable income. In fact AGI is $79,209 and only a $16,100 single deduction applies, because there is no age-65 add-on at 61 and no disability add-on. That leaves $63,109 taxable and $8,596 of tax."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Filing status was correct (single), but it added up AGI as $75,209 instead of $79,209, dropping $4,000. It also used the pre-OBBBA $15,750 deduction and estimated brackets ($12,150/$49,350) instead of the 2026 values of $16,100 and $12,400/$50,400."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It treated the head as a qualifying widow(er) with no dependent child. That led it to the MFJ $32,000/$44,000 Social Security thresholds (taxable SS $25,187 instead of $30,689), a roughly $30,000 joint deduction, and joint brackets. Single filing with a $16,100 deduction is correct."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"AGI of $79,209 and single treatment were right, but it used a $16,700 deduction instead of $16,100. It also put about $62,500 of taxable income through the brackets and got $6,210, when the single schedule (10% to $12,400, 12% to $50,400, 22% above) gives about $8,460 on that amount."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It filed as surviving spouse with joint brackets and the $32,200 joint deduction, but that status requires a dependent child and the household has none. Single treatment with a $16,100 deduction and the 22% bracket above $50,400 gives $8,596."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It assumed qualifying-surviving-spouse status, which requires a dependent child and none exists. That led it to the MFJ Social Security thresholds (taxable SS $25,187), an estimated $30,000 joint deduction, and joint brackets with a $23,850 top for the 10% band. Single filing with a $16,100 deduction is correct."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It used qualifying-surviving-spouse joint brackets and a roughly $31,500 joint deduction even though there is no dependent child. It also fudged its own $5,248 result down to $5,187. Correct single treatment gives taxable income of $63,109 and $8,596 of tax."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It applied the $32,200 surviving-spouse joint deduction and joint brackets without the dependent child that status requires. Filing single gives a $16,100 deduction, $63,109 of taxable income, and $8,596 of tax."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Single status and the $79,209 AGI were right, but it used the pre-OBBBA $15,000 standard deduction and 2025 brackets ($11,925/$48,475). The 2026 values are a $16,100 deduction and brackets at $12,400/$50,400."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed TCJA expired and applied an $8,800 deduction with pre-TCJA 10%/15% brackets. OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent, so 2026 uses a $16,100 single deduction and 10%/12%/22% rates."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Single status and AGI were right, but it used a $15,400 deduction and brackets at $12,250/$49,800. The 2026 values are $16,100 and $12,400/$50,400, so it overstated taxable income by $700 and taxed too much at 22%."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"AGI, the $16,100 deduction, and $63,109 of taxable income were all correct. It used bracket thresholds of $12,200 and $49,600 instead of the 2026 single thresholds of $12,400 and $50,400, which pushed $800 too much into the 22% bracket."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed TCJA sunset in 2026 and applied a combined $13,750 deduction and personal exemption with 15%/25% brackets. OBBBA kept the TCJA rates and set the 2026 single deduction at $16,100, so the 10%/12%/22% schedule applies."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It showed no computation. Its $5,354 sits about $3,240 below the correct single-filer $8,596, which matches joint-rate surviving-spouse treatment: a roughly $30,000–$32,200 deduction with brackets capping 10% at $24,800. Without a dependent child the head files single."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"With single status and $79,209 of AGI, its $11,415 matches TCJA-sunset parameters: a small deduction plus personal exemption and 15%/25% rates. OBBBA made TCJA permanent, so the correct figures are the $16,100 deduction and 10%/12%/22% brackets, giving $8,596."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied 'post-TCJA' parameters, a roughly $13,400 deduction plus exemption with pre-TCJA rates, on the assumption that TCJA expired. OBBBA kept the TCJA structure, so the correct inputs are the $16,100 single deduction and 10%/12%/22% brackets."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It gave no derivation. Its $6,233 nearly matches head-of-household treatment (a $24,150 deduction with 12% running to $67,450, which yields about $6,250). A surviving spouse with no dependent files single, with a $16,100 deduction and $8,596 of tax."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"AGI was right, but it used a $15,700 deduction instead of $16,100. On its $63,509 of taxable income it reported $7,117, which matches joint-rate brackets (10% to $24,800, then 12%). The single schedule taxes everything above $50,400 at 22%."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"With the correct $79,209 of AGI, its $9,414 overshoots by $818. That equals 22% on about $3,700 of extra taxable income, which matches using a deduction near $12,400 instead of the 2026 single deduction of $16,100."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave no numbers. Its $7,578 is $1,018 below the correct figure, which works out to roughly 12% of $63,109 of taxable income. That suggests it never applied the 22% rate to the $12,709 above the $50,400 single threshold."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Single status and AGI were right, but it estimated a $15,432 deduction and brackets at $12,259/$49,838 instead of the enacted 2026 values: $16,100 and $12,400/$50,400."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left the $25,950 of estate income and the $6,260 self-employment loss out of gross income. It also justified the deduction by calling the 61-year-old 65 or older, and subtracted an invented $1,920 'tax on previously-taxed Social Security' credit."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the standard deduction plus elderly/surviving-spouse treatment leaves no taxable income. There is no elderly add-on at 61, and the single $16,100 deduction against $79,209 of AGI leaves $63,109 taxable, which owes $8,596."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It asserted that nonrefundable credits wipe out the liability. No nonrefundable credit applies here: there are no dependents, and the elderly/disabled credit is fully phased out at this AGI. Tax on $63,109 of single taxable income is $8,596."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It used surviving-spouse joint brackets and the $32,200 deduction, but that status requires a dependent child and none is listed. Single filing gives a $16,100 deduction and $8,596 of tax."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It applied surviving-spouse/MFJ treatment without a dependent child. That brought in the MFJ Social Security thresholds (taxable SS $25,187 instead of $30,689), the joint deduction, and joint brackets, instead of single filing."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It treated the head as a qualifying surviving spouse even though there is no dependent child. It used the joint Social Security thresholds (taxable SS $25,187) and the $32,200 deduction, when the single thresholds, the $16,100 deduction, and single brackets apply."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It used the joint surviving-spouse deduction without a dependent child. It also added the age-65 additional deduction and the OBBBA senior deduction for a 61-year-old, and both require being 65 or older. The correct deduction is $16,100 for a single filer."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It filed as surviving spouse with the $32,200 joint deduction and joint brackets, but the household has no dependent child, so single filing with a $16,100 deduction is correct. That makes taxable income $63,109, not $47,009."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It applied surviving-spouse status, which requires a dependent child, and used the $32,200 deduction and joint brackets. Single filing gives $63,109 of taxable income, with the top $12,709 taxed at 22%."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted medical expenses on top of the standard deduction, which is not allowed: itemized medical after the 7.5% floor is only about $3,794, so the $16,100 standard deduction is taken instead. It also reported a rounded $8,000 rather than running $63,109 through the 2026 single brackets."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied post-TCJA-sunset parameters: an $8,255 deduction plus a $5,265 personal exemption, with 15%/25% rates. OBBBA made TCJA permanent, so the 2026 single deduction is $16,100 with no exemption, and the rates are 10%/12%/22%."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed TCJA sunset and used an $8,300 deduction, a $5,300 exemption, and 15%/25% brackets. Under OBBBA, 2026 keeps the $16,100 single deduction and 10%/12%/22% brackets at $12,400/$50,400."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It treated 2026 as post-TCJA-sunset, with an $8,500 deduction, a $5,400 exemption, and 15%/25% rates. OBBBA made the TCJA rate structure permanent, so the correct inputs are the $16,100 single deduction and 10%/12%/22% brackets."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Single status and AGI were right, but it used a projected $15,420 deduction and brackets at $12,259/$49,832 instead of the enacted 2026 values: $16,100 and $12,400/$50,400."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The $16,100 deduction and $63,109 of taxable income were correct. It used bracket tops of about $12,250 and $49,825 instead of $12,400 and $50,400, so it taxed about $575 too much at 22% and got $8,656."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no answer and no explanation for this variable, so there was no value to score."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It double-counted Social Security by adding the full $36,105 benefit and then the $30,689 taxable portion again, inflating taxable income to about $99,214. It also invented extra standard deductions for being 61 and disabled, which do not exist."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It settled on qualifying-surviving-spouse/MFJ treatment without a dependent child. That brought in the MFJ Social Security thresholds (taxable SS about $25,197), the $32,200 deduction, and joint brackets, instead of single filing with a $16,100 deduction."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reported taxable income of $90,564, which exceeds AGI even after its $31,900 joint-style deduction. It halved the self-employment loss and invented a $1,716 credit for other dependents tied to pension income, even though there are no dependents. Correct single taxable income is $63,109."
+us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly placed earned income of about $21,806 on the EITC plateau and applied Louisiana's 5% rate. It then used about $7,478 as the 2026 two-child maximum federal EITC instead of $7,316, which overstated the LA credit as $374 instead of $365.80."
+us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Louisiana has no refundable EITC. Louisiana has a refundable EITC equal to 5% of the federal EITC, and here that is 5% × $7,316 = $365.80, regardless of state tax liability."
+us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model concluded that no Louisiana refundable credits apply and missed the refundable Louisiana EITC. That credit is 5% of the household's $7,316 federal EITC, or $365.80."
+us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model identified the 5% refundable LA EITC but estimated the federal EITC at about $3,680. With about $21,400 of earned income for MFJ with two children, the household is on the plateau, below the roughly $31k MFJ phase-out start, so the federal credit is the full $7,316 and the LA credit is $365.80."
+us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model computed earned income of about $21,896 but then treated the household as deep in the phase-out, with a federal EITC of about $2,640. The MFJ phase-out does not start until about $31k, so the federal EITC is the $7,316 maximum and 5% of it is $365.80, not $132."
+us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the correct 5% rate to a federal EITC rounded to about $7,000. The 2026 two-child plateau amount is $7,316, which yields $365.80, not $350."
+us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Louisiana eliminated its EITC and has no refundable credits. Louisiana's EITC remains and is refundable at 5% of the federal EITC, giving $365.80 on the household's $7,316 federal credit."
+us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated the Louisiana EITC as nonrefundable and answered $0. The LA EITC is refundable, so the household receives 5% × $7,316 = $365.80 even without state tax liability."
+us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used the correct $7,316 federal EITC but applied a 50% Louisiana match instead of 5%. The result was $3,658 instead of $365.80."
+us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied a 3.5% Louisiana match instead of the 5% rate. It also used $7,430 as the federal EITC instead of the 2026 two-child maximum of $7,316, giving $260.05 instead of $365.80."
+us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the correct 5% LA rate but used $7,354 as the federal EITC instead of the 2026 two-child plateau amount of $7,316. That overstated the credit as $367.70 instead of $365.80."
+us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model concluded that no Louisiana refundable credit applies and missed the refundable LA EITC. That credit is 5% of the $7,316 federal EITC this MFJ two-child household receives, or $365.80."
+us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Louisiana eliminated its state EITC. Louisiana still has a refundable EITC at 5% of the federal credit, which yields $365.80 here."
+us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no Louisiana refundable credits apply and missed the refundable LA EITC. At 5% of the household's $7,316 federal EITC, that credit is $365.80."
+us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the correct 5% rate but put the federal EITC at $7,250 instead of the 2026 two-child maximum of $7,316. That understated the credit as $362.50 instead of $365.80."
+us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model gave $0 and missed Louisiana's refundable EITC. That credit is 5% × $7,316 = $365.80 for this household."
+us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model identified the refundable LA EITC, but $353.43 implies a federal EITC of about $7,069 at the 5% rate. The household's federal EITC is the 2026 two-child plateau amount of $7,316, which yields $365.80."
+us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model identified the LA EITC, but $350 implies a federal EITC of about $7,000 at 5%. The 2026 two-child maximum is $7,316, so the credit is $365.80."
+us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated the Louisiana EITC as nonrefundable and limited by zero state liability. The LA EITC is refundable and pays 5% × $7,316 = $365.80 regardless of liability."
+us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said the LA EITC is nonrefundable and set state refundable credits to $0. The LA EITC is refundable at 5% of the federal EITC, giving $365.80 even with no Louisiana tax liability."
+us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model found no Louisiana refundable credits and missed the refundable LA EITC. That credit is triggered by the household's $7,316 federal EITC and equals 5% of it, or $365.80."
+us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model assumed no Louisiana refundable credits at this income. This low-income MFJ two-child household is on the federal EITC plateau, at $7,316, and Louisiana refunds 5% of it, or $365.80."
+us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model looked for listed credit inputs and found none. The Louisiana EITC needs no separate input because it is derived automatically as 5% of the $7,316 federal EITC, giving $365.80."
+us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied 5% to a federal EITC of $8,231, which is the 2026 maximum for three or more children. This household has two qualifying children, so the federal maximum is $7,316 and the LA credit is $365.80, not $411.55."
+us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used the correct $7,316 federal EITC but applied a 3.5% Louisiana match instead of 5%. The result was $256.06 instead of $365.80."
+us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the correct 5% rate to an estimated federal EITC of $7,427. The 2026 two-child plateau amount is $7,316, so the credit is $365.80, not $371.35."
+us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no LA refundable credits are triggered and missed the refundable Louisiana EITC. That credit is 5% of the household's $7,316 federal EITC, or $365.80."
+us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Louisiana has no state EITC. Louisiana has a refundable EITC at 5% of the federal credit, which yields $365.80 for this household."
+us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Louisiana has no refundable EITC. The LA EITC is refundable at 5% of the federal EITC, so 5% × $7,316 = $365.80."
+us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the correct 5% rate but used a $7,332 federal EITC instead of the 2026 two-child maximum of $7,316. It also rounded to whole dollars, producing $367 instead of $365.80."
+us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said there was no EITC match and gave $0. Louisiana refunds 5% of the federal EITC, and this household's $7,316 federal credit produces $365.80."
+us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the correct 5% rate to a federal EITC of about $7,422. The 2026 two-child maximum is $7,316, so the credit is $365.80, not $371."
+us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no value or explanation for state_refundable_credits, so it never produced the $365.80 Louisiana refundable EITC (5% of the $7,316 federal EITC)."
+us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the correct 5% rate to a federal EITC of $6,500. The household's earned income of about $21,900 is on the MFJ plateau, where the 2026 two-child credit is $7,316, so the LA credit is $365.80."
+us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used $7,152, the 2025 two-child maximum federal EITC, instead of the inflation-indexed 2026 maximum of $7,316. Applying 5% to the 2026 figure gives $365.80, not $357.60."
+us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied 5% to a federal EITC of about $7,148, roughly the 2025 maximum, instead of the 2026 two-child plateau amount of $7,316. That understated the credit as $357.40 instead of $365.80."
+us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model concluded that zero Louisiana taxable income rules out refundable credits. The LA EITC is refundable and depends only on the federal EITC, paying 5% × $7,316 = $365.80 even with no state tax liability."
+us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly placed the household on the federal EITC plateau but assumed a 2026 two-child maximum of $7,430. The actual maximum is $7,316, which gives $365.80 instead of $371.50."
+us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Louisiana provides no applicable refundable credits and missed the refundable LA EITC. That credit is 5% of the household's $7,316 federal EITC, or $365.80."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It first got the correct single-filer figure of $8,596, then switched to qualifying surviving spouse treatment even though no dependent child exists, which QSS requires. It then used the $32k/$44k joint Social Security thresholds (cutting taxable SS to $25,187), the $32,200 joint standard deduction and joint brackets, and submitted $4,488."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It treated 'surviving spouse' as qualifying surviving spouse filing status, but with no dependent child the head files Single. That status error substituted the $32,200 joint standard deduction and the $24,800 joint 10% bracket for the $16,100 single deduction and single brackets, so tax came out at $5,145.11 instead of $8,596.03."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It invented an extra standard deduction for disability, which only exists for age 65+ or blindness, and miscomputed AGI as $84,395. It then wiped out all tax with an elderly/disabled credit, but that credit is fully phased out at about $79k of AGI. The correct single computation leaves $63,109 of taxable income and $8,596 of tax."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the standard deduction plus 65+/disabled add-ons eliminate all tax, but the head is 61 and gets no add-on. The $16,100 single deduction against $79,209 of AGI leaves $63,109 of taxable income and $8,596 of tax, not $0."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It chose Single correctly but made a $4,000 addition error: it summed total income to $75,209 instead of $79,209. It then used a 2025-level $15,750 standard deduction and estimated brackets ($12,150/$49,350) instead of the 2026 values of $16,100 and $12,400/$50,400, which gave $7,903."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It applied qualifying widow(er) status without a dependent child, so it used the $32k/$44k joint Social Security thresholds (taxable SS $25,187 instead of $30,689), a roughly $30,000 joint standard deduction and joint brackets. That understated tax at $4,749 instead of $8,596."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got AGI of about $79,209 but used a guessed standard deduction of about $16,700 instead of $16,100. Its $6,210 tax on about $62,500 does not follow from the single 10/12/22% brackets, which give over $8,400 on that amount. Applied correctly, the brackets yield $8,596.03 on $63,109.22."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It filed the head as a surviving spouse with joint brackets and the $32,200 joint standard deduction, but QSS status requires a dependent child, so the head files Single. Using the $16,100 deduction and single brackets gives $8,596.03, not $5,145.11."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It assumed QSS status applies for two years after a spouse's death without the required dependent child. So it used the $32k/$44k Social Security thresholds (taxable SS $25,187), a $30,000 joint standard deduction and the 2025 joint 10% bracket of $23,850, yielding $4,768 instead of the single-filer $8,596."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It treated the head as a qualifying surviving spouse using MFJ brackets and a guessed $31,500 standard deduction, even though no dependent child exists. It then fudged its own $5,248 result to $5,187. Single status with the $16,100 deduction gives $8,596.03."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It used the $32,200 joint-rate standard deduction and joint brackets for surviving-spouse status, but without a dependent child the head files Single with a $16,100 deduction. That cut taxable income from $63,109 to $47,009, giving $5,145 instead of $8,596."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It chose Single correctly but used the 2025 pre-OBBBA $15,000 standard deduction and 2025 bracket thresholds ($11,925/$48,475). The 2026 values are a $16,100 deduction and $12,400/$50,400 thresholds, so it overstated tax at $9,040."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed TCJA had expired and used an $8,800 standard deduction with pre-TCJA 15% rates. OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent, so the 2026 values are a $16,100 single deduction and 10/12/22% brackets, yielding $8,596.03 rather than $9,915."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its AGI of $79,209 is correct, but it used a $15,400 standard deduction and bracket thresholds of $12,250/$49,800 instead of the 2026 values of $16,100 and $12,400/$50,400. That gave $8,813.04."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its taxable income of $63,109.25 is correct, but it put the 10% bracket top at $12,200 and the 12% bracket top at $49,600 instead of $12,400 and $50,400. That pushed $800 more income into the 22% bracket and produced $8,680.04."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed TCJA had expired, using a $13,750 combined standard deduction and personal exemption with 15% and 25% brackets. OBBBA kept the 10/12/22% structure and set a $16,100 single standard deduction with no exemption, which gives $8,596.03 instead of $11,069.81."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no usable derivation, and its $5,354 is about $3,240 below the correct figure. That amount matches using a joint/QSS-size standard deduction or joint brackets rather than the Single computation ($79,209 AGI minus $16,100 gives $63,109 taxable and $8,596 of tax)."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its AGI of $79,209 is correct, but $11,415 matches pre-TCJA sunset parameters: a small standard deduction plus personal exemption and 15%/25% brackets. Under OBBBA the 2026 single standard deduction is $16,100 with 10/12/22% brackets, giving $8,596.03."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied 'post-TCJA' parameters: about $13,400 of standard deduction plus personal exemption and pre-TCJA rates. OBBBA made the TCJA rates and the $16,100 single deduction permanent for 2026, so taxable income is $63,109 and tax is $8,596, not $11,365."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation, and its $6,233 under single 2026 brackets implies taxable income of about $52,400, roughly $10,700 below the correct $63,109. That means it deducted too much or under-included the 85% taxable Social Security of $30,689."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its AGI is correct, but it used a $15,700 standard deduction instead of $16,100. Its $7,117 tax on $63,509 does not follow from the 2026 single brackets (10% to $12,400, 12% to $50,400, 22% above), which give about $8,684 on that amount and $8,596.03 on the correct $63,109."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its AGI of $79,209 is correct, but $9,414 overstates tax by $818. Under 2026 single brackets that amount implies a deduction of only about $12,400, or stale bracket thresholds, instead of the $16,100 single deduction that leaves $63,109 taxable."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave no figures. Its $7,578 is about $1,018 below the single-filer result, which means it under-applied the 22% bracket above $50,400 or used too large a deduction. The correct path is $63,109.22 taxable income at 2026 single brackets, for $8,596.03."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its AGI of $79,209.25 is correct, but it applied a '2026 standard deduction and personal exemption' under TCJA-sunset rates. OBBBA eliminated the personal exemption and kept the $16,100 single deduction with 10/12/22% brackets, so tax is $8,596.03, not $11,852.81."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It chose Single and got AGI right, but it inflation-projected 2025 values: a $15,432 deduction and $12,259/$49,838 thresholds. It should have used the OBBBA 2026 values of $16,100 and $12,400/$50,400, and its estimates gave $8,802."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left the $25,950 of estate income and the SE loss out of gross income and applied wrong bracket thresholds. It then subtracted an invented $1,920 'tax on previously-taxed Social Security' credit. Including the estate income gives $79,209 of AGI, $63,109 of taxable income and $8,596 of tax."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the standard deduction and 'elderly/surviving-spouse treatment' push taxable income to zero. A 61-year-old single filer gets only the $16,100 deduction against $79,209 of AGI, which leaves $63,109 taxable and $8,596 of tax."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It asserted that low taxable income and credits eliminate tax, but no nonrefundable credit applies. Taxable income is $63,109.22 after the $16,100 deduction from $79,209 of AGI, which produces $8,596.03, not $0."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It used surviving-spouse brackets and the $32,200 standard deduction, but with no dependent child the head files Single. Single status means a $16,100 deduction and single brackets, for $8,596 instead of $5,145."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It applied surviving-spouse/MFJ treatment without a dependent child, so it used the $32k/$44k joint Social Security thresholds (taxable SS $25,187 instead of $30,689), the joint standard deduction and joint brackets. That gave $4,484.80 instead of $8,596.03."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It used qualifying-surviving-spouse joint thresholds, which cut taxable SS to $25,187, plus the $32,200 joint deduction, but QSS status requires a dependent child. Filing Single puts $30,689 of SS in income and leaves $63,109 taxable at single rates, for $8,596."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It took the joint standard deduction for surviving-spouse status despite no dependent child. It also added an age-based additional standard deduction and the OBBBA senior deduction, both of which require age 65+, for a 61-year-old. Single filing with only the $16,100 deduction gives $8,596, not $4,227."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It used surviving-spouse filing status with the $32,200 deduction and joint brackets, but QSS requires a dependent child, so the head files Single. The $16,100 deduction and single brackets yield $8,596.03, not $5,145.11."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It applied surviving-spouse status, which brings the $32,200 joint deduction and joint brackets, to a widowed filer with no dependent child, who must file Single. That understated taxable income by $16,100, giving $5,145.11 instead of $8,596.03."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed medical expenses reduced the tax, but the $16,100 standard deduction exceeds itemized deductions, so medical expenses give no benefit. Its rounded $8,000 also misses the exact 2026 single-bracket calculation on $63,109.22 of taxable income, which gives $8,596.03."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset 2026 parameters: an $8,255 standard deduction, a $5,265 personal exemption and 15%/25% brackets. OBBBA made the $16,100 single deduction and 10/12/22% rates permanent, giving $8,596 instead of $10,882."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA sunset, using an $8,300 deduction plus a $5,300 exemption and 15%/25% rates. Under OBBBA there is no personal exemption, the single standard deduction is $16,100 and the brackets are 10/12/22%, for $8,596 instead of $10,742."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It chose Single and got AGI right, but used post-sunset rules (an $8,500 deduction, a $5,400 exemption, 15%/25% brackets) that OBBBA repealed. With the $16,100 deduction and 10/12/22% brackets, tax is $8,596.03, not $10,631.06."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a projected $15,420 deduction and $12,259/$49,832 thresholds instead of the OBBBA 2026 values of $16,100 and $12,400/$50,400. That overstated taxable income by $680, put too much income in the 22% bracket, and gave $8,805."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $16,100 deduction and $63,109 taxable income are correct, but it used 2025-style bracket thresholds (10% to about $12,250, 12% to about $49,825) instead of $12,400 and $50,400. That produced $8,656 instead of $8,596.03."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It submitted no value or explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there is no answer to compare with the $8,596.03 single-filer result."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted Social Security twice, putting the full $36,105 in gross income and then adding the $30,689 taxable portion again. It also invented extra standard deductions for being 61 and disabled. Correct AGI is $79,209 with only the $16,100 deduction, for $8,596 instead of $14,000."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its single status, AGI and 10/12/22% structure are correct, but $8,798 is $202 too high. That comes from using a smaller standard deduction or older bracket thresholds instead of the 2026 values of $16,100 and $12,400/$50,400."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It applied QSS/MFJ treatment without a dependent child, so it used the $32k/$44k Social Security thresholds (taxable SS about $25,197, which also contains a $10 arithmetic error), the $32,200 joint deduction and the 2025 joint bracket of $23,850. That gave $4,505 instead of the single-filer $8,596."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its taxable income of $90,564 is internally inconsistent: it exceeds AGI despite subtracting a $31,900 deduction. It counted only half the SE loss and subtracted a $1,716 credit for other dependents even though there are no dependents. Single filing gives $63,109 taxable and $8,596.03 of tax with no credits."
us,scenario_039,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_039,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Virginia's expansion adult group covers 19-64-year-olds only up to 138% FPL, yet the model declared that countable MAGI ""falls within eligible range for a household size of 1"" without ever summing the listed income: $36,105 of Social Security counts in full under MAGI rules, on top of $26,800 in IRA distributions, $2,030 in pension, and $25,950 in estate income, against which the $6,260 self-employment loss is trivial, putting the head at 368% FPL. Its correct observation that the expansion group applies no asset test is irrelevant once income blows through the 138% FPL ceiling, and the SSI-related aged/blind/disabled group it gestured at requires income near the SSI standard with SSI receipt at $0 here."
us,scenario_039,head_medicaid_eligible,glm-5.3,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model named the correct rule — Virginia expanded to 138% FPL — then asserted the head's MAGI was below that threshold without computing it. Medicaid MAGI here is 368% FPL: full Social Security of $36,105, $26,800 in IRA distributions, $2,030 in pension, and $25,950 in estate income, less the $6,260 self-employment loss. With income at 2.7x the expansion limit and no SSI receipt to open the aged/blind/disabled route, the head qualifies through no Virginia category."
us,scenario_039,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated the ""is disabled"" flag as a standalone categorical qualifier and explicitly declined to weigh the income facts, stating no disqualifying income was provided when the prompt lists $36,105 Social Security, $26,800 IRA distributions, $2,030 pension, and $25,950 estate income. Every disability-linked Virginia pathway is income-tested — SSI-linked eligibility requires SSI receipt, which is $0, and the ABD and expansion groups cap income at or below 138% FPL against this head's 368% FPL — so disability determines which income test applies, not whether eligibility is automatic."
-us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,claude-fable-5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model treated 'disabled plus receiving Social Security' as qualifying for Medicare. The head's $36,105 is Social Security retirement income, not SSDI, and the head has zero months of SSDI receipt against the 24 required. At age 61 with no ESRD, the head is not eligible."
-us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model said disability plus Social Security receipt meets PolicyEngine's disability pathway. That pathway requires 24 months of Social Security Disability Insurance, and the head only has retirement benefits with zero SSDI months. A 61-year-old without ESRD is not eligible."
-us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model claimed disabled people are Medicare-eligible regardless of age and took Social Security retirement income as proof of benefit eligibility. Under-65 eligibility requires 24 months of SSDI receipt specifically, and this head has none. The retirement benefit gives no Medicare entitlement before 65."
-us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model correctly stated that the disability pathway requires 24 months of SSDI, then ignored that requirement and answered yes based on the disabled flag. The head has zero SSDI months (unlisted inputs are 0), so the requirement is not met and the head is ineligible at 61."
-us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model noted the 24-month SSDI requirement but never checked it against the household facts. The head receives no SSDI (their Social Security is retirement income), so the months-of-SSDI test fails and a 61-year-old without ESRD is not Medicare-eligible."
-us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model concluded 'given disabled status, eligible' without applying the qualifying condition for under-65 disability Medicare: at least 24 months of SSDI receipt. The head has zero SSDI months and no ESRD, so at 61 they are not eligible."
-us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,claude-opus-5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model assumed PolicyEngine treats the disabled flag as granting Medicare before 65. PolicyEngine's rule actually requires age ≥ 65, at least 24 months of SSDI, or ESRD. The head meets none of these, since their Social Security is retirement income rather than SSDI."
-us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model stated the 24-month SSDI requirement, then granted eligibility based on the disabled label alone and also cited surviving-spouse status. Neither creates Medicare entitlement at 61. The head has zero SSDI months, only retirement-type Social Security, and no ESRD."
-us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model asserted that PolicyEngine treats disabled people as Medicare-eligible. PolicyEngine's under-65 path requires at least 24 months of SSDI receipt (or ESRD). The head has no SSDI months, so at 61 they are not eligible."
-us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model treated being 61 and disabled as meeting Medicare requirements. The under-65 disability pathway requires 24 months of SSDI receipt, which the head lacks because their Social Security is retirement income. With no ESRD, the head is ineligible."
-us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,glm-5.2,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model treated 'qualifying disability' as met by the disabled flag. Qualification under 65 means at least 24 months of SSDI entitlement, and the head has zero SSDI months with only retirement Social Security. A 61-year-old without ESRD is not eligible."
-us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model assumed Medicare coverage starts as soon as a person is disabled. The rule requires 24 months of SSDI receipt before Medicare begins, and the head has no SSDI months. With no ESRD at age 61, the head is not eligible."
-us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model applied a disability rule for under-65 Medicare without its actual condition: at least 24 months of SSDI receipt. The head's Social Security is retirement income with zero SSDI months, so the head is ineligible at 61."
-us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model said the stated disability qualifies under the modeled Medicare rules. The modeled rules test months receiving SSDI (at least 24), not the disabled flag. The head has zero SSDI months and no ESRD, so at 61 they are not eligible."
-us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model treated disability by itself as granting Medicare before 65. Before 65, eligibility requires at least 24 months of SSDI receipt or ESRD, and the head has neither. Their $36,105 is Social Security retirement income."
-us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model cited PolicyEngine's disability-based Medicare rule but misread its trigger. That rule keys on at least 24 months of SSDI receipt, not the disabled flag. The head has no SSDI months and no ESRD, so at 61 they are not eligible."
-us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,grok-4.3,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model equated 'disabled' with Medicare-eligible. Under-65 eligibility requires 24 months of SSDI entitlement, and this head receives only Social Security retirement income with zero SSDI months, so they are ineligible at 61."
-us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,grok-4.7,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model assumed PolicyEngine treats disability as qualifying for Medicare. PolicyEngine requires age ≥ 65, at least 24 months of SSDI, or ESRD. The head is 61 with zero SSDI months and no ESRD, so they are not eligible."
-us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,kimi-k3,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model stated the rule as 'age 65+ or disabled,' which drops the actual condition for the disability path: at least 24 months of SSDI receipt. The head has no SSDI months, so the disabled flag does not make them eligible at 61."
-us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,minimax-m3,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model acknowledged that Medicare starts only after 24 months of SSDI, then answered yes anyway based on the disabled flag. The head has zero SSDI months and receives retirement Social Security, so the 24-month test fails and the head is ineligible."
+us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,claude-fable-5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model treated being disabled plus receiving Social Security as enough for Medicare. But the head's benefit is Social Security retirement income, not SSDI, and Medicare before 65 requires 24 months of SSDI receipt. That count is unlisted and therefore 0, so a 61-year-old head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model applied a disability route based on the disabled flag plus Social Security receipt. PolicyEngine's disability route requires at least 24 months of SSDI receipt, and the head has only retirement benefits and 0 SSDI months. With age 61, under the 65 threshold, the correct answer is not eligible."
+us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model claimed disabled people get Medicare 'regardless of age' and counted the $36,105 Social Security retirement income as proof of benefit eligibility. Under-65 Medicare requires SSDI disability benefits for 24 months, not retirement benefits plus a disabled flag. The head has 0 SSDI months and is 61, so they are not eligible."
+us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model correctly named the 24-month SSDI requirement, then ignored it and answered yes from the disabled flag alone. No SSDI receipt is listed, so the months default to 0 and the disability route fails for this 61-year-old head."
+us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model acknowledged that under-65 Medicare 'typically' requires 24 months of SSDI but still answered eligible from the disabled flag. The head receives no SSDI (only retirement income), so months of SSDI receipt are 0, and at 61 they are below the age-65 threshold."
+us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model equated 'disabled' with 'qualifying disabled individual'. PolicyEngine's disability route requires 24 or more months of SSDI receipt, which the head lacks (0 months; only retirement benefits). A 61-year-old head with no SSDI history is not Medicare eligible."
+us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,claude-opus-5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model asserted that PolicyEngine treats the disabled flag as conferring Medicare eligibility under 65. PolicyEngine actually checks age 65 or older, or at least 24 months of SSDI receipt. The head is 61 with 0 SSDI months, so neither test is met."
+us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model named the 24-month SSDI condition and floated surviving-spouse status as a route, then assumed the disabled flag meant the SSDI condition was met. Surviving-spouse status does not confer Medicare. No SSDI receipt is listed (0 months; the benefit is retirement income), so the 61-year-old head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model assumed PolicyEngine counts any disabled person as Medicare eligible. Its rule actually requires age 65 or older or at least 24 months of SSDI receipt. The head is 61 and has 0 SSDI months, so they are not eligible."
+us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model said age 61 plus disabled status meets Medicare requirements without checking the SSDI-duration condition. Under-65 eligibility requires at least 24 months of SSDI receipt, and the head has none (only retirement benefits), so they are not eligible."
+us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model treated the disabled flag as enough for Medicare under PolicyEngine rules. PolicyEngine's disability route depends on months of SSDI receipt (at least 24), which is 0 here, and the head is 61, below the age-65 route, so they are not eligible."
+us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,glm-5.2,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model counted the generic disabled flag as a qualifying under-65 disability. Qualifying for Medicare through disability requires 24 months of SSDI entitlement (or a listed condition such as ESRD), none of which the head has. A 61-year-old with 0 SSDI months is ineligible."
+us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model assumed coverage starts as soon as someone is disabled. Medicare's disability route requires at least 24 months of SSDI receipt, and the head has 0 SSDI months (their Social Security is retirement income). At age 61 the head is not Medicare eligible."
+us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model applied a disability rule keyed only to the disabled flag. PolicyEngine's under-65 test is at least 24 months of SSDI receipt, which is 0 for this head, so the 61-year-old is not eligible."
+us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model claimed the stated disability triggers Medicare under the modeled rules. The modeled rule requires age 65 or older or at least 24 months of SSDI receipt, and the head is 61 with no SSDI receipt, so they are not eligible."
+us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model treated the disabled flag as granting Medicare before 65. Early eligibility requires a 24-month SSDI receipt history, and that unlisted input is 0 here (the head draws retirement, not disability, benefits), so the head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model invoked PolicyEngine's disability-based Medicare rule but misread its trigger. The rule checks months of SSDI receipt against a 24-month minimum, not the `is_disabled` flag. The head has 0 SSDI months and is 61, so they are not eligible."
+us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,grok-4.3,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model jumped from 'disabled' straight to 'Medicare eligible' and skipped the 24-month SSDI receipt requirement. The head receives no SSDI and is 61, below the age-65 threshold, so they are not eligible."
+us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,grok-4.7,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model asserted that PolicyEngine treats disability as qualifying for Medicare. Its formula actually requires at least 24 months of SSDI receipt for under-65 eligibility, and that is 0 for this head, so the 61-year-old is not eligible."
+us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,kimi-k3,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model stated the rule as 'age 65+ or disabled'. PolicyEngine's actual test is age 65+ or at least 24 months of SSDI receipt (or ESRD/ALS). The head is 61 with 0 SSDI months and no listed ESRD/ALS, so they are not eligible."
+us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,minimax-m3,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model recognized that eligibility comes only after 24 months of SSDI, then assumed it was satisfied from the disabled flag. SSDI receipt is not listed and defaults to 0 months (the head's benefit is retirement income), so at 61 the head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model counted the head's Social Security retirement benefits as the disability route. Medicare before 65 requires 24 months of SSDI disability benefits specifically, not retirement benefits. The head has 0 SSDI months and is 61, so they are not eligible."
us,scenario_039,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model invented wage earnings and applied the 7.65% employee Social Security and Medicare rate to an unstated payroll-tax base. The household has no listed wage or salary income, while its listed estate, retirement, IRA, pension, and negative self-employment income are not subject to employee payroll tax, yielding $0."
us,scenario_039,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model supplied no payroll_tax output or explanation, violating the required structured-output contract."
us,scenario_039,self_employment_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly arrived at VA AGI of $48,520 and the $8,750 deduction but left out the $930 personal exemption, so it taxed $39,770 and got $2,029. It then reported $2,192, a figure its own arithmetic does not support. The correct taxable income is $38,839.97, which gives $1,975.80."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It gave the head the $17,500 married/joint standard deduction because she is a 'surviving spouse'. With no dependent she files as single in Virginia and gets the $8,750 deduction, so taxable income is $38,839.97, not $30,090."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It invented a Virginia retirement-income credit and a disability-income exclusion that wiped out the tax. Virginia's age deduction requires age 65, and the disability subtraction applies only to disability income, not to IRA, pension or estate income. Neither applies to this 61-year-old, whose taxable income is $38,839.97 after the Social Security subtraction, the $8,750 standard deduction and the $930 exemption."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It assumed an age 65+/disability deduction that eliminates the tax. The head is 61, which rules out the age deduction, and has no disability income, which rules out the disability subtraction. The $48,520 of non-Social Security income is still taxable after the $8,750 standard deduction and the $930 exemption."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It treated the surviving spouse as a joint filer and used a $17,000 standard deduction, but Virginia taxes her as single with an $8,750 deduction. It also got the brackets wrong, putting the tax at $670 on the first $17,000 when the correct figure is $720."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an outdated $8,500 standard deduction and added an $800 exemption for disability, which Virginia allows only for age 65+ or blindness. That gave $1,944, and it then cut the figure to $1,545 for 'medical/other adjustments' that do not exist because the standard deduction is larger than itemized deductions."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the outdated $8,500 single standard deduction instead of the 2026 amount of $8,750 and applied the $930 exemption only loosely, ending at about $1,990. The correct taxable income is $38,839.97, which gives $1,975.80."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It took a $20,000 'disability retirement subtraction' from the IRA and pension income, but Virginia's disability subtraction covers only disability income. It also put the full $36,105 of Social Security into AGI instead of the $30,689 federally taxable amount. On top of that, it used the $17,000 joint deduction and $2,400 of extra exemptions, when the correct amounts are the $8,750 single deduction and one $930 exemption."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly found VA AGI of $48,520 but left out the $930 exemption and used $8,500 instead of $8,750, which gave $2,044. It then raised the figure to $3,400 for an unexplained 'adjustment' that has no basis in Virginia law."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It gave the surviving spouse the $17,500 joint standard deduction, but Virginia taxes her as single with $8,750. That understated taxable income by $8,750 and the tax by about $503."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the full $36,105 of Social Security instead of the $30,689 included in federal AGI and invented a $12,000 retirement subtraction for disability. It also used an obsolete $4,000 standard deduction and a $970 exemption, when the correct amounts are $8,750 and $930."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It never applied Virginia's subtraction of the $30,689.25 of federally taxable Social Security and taxed $69,529 instead of $38,839.97. Its $8,750 deduction and $930 exemption were correct."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the outdated $8,500 single standard deduction instead of the 2026 amount of $8,750. That overstated taxable income by $250 and the tax by $14.38, giving $1,990.18 instead of $1,975.80."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the outdated $8,500 single standard deduction instead of the 2026 amount of $8,750. That gave taxable income of $39,090 instead of $38,839.97 and tax of $1,990.18 instead of $1,975.80."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an $8,500 standard deduction instead of the 2026 single amount of $8,750. The extra $250 of taxable income at 5.75% accounts exactly for its $14.38 overstatement."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no computation. Its $2,420 implies Virginia taxable income of about $46,600 instead of $38,839.97, which means it left out most of the $8,750 standard deduction and the $930 exemption that apply to VA AGI of $48,519.97."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $1,990 matches using the outdated $8,500 single standard deduction instead of the 2026 amount of $8,750. With the $930 exemption, the correct taxable income is $38,839.97, which gives $1,975.80."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $9,000 standard deduction and an $800 personal exemption, but the 2026 single amounts are $8,750 and $930. Its taxable income of $38,720 is understated by about $120."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no computation. Its $3,371 implies Virginia taxable income of about $63,100, which means it did not fully subtract the $30,689.25 of taxable Social Security from federal AGI before applying the $8,750 deduction and the $930 exemption."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an $8,000 standard deduction instead of the 2026 single amount of $8,750, which gave taxable income of $39,590. It also miscalculated the tax on that base, which is $2,018.93, not the $2,028.93 it reported."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $1,990 matches using the outdated $8,500 single standard deduction instead of $8,750. That overstated taxable income by $250 compared with the correct $38,839.97."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an $8,000 standard deduction instead of the 2026 single amount of $8,750, which put taxable income at $39,590 instead of $38,839.97 and overstated the tax by about $43."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got the federal taxable Social Security and VA AGI right but used the outdated $8,500 standard deduction instead of the 2026 amount of $8,750. That overstated the tax by $14.38."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It left out the $25,950 of estate income, set the self-employment loss to zero, and applied a flat 2% rate instead of Virginia's 2%–5.75% graduated brackets. It then added $2,000 of 'prior-year estimated payments' that are not in the facts and have nothing to do with liability."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It assumed an age-based Virginia benefit made the tax base non-positive, but the age deduction requires age 65 and the head is 61. VA AGI of $48,519.97, less the $8,750 deduction and the $930 exemption, leaves $38,839.97 taxable."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the household as low-income with no tax, ignoring $48,520 of non-Social Security income that Virginia taxes. After the $8,750 deduction and the $930 exemption, that income produces $1,975.80."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an $8,500 single standard deduction instead of the 2026 amount of $8,750, which gave taxable income of $39,090 instead of $38,839.97 and tax of about $1,990 instead of $1,975.80."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It applied a surviving-spouse/joint standard deduction, which its $1,760.18 implies was about $12,500, instead of the $8,750 single deduction. Virginia has no surviving-spouse filing status, and she has no dependent, so she files as single."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It used the $17,500 joint standard deduction for the surviving spouse, but Virginia taxes her as single with $8,750. That cut taxable income to $30,090 instead of $38,839.97."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It applied a 'surviving-spouse' standard deduction larger than the single amount (its $1,789 implies about $12,000) instead of the $8,750 single deduction that applies to a widow with no dependent filing in Virginia."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It gave the surviving spouse the $17,500 joint standard deduction. Virginia taxes her as single with an $8,750 deduction, so taxable income is $38,839.97, not $30,090."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its taxable income of $69,529 shows it left out Virginia's subtraction of the $30,689.25 of federally taxable Social Security. Its deduction and exemption were correct, but it applied them to the full federal AGI."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It used the $17,500 joint deduction for the surviving spouse instead of the $8,750 single deduction. It also miscalculated the tax on its own $30,090 base, which is $1,472.68, not $1,442.68."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the standard deduction and exemptions cancel out all taxable income. Those total only $9,680, against $48,519.97 of VA AGI, which leaves $38,839.97 taxable."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an $8,000 single standard deduction instead of the 2026 amount of $8,750, which put taxable income at $39,590 instead of $38,839.97."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly found VA AGI of $48,520 but used the outdated $8,500 standard deduction instead of the 2026 amount of $8,750, overstating the tax by about $14."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the outdated $8,500 single standard deduction instead of $8,750, which gave taxable income of $39,090 instead of $38,839.97 and tax of $1,990.18 instead of $1,975.80."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an $8,000 standard deduction instead of the 2026 single amount of $8,750, overstating taxable income by $750 and the tax by about $43."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied an $8,000 standard deduction instead of the 2026 single amount of $8,750, which put taxable income at $39,590 instead of $38,839.97."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It submitted no value or explanation for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was nothing to score."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It put the full $36,105 of Social Security in AGI without subtracting it and invented age-65, disability and surviving-spouse deductions that do not apply to a 61-year-old. It then gave an arbitrary $1,500 that matches neither its own ~$4,100 estimate nor the correct computation."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the outdated $8,500 single standard deduction instead of the 2026 amount of $8,750, which gave taxable income of $39,090 instead of $38,839.97."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It wrongly claimed Virginia's Social Security subtraction requires AGI of $50,000 or less. Virginia subtracts all federally taxable Social Security regardless of income, so it overstated taxable income by $30,689. It also used $8,500 instead of the $8,750 standard deduction."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It put the full $36,105 of Social Security in federal AGI instead of the $30,689.25 taxable portion and used $930 as the standard deduction, leaving out the $8,750 deduction entirely. It calculated $1,878.93 and then reported an unrelated $3,260.45."
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It invented an 'age-61 exemption' of $11,898 and treated the $2,030 of pension income as a nonrefundable credit against tax, and neither exists in Virginia law. The correct path subtracts taxable Social Security, the $8,750 deduction and the $930 exemption, leaving $1,975.80 of tax."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the correct $8,750 standard deduction but left out the $930 personal exemption, giving $39,770 of taxable income instead of $38,839.97. It then reported $2,192, which does not match its own ~$2,029 bracket result."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It applied the $17,500 joint standard deduction because the head is a surviving spouse. A surviving spouse with no dependent child files single and gets the $8,750 deduction, so taxable income is $38,839.97, not $30,090."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It invented a Virginia retirement-income credit and disability exclusion that wipe out the tax. Virginia's age deduction requires age 65 or older, and the disability subtraction covers only disability income, which this 61-year-old does not have. Virginia taxable income therefore stays at $38,839.97."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It applied Virginia's age 65+/disability deduction to a 61-year-old with no disability income. Only the taxable Social Security subtraction, the $8,750 standard deduction and the $930 exemption apply, which leaves $38,839.97 taxable."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It treated the surviving spouse as a joint filer and used a ~$17,000 standard deduction instead of the $8,750 single amount. It also made errors in the bracket arithmetic."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It used the outdated $8,500 standard deduction and added an $800 extra exemption for disability, even though Virginia's additional exemption is only for age 65+ or blindness. It then cut its own $1,944 result to $1,545 for unspecified 'medical/other adjustments' that Virginia does not allow on top of the standard deduction."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an $8,500 standard deduction instead of the 2026 single amount of $8,750 and added a made-up '$30 personal exemption credit' adjustment. That overstates taxable income by $250, giving ~$1,990 instead of $1,975.80."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It applied a made-up $20,000 disability subtraction to pension and IRA income. Virginia's disability subtraction covers only disability income, which the head does not have. It also used the $17,000 joint standard deduction and three $800 exemptions instead of the $8,750 single deduction and one $930 exemption."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an $8,500 standard deduction with no $930 personal exemption, giving $2,044. It then raised that to $3,400 for no stated reason, when the $8,750 deduction plus the $930 exemption give $38,839.97 taxable and $1,975.80 of tax."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It assumed the $17,500 joint standard deduction for a surviving spouse. With no dependent child the head files single and gets $8,750, so taxable income is $38,839.97, not $30,090."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It subtracted the full $36,105 of Social Security from federal AGI instead of only the $30,689.25 included in AGI. It also applied a $12,000 retirement subtraction for disability that a 61-year-old does not get, and used a $4,000 deduction and ~$970 exemption instead of $8,750 and $930."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It never subtracted the $30,689.25 of federally taxable Social Security, which Virginia fully excludes. As a result it taxed $69,529 instead of $38,839.97."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2024–2025 Virginia single standard deduction of $8,500 instead of the 2026 amount of $8,750. That puts taxable income at $39,090 instead of $38,839.97 and the tax $14.38 too high."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied an $8,500 standard deduction instead of the 2026 single amount of $8,750. The resulting $39,090 of taxable income produces $1,990.18 instead of $1,975.80."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the outdated $8,500 Virginia standard deduction instead of the 2026 single amount of $8,750. That overstates taxable income by $250 and the tax by $14.38."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no computation. Its $2,420 implies Virginia taxable income of about $46,600, so it left out most of the $8,750 standard deduction and $930 exemption from the $48,519.97 Virginia AGI."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $1,990 matches using the $8,500 standard deduction instead of the 2026 single amount of $8,750, which overstates taxable income by $250."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $9,000 standard deduction and an $800 personal exemption instead of $8,750 and $930, giving $38,720 of taxable income instead of $38,839.97."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no computation. Its $3,371 implies about $63,000 of Virginia taxable income, which is more than the $48,519.97 Virginia AGI, so it did not fully subtract the $30,689.25 of taxable Social Security."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an $8,000 standard deduction instead of the 2026 single amount of $8,750, giving $39,590 of taxable income instead of $38,839.97."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $1,990 matches using the $8,500 standard deduction instead of the 2026 single amount of $8,750, which overstates taxable income by $250."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an $8,000 standard deduction instead of the 2026 single amount of $8,750, which taxes $39,590 instead of $38,839.97."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the pre-2019 $3,000 Virginia standard deduction instead of the 2026 single amount of $8,750, giving $44,590 of taxable income instead of $38,839.97."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its federal AGI and Social Security subtraction are right, but it used the $8,500 standard deduction instead of the 2026 single amount of $8,750, so it gets $1,990.18 instead of $1,975.80."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left the $25,950 of estate income out of income and treated the self-employment loss as zero. It then applied a flat 2% rate instead of Virginia's 2–5.75% brackets and added $2,000 of made-up 'prior-year estimated payments' to the liability."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It claimed age-based treatment brings the Virginia base to zero, but Virginia's age deduction requires age 65 and the head is 61. After the taxable Social Security subtraction, the $8,750 standard deduction and the $930 exemption, $38,839.97 remains taxable."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed a low-income case with no tax. In fact the $25,950 of estate income, $26,800 of IRA distributions and $2,030 of pension income, net of the self-employment loss, leave $48,519.97 of Virginia AGI and $38,839.97 of taxable income."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the $8,500 single standard deduction instead of the 2026 amount of $8,750, which taxes $39,090 instead of $38,839.97."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It applied a surviving-spouse/joint standard deduction to a head with no dependent child, who files single and gets $8,750. Its implied deductions of about $13,430 understate taxable income compared with $38,839.97."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It used the $17,500 joint standard deduction for a surviving spouse with no dependents, who files single with an $8,750 deduction. That gives $30,090 of taxable income instead of $38,839.97."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It applied a surviving-spouse standard deduction above the $8,750 single amount, although with no dependent child the head files single. Its $1,789 implies about $35,600 of taxable income instead of $38,839.97."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It subtracted the $17,500 joint standard deduction because the head is a surviving spouse. With no qualifying dependent the head files single with an $8,750 deduction, so taxable income is $38,839.97."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It never subtracted the $30,689.25 of federally taxable Social Security, which Virginia excludes. As a result it taxed $69,529 instead of $38,839.97."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It used the $17,500 joint standard deduction instead of the $8,750 single amount for a surviving spouse with no dependents. It also miscomputed its own bracket total by $30."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the standard deduction and exemptions cancel all income. After subtracting taxable Social Security, the $8,750 deduction and $930 exemption only bring $48,519.97 of Virginia AGI down to $38,839.97 of taxable income."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an $8,000 standard deduction instead of the 2026 single amount of $8,750, giving $39,590 of taxable income instead of $38,839.97."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly ruled out the age deduction but used the $8,500 standard deduction instead of the 2026 single amount of $8,750, which overstates taxable income by $250."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an $8,500 standard deduction instead of the 2026 single amount of $8,750, so it taxes $39,090 instead of $38,839.97."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an $8,000 standard deduction instead of the 2026 single amount of $8,750, giving $39,590 of taxable income instead of $38,839.97."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied an ~$8,000 standard deduction instead of the 2026 single amount of $8,750, which overstates taxable income by $750."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,It submitted no value or explanation for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits.
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It did not subtract Social Security, invented $6,000 age and disability deductions and a surviving-spouse adjustment that a 61-year-old does not get, and then reported $1,500. That figure is unrelated to its own ~$4,100 computation."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an $8,000 standard deduction instead of the 2026 single amount of $8,750, which taxes $39,590 instead of $38,839.97."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the $8,500 single standard deduction instead of the 2026 amount of $8,750, giving $39,090 of taxable income instead of $38,839.97."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It wrongly claimed Virginia's Social Security subtraction requires AGI of $50,000 or less. Virginia subtracts all federally taxable Social Security at any income level. It also used an $8,500 standard deduction instead of $8,750."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the $930 personal exemption as the whole standard deduction and left out the $8,750 standard deduction, getting $1,878.93. It then reported $3,260.45, which does not match that result."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It invented an 'age-61 exemption' of $11,898 and treated the $2,030 of pension income as a nonrefundable credit against tax. Virginia has neither, and taxable income is $38,839.97, which gives $1,975.80 of tax."
us,scenario_039,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_040,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model computed AGI correctly at $32,300 but assumed the TCJA sunset took effect in 2026, subtracting a $18,850 standard deduction plus two revived personal exemptions of $10,600 for $29,450 of offsets. Personal exemptions remain repealed in 2026 and the MFJ standard deduction is $32,200, plus $3,300 of aged additional standard deduction and the $12,000 OBBBA senior deduction for two 65+ spouses, totaling $47,500 — more than AGI, so taxable income is $0 rather than the $2,850 it taxed at 10%."
us,scenario_040,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model reached the correct $32,300 AGI but then paired a $20,000 MFJ standard deduction with $10,600 of personal exemptions, a combination that exists under no 2026 rule set — personal exemptions are permanently repealed and the 2026 MFJ standard deduction is $32,200. Adding the $3,300 aged additional standard deduction and the $12,000 senior deduction for two spouses aged 65+ wipes out the entire $32,300 of AGI, leaving $0 taxable income instead of the $1,700 it taxed at 10%."
@@ -3764,89 +3894,93 @@ us,scenario_040,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,
us,scenario_040,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model taxed $21,420 of Social Security as part of the Arizona base, missing both that provisional income of $40,600 puts only $4,300 of the $25,200 in federal AGI and that Arizona subtracts 100% of the Social Security benefits included in federal AGI. It also contradicted its own arithmetic, computing $484.25 and then submitting $486.25; with Social Security removed, Arizona AGI is $28,000, below the roughly $32,200 MFJ standard deduction, so taxable income and tax are both zero."
us,scenario_040,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model conflated Arizona’s distinct excise-tax and property-tax credits and treated age plus an asserted $25,000 AGI ceiling as sufficient for a $200 refundable credit. It never applied the specific eligibility requirements for either Arizona credit; this household qualifies for neither, so az_refundable_credits is $0."
us,scenario_040,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model omitted state_refundable_credits entirely instead of submitting the required numeric value and explanation. The required output is $0 because every state and locality refundable-credit component, including Arizona’s, evaluates to zero."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left the $928 of qualified dividends out of gross income, putting non-SS income at $32,807 instead of $33,735. That made taxable Social Security $16,057 instead of $16,846 and taxable income $24,714 instead of $26,431. It also fudged the bracket arithmetic to land on $2,133."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used qualifying-surviving-spouse joint parameters even though the head has no dependent child: a $32,200 standard deduction plus a $1,650 aged addition. The correct figure is the single filer's $16,100 plus $2,050. It also taxed the $3,753 of non-Schedule-D gains as ordinary income. Together these cut taxable income to about $10,717 instead of $26,431."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model counted essentially all $29,580 of Social Security as income instead of the $16,846 taxable portion and used a made-up $28,900 surviving-spouse deduction instead of $24,150. It taxed the $4,681 of preferential income at 15% when that income falls in the 0% bracket. It also subtracted a nonexistent $783 'dependent exemption credit'."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model claimed taxable income was near zero. In fact, AGI of $50,581, including $16,846 of taxable Social Security, exceeds the $24,150 of standard and senior deductions by $26,431. The $21,750 ordinary portion of that produces $2,361.96 of tax."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model treated the $29,580 of Social Security as belonging to a dependent and excluded the $16,846 taxable portion from the head's AGI. It also dropped the $928 of qualified dividends from income and left out the $6,000 senior deduction, which produced a taxable income of $14,657."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model made the full 85% of benefits ($25,143) taxable instead of applying the formula 0.85×(provisional income − $34,000) + $4,500, which gives $16,846. It used a qualifying-surviving-spouse deduction of $32,350 with no qualifying child, left out the $6,000 senior deduction, and then lowered its result to $1,245 without justification."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model assumed 85% of benefits ($25,143) were taxable instead of computing $16,846 with the single $25k/$34k tiered formula. That inflated AGI to about $58,878 instead of $50,581. Its final $2,699 also does not follow from its own taxable income of about $34,700."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used qualifying-surviving-spouse status, with a $32,200 joint standard deduction and joint brackets, even though no dependent child exists. The head files single with an $18,150 aged standard deduction, so the model understated taxable income at $10,717 instead of $26,431."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model correctly chose single status and the tiered Social Security computation, but it deducted only an estimated $17,750 standard deduction. It left out the $6,000 OBBBA senior deduction for filers 65 and older, which leaves about $6,000 too much in the 12% bracket. It also counted the $71 of BDC income as extra income."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model excluded the $16,846 of taxable Social Security on the theory that dependent benefits belong to someone else. It then concluded $0 tax even though its own taxable income of $16,792 had more than $12,000 of ordinary income in the 10%/12% brackets."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model treated the head as a qualifying surviving spouse and applied the $32,200 joint standard deduction plus $1,650. With no dependent child, the head files single, with $16,100 plus $2,050, which puts taxable income at $26,431, not $10,731."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model deducted only a $17,650 standard deduction and left out the $6,000 OBBBA senior deduction. It also added the $71 of BDC income on top of dividends, overstating taxable income at $33,063 instead of $26,431."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used a $17,425 standard deduction and left out the $6,000 senior deduction for taxpayers 65 and older. That left about $6,700 of extra ordinary income in the 12% bracket."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model assumed the TCJA provisions had sunset in 2026. It applied pre-TCJA standard deductions, a $5,500 personal exemption, and the 15% bracket, but OBBBA made the TCJA rate schedule permanent and added the $6,000 senior deduction. Under current law, deductions total $24,150 and ordinary rates are 10%/12%."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied only a $17,350 standard deduction and left out the $6,000 senior deduction, which overstated taxable income at $33,363 instead of $26,431."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied pre-TCJA sunset law, with a $10,300 standard deduction, a $5,200 personal exemption, and the 15% bracket. OBBBA kept the TCJA schedule in force, so the correct deductions are $18,150 plus the $6,000 senior deduction, with 10%/12% rates."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used a head-of-household elderly standard deduction even though there is no qualifying person, and it left out the $6,000 senior deduction. Its $3,156 matches tax on taxable income of about $32,400, not $26,431."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model started from the correct AGI of about $50,581 but subtracted only the elderly single standard deduction and left out the $6,000 OBBBA senior deduction. Its $3,500 is also above the roughly $3,082 that the $18,150 deduction alone would produce."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied pre-TCJA 2026 brackets and personal exemptions, with combined deductions of $15,150 and a 15% bracket. Current law applies the 10%/12% schedule and a $24,150 total deduction including the senior deduction."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model gave no derivation. The correct path is AGI of $50,581 minus $24,150 of standard and senior deductions, leaving $21,750 of ordinary income at 10%/12% for $2,361.96. The $2,878 answer reflects about $4,300 too little in deductions, consistent with only partly applying the $6,000 senior deduction."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model treated the head as a qualifying surviving spouse. It applied the joint $32k/$44k Social Security thresholds, which gave $9,846 taxable instead of $16,846, and a $31,550 joint standard deduction. With no dependent child, the head files single."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model had AGI right at about $50,581 but subtracted only the single 65+ standard deduction and left out the $6,000 senior deduction. Its explanation states $3,584 while it submitted $3,090, and both exceed the correct $2,361.96."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's $3,734 means it taxed roughly $9,000 more ordinary income than the correct $21,750. That is consistent with subtracting only the standard deduction and leaving out the $6,000 senior deduction for filers 65 and older."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model mis-added non-SS income as $34,806, which also double-counted the BDC income, and that inflated taxable Social Security to $17,757. It used a $17,850 standard deduction with no $6,000 senior deduction, which produced a taxable income of $34,713."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model gave a placeholder figure of $1,234.56 with no computation. The correct path gives taxable income of $26,431 after $24,150 of deductions, $21,750 of it ordinary income, for $2,361.96 of tax."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model claimed the standard and age deductions fully offset income. In fact, $16,846 of Social Security is taxable and AGI of $50,581 exceeds the $24,150 of deductions by $26,431, which leaves $2,361.96 of tax."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model assumed deductions and credits erase all tax. No nonrefundable credit applies, and $26,431 of taxable income remains after the $24,150 of standard and senior deductions."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied a $33,200 qualifying-surviving-spouse standard deduction even though there is no dependent child, and it left out the $6,000 senior deduction. The single aged deduction of $18,150 plus $6,000 leaves $21,750 of ordinary income, not $12,700."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model made the full 85% of benefits taxable, giving AGI of $58,949 instead of $50,581, and taxed the qualified dividends and capital gains at 15%. At $26,431 of taxable income, those gains fall entirely in the 0% bracket."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the qualifying-surviving-spouse standard deduction and joint brackets with no qualifying child. That cut ordinary taxable income to about $6,036 instead of the $21,750 that results under single filing status."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied the surviving-spouse joint standard deduction, which left taxable income inside the 10% bracket. A surviving spouse without a dependent child files single, which leaves $21,750 of ordinary income taxed at 10%/12%."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used qualifying-surviving-spouse status, with a $33,850 age-adjusted joint standard deduction, even though no dependent child exists. Single status gives $18,150 plus $6,000 and ordinary taxable income of $21,750, not $6,036."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's taxable income of $34,785 implies AGI of about $58,935, which comes from making the full 85% of benefits ($25,143) taxable instead of $16,846. It also treated only the $928 of qualified dividends as preferential and taxed the $3,753 of capital gains as ordinary income."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model followed the correct structure but added the $71 of qualified BDC income on top of the dividends that already include it, and it rounded the farm loss to $1,127. That raised non-SS income by about $71 and taxable Social Security by about $61. The roughly $132 of extra ordinary income at 12% accounts for the $15.83 overstatement."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used surviving-spouse status with joint Social Security thresholds and the joint standard deduction, so only preferential income was left to tax. Without a dependent child, the head files single, which leaves $21,750 of ordinary income and $2,361.96 of tax."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's $3,125 matches subtracting only the roughly $18,150 aged standard deduction from AGI of about $50,600. It left out the $6,000 OBBBA senior deduction, which removes about $720 of 12%-bracket tax."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied pre-TCJA sunset rules: a $10,507 standard deduction, a $5,387 personal exemption, and 10%/15% brackets. OBBBA made the TCJA schedule permanent and added the $6,000 senior deduction, so the correct deductions total $24,150, taxed at 10%/12%."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used pre-TCJA 2026 parameters: an $8,300 standard deduction, a $2,050 aged addition, a $5,300 personal exemption, and a 15% bracket. Current law gives an $18,150 aged standard deduction, the $6,000 senior deduction, and 10%/12% rates."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied the expired pre-TCJA schedule, with an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,300 exemption, and a 15% bracket, instead of the permanent TCJA/OBBBA schedule. Under that schedule, deductions total $24,150, ordinary income is $21,750, and rates are 10%/12%."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used pre-TCJA deductions and brackets and miscomputed taxable Social Security as $24,205 instead of $16,846. It also taxed the $3,753 of capital gains as ordinary income at 15%, which inflated taxable income to $47,778."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model counted the farm loss twice, at −$2,254 instead of −$1,127.29, and subtracted only the $18,150 standard deduction, leaving out the $6,000 senior deduction. That gave a taxable income of $30,478 instead of $26,431."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,The model returned no value or explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits.
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"In the Social Security formula, the model added 50% of the entire excess of provisional income over $25,000 ($11,762.50) instead of capping that second-tier amount at $4,500. That gave $24,108.75 of taxable benefits instead of $16,846.25 and overstated taxable income by about $7,263."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied joint ($44k) Social Security thresholds and a $32,150 surviving-spouse standard deduction even though the head has no dependent child. It also left out the $6,000 senior deduction. Under single status, the head has $26,431 of taxable income, not $10,063."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted only the 65+ standard deduction and left out the $6,000 OBBBA senior deduction. It also added the $71 of BDC income as extra AGI, which leaves about $6,000 too much ordinary income in the 12% bracket."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used MFJ rates, joint Social Security thresholds, and the $32,200 joint standard deduction for a surviving spouse with no dependent child, who must file single. It also treated the $3,753 of non-Schedule-D gains as short-term ordinary income."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used qualifying-surviving-spouse status with no qualifying child and added the $4,700 of tax-exempt IRA distributions to provisional income. It made $25,698 of benefits taxable, which exceeds the 85% cap of $25,143. It also left out the $6,000 senior deduction."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model gave $21,824 with no derivation, which exceeds 40% of the household's entire AGI. The correct computation taxes $21,750 of ordinary income at 10%/12% and $4,681 of preferential income at 0%, for $2,361.96."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted only the $5,920 of non-qualified dividends and treated the $928 of qualified dividends as already inside that figure. That understated non-SS income ($32,807 instead of $33,735), taxable SS ($16,057 instead of $16,846) and AGI ($48,864 instead of $50,581). Its taxable income of $24,714 is about $1,700 below the correct $26,431, which produced the low $2,133."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It filed as a qualifying surviving spouse and used the $32,200 joint standard deduction plus a $1,650 aged add-on, even though no dependent child is listed, so the head files Single. Single filing gives $16,100 + $2,050 + $6,000 senior = $24,150 in deductions. Using joint figures cut taxable income to about $10,717 instead of $26,431, and it also taxed the $3,753 of capital gains as ordinary income."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It put essentially all Social Security benefits into income instead of the $16,846 taxable portion, used a $28,900 surviving-spouse standard deduction, and left out the $6,000 senior deduction. It then taxed the $4,681 of qualified dividends and gains at 15% when they fall in the 0% band, and subtracted a made-up $783 'dependent exemption credit'."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the deductions bring taxable income to near zero. In fact $16,846 of the Social Security is taxable, AGI is $50,581, and after the $24,150 of deductions taxable income is $26,431. That leaves $21,750 of ordinary income taxed at 10%/12%, for $2,361.96, not $0."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the $29,580 of Social Security dependent benefits as non-taxable to the head, which removed the $16,846 taxable portion. It also dropped the $928 of qualified dividends from AGI and never applied the $6,000 senior deduction. Its taxable income of $14,657 comes from errors that partly offset each other and is well below the correct $26,431."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used qualifying-surviving-spouse status with joint deductions and brackets, but with no dependent child the head files Single. It also set taxable SS at the full 85% cap ($25,143) instead of the formula result, 0.85×($48,525−$34,000)+$4,500 = $16,846, left out the $6,000 senior deduction, and then cut its figure to $1,245 with no computation."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the high other income makes a flat 85% of Social Security ($25,143) taxable. It skipped the lesser-of formula, which caps the taxable amount at 0.85×(provisional income − $34,000) + $4,500 = $16,846. That pushed AGI to $58,878 and taxable income to about $34,700 instead of $26,431."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used surviving-spouse (joint) filing status with the $32,200 standard deduction and $1,650 aged add-on. With no dependent child the head files Single, with a $16,100 base deduction and a $2,050 add-on. Joint parameters cut taxable income to $10,717 instead of $26,431."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used Single status and computed taxable SS close to correct ($16,907), but it never applied the OBBBA $6,000 senior deduction for filers 65 and older. It also used a guessed $17,750 standard deduction instead of $16,100 + $2,050 = $18,150. Its ordinary taxable income of $28,268 is about $6,500 too high."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It wrongly excluded the Social Security dependent benefits from the head's income, though $16,846 is taxable. It then reported $0 even though its own taxable income of about $16,792 would produce positive tax under the 10%/12% brackets."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It filed as a surviving spouse and used the $32,200 joint standard deduction plus $1,650, but with no dependent child the head files Single with $16,100 + $2,050 + $6,000. That cut taxable income to $10,731 instead of $26,431."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It never applied the $6,000 OBBBA senior deduction and used a $17,650 standard deduction instead of $18,150. It also added the $71 of qualified BDC income on top of the dividends, which double-counts it. Its taxable income of $33,063 is about $6,600 above the correct $26,431."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted only a $17,425 standard deduction and never applied the $6,000 senior deduction for 2026. The full deduction stack is $16,100 + $2,050 + $6,000 = $24,150, which leaves $21,750 of ordinary income, not $28,536."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied pre-TCJA sunset law for 2026, with an $8,600 standard deduction and a $5,500 personal exemption. OBBBA made the TCJA standard deduction and brackets permanent, zeroed the personal exemption and added the $6,000 senior deduction, so total deductions are $24,150."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used only a $17,350 standard deduction and never applied the $6,000 senior deduction. Its taxable income of $33,363 is about $6,900 above the correct $26,431."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed TCJA expired in 2026 and used a $10,300 standard deduction, a $5,200 personal exemption and a 15% bracket. Under OBBBA's permanent rules, deductions are $16,100 + $2,050 + $6,000 senior, the personal exemption is zero, and the brackets are 10%/12%."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used head-of-household status, which a filer with no qualifying person cannot claim, and applied only an age-adjusted standard deduction. It never applied the $6,000 senior deduction. Its $3,156 matches taxing roughly $6,000 more ordinary income than the correct $21,750."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $50,581 is correct, but it subtracted only the elderly single standard deduction and left out the $6,000 senior deduction. The correct deductions total $24,150, which leaves $26,431 taxable and $2,361.96 of tax."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied pre-TCJA 2026 rules, with deductions plus personal exemptions of $15,150 and pre-TCJA brackets. OBBBA kept the TCJA brackets and the higher standard deduction and added the $6,000 senior deduction, for $24,150 of deductions in total."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation. Its $2,878 is $516 above the correct tax, which matches about $4,300 too much ordinary taxable income at 12%. That pattern fits understating the $24,150 deduction stack (most likely only part of the $6,000 senior deduction) or overstating the $16,846 of taxable Social Security."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used surviving-spouse status with a $31,550 joint standard deduction, but with no dependent child the head files Single. It also put taxable Social Security at $9,846 instead of $16,846, which cut taxable income to $12,017 instead of $26,431."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of about $50,581 is correct, but it subtracted only the single 65+ standard deduction and left out the $6,000 senior deduction. Its explanation states $3,584 while it submitted $3,090; both figures exceed the correct $2,361.96 because $6,000 too much income was taxed at 12%."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted only a standard deduction and did not apply the $6,000 senior deduction. Its $3,734 matches about $11,400 more ordinary taxable income than the correct $21,750, which means it also overstated taxable Social Security above $16,846."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It said it applied a personal exemption, which OBBBA permanently set to zero, instead of the correct deduction stack of $16,100 + $2,050 + $6,000 = $24,150. It never shows the $26,431 taxable income or the $21,750 ordinary portion that produce $2,361.96."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added up non-SS income as $34,806 when its own components total $33,806, a $1,000 arithmetic error that also inflated taxable SS to $17,757. It then never applied the $6,000 senior deduction, which pushed ordinary taxable income to $29,961 instead of $21,750."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It wrongly called the Social Security largely nontaxable, though $16,846 of the $29,580 is taxable because provisional income is $48,525. It never computed taxable income, and its $1,234.56 is a placeholder figure, not the result of applying 10%/12% to $21,750 of ordinary income."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the standard and age deductions fully offset income. AGI is $50,581, including $16,846 of taxable Social Security, so $26,431 remains taxable after the $24,150 of deductions, and the $21,750 ordinary portion carries $2,361.96 of tax."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It asserted that deductions and credits bring tax to zero, but no nonrefundable credit applies. The $24,150 of deductions leaves $26,431 of taxable income, with $21,750 taxed at 10%/12%."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $33,200 surviving-spouse age-65+ standard deduction (joint parameters), but with no dependent child the head files Single. It also never applied the $6,000 senior deduction, and these errors partly offset to give $12,700 of ordinary income instead of $21,750."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It set AGI at $58,949 by treating 85% of Social Security as taxable instead of the formula's $16,846. It also taxed the qualified dividends and capital gains at 15%, when total taxable income of $26,431 keeps them in the 0% band."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the qualifying-surviving-spouse standard deduction and age addition, but with no dependent child the head files Single. That cut ordinary taxable income to $6,036 instead of $21,750."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the surviving-spouse (joint) standard deduction, which leaves taxable income entirely in the 10% bracket. Single status with $24,150 of deductions leaves $21,750 of ordinary income, which reaches the 12% bracket above $12,400."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used qualifying-surviving-spouse status with a $33,850 joint age-adjusted standard deduction, but with no dependent child the head files Single with an $18,150 standard deduction. Its ordinary taxable income of $6,036 should be $21,750."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $34,785 taxable income implies AGI of about $58,935, which comes from taxing a flat 85% of Social Security ($25,143) instead of $16,846. It also treated only the $928 of qualified dividends as preferential and taxed the $3,753 of capital gains as ordinary income."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its approach is right: Single status, 0% on preferential income, 10%/12% on ordinary income. But its $2,377.79 implies about $132 more ordinary taxable income than the correct $21,749.71 ($50,580.71 AGI − $24,150 − $4,681), so it did not reproduce the exact AGI and deduction figures."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used surviving-spouse filing status and claimed only preferential income remains taxable. With no dependent child the head files Single, and $21,750 of ordinary income remains after the $24,150 of deductions."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It cited a mortgage interest deduction even though no interest is listed. Its $3,125 matches taxing about $6,000 more ordinary income than the correct $21,750, the result of leaving out the OBBBA $6,000 senior deduction."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied pre-TCJA sunset rules for 2026: a $10,507 standard deduction, a $5,387 personal exemption and a 15% bracket. OBBBA made the TCJA brackets and standard deduction permanent and added the $6,000 senior deduction."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used post-sunset 2026 parameters: an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,300 personal exemption and 10%/15% brackets. OBBBA kept the $16,100 standard deduction, the 10%/12% brackets and a zero personal exemption, and added the $6,000 senior deduction."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied a TCJA-expiration scenario: an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,300 personal exemption and a 15% bracket. 2026 law under OBBBA uses $16,100 + $2,050 + the $6,000 senior deduction with 10%/12% brackets."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied pre-TCJA rules with a $10,233 standard deduction and a 15% bracket, and left out the $6,000 senior deduction. It also overstated taxable SS at $24,205 instead of $16,846 and taxed the $3,753 of capital gains as ordinary income."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted the farm loss twice (−$2,254 instead of −$1,127), and its deductions stop at the $18,150 standard deduction without the $6,000 senior deduction. Those errors left taxable income at $30,478 instead of $26,431."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value and no explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was no answer to score."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its filing status, $24,150 deduction stack and 0% preferential treatment are all correct, but it miscalculated taxable Social Security as $24,108.75. The formula gives 0.85×($48,525−$34,000)+$4,500 = $16,846.25. The extra $7,262.50 taxed at 12% accounts for the whole $871.57 overstatement."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the married-filing-jointly $44,000 Social Security threshold and a $32,150 surviving-spouse standard deduction, but with no dependent child the head files Single. That cut taxable SS to $8,407 instead of $16,846 and taxable income to $10,063 instead of $26,431."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It overstated taxable Social Security at $18,407 instead of $16,846. It also understated total deductions at $23,750 instead of $16,100 + $2,050 + $6,000 = $24,150. Together these pushed taxable income to $28,463, about $2,000 above the correct $26,431."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its taxable SS of $16,907 and AGI of $50,713 are close to correct, but it subtracted only the age-65 standard deduction and left out the $6,000 OBBBA senior deduction. That leaves about $6,000 of extra ordinary income taxed at 12%."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used surviving-spouse (MFJ) rates, the $44,000 joint SS threshold and the $32,200 joint standard deduction, but with no dependent child the head files Single. That understated taxable SS ($9,907 instead of $16,846) and cut taxable income to $3,863. It also taxed the $3,753 of capital gains as ordinary income."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used qualifying-surviving-spouse status and brackets, but with no dependent child the head files Single. It also added the $4,700 of tax-exempt IRA distributions to provisional income and reported taxable SS of $25,698, which exceeds the 85% cap, and it left out the $6,000 senior deduction."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reported $21,824 with no computation, which is a 43% effective rate on $50,581 of AGI. The correct tax is 10%/12% on $21,750 of ordinary taxable income, with the $4,681 of preferential income at 0%, for $2,361.96."
us,scenario_042,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_042,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model correctly stated that no employee wages were listed and that payroll tax should therefore be zero, but submitted $1,530 anyway. That amount contradicts its own payroll-tax-base reasoning and has no listed wage base supporting it."
us,scenario_042,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,The model provided no payroll-tax output. It failed the required structured-output contract rather than completing the computation from the zero listed wage base.
us,scenario_042,self_employment_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It found the roughly $24,000 retirement income exclusion for 65+/67+ filers and said the standard deduction fully covers the remaining ~$9,700 of Wisconsin income. It still reported $953 instead of carrying that to zero taxable income and $0 tax. It also skipped the 30% capital-gain subtraction on the $3,753 of capital gain distributions."
-us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It refused the retirement exclusion because it thought AGI exceeded a limit, mixing up the old $5,000 retirement subtraction's income test with the 67+ exclusion of up to $24,000, which has no income cap and removes $24,000 here. It also used the joint-filer standard deduction scale for a surviving spouse and left out the 30% capital-gain subtraction, ending at $247 instead of $0."
-us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It taxed about $27,500 of Wisconsin income and never applied the $24,000 retirement income exclusion for filers 67 and older, which leaves only about $8,609 of Wisconsin AGI, fully covered by deductions. It also understated the single standard deduction at about $5,000 when it is about $12,461 at this income."
-us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It stopped at Wisconsin AGI of $33,735 after subtracting only Social Security. It missed the 30% capital-gain subtraction ($1,125.90) and, more importantly, the $24,000 retirement income exclusion for filers 67 and older, which brings taxable income to zero."
-us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It computed tax on about $19,006 of taxable income after subtracting only Social Security and the standard deduction. It never applied the $24,000 retirement income exclusion for filers 67 and older, which removes the IRA and pension income and leaves no taxable income."
-us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted only Social Security and a flat $13,410 standard deduction, then taxed the rest at outdated 3.54%/4.65% rates. It missed the $24,000 retirement income exclusion for filers 67 and older, which brings Wisconsin taxable income and tax to $0."
-us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the old $5,000 retirement income subtraction instead of the 67+ retirement income exclusion, which removes $24,000 of this filer's $24,086 of pension and IRA income. That error left $15,225 taxable instead of zero. It also dropped the $250 age-65 exemption."
-us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It taxed $24,969 after subtracting only Social Security and an $8,837 standard deduction. It never applied the $24,000 retirement income exclusion for filers 67 and older, the $950 of exemptions, or the 30% capital-gain subtraction. The exclusion alone brings tax to $0."
-us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $29,446 of Wisconsin taxable income reflects only the Social Security subtraction. It never applied the $24,000 retirement income exclusion for filers 67 and older, which with the standard deduction and exemptions leaves no taxable income and $0 tax."
-us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $1,137 matches taxing Wisconsin AGI after only the standard deduction, without the $24,000 retirement income exclusion for filers 67 and older. That exclusion brings Wisconsin AGI to about $8,609, fully covered by the standard deduction and exemptions, so tax is $0."
-us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted only Social Security and the standard deduction, leaving roughly $20,000+ taxable. It left out the $24,000 retirement income exclusion for filers 67 and older, which removes the IRA and pension income and brings tax to $0."
-us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reached $25,235 of taxable income after only the Social Security exemption and the sliding standard deduction, then took the $300 school property tax credit. It missed the $24,000 retirement income exclusion for filers 67 and older, under which taxable income is zero."
-us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $1,973 matches taxing most of the ~$33,700 of non-Social-Security income with little deduction. It applied neither the full sliding standard deduction and exemptions nor the $24,000 retirement income exclusion for filers 67 and older, which brings tax to $0."
-us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It began from Wisconsin AGI of $33,735 after removing only Social Security, then applied the standard deduction and senior exemption. It never subtracted the $24,000 retirement income exclusion for filers 67 and older, which leaves no taxable income."
-us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It submitted $1,348 while its reasoning says $1,617. Both numbers come from taxing income without the $24,000 retirement income exclusion for filers 67 and older, which brings Wisconsin AGI to about $8,609 and tax to $0."
-us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $1,428 net tax after the school property tax credit means it taxed the IRA and pension income in full. It missed the $24,000 retirement income exclusion for filers 67 and older, which with the standard deduction and exemptions eliminates the tax."
-us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It noted a retirement income subtraction for older filers but did not apply its actual size: $24,000 of this filer's $24,086 of pension and IRA income. Applying it leaves about $8,609 of Wisconsin AGI, fully covered by the standard deduction, so the $123.45 residual has no basis and the tax is $0."
-us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took out only Social Security and the capital-gain adjustment before applying deductions, and it never applied the $24,000 retirement income exclusion for filers 67 and older, which brings tax to $0. It also missed the $300 school property tax credit available on the standard path."
-us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $430 roughly matches the standard path: Social Security subtraction, standard deduction, $950 of exemptions, and the school property tax credit. It never compared that to the $24,000 retirement income exclusion path for filers 67 and older, which gives $0 and is the one elected."
-us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied only the Social Security exemption, the standard deduction, and the capital-gain adjustment, and it never took the $24,000 retirement income exclusion for filers 67 and older, which brings Wisconsin taxable income to zero. It also left out the $300 school property tax credit."
-us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It built the standard path correctly in outline: Social Security and 30% capital-gain subtractions, standard deduction, $950 of exemptions, school property tax credit. It never applied the $24,000 retirement income exclusion for filers 67 and older, which cuts Wisconsin AGI to about $8,609 and tax to $0."
-us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It got close to the standard-path result ($423 vs. $408.70) but stopped there. The $24,000 retirement income exclusion for filers 67 and older leaves no taxable income, and the filer elects that $0 path."
-us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $419 is essentially the standard-path tax after the $300 school property tax credit. It left out the $24,000 retirement income exclusion for filers 67 and older, which eliminates the taxable income and gives $0."
-us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted only Social Security and a flat $13,900 standard deduction, skipped the exemptions, and used outdated 3.54%/4.65% rates. Most importantly, it never applied the $24,000 retirement income exclusion for filers 67 and older, which brings tax to $0."
-us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the standard path: Social Security subtraction, sliding standard deduction, $950 of exemptions, $300 school property tax credit. It never applied the $24,000 retirement income exclusion for filers 67 and older, which leaves no Wisconsin taxable income."
-us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It submitted no value or explanation for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there is no answer to score."
-us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reached the right Wisconsin AGI of about $32,609 after the Social Security and 30% capital-gain subtractions, then followed only the standard-deduction path to $429.26. It never applied the $24,000 retirement income exclusion for filers 67 and older, which brings taxable income and tax to $0."
-us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted Social Security and 30% of capital gains, then applied the standard deduction and exemption, but it never applied the $24,000 retirement income exclusion for filers 67 and older. That exclusion takes out the $19,200 of IRA income and all but $86 of the $4,886 pension, leaving no taxable income."
-us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a married-joint standard deduction and a made-up phase-out of the school levy credit. Most importantly, it never applied the $24,000 retirement income exclusion for filers 67 and older, under which Wisconsin taxable income and tax are zero."
-us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its reasoning computed $297 of tax and then subtracted credits, yet it reported $417.88, which is internally inconsistent. It never applied the $24,000 retirement income exclusion for filers 67 and older, which brings tax to $0."
-us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $1,830 matches taxing nearly all ~$33,700 of non-Social-Security income with minimal deductions. It missed both the full sliding standard deduction and the $24,000 retirement income exclusion for filers 67 and older, under which tax is $0."
+us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It correctly applied the $24,000 age-67+ retirement income exclusion and said Wisconsin income was about $9,700, which the roughly $13,960 standard deduction fully covers. That calculation gives zero taxable income and $0 tax, yet it reported $953, contradicting its own derivation."
+us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It refused any retirement exclusion because ""AGI exceeds limit,"" mixing up the old $5,000 retirement subtraction (which has an income limit) with the new age-67+ exclusion of up to $24,000, which has none. It therefore taxed the $24,086 of IRA and pension income that should have been excluded."
+us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It skipped the $24,000 retirement income exclusion for filers 67 or older, which applies to the $19,200 IRA and $4,886 pension. It also used a far too small standard deduction (~$5,000), giving taxable income of about $27,500 when Wisconsin taxable income is actually zero."
+us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It subtracted only Social Security to reach about $33,735 and never applied Wisconsin's $24,000 retirement income exclusion for filers 67 or older. With that exclusion, the standard deduction and exemptions leave no taxable income."
+us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It stopped after subtracting Social Security and taxed about $19,006, leaving out the $24,000 age-67+ retirement income exclusion on the IRA and pension. With the exclusion, Wisconsin AGI falls to about $8,600, which the standard deduction fully covers."
+us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It went from AGI minus Social Security straight to the standard deduction, with no 30% capital gain subtraction and no $24,000 retirement income exclusion for a 79-year-old. It also used outdated 3.54%/4.65% rates, producing $787 instead of $0."
+us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied the old $5,000 retirement income subtraction instead of the current age-67+ exclusion, which removes up to $24,000 of retirement income. Excluding $24,000 of the $24,086 IRA and pension income leaves nothing taxable after the standard deduction."
+us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It subtracted only Social Security and used an undersized $8,837 standard deduction. It never applied the $24,000 retirement income exclusion for filers 67 or older, which brings Wisconsin taxable income to zero."
+us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It computed about $29,446 of Wisconsin taxable income by excluding only Social Security, missing the $24,000 retirement income exclusion for a filer 67 or older. That exclusion, followed by the standard deduction, leaves no tax."
+us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied only the standard deduction to Wisconsin AGI and gave no sign of the $24,000 age-67+ retirement income exclusion. Its $1,137 is consistent with taxing about $25,000+ that the exclusion and deductions actually remove entirely."
+us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It subtracted only Social Security and the standard deduction, missing Wisconsin's $24,000 retirement income exclusion for filers 67 or older on the $24,086 of IRA and pension income. That exclusion reduces tax to $0."
+us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It taxed $25,235 of Wisconsin income after excluding only Social Security, missing the $24,000 retirement income exclusion for age 67+. Once that exclusion is applied, the standard deduction and exemptions eliminate taxable income, so the school property tax credit has no tax to offset."
+us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It gave no derivation, and its $1,973 implies taxing most of the non-Social-Security income with no retirement exclusion. Wisconsin's $24,000 exclusion for filers 67 or older, together with the standard deduction and exemptions, brings tax to $0."
+us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It started from $33,735 of Wisconsin AGI after excluding Social Security and applied only the standard deduction and senior exemption. It never subtracted the $24,000 retirement income exclusion available to filers 67 or older."
+us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied only the sliding-scale standard deduction and the credits, missing the $24,000 age-67+ retirement income exclusion that brings Wisconsin taxable income to zero. Its submitted $1,348 also contradicts its own stated $1,617."
+us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It took the school property tax credit from a positive tax but never applied Wisconsin's $24,000 retirement income exclusion for filers 67 or older. With the exclusion, there is no taxable income and tax is $0."
+us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It excluded Social Security and applied the standard deduction, exemptions and school property tax credit, but left out the $24,000 retirement income exclusion on the IRA and pension. That exclusion eliminates Wisconsin taxable income."
+us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It cited a retirement income subtraction for those 65+ but did not apply the full $24,000 age-67+ exclusion, which covers $24,000 of the $24,086 IRA and pension income. Applied in full, the exclusion plus the standard deduction leaves no residual tax."
+us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It excluded Social Security and applied the capital gain subtraction but not Wisconsin's $24,000 retirement income exclusion for filers 67 or older. That left about $20,000 taxable instead of zero."
+us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied only the Social Security exclusion, the deductions and the age exemptions, and missed the $24,000 retirement income exclusion for a 79-year-old with $24,086 of IRA and pension income. With the exclusion, tax is $0."
+us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It excluded Social Security and applied the standard deduction and capital gain adjustment, but never applied the $24,000 age-67+ retirement income exclusion. That exclusion reduces Wisconsin taxable income to zero."
+us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It correctly reached Wisconsin AGI of about $32,680 after the Social Security and 30% capital gain subtractions, then skipped the $24,000 retirement income exclusion for filers 67 or older. That exclusion would cut income to about $8,600, which the standard deduction fully covers."
+us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It reproduced the standard-path figures (AGI $32,680, taxable income about $19,510, $723 tax less the $300 credit) but never computed the retirement income exclusion path. The $24,000 exclusion for age 67+ yields $0, which is lower, so that path controls."
+us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It matched the standard path almost exactly ($32,680 Wisconsin income, about $12,322 deduction, $950 exemptions, $719 tax less the $300 credit) but omitted the $24,000 retirement income exclusion for filers 67 or older. That exclusion brings tax to $0."
+us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It subtracted only Social Security, used a flat $13,900 deduction and old 3.54%/4.65% rates, and never applied the $24,000 age-67+ retirement income exclusion. With the exclusion, Wisconsin taxable income is zero."
+us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It reached about $32,679 of Wisconsin income and applied the deduction, exemptions and $300 school property tax credit. It missed the $24,000 retirement income exclusion for filers 67 or older, which together with the standard deduction eliminates the tax."
+us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no value and no explanation for this output, so no state income tax figure was submitted."
+us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It arrived at nearly the correct pre-exclusion Wisconsin income ($32,609) and the standard-path tax less the $300 credit (about $429), but never applied the $24,000 retirement income exclusion for filers 67 or older. That exclusion yields $0 and controls."
+us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It excluded only Social Security, leaving about $23,856 taxable, and omitted both the 30% capital gain subtraction and the $24,000 age-67+ retirement income exclusion. With the exclusion, tax is $0."
+us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It subtracted Social Security and 30% of capital gains but not the $24,000 retirement income exclusion for filers 67 or older, so it taxed about $21,580. With the exclusion, the standard deduction covers all remaining income and tax is $0."
+us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used a married-joint standard deduction and subtracted only Social Security, never applying the $24,000 retirement income exclusion for a filer 67 or older. That exclusion removes the IRA and pension income and leaves no Wisconsin tax."
+us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It never applied the $24,000 age-67+ retirement income exclusion, invented a 'personal tax credit' and an itemized deduction credit, and ended with $417.88 after nonrefundable credits, a figure above its own $297 pre-credit tax. With the exclusion, Wisconsin taxable income is zero."
+us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It gave no derivation, and its $1,830 is consistent with taxing roughly $40,000 of income with no Social Security or retirement exclusions. Wisconsin exempts Social Security and excludes $24,000 of retirement income for filers 67 or older, which brings tax to $0."
us,scenario_042,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model understated Wisconsin homestead-credit household income by excluding substantial Social Security, taxable IRA distributions, pension income, dividends, interest, and capital gains, then applied an assumed 2024 maximum-credit formula instead of the 2026 eligibility computation. The complete computation produces no Wisconsin refundable credit."
us,scenario_042,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model supplied no numeric state_refundable_credits output or explanation, violating the required structured-output contract."
us,scenario_043,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model applied the childless EITC phase-in (7.65% × $4,073) without checking IRC §32(c)(1)(A)(ii)(II), which limits the no-qualifying-children EITC to filers at least 25 and under 65 at the close of the tax year; the head is 66, so the credit is $0 for 2026. Its reasoning tested only the earned-income and AGI phase-out thresholds and never the upper age bar, treating the ARPA-2021 suspension of that bar as if it still applied in 2026. With EITC out, all five refundable components (EITC, refundable AOTC, refundable CTC, Recovery Rebate, refundable payroll tax credit) are $0."
@@ -3855,83 +3989,87 @@ us,scenario_043,federal_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,age_disabili
us,scenario_043,federal_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model explicitly invented an age-65-and-over childless EITC (""max ~$649 for 2026 for single filers 65+ with no children"") and applied the 7.65% phase-in to $4,088 to get $312.73; IRC §32(c)(1)(A)(ii)(II) bars the no-qualifying-children EITC for anyone who has reached age 65 by the close of the tax year, and the ARPA removal of that ceiling expired after 2021. Age 66 zeroes the EITC, and with no dependents or education expenses every other refundable component is also $0."
us,scenario_043,free_school_meals_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_043,head_chip_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_043,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,The model invented SSI receipt even though the household has $0 of SSI. It therefore applied SSI-linked Medicaid eligibility to a person who does not qualify through that pathway.
-us,scenario_043,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"The model treated income below the aged Medicaid limit as sufficient and omitted the aged pathway's separate resource test. The head's $2,800 in bank assets prevents the income-only reasoning from establishing eligibility."
-us,scenario_043,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"The model applied only an aged/disabled income threshold and ignored the pathway's non-income conditions, including its resource test. Low annual income therefore did not place the head into an eligible Medicaid category."
-us,scenario_043,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model combined two inapplicable shortcuts: the expansion pathway does not cover a 66-year-old, and the aged/blind/disabled pathway is not established merely by income below its limit. With no disability, no SSI, and failure of the applicable non-income conditions, the head remains in category NONE."
-us,scenario_043,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model incorrectly placed a 66-year-old in Colorado's MAGI adult expansion category, whose age range ends before 65. It also treated the $2,800 asset balance as acceptable without applying the aged pathway's separate resource rule."
-us,scenario_043,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The answer inferred Medicaid eligibility directly from low income and modest assets without identifying a qualifying category. At age 66 the head is outside the MAGI adult expansion group, and the stated facts establish no other Medicaid pathway."
-us,scenario_043,head_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.5,llm_error,health_coverage,False,The model conflated Medicare Savings Program assistance such as QMB or SLMB with eligibility under PolicyEngine's Medicaid-category calculation. Those Medicare cost-sharing pathways do not place the head into one of the Medicaid categories used by this output.
-us,scenario_043,head_medicaid_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model supplied no value or explanation for head_medicaid_eligible, violating the required output contract."
-us,scenario_043,head_medicaid_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model applied a generic Colorado adult income limit without accounting for the head's age. A 66-year-old is outside the MAGI expansion-adult category, and low household income alone does not satisfy an aged Medicaid pathway."
+us,scenario_043,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model says the head receives SSI, but SSI is 0. No SSI income is listed, and the $2,800 bank balance is over the $2,000 SSI resource limit. Without SSI the SSI-recipient Medicaid pathway does not apply, and age 66 rules out the expansion adult group, so the head has no category."
+us,scenario_043,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model assumed Colorado has an aged-65+ Medicaid pathway that compares income to an aged/disabled limit. In PolicyEngine, Colorado has no optional poverty-level pathway for seniors. Aged people qualify only through SSI receipt, and this head's SSI is 0, so the category is NONE however low the income is."
+us,scenario_043,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model compared the head's ~$4,641 income with an assumed aged/disabled income limit for Colorado. No such optional senior pathway exists in the engine for Colorado, and the head gets no SSI because of the $2,800 in resources. Being 66 also excludes the head from the expansion adult group, so no category applies."
+us,scenario_043,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said income was below both the aged/blind/disabled limit and the expansion limit. The expansion adult group stops at age 64, so it does not cover a 66-year-old. Colorado has no income-tested optional senior pathway in the engine and the head receives no SSI, so medicaid_category is NONE."
+us,scenario_043,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model put the 66-year-old head in the ACA adult expansion category, which only covers ages 19–64, the ages before Medicare. With expansion ruled out, no SSI, and no Colorado optional senior pathway, the head qualifies through no category."
+us,scenario_043,head_medicaid_eligible,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model assumed Colorado has an income threshold for seniors 65+ that the head's income falls under. PolicyEngine has no optional poverty-level aged pathway for Colorado. Aged coverage requires SSI receipt, and SSI is 0 because the $2,800 in assets exceeds the $2,000 limit."
+us,scenario_043,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model decided eligibility from low income and modest assets without checking for a category. At 66 the head is outside the expansion adult group, receives no SSI, and has no Colorado optional senior pathway, so medicaid_category is NONE."
+us,scenario_043,head_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated eligibility for QMB/SLMB, which are Medicare Savings Programs, as Medicaid eligibility. head_medicaid_eligible requires a full Medicaid category. The 66-year-old head is outside expansion, has no SSI, and has no Colorado optional senior pathway, so the answer is not eligible."
+us,scenario_043,head_medicaid_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no usable value or explanation for head_medicaid_eligible. The correct answer is 0, because the 66-year-old head has no SSI and no Colorado Medicaid category."
+us,scenario_043,head_medicaid_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model applied Colorado's Medicaid income limit for adults to a 66-year-old. That limit belongs to the expansion adult group, which only covers ages 19–64. With no SSI and no optional senior pathway in Colorado, the head has no category."
us,scenario_043,head_medicare_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_043,head_wic_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_043,local_income_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model included FAMLI, but it used the old 0.45% employee rate instead of the 2026 rate of 0.44% (half of 0.88%), which gave $18.40 instead of $17.99. It then reported $315.14, which matches neither its own $331.14 total nor its $312.73 FICA-only figure. That is a transcription and arithmetic error on top of the rate error."
-us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"FICA of $312.73 is computed correctly. The model left out Colorado's FAMLI employee premium (0.44% × $4,088.15 = $17.99), which the reference counts as a mandatory employee state payroll tax. The model instead took the reading that the employer absorbs that share."
-us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Colorado has no mandatory employee state payroll tax, so it left out the FAMLI employee premium of 0.44% × $4,088.15 = $17.99. It also rounded FICA to $313. The reference counts the FAMLI employee share in payroll tax."
-us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted only federal FICA (about $312.74, rounded to $313). It left out Colorado's FAMLI employee premium (0.44% × $4,088.15 = $17.99), which the reference treats as a mandatory employee state payroll tax."
-us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model recognized FAMLI's 50/50 split but then dropped it as 'state UI-like'. It also used 0.45% instead of the 2026 rate of 0.44%. The reference keeps the $17.99 FAMLI employee premium (0.44% × $4,088.15) as a mandatory employee state payroll tax, so the model's $312.73 leaves it out."
-us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Colorado has no mandatory employee payroll tax, which overlooks the FAMLI employee premium of 0.44% × $4,088.15 = $17.99. The reference adds that amount to the $312.74 of FICA."
-us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model computed only FICA (about $313) and never added Colorado's FAMLI employee premium (0.44% × $4,088.15 = $17.99). The reference counts that premium as a mandatory employee state payroll tax."
-us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly applied 7.65% FICA to the full $4,088, without reducing it for 401k deferrals. It left out Colorado's FAMLI employee premium (0.44% × $4,088.15 = $17.99), which the reference includes as an employee state payroll tax."
-us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Colorado has no mandatory employee-side payroll tax, so it left out the FAMLI employee premium (0.44% × $4,088.15 = $17.99) that the reference adds to $312.74 of FICA."
-us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model looked only for state disability or unemployment-insurance employee contributions and missed Colorado's FAMLI paid-leave premium. The employee share of that premium is 0.44% × $4,088.15 = $17.99, and the reference includes it."
-us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Colorado has no employee state payroll tax, so it reported FICA only ($312.73). The reference adds the FAMLI employee premium of 0.44% × $4,088.15 = $17.99."
-us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly included Colorado's FAMLI employee premium but charged $24.53, which is 0.6% of wages. The 2026 employee rate is 0.44% (half of the 0.88% premium), which gives $17.99, so the model overstated the total by $6.53."
-us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated the $8,389 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums as a pre-tax Section 125 deduction that wipes out FICA wages, which it got to $0. Nothing in the household facts makes those premiums a salary reduction. The full $4,088 of wages is subject to FICA ($312.74) and to the FAMLI employee premium ($17.99)."
-us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied only the 7.65% FICA rate to $4,088. It left out Colorado's FAMLI employee premium (0.44% × $4,088.15 = $17.99), which the reference counts as an employee state payroll tax."
-us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model's FICA of $312.74 matches the reference's federal components. It left out the $17.99 Colorado FAMLI employee premium (0.44% of $4,088.15 in FAMLI wages)."
-us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model reported FICA only ($312.73) and did not add Colorado's FAMLI employee premium (0.44% × $4,088.15 = $17.99). The reference includes that premium as a mandatory employee state payroll tax."
-us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model computed Social Security and Medicare correctly but never addressed state payroll tax. It therefore left out the Colorado FAMLI employee premium of 0.44% × $4,088.15 = $17.99."
-us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied 7.65% FICA and rounded to $313. It left out Colorado's FAMLI employee premium (0.44% × $4,088.15 = $17.99), which the reference adds."
-us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Colorado has no state employee payroll tax and left out the FAMLI employee premium (0.44% × $4,088.15 = $17.99). It also truncated FICA of $312.73 down to $312."
-us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model gave no basis for treating $4,088 of wages as exempt from payroll tax and reported $0. Every dollar of those wages is subject to 6.2% Social Security, 1.45% Medicare, and the 0.44% Colorado FAMLI employee premium."
-us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model chose to leave out any Colorado employee payroll tax and reported 7.65% × $4,088 = $312.73. The reference includes the FAMLI employee premium of 0.44% × $4,088.15 = $17.99."
-us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model computed FICA only ($312.73) and left out Colorado's FAMLI employee premium (0.44% × $4,088.15 = $17.99), which the reference counts as a mandatory employee state payroll tax."
-us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied 7.65% FICA and rounded to $313. It did not add Colorado's FAMLI employee premium of 0.44% × $4,088.15 = $17.99."
-us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model handled the FICA base correctly but said Colorado has no employee payroll tax. That omits the FAMLI employee premium (0.44% × $4,088.15 = $17.99), which the reference includes."
-us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly kept 401k deferrals in FICA wages but said there is no Colorado employee payroll tax. It therefore left out the FAMLI employee premium of 0.44% × $4,088.15 = $17.99."
-us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no mandatory state payroll tax applies and rounded FICA to $313. That omits Colorado's FAMLI employee premium (0.44% × $4,088.15 = $17.99)."
-us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model computed FICA only ($312.73) and never considered Colorado's FAMLI paid-leave premium. The employee share is 0.44% × $4,088.15 = $17.99, and the reference includes it."
-us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Colorado has no mandatory employee state payroll tax and rounded FICA to $313. It left out the FAMLI employee premium of 0.44% × $4,088.15 = $17.99."
-us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model computed Social Security and Medicare correctly but never added Colorado's FAMLI employee premium (0.44% × $4,088.15 = $17.99), which the reference counts in payroll tax."
-us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Colorado has no mandatory employee state payroll tax and reported FICA only. That omits the FAMLI employee premium of 0.44% × $4,088.15 = $17.99, which the reference adds."
-us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model ruled out a Colorado employee payroll tax and reported $312.73. The reference adds the FAMLI paid-leave employee premium of 0.44% × $4,088.15 = $17.99."
+us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly included the Colorado FAMLI employee premium but used the 2023-2025 rate of 0.45% instead of the 2026 rate of 0.44% (half of 0.88%), getting $331.14. It then submitted $315.14, which matches none of its own figures, so the number is a transcription error on top of the rate error."
+us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model computed FICA correctly at $312.73 but left out Colorado's FAMLI employee premium (0.44% × $4,088.15 = $17.99), which the reference counts as a state payroll tax. It read 'mandatory employee state payroll taxes' as excluding FAMLI because the employer is allowed to pay that share."
+us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Colorado has no mandatory employee payroll tax, so it left out the $17.99 FAMLI employee premium (0.44% of FAMLI wages). It submitted only FICA, rounded to $313."
+us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted only FICA ($312.74, rounded to $313) and never applied Colorado's FAMLI employee premium of 0.44% on $4,088.15, or $17.99, which the reference includes."
+us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model identified the Colorado FAMLI employee premium but dropped it, treating it as 'state UI-like.' The reference counts it as an employee state payroll tax at 0.44% (not the 0.45% the model cited), adding $17.99."
+us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Colorado has no mandatory employee payroll tax and skipped the FAMLI employee premium (0.44% × $4,088.15 = $17.99). That leaves FICA alone, $312.73, instead of $330.73."
+us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted only federal FICA (about $313) and left out the Colorado FAMLI employee contribution of 0.44% of FAMLI wages ($17.99), which the reference includes as a state payroll tax."
+us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,The model applied only the 7.65% FICA rate ($312.73) and never added Colorado's 0.44% FAMLI employee premium ($17.99) to the payroll tax total.
+us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Colorado has no mandatory employee-side payroll tax, which misses the FAMLI program's 0.44% employee premium on $4,088.15 of wages ($17.99). It reported FICA alone."
+us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model looked only for state disability or unemployment-insurance contributions and missed Colorado's FAMLI paid-leave premium. The employee share, 0.44% × $4,088.15 = $17.99, raises the total from $312.73 to $330.73."
+us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,The model said Colorado has no employee state payroll tax and left out the $17.99 FAMLI employee premium (0.44% of FAMLI wages). It reported only the $312.73 of FICA.
+us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly included the Colorado FAMLI employee premium but put it at $24.53, which is about 0.6% of wages. The 2026 employee rate is 0.44% (half of the 0.88% premium), which gives $17.99 on $4,088.15, for a total of $330.73."
+us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated the $8,389 employer-sponsored insurance premium as a pre-tax deduction from the employee's wages and set the FICA and FAMLI wage base to $0. The prompt says nothing about a Section 125 salary reduction, so the full $4,088 of wages is taxable: $253.47 Social Security, $59.28 Medicare, and $17.99 FAMLI."
+us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied only the 7.65% FICA rate to $4,088 and left out Colorado's FAMLI employee premium of 0.44% ($17.99), which the reference counts as a state payroll tax."
+us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model's FICA total of $312.74 is correct, but it left out the Colorado FAMLI employee contribution (0.44% × $4,088.15 = $17.99) that brings the total to $330.73."
+us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,The model reported only Social Security and Medicare ($312.73) and skipped the 0.44% Colorado FAMLI employee premium ($17.99) included as a state payroll tax.
+us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model computed FICA of $312.73 and stopped there, leaving out Colorado's FAMLI employee premium of 0.44% on $4,088.15 ($17.99)."
+us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,gemini-4-argon,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,The model applied only the 7.65% FICA rate and left the Colorado FAMLI employee premium ($17.99 at 0.44%) out of the payroll tax total.
+us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model computed FICA of $312.73, rounded it to $313, and left out the 0.44% Colorado FAMLI employee premium ($17.99) that the reference adds."
+us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Colorado has no state employee payroll tax, which leaves out the $17.99 FAMLI employee premium (0.44% of FAMLI wages). It also truncated FICA of $312.74 down to $312."
+us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model gave no real basis for zeroing out payroll tax. The $4,088 of wages is fully subject to 6.2% Social Security ($253.47), 1.45% Medicare ($59.28), and the 0.44% Colorado FAMLI employee premium ($17.99)."
+us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model deliberately left out any Colorado employee payroll tax and reported FICA alone ($312.73). The reference adds the FAMLI employee premium at 0.44% of $4,088.15, or $17.99."
+us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model computed only the 7.65% FICA on $4,088 ($312.73) and never applied Colorado's 0.44% FAMLI employee contribution ($17.99)."
+us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted only Social Security and Medicare ($312.73, rounded to $313) and left out the Colorado FAMLI employee premium of $17.99."
+us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model's FICA base and rates are correct, but it said Colorado has no employee payroll tax. That misses the FAMLI employee premium of 0.44% × $4,088.15 = $17.99."
+us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,The model correctly kept 401(k) deferrals in the FICA base but said Colorado has no employee payroll tax. That leaves out the 0.44% FAMLI employee premium ($17.99) the reference includes.
+us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no mandatory state payroll taxes apply, which misses Colorado's FAMLI employee premium (0.44% of FAMLI wages, $17.99). It submitted FICA alone, rounded to $313."
+us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model computed FICA of $312.73 and left out the Colorado FAMLI employee premium of 0.44% on $4,088.15 ($17.99) that brings the total to $330.73."
+us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Colorado has no mandatory employee state payroll tax and left out the $17.99 FAMLI employee premium (0.44% of FAMLI wages). It reported FICA alone, rounded to $313."
+us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,The model counted only Social Security and Medicare ($312.73) and never applied Colorado's 0.44% FAMLI employee premium ($17.99).
+us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Colorado has no mandatory employee state payroll tax, which leaves out the FAMLI employee premium (0.44% × $4,088.15 = $17.99). It reported FICA alone."
+us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,The model looked only for a state payroll 'income' tax and missed Colorado's FAMLI paid-leave premium. The employee share at 0.44% adds $17.99 to the $312.73 of FICA.
us,scenario_043,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_043,snap,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly reduced net income to $0 using the earned income, standard and excess medical deductions. It then used a stale $291/month one-person maximum allotment instead of the $298 FY2026 figure, which gave $3,492 instead of $3,576."
-us,scenario_043,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"The model gave $0 by claiming a $2,250 asset limit that $2,800 exceeds. For a household with a member aged 60 or older, the limit is $4,500, and Colorado's TANF-based categorical eligibility removes the asset test anyway. The household is eligible and gets the $298/month maximum."
-us,scenario_043,snap,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model gave $0 by citing elderly asset/income tests and an absence of take-up. The prompt explicitly assumes take-up, and the household passes every test: it is categorically eligible through Colorado's broad-based categorical eligibility, and $2,800 is under the elderly asset limit. With net income at $0, it gets the full $298/month."
-us,scenario_043,snap,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,other,False,"The model correctly found net income of $0 and a maximum benefit near $300/month ($3,600/yr). It then arbitrarily changed its estimate to $200/month. With net income of $0, the benefit is the full $298 maximum allotment, not a reduced amount."
-us,scenario_043,snap,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,other,False,"The model found very low net income and cited a $292 maximum. It then gave an unsupported $192/month, apparently confusing the benefit with a minimum-benefit rule. With net income of $0, the benefit equals the full maximum allotment, which is $298 in FY2026."
-us,scenario_043,snap,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly found net income near $0 after the excess medical deduction. It then used a maximum allotment of about $203/month, far below the actual $298 one-person maximum, which understated the annual benefit by more than $1,100."
-us,scenario_043,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly reduced net income to $0 and identified the maximum-allotment outcome. It used the FY2025 one-person maximum of $292/month instead of the FY2026 $298, giving $3,504 instead of $3,576."
-us,scenario_043,snap,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly found net income of $0 but overstated the one-person maximum allotment as about $328/month. The actual FY2026 contiguous-states maximum is $298/month ($3,576/yr)."
-us,scenario_043,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model got the eligibility tests and net income of $0 right but used $301/month as the 2026 one-person maximum. The actual figure is $298/month, so its answer was $36 too high for the year."
-us,scenario_043,snap,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model explicitly applied the FY2025 maximum allotment of $292/month to a 2026 benefit year. The FY2026 one-person maximum is $298/month, which gives $3,576."
-us,scenario_043,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly concluded the household gets the maximum benefit but used the FY2025 $292/month figure. The FY2026 one-person maximum is $298/month ($3,576/yr)."
-us,scenario_043,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly found net income below zero but recalled the FY2026 one-person maximum as $299/month. The actual figure is $298/month, so the annual total was $12 too high."
-us,scenario_043,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model reduced net income to $0 through the elderly medical deduction but used the FY2025 maximum of $292/month. The FY2026 one-person maximum is $298/month ($3,576/yr)."
-us,scenario_043,snap,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model claimed the household's assets and income disqualify it. Monthly income of $387 is about 30% of the poverty guideline, $2,800 is under the elderly asset limit, and Colorado's categorical eligibility applies. The household is eligible for the full $298/month maximum."
-us,scenario_043,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly found net income of $0 but used the outdated $291/month one-person maximum. The FY2026 figure is $298/month, which gives $3,576 instead of $3,492."
-us,scenario_043,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly identified categorical eligibility and net income of $0 but submitted a rounded $3,500, equal to about $291.67/month. The answer should have been twelve months of the $298 FY2026 maximum allotment ($3,576)."
-us,scenario_043,snap,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model asserted that income and resource rules give $0. The household's $387/month income is far below the limits, its $2,800 in assets is under the elderly limit, and it is categorically eligible in Colorado. With net income of $0, it gets the $298/month maximum."
-us,scenario_043,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly computed gross income and the $381.67 excess medical deduction, reaching net income of $0. It then applied the FY2025 $292/month maximum instead of the FY2026 $298."
-us,scenario_043,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly reached net income of $0 but its $3,504 total reflects the FY2025 $292/month maximum. The FY2026 one-person maximum is $298/month."
-us,scenario_043,snap,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly found net income of $0 but used the $292/month FY2025 maximum allotment. The FY2026 one-person maximum is $298/month ($3,576/yr)."
-us,scenario_043,snap,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly concluded net income is $0 and the maximum allotment applies. Its $3,624 implies $302/month, above the actual FY2026 one-person maximum of $298/month."
-us,scenario_043,snap,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model correctly drove net income to $0 with the elderly medical deduction but overstated the one-person maximum allotment as $305/month. The actual figure is $298.
-us,scenario_043,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's $1,276 implies about $106/month, as if a large share of income were counted against the benefit. It skipped the elderly excess medical deduction ($381.67/month), which together with the standard and earned income deductions brings net income to $0 and gives the full $298/month."
-us,scenario_043,snap,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model claimed there were no low-income indicators. The household's income is $387/month, about 30% of the poverty guideline, and it is categorically eligible through Colorado's TANF non-cash pathway, so it gets the $298/month maximum."
-us,scenario_043,snap,grok-4.3,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"The model claimed $2,800 in assets exceeds the limits. It is under both the $3,000 general limit and the $4,500 limit for a household with an elderly member, and Colorado's broad-based categorical eligibility removes the asset test. The medical expenses are listed facts, not unlisted ones."
-us,scenario_043,snap,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model correctly applied the eligibility tests and the excess medical deduction to reach net income of $0. It then used the FY2025 $292/month maximum instead of the FY2026 $298/month.
-us,scenario_043,snap,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model got the resource test and deductions right, reaching net income of $0. It then used the FY2025 $292/month one-person maximum rather than the FY2026 $298/month."
-us,scenario_043,snap,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly found net income of $0 but rounded the one-person maximum allotment to about $300/month. The actual figure is $298/month, which gives $3,576 rather than $3,600."
-us,scenario_043,snap,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly reached net income of $0 via the elderly medical deduction but approximated the maximum allotment as $300/month. The FY2026 one-person contiguous-states maximum is $298/month ($3,576/yr)."
-us,scenario_043,snap,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no SNAP value or explanation, so there was no answer to score. The correct derivation gives twelve months of the $298 one-person maximum, or $3,576."
-us,scenario_043,snap,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model correctly noted that elderly households face more lenient limits but then asserted a $0 benefit without any calculation. Income of $387/month and $2,800 in assets pass every test, and net income of $0 gives the $298/month maximum."
-us,scenario_043,snap,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model treated medical premiums as a shelter item and used a maximum allotment of about $243/month. The $381.67 excess medical deduction brings net income to $0, so the benefit is the actual $298/month maximum."
-us,scenario_043,snap,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model asserted without derivation that no positive benefit results. The household is categorically eligible in Colorado, passes the elderly asset limit, and has net income of $0 after deductions, so it gets $298/month ($3,576/yr)."
+us,scenario_043,snap,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly found zero net income and the full maximum allotment, but it used $291 a month, the FY2024 one-person maximum, instead of the FY2026 figure of $298. That gives $3,492 instead of $3,576."
+us,scenario_043,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"The model denied SNAP by applying a $2,250 non-elderly asset limit to $2,800 of savings. Because the head is 66, the elderly asset limit applies, and the household passes it. Colorado's TANF non-cash categorical eligibility also qualifies the household, so it receives the $298 monthly maximum."
+us,scenario_043,snap,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"The model claimed the elderly asset and income tests and take-up rules produce zero. The prompt says to assume take-up, $2,800 is under the elderly asset limit, and gross income is only about 30% of the poverty guideline. The household therefore gets the full $298 monthly maximum."
+us,scenario_043,snap,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly reached zero net income and a maximum of about $300 a month, then arbitrarily replaced it with $200 a month. With zero net income, the benefit is the full one-person maximum of $298 a month, or $3,576 a year."
+us,scenario_043,snap,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model stated the maximum was about $292 and that net income was very low, then cut the benefit to an unsupported $192 a month. With net income at zero, the benefit equals the full $298 one-person maximum allotment."
+us,scenario_043,snap,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model found near-zero net income but treated $203 a month as the maximum allotment. The FY2026 one-person maximum for the contiguous states is $298 a month, and with zero net income the household receives that full amount."
+us,scenario_043,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The eligibility and zero-net-income logic is right, but the model used $292, the FY2025 one-person maximum allotment, instead of $298. That gives $3,504 instead of $3,576."
+us,scenario_043,snap,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly reached zero net income but overstated the one-person maximum allotment as $328 a month. The correct maximum is $298 a month, or $3,576 a year."
+us,scenario_043,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly found the household eligible with zero net income but used $301 a month as the 2026 one-person maximum. The correct maximum allotment is $298 a month, or $3,576 a year."
+us,scenario_043,snap,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model explicitly used the FY2025 maximum allotment of $292 a month for a 2026 benefit. The FY2026 one-person maximum is $298, which gives $3,576."
+us,scenario_043,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly gave the maximum allotment but used $292 a month, the FY2025 figure, instead of the FY2026 one-person maximum of $298. That gives $3,504 instead of $3,576."
+us,scenario_043,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly gave the maximum allotment but used $299 a month instead of $298, the FY2026 one-person maximum for the contiguous states. That makes the annual figure $12 too high."
+us,scenario_043,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly found zero net income but used $292 a month, the FY2025 maximum, instead of the FY2026 one-person maximum allotment of $298. That gives $3,504 instead of $3,576."
+us,scenario_043,snap,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model asserted without support that income and assets disqualify the household. Gross income is about 30% of the poverty guideline, $2,800 passes the elderly asset test, and Colorado's TANF non-cash categorical eligibility applies, so the household receives the $298 monthly maximum."
+us,scenario_043,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly found zero net income but used $291 a month, the FY2024 one-person maximum, instead of the FY2026 figure of $298. That gives $3,492 instead of $3,576."
+us,scenario_043,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly found categorical eligibility and zero net income but gave a rounded $3,500 instead of computing 12 times the $298 FY2026 one-person maximum allotment, which is $3,576."
+us,scenario_043,snap,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model gave zero with no derivation. This elderly one-person household has $387 a month of income, has $2,800 in assets (under the elderly limit), and is categorically eligible in Colorado, so it receives the full $298 monthly maximum."
+us,scenario_043,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The deduction logic leading to zero net income is right, but the model used $292 a month, the FY2025 maximum, instead of the FY2026 one-person maximum of $298. That gives $3,504 instead of $3,576."
+us,scenario_043,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly gave the maximum allotment, but its $3,504 reflects the FY2025 figure of $292 a month instead of the FY2026 one-person maximum of $298 a month, which gives $3,576."
+us,scenario_043,snap,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model correctly found zero net income but used $292 a month instead of the FY2026 one-person maximum allotment of $298. That understates the annual benefit by $72.
+us,scenario_043,snap,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly applied the earned-income, standard, and elderly medical deductions to reach zero net income, but used the stale $292 maximum instead of the FY2026 one-person maximum of $298."
+us,scenario_043,snap,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly gave the full one-person maximum but used about $302 a month ($3,624 a year). The FY2026 maximum allotment for the contiguous states is $298 a month, or $3,576 a year."
+us,scenario_043,snap,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly reached zero net income but overstated the one-person maximum allotment as $305 a month. The FY2026 figure is $298 a month, or $3,576 a year."
+us,scenario_043,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model gave about $106 a month with no derivation. After the earned-income, standard, and elderly excess-medical deductions, net income is zero, so the benefit is the full $298 monthly maximum, or $3,576 a year."
+us,scenario_043,snap,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model claimed the household lacks low-income indicators even though its $387 a month of gross income is about 30% of the poverty guideline. With an elderly head, $2,800 in assets, and Colorado categorical eligibility, the household receives the $298 monthly maximum."
+us,scenario_043,snap,grok-4.3,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"The model said $2,800 exceeds typical asset limits, but it ignored that the 66-year-old head qualifies for the higher elderly asset limit, which $2,800 passes. It also ignored that Colorado's TANF non-cash categorical eligibility applies, so the household receives the $298 monthly maximum."
+us,scenario_043,snap,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The eligibility and zero-net-income logic is correct, but the model used $292 a month, the FY2025 maximum, instead of the FY2026 one-person maximum allotment of $298."
+us,scenario_043,snap,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly found zero net income and gave the maximum allotment, but used the outdated $292 one-person maximum instead of the FY2026 figure of $298 a month."
+us,scenario_043,snap,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly gave the full allotment but used an approximate $300 a month instead of the FY2026 one-person maximum of $298. That gives $3,600 instead of $3,576."
+us,scenario_043,snap,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly reached zero net income but rounded the one-person maximum allotment to $300 a month. The FY2026 figure is $298 a month, or $3,576 a year."
+us,scenario_043,snap,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no value or explanation for SNAP, so there is no answer to compare with the $3,576 annual maximum-allotment benefit."
+us,scenario_043,snap,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model correctly noted that the head is elderly and has low income, then gave zero without any calculation. The household passes the elderly asset test and the net income test with zero net income, so it receives the $298 monthly maximum, or $3,576 a year."
+us,scenario_043,snap,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The eligibility logic is correct, but the model used $292 a month, the FY2025 maximum, instead of the FY2026 one-person maximum of $298. That gives $3,504 instead of $3,576."
+us,scenario_043,snap,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model treated employer-sponsored insurance premiums as a shelter item and used an invented $243 monthly maximum. The household's net income is zero after the elderly medical deduction, so it receives the full $298 one-person maximum allotment."
+us,scenario_043,snap,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model asserted without derivation that no positive benefit results. The household passes the elderly asset test, is categorically eligible in Colorado, and has zero net income, so the benefit is $298 every month, or $3,576 a year."
us,scenario_043,ssi,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,period_annualization,False,"The model annualized the monthly SSI federal benefit rate and monthly income exclusions, then mechanically subtracted annual countable income to produce $9,954. It also identified that $2,800 exceeds the stated $2,000 resource limit but discarded that result; the controlling engine computation finds the individual’s approximately $4,642 of income above the SSI income limit, yielding zero."
us,scenario_043,ssi,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,period_annualization,False,"The model converted annual wages and pension income into a monthly countable-income figure and subtracted it from an estimated monthly federal benefit rate, bypassing the SSI income-eligibility gate. The individual’s approximately $4,642 of income exceeds the applicable limit, so aged status and assumed take-up do not produce a payable benefit."
us,scenario_043,ssi,claude-opus-5,llm_error,period_annualization,False,"The model first annualized the SSI benefit rate and exclusions to derive about $9,360, then replaced that calculation with an unsupported $6,720 figure. Both paths miss that the individual’s approximately $4,642 of income fails the SSI income-limit test, which eliminates the benefit entirely."
@@ -3957,40 +4095,41 @@ us,scenario_044,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_erro
us,scenario_044,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied the Kansas food sales tax credit ($125 per exemption, age 55+ pathway, AGI under $30,615) and got $250, but that credit ended after tax year 2024, when the state food sales tax went to 0%. It is not available in 2026. The household has no earned income for the Kansas EITC, so Kansas refundable credits are $0."
us,scenario_044,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It gave the household the Kansas food sales tax credit of $125 for each of two exemptions based on the low-income, age 55+ test, but it used pre-2025 law. Kansas ended that credit after tax year 2024, when food became exempt from state sales tax, so it pays nothing in 2026. With no earnings there is no Kansas EITC either, so the correct total is $0."
us,scenario_044,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It correctly found Kansas AGI of $0 and both spouses over 55, but it then paid out the food sales tax credit (2 x $125 = $250), which Kansas ended after tax year 2024, when the state food sales tax rate went to zero. No refundable Kansas credit is left for this household in 2026. The Kansas EITC needs earned income, and the household has only Social Security."
-us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its own reasoning gets the exact derivation: $16,100 standard deduction, $20,176 taxable income, and 1,240 + 0.12×7,776 = $2,173. It then submitted $2,540, a number its calculation does not support."
-us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $21,208 employer-sponsored insurance premiums from the gross wages, even though the given wages are the taxable wage base, and it used the outdated $14,600 standard deduction instead of the 2026 amount of $16,100. It then applied the refundable EITC to reduce the tax before refundable credits to zero. That EITC is both outside this output and unavailable to a childless filer earning $36k."
-us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly calculated taxable income of about $20,176 and tax of about $2,100 at the 10%/12% rates, and it noted that no nonrefundable credits apply. It still submitted 0, which contradicts its own calculation of about $2,173."
-us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,other,False,"Its corrected calculation was $1,240 + 0.12×($20,176−$12,400) = $2,173, which is the exact derivation. It then submitted $1,631, a figure that follows from no step it showed."
-us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,other,False,"It calculated $1,240 + $933 = $2,173 using the correct $16,100 deduction and $12,400 10% bracket threshold, and it noted no credits apply. It then submitted $1,387, which its 'bracket rounding' does not explain."
-us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"It got about $2,173 from the correct $16,100 deduction and 10%/12% brackets. It then cited 'slight bracket rounding' to submit $2,029, which is about $144 below its own correct result."
-us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It estimated the 2026 standard deduction as $15,350 by inflating the 2025 amount, instead of using the OBBBA-set $16,100, and it used the 2025 10% bracket threshold of $11,925 instead of $12,400. Both errors overstate taxable income and push more of it into the 12% bracket, which gives $2,273."
-us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,other,False,"It used outdated parameters, a $15,700 deduction and a $12,150 10% bracket threshold, instead of $16,100 and $12,400, and got $2,226. It then submitted $1,130, which its own calculation does not support."
-us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the $21,208 employer-sponsored insurance premiums as a pre-tax reduction to the stated gross wages, which gave an AGI of $15,068 and zero tax. AGI is the full $36,276 in wages, and after the $16,100 deduction, $20,176 is taxable."
-us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $21,208 employer-sponsored insurance premiums from wages, giving an AGI of $15,068. It also applied a pre-TCJA standard deduction and personal exemption, but OBBBA made the TCJA permanent, so 2026 has a $16,100 standard deduction and no exemption. The correct AGI is $36,276, and the tax is $2,173.07."
-us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired in 2026 and used an $8,400 standard deduction, a $5,400 personal exemption, and a 15% second bracket. OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent, with a $16,100 standard deduction, no personal exemption, and 10%/12% brackets."
-us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied pre-TCJA sunset rules: an $8,000 standard deduction, a $5,000 exemption, and a 15% bracket above $11,650. Under OBBBA's permanent TCJA rules, the 2026 standard deduction is $16,100 and income above $12,400 is taxed at 12%."
-us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted $21,208 in employer-sponsored insurance premiums from the stated gross wages and got a $15,068 AGI below the standard deduction. AGI is the full $36,276, and after the $16,100 deduction, $20,175.59 is taxable."
-us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It treated a filer with no dependents as head of household, and its own $15,000 deduction still leaves about $21,000 of taxable income, so its result of zero tax is false. The correct status is single: $36,276 − $16,100 = $20,176 taxable, and the tax is $2,173.07."
-us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied 'pre-TCJA rules for 2026,' using a standard deduction plus a personal exemption and a 15% bracket. OBBBA made the TCJA permanent, so 2026 has a $16,100 standard deduction, no exemption, and a 12% second bracket."
-us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $21,208 employer-sponsored insurance premiums from wages, giving a $15,068 AGI, and it applied a pre-TCJA deduction and exemption totaling $13,350. The full $36,276 in wages is AGI, and the OBBBA-permanent $16,100 standard deduction applies with no exemption."
-us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the standard deduction exceeds income, but the 2026 single deduction of $16,100 is far below $36,276 in wages. That leaves $20,175.59 of taxable income and $2,173.07 of tax."
-us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reduced wages by the $21,208 employer-sponsored insurance premiums to get a $15,068 AGI. It then applied a TCJA-expiration $8,300 deduction and $5,150 exemption, but OBBBA made the TCJA permanent, with a $16,100 deduction and no exemption, applied to the full $36,276 AGI."
-us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used sunset-era parameters: an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,300 personal exemption, and a 15% bracket. OBBBA kept the TCJA structure, so 2026 taxable income is $36,276 − $16,100 at 10%/12%, giving $2,173.07."
-us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the pre-OBBBA 2025 parameters, a $15,000 standard deduction and an $11,925 10% bracket threshold, instead of 2026's $16,100 and $12,400. That overstates taxable income by $1,100 and gives $2,314.62."
-us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It projected a $15,400 standard deduction and a $12,250 10% bracket threshold for 2026, but OBBBA raised the deduction to $16,100 and the threshold is $12,400. Its taxable income of $20,876 overstates the correct $20,175.59."
-us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the standard deduction and nonrefundable credits eliminate the tax, but $36,276 − $16,100 leaves $20,176 taxable. A childless single filer has no nonrefundable credits, so $2,173.07 of tax remains."
-us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"It assumed nonrefundable credits fully offset the tax without naming any, but a single filer with no dependents, childcare costs, or education costs has none. The $2,173.07 tax on $20,175.59 of taxable income stands."
-us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used $15,750, the 2025 OBBBA standard deduction, instead of the 2026 inflation-adjusted $16,100. That overstates taxable income by $350 and gives $2,215 instead of $2,173.07."
-us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reduced the stated gross wages by the $21,208 employer-sponsored insurance premiums to $15,068 and concluded that no tax was owed. AGI is the full $36,276 in wages, and $20,175.59 remains taxable after the $16,100 deduction."
-us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized by treating the $21,208 employer-sponsored insurance premiums as deductible medical expenses above the 7.5% floor. Employer-plan premiums are not out-of-pocket medical expenses, so actual itemized deductions are only $1,541.71, and the $16,100 standard deduction applies, giving $2,173.07."
-us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,000 standard deduction from 2025 before OBBBA instead of 2026's $16,100, along with outdated bracket thresholds. That inflates taxable income to about $21,276 and the tax to $2,352."
-us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the employer-sponsored insurance premiums from wages, giving a $15,068 AGI, and it applied a post-sunset $8,535 deduction and $5,444 exemption. OBBBA made the TCJA permanent, so the full $36,276 AGI minus a $16,100 deduction is taxed at 10%/12%."
-us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly kept AGI at $36,276 but used 2025 parameters, a $15,000 standard deduction and an $11,925 10% bracket threshold. The 2026 values are $16,100 and $12,400, and the correct tax is $2,173.07, not $2,315."
-us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired and used an $8,000 deduction, a $5,000 exemption, and a 15% bracket above $11,600. OBBBA made the TCJA permanent, so 2026 has a $16,100 deduction, no exemption, and a 12% rate above $12,400."
-us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value and no explanation for this output, so there is nothing to score against the $2,173.07 from $20,175.59 of taxable income."
-us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It correctly found $20,176 of taxable income after the $16,100 deduction. It then said the EITC and other tax credits eliminate the liability, even though the EITC is refundable and excluded from this output, and a childless filer earning $36k is far above the EITC phase-out range."
-us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,other,False,"It used outdated parameters, a $15,750 deduction and a $12,150 10% bracket threshold, instead of $16,100 and $12,400, and got $2,220.12. It then submitted $424.76, which its own calculation does not support."
-us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the standard deduction exceeds AGI, but $16,100 is far below $36,276 in wages. That leaves $20,175.59 of taxable income, and no nonrefundable credits exist to offset the $2,173.07 tax."
+us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"The model calculated the correct result: taxable income of $20,176 under a $16,100 standard deduction with a 10% bracket up to $12,400, giving $2,173. It then submitted $2,540 with no supporting calculation, so the submitted value contradicts its own correct derivation."
+us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $21,208 employer-sponsored insurance premiums from the stated gross wages and used the outdated $14,600 standard deduction. It then wiped out the remaining tax with the EITC, even though the EITC is refundable and excluded from this output, and a childless filer at $36k gets no EITC anyway. With AGI of $36,276 and a $16,100 standard deduction, the tax is $2,173."
+us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"The model correctly found taxable income of about $20,176 and tax of about $2,100 at the 10%/12% rates, and it noted that no nonrefundable credits apply. It still submitted 0, which contradicts its own calculation. The correct figure is $1,240 + 12% × $7,776 = $2,173."
+us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,other,False,"The model rechecked its work, used the $16,100 standard deduction and the $12,400 10% bracket, and arrived at $2,173. It then submitted 1,631, a number that nothing in its reasoning produces."
+us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,other,False,"The model computed $1,240 + $933 = $2,173 with no nonrefundable credits. It then submitted 1,387, attributing the change to 'rounding', but no rounding of the bracket figures turns $2,173 into $1,387."
+us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"The model derived about $2,173 from taxable income of $20,176 at the 10%/12% rates. It then submitted 2,029 on the basis of unexplained 'bracket rounding', which lowers the tax by $144 with no supporting calculation."
+us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a guessed 2026 standard deduction of $15,350 and the 2025 10% bracket edge of $11,925. The correct 2026 parameters after OBBBA are a $16,100 standard deduction and a $12,400 bracket edge. These stale figures inflated taxable income to $20,926 and the tax to $2,273 instead of $2,173."
+us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,other,False,"The model used a low $15,700 standard deduction and a $12,150 bracket edge to get $2,226, then submitted 1,130, which matches none of its calculations. The correct parameters are a $16,100 standard deduction and a $12,400 bracket edge, which give $2,173."
+us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $21,208 employer-sponsored insurance premiums from the stated gross wages, leaving AGI of $15,068 and zero taxable income. Gross wages of $36,276 are AGI here. Less the $16,100 standard deduction, taxable income is $20,176 and the tax is $2,173."
+us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $21,208 ESI premiums from wages to get AGI of $15,068. It also applied a TCJA sunset with an $8,117 standard deduction and a $5,177 personal exemption, but OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent. The correct 2026 calculation has AGI of $36,276, a $16,100 standard deduction, no exemption, and tax of $2,173."
+us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model assumed TCJA expired. It applied an $8,400 standard deduction, a $5,400 personal exemption, and a 15% second bracket. Because OBBBA made TCJA permanent, 2026 uses a $16,100 standard deduction, no personal exemption, and a 12% bracket above $12,400, which gives $2,173."
+us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied pre-TCJA law: an $8,000 standard deduction, a $5,000 exemption, and a 15% bracket above $11,650. That produced taxable income of $23,276 and tax of $2,909. Under the permanent post-OBBBA rules, the $16,100 standard deduction and 12% rate give $2,173."
+us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $21,208 employer-sponsored insurance premiums from gross wages, leaving AGI of $15,068 that falls below the standard deduction. The stated gross wages of $36,276 are AGI. After the $16,100 standard deduction, taxable income is $20,176 and the tax is $2,173."
+us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model treated a filer with no dependents as head of household and claimed a $15,000 deduction reduces tax to $0. Even its own deduction leaves about $21,000 of taxable income. The correct status is single, with a $16,100 deduction, taxable income of $20,176, and tax of $2,173."
+us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied pre-TCJA rules for 2026, including a standard deduction plus a personal exemption and a 15% bracket, to get $2,726. OBBBA made TCJA permanent, so the correct calculation uses a $16,100 standard deduction, no exemption, and the 10%/12% brackets, which give $2,173."
+us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $21,208 ESI premiums from wages to get AGI of $15,068. It then applied pre-TCJA deductions and exemptions totaling $13,350. The correct calculation has AGI of $36,276 less the $16,100 OBBBA standard deduction, which gives taxable income of $20,176 and tax of $2,173."
+us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model claimed the standard deduction exceeds income for a single filer with $36,276 of wages. The $16,100 standard deduction leaves $20,176 of taxable income, which produces $2,173 of tax."
+us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $21,208 employer-sponsored insurance premiums from gross wages to get AGI of $15,068. It also assumed TCJA expired and used an $8,300 deduction plus a $5,150 exemption. The correct calculation has AGI of $36,276, a $16,100 standard deduction, and tax of $2,173."
+us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model assumed a TCJA sunset with an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,300 personal exemption, and a 15% bracket, which yielded $2,805.15. Under the permanent post-OBBBA rules, the $16,100 standard deduction and 10%/12% brackets give $2,173.07."
+us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 2025 figures: a $15,000 standard deduction and an $11,925 10% bracket edge. The 2026 parameters are $16,100 and $12,400, so taxable income was overstated by $1,100 and the tax came out at $2,314.62 instead of $2,173.07."
+us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model guessed a 2026 standard deduction of $15,400 and a 10% bracket edge of $12,250. The actual 2026 values are $16,100 and $12,400, and with those the tax is $2,173.07 instead of $2,260.12."
+us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model asserted that the standard deduction and credits eliminate the tax. A single filer with $36,276 of wages has $20,176 of taxable income after the $16,100 deduction and no nonrefundable credits, so the tax is $2,173."
+us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"The model assumed nonrefundable credits fully offset the tax. A childless single filer with no education, child care, or retirement-savings inputs has no nonrefundable credits, so the full $2,173 of tax on $20,176 of taxable income remains."
+us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 2025 OBBBA standard deduction of $15,750 instead of the 2026 value of $16,100. Its 10% bracket edge of $12,400 was correct, but the smaller deduction overstated taxable income by $350, giving $2,215 instead of $2,173."
+us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $21,208 employer-sponsored insurance premiums from the stated gross wages, which put AGI below the standard deduction. The stated wages of $36,276 are AGI. Less the $16,100 standard deduction, taxable income is $20,176 and the tax is $2,173."
+us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model itemized the $21,208 employer-sponsored insurance premiums as medical expenses above the 7.5% AGI floor, producing $19,778 of itemized deductions. Those premiums are not deductible, so actual itemized deductions total only $1,541.71. The $16,100 standard deduction is therefore larger and applies, which gives $2,173."
+us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used an outdated standard deduction of about $15,000 and stale bracket edges, leaving taxable income near $21,276 and tax of $2,352. The 2026 parameters, a $16,100 deduction and a $12,400 10% bracket, give $2,173."
+us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $21,208 ESI premiums from wages to get AGI of $15,068. It also applied a TCJA sunset with an $8,535 deduction and a $5,444 exemption. The correct calculation has AGI of $36,276 and the permanent $16,100 standard deduction, which give taxable income of $20,176 and tax of $2,173."
+us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 2025 values: a $15,000 standard deduction and an $11,925 10% bracket edge. The 2026 values are $16,100 and $12,400, so it overstated taxable income at $21,276 and got $2,315 instead of $2,173."
+us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model assumed TCJA expired and applied an $8,000 standard deduction, a $5,000 personal exemption, and a 15% second bracket. OBBBA made TCJA permanent, so the correct figures are a $16,100 standard deduction and 12% above $12,400, which give $2,173."
+us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no value and no explanation for this output, so no answer could be scored."
+us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"The model correctly found taxable income of $20,176. It then reduced the tax to $0 using the EITC, even though it acknowledged the EITC is refundable and excluded from this measure. A childless filer at $36k is also past the EITC phase-out. The tax before refundable credits is $2,173."
+us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model overstated the 2026 single standard deduction at $16,225 instead of $16,100, which understated taxable income at $20,051 and gave $2,161 instead of $2,173."
+us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,other,False,"The model computed $2,220.12 using a $15,750 deduction and a $12,150 bracket edge. It then submitted 424.76, which none of its steps produce. The correct 2026 parameters are $16,100 and $12,400, which give $2,173.07."
+us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model claimed the standard deduction exceeds AGI. AGI of $36,276 far exceeds the $16,100 deduction, leaving $20,176 of taxable income and $2,173 of tax, with no nonrefundable credits available."
us,scenario_045,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model correctly identified the childless EITC pathway and that its phaseout ends near $20,000, but then awarded $632 at $36,276. The childless EITC is fully phased out at that income, so this component is $0."
us,scenario_045,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model incorrectly subtracted $21,208 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums from wages when computing EITC income, despite no stated pre-tax payroll treatment. It also produced $2,410 for a childless EITC whose maximum is far below that amount; using the full $36,276 leaves the credit fully phased out."
us,scenario_045,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model treated earned income as $15,068 by subtracting the $21,208 insurance premium from $36,276 of gross wages. The EITC test uses the full $36,276 here, at which the childless credit is fully phased out."
@@ -4023,138 +4162,142 @@ us,scenario_045,payroll_tax,grok-4.5,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model
us,scenario_045,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no value and no explanation for payroll_tax, so it never submitted the required key through the submit_outputs contract. The correct derivation is 6.2% and 1.45% of the $36,276 wage base, $2,249.09 + $526.00 = $2,775.08."
us,scenario_045,payroll_tax,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"The model's reasoning was fully correct — $36,276 × 0.062 = $2,249 Social Security, $36,276 × 0.0145 = $526 Medicare, no Additional Medicare Tax, no Michigan employee payroll tax, ""Total ≈ $2,775"" — but it submitted 2837 in the value field, contradicting its own stated total by $62. The failure is the transcription of a derived answer, not the tax rule."
us,scenario_045,self_employment_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_045,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Subtracted the $21,208 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums from SNAP income, but SNAP has no deduction for these premiums. The full $3,022.97 of monthly gross income fails the 130% gross limit, at about 232% of the guideline. The model even wrote that the household exceeds the income limit, then went on to calculate a $258 monthly benefit anyway, when the correct result is $0."
+us,scenario_045,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Subtracted the $21,208 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums from SNAP income, but SNAP has no deduction for these premiums. It also never compared the full $3,022.97 monthly gross income with the 130% gross limit, which the household fails at about 232% of the guideline. The model even wrote that the household exceeds the income limit, then went on to calculate a $258 monthly benefit anyway, when the correct result is $0."
us,scenario_045,snap,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Treated Michigan as excluding the $5,200 of child support from gross income, which put adjusted gross income just under the 200% BBCE limit. Michigan instead deducts child support paid only when computing net income, so gross income stays at $3,022.97 a month (about 232% of the guideline) and fails both the 200% BBCE limit and the 130% test. The model's own net income calculation also gave a benefit below zero, yet it submitted $2,718 instead of $0."
us,scenario_045,snap,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Gave no SNAP value and no reasoning, so there was nothing to score. The correct result is $0, because $3,022.97 of monthly gross income fails the 130% gross test and the 200% TANF non-cash categorical eligibility limit."
us,scenario_045,snap,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,other,False,"Correctly found that $3,023 of monthly gross income exceeds the 130% gross limit and that the household is not eligible for SNAP, but submitted $7,032 instead of $0. The submitted number contradicts the model's own eligibility finding."
us,scenario_045,ssi,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"The model correctly computed 0.0425 × ($36,276 − $5,900) ≈ $1,291, then dropped that result for guesses at higher exemptions. It submitted $1,229, a value that matches none of the exemptions it named. The submitted value contradicts its own correct derivation."
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used $5,800, which is the 2025 Michigan personal exemption, instead of the 2026 amount of $5,900. That overstates taxable income by $100 and gives $1,295.23 instead of 4.25% × $30,375.59 = $1,290.96."
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied a federal-style $14,600 standard deduction that Michigan does not have. It subtracted the $21,208 employer insurance premiums from the stated gross wages, and it treated the refundable Homestead Property Tax Credit as nonrefundable to reach $0. The correct base is AGI of $36,275.59 minus the $5,900 personal exemption, taxed at 4.25%."
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a $5,600 exemption, which is the 2024 amount, instead of the 2026 amount of $5,900, and got about $1,303. It then submitted $1,280 with no derivation for that number."
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the 2025 personal exemption of $5,800 instead of the 2026 exemption of $5,900. That produces taxable income of $30,476 and tax of $1,295 instead of $30,375.59 × 4.25% = $1,290.96."
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,other,False,"The model computed $1,295 with a $5,800 exemption, itself $100 too low against the 2026 amount of $5,900. It then submitted $1,024, which has no connection to any step in its own reasoning."
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 2025 exemption of $5,800 instead of $5,900 for 2026. It then subtracted about $60 of nonrefundable credits that do not exist for this filer and landed at $1,235. No Michigan nonrefundable credit applies, so the tax is $1,290.96."
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model subtracted a $5,800 personal exemption, the 2025 figure, instead of the 2026 exemption of $5,900. It got $1,295.23 instead of $1,290.96."
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied 4.05%, a rate that was in effect only for 2023, instead of the 2026 rate of 4.25%. It also used a guessed $6,000 exemption instead of $5,900. Both errors together produced $1,226.18."
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model computed $1,295 using the outdated $5,800 exemption. It then inflated that to $1,490 by citing an exemption phase-in that does not exist. Michigan's $5,900 personal exemption is not reduced at this income, so the tax is $1,290.96."
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $21,208 employer insurance premiums from the stated gross wages and used $15,068 as AGI, but the correct AGI is $36,275.59. It also used a $6,200 exemption instead of $5,900, which gave $376.89."
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model reduced AGI to $15,068 by subtracting employer insurance premiums from the stated gross wages, when AGI equals the full $36,275.59 of wages. It also used a $5,670 exemption instead of the 2026 amount of $5,900, which gave $399."
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 2024 exemption of $5,600 instead of the 2026 exemption of $5,900. That overstates taxable income by $300 and gives $1,303.73 instead of $1,290.96."
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a guessed $6,000 personal exemption instead of the published 2026 amount of $5,900. That understates taxable income by $100 and gives $1,286.73 instead of $1,290.96."
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used Michigan AGI of $15,068 by subtracting the $21,208 employer insurance premiums from the stated gross wages, but AGI is the full $36,275.59. It also used the outdated $5,600 exemption instead of $5,900."
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model gave no derivation. Its $1,150 at 4.25% implies taxable income of about $27,059, which means it subtracted roughly $9,200 from $36,276. The correct calculation subtracts only the single $5,900 personal exemption, leaving $30,375.59 and tax of $1,290.96."
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its taxable income of $30,476 means it subtracted the 2025 exemption of $5,800 instead of the 2026 exemption of $5,900. That gives $1,295 instead of $1,290.96."
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used $15,068 as AGI after subtracting employer insurance premiums from the stated gross wages, when AGI is the full $36,275.59. It also used the outdated $5,600 exemption instead of $5,900, which gave $402.39."
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model zeroed out the tax with a standard deduction that Michigan's income tax does not have. The only reduction is the $5,900 personal exemption, which leaves $30,375.59 taxable and $1,290.96 of tax."
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model treated the $21,208 employer insurance premiums as excluded from the stated gross wages and set AGI at $15,068 instead of $36,275.59. It also used the outdated $5,600 exemption instead of $5,900."
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model subtracted the 2025 personal exemption of $5,800 instead of the 2026 exemption of $5,900. It got $1,295.23 instead of $1,290.96."
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the $5,800 exemption, which is the 2025 figure, rather than the 2026 exemption of $5,900. That overstates taxable income by $100 and gives $1,295.23."
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model invented a $20,000 Michigan standard deduction and subtracted the refundable Homestead Property Tax Credit as if it were nonrefundable. It then submitted $0, which contradicts even its own $121 result. The correct calculation is 4.25% × ($36,275.59 − $5,900)."
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used an outdated personal exemption of about $5,200 instead of the 2026 exemption of $5,900. That overstates taxable income by $700 and gives $1,321."
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model assumed a state deduction structure that removes all taxable income at this level. Michigan allows only the $5,900 personal exemption, which leaves $30,375.59 taxable at 4.25%."
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model assumed standard deductions and nonrefundable credits wipe out the Michigan tax. Michigan has no standard deduction, and no nonrefundable credit applies. Only the $5,900 exemption is subtracted, leaving $1,290.96 of tax."
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied 4.05%, a rate in effect only for 2023, instead of the 2026 rate of 4.25%. It also used the 2025 exemption of $5,800 instead of $5,900, which gave $1,234.28."
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the correct $5,900 exemption but started from a federal AGI of $15,068, having subtracted the $21,208 employer insurance premiums from the stated gross wages. AGI is the full $36,275.59, so the tax is $1,290.96, not $390."
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model claimed a Michigan standard deduction and exemptions offset all $36,276 of income. Michigan has no standard deduction, and the single $5,900 personal exemption leaves $30,375.59 taxable at 4.25%."
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used federal AGI of $15,068 by subtracting employer insurance premiums from the stated gross wages instead of using the full $36,275.59. It also projected a $5,880 exemption instead of $5,900, which gave $390."
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model projected the 2026 exemption at $5,800, which is the 2025 value, instead of the published $5,900. It got $1,295 instead of $1,290.96."
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model subtracted a $6,000 exemption instead of the 2026 amount of $5,900. That understates taxable income by $100 and gives $1,286.73."
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used an outdated $5,000 personal exemption instead of the 2026 exemption of $5,900. That overstates taxable income by $900 and gives $1,329."
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,other,False,"The model subtracted about $1,159 for the Homestead Property Tax Credit, but that credit is refundable and does not belong in tax before refundable credits. It also used a $6,000 exemption instead of $5,900. The correct pre-refundable tax is $1,290.96."
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no value and no explanation for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was no answer to score."
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model allowed a $6,000 personal exemption instead of the published 2026 amount of $5,900. It got $1,286.73 instead of 4.25% × $30,375.59 = $1,290.96."
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"The model computed about $1,329 using an outdated $5,000 exemption. It acknowledged that the homestead credit is refundable and excluded here, yet it still submitted $0. The correct figure with the $5,900 exemption is $1,290.96."
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 2024 exemption of $5,600 instead of the 2026 exemption of $5,900. That overstates taxable income by $300 and gives $1,303.70."
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model subtracted an outdated $5,000 personal exemption instead of the 2026 amount of $5,900. It got $1,329.23 instead of $1,290.96."
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,other,False,"The model computed $1,303.73 with the outdated $5,600 exemption, when the 2026 exemption is $5,900. It then submitted $1,116.01, a value no step in its reasoning supports."
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted a nonexistent Michigan standard deduction and the $5,200 of child support paid, which is not deductible, to reach $0. The correct calculation subtracts only the $5,900 personal exemption, which gives $1,290.96."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model ruled out the Homestead Property Tax Credit because the household rents. Michigan counts 23% of rent as property tax for renters, which gives a $760.79 credit here."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model only checked the Michigan EITC, which is correctly $0. It never considered the refundable Homestead Property Tax Credit available to renters: 60% × (23% × $10,560 − 3.2% × $36,276) = $760.79."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,other,False,"The model's reasoning reached the right result: 60% × ($2,428.80 − $1,160.83) = $760.78. It then submitted an unrelated $884 by 'adjusting for slight rounding', so its final answer contradicts its own correct calculation."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model looked only at the EITC and the Home Heating Credit, found both to be $0, and never computed the renter's Homestead Property Tax Credit. Its $1,209 is an unsupported number that contradicts its own conclusion that the credits are 'minimal'."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted only the Michigan EITC, which is $0, and left out the refundable Homestead Property Tax Credit. That credit is worth $760.79 for this renter: 23% of rent, less 3.2% of household resources, times 60%."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model treated 20% of rent as property tax instead of the 23% PolicyEngine uses ($2,428.80). That understated the credit at $570.70 instead of 60% × ($2,428.80 − $1,160.82) = $760.79."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model dropped the Homestead Property Tax Credit because no property tax was listed. For renters, 23% of the $10,560 rent counts as property tax, which yields a $760.79 refundable credit."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly found federal and Michigan EITC to be $0. It then made up a $1,089 'match' figure and never calculated the Homestead Property Tax Credit (60% × ($2,428.80 − $1,160.82) = $760.79), which is the only refundable credit here."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used 20% of rent instead of 23%, a 3.5% resource threshold instead of 3.2%, and an assumed ~55% rate instead of 60%. With the correct parameters, $2,428.80 − $1,160.82 = $1,267.98, and 60% of that is $760.79."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted only the Michigan EITC, which is $0, and missed the refundable Homestead Property Tax Credit for renters. That credit is $760.79 here."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $21,208 ESI premiums, cutting household resources to $15,068 instead of $36,275.59, and used 20% of rent instead of 23%. On the same reduced-earnings basis it also produced a $342 federal EITC, although a childless filer with $36,276 in wages gets none."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used 20% of rent instead of 23%, a 3.5% threshold instead of 3.2%, and an 80% rate instead of 60%. The correct figure is 0.60 × ($2,428.80 − $1,160.82) = $760.79."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used 20% of rent instead of 23% and never applied the 60% credit percentage. Its answer is the raw excess, $2,112 − $1,160.83, rather than 60% × ($2,428.80 − $1,160.82) = $760.79."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied the 23% rent share and the 60% rate correctly, but it cut household resources to $15,068 by subtracting the $21,208 ESI premiums. PolicyEngine counts full wages of $36,275.59, so the 3.2% threshold is $1,160.82, not $482.18."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no Michigan refundable credit applies and overlooked the renter's Homestead Property Tax Credit: 60% × (23% × $10,560 − 3.2% × $36,276) = $760.79."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted only the Michigan EITC, which is $0, and left out the $760.79 refundable Homestead Property Tax Credit that applies to this renter."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's $977.89 homestead figure comes from 20% of rent instead of 23%, with household resources cut to $15,068 by subtracting ESI premiums. It also added a Michigan EITC on a $207 federal EITC that doesn't exist for a childless filer with $36,276 in wages."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model reported zero refundable credits and missed the renter's Homestead Property Tax Credit: 23% of rent ($2,428.80), less 3.2% of $36,275.59, times 60% = $760.79."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model reported only a Michigan EITC built on a $338.80 federal EITC, which is $0 for this childless filer with $36,276 in wages. It left out the $760.79 Homestead Property Tax Credit, which is the entire answer."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The $695.48 result equals 60% × ($2,428.80 − 3.5% × $36,276), so the model used a 3.5% resource threshold instead of 3.2%. The correct subtraction is $1,160.82, which gives $760.79."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $5,200 of child support paid from total household resources, giving $31,076. PolicyEngine uses $36,275.59 with no deduction for child support paid, so 3.2% of resources is $1,160.82 and the credit is $760.79."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,other,False,"The model's reasoning computed a $570.70 homestead credit, though it used 20% of rent instead of 23%. It then submitted $0, contradicting its own finding that the credit is refundable and applies."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted only the Michigan EITC, which is $0, and wrongly said no other refundable credit applies. The renter's Homestead Property Tax Credit is $760.79."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model found no refundable Michigan credit and overlooked the Homestead Property Tax Credit, which is triggered by the $10,560 rent: 60% × ($2,428.80 − $1,160.82) = $760.79."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model required a dependent for a refundable credit. Michigan's Homestead Property Tax Credit needs no dependent, and this renter qualifies for $760.79."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model treated 20% of rent as property tax instead of the 23% PolicyEngine applies. Using $2,428.80 instead of $2,112 raises the credit from $570.70 to $760.79."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model cut household resources to $15,068 by subtracting ESI premiums, which inflated the homestead credit to $1,168. It also added a $104 Michigan EITC, although the federal EITC is $0 at $36,276 in wages with no children."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,The model assumed a childless household gets no Michigan refundable credit. The Homestead Property Tax Credit doesn't depend on children and is $760.79 for this renter.
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model deducted the $21,208 insurance premiums from household resources, leaving $15,068. PolicyEngine counts $36,275.59, so the 3.2% threshold is $1,160.82 and the credit is $760.79, not $1,167.97."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used 20% of rent instead of 23% and stopped at the excess over 3.2% of resources without applying the 60% credit percentage. The correct figure is 0.60 × ($2,428.80 − $1,160.82) = $760.79."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model reduced household resources by the $5,200 of child support paid, giving $31,076. PolicyEngine counts the full $36,275.59, so the 3.2% subtraction is $1,160.82 and the credit is $760.79."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $21,208 insurance premiums, cutting resources to $15,068, and used 20% of rent instead of 23%. The correct figure is 60% × ($2,428.80 − 3.2% × $36,275.59) = $760.79."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no state refundable credit applies and missed the renter's Homestead Property Tax Credit, which comes to $760.79."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model cut household resources to $15,068 by subtracting ESI premiums and used a 3.5% threshold instead of 3.2%. It also added a Michigan EITC at the outdated 6% rate on a $341 federal EITC that doesn't exist for this childless filer."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $5,200 of child support paid from household resources, giving $31,076. PolicyEngine counts $36,275.59, so the excess is $1,267.98 and 60% of it is $760.79, not $861."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model reported no refundable credits and missed the Homestead Property Tax Credit, which Michigan grants renters: 60% × (23% × $10,560 − 3.2% × $36,276) = $760.79."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated the Homestead Property Tax Credit as limited to tax liability. It is fully refundable, so the whole $760.79 is a refundable credit. The model also cited the outdated 6% Michigan EITC rate."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,The model gave no value or explanation for state_refundable_credits. The required $760.79 Homestead Property Tax Credit is absent.
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used 20% of rent instead of 23% and a 3.5% resource threshold instead of 3.2%. The correct figure is 60% × ($2,428.80 − $1,160.82) = $760.79."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model wrongly concluded that no rent was actually paid and that the homestead credit isn't triggered. The $10,560 rent is paid rent, 23% of it ($2,428.80) is far above 3.2% of resources, and the credit is $760.79."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a 3.5% household-resource threshold ($1,269.66) instead of 3.2% ($1,160.82). With 3.2%, the excess is $1,267.98 and the credit is $760.79."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model treated only 17% of rent as property tax, instead of 23%, and used a 3.5% resource threshold instead of 3.2%. That shrank the credit to $315.32 instead of 60% × ($2,428.80 − $1,160.82) = $760.79."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model concluded the homestead credit doesn't qualify on the listed facts. The listed $10,560 rent makes the renter eligible, and the credit is $760.79."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model reported no refundable state credits and missed the renter's Homestead Property Tax Credit: 23% of rent, less 3.2% of $36,275.59 in resources, times 60% = $760.79."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly computed 0.0425 × ($36,276 − $5,900) ≈ $1,291. It then dropped that result and reported $1,229 based on speculative exemption adjustments ($6,350 and $7,350). That final number does not follow from its own correct derivation."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $5,800 personal exemption instead of Michigan's 2026 exemption of $5,900. That overstated taxable income by $100 ($30,476 vs $30,375.59) and gave $1,295.23 instead of $1,290.96."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $21,208 ESI premiums from AGI and applied the federal $14,600 standard deduction, which Michigan does not allow. It also treated the Homestead Property Tax Credit as a nonrefundable offset, which drove the tax to $0. The correct base is $36,275.59 minus only the $5,900 personal exemption, taxed at 4.25%."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $5,600 exemption instead of $5,900, which gave about $1,303. It then reported an arbitrary $1,280 that matches no computation. The correct figure is ($36,275.59 − $5,900) × 4.25% = $1,290.96."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a $5,800 personal exemption instead of the 2026 amount of $5,900. That produced $30,476 of taxable income and $1,295 instead of $1,290.96."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,other,False,"Its own derivation reached $1,295 using a $5,800 exemption (the correct exemption is $5,900, which gives $1,290.96). It then reported $1,024, a number its reasoning does not support."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $5,800 exemption instead of $5,900. It then subtracted about $60 of made-up nonrefundable credits, but no Michigan nonrefundable credit applies to this childless filer. The tax stays at ($36,275.59 − $5,900) × 4.25% = $1,290.96."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It subtracted a $5,800 personal exemption instead of Michigan's 2026 $5,900 exemption. That overstated taxable income and gave $1,295.23 instead of $1,290.96."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a 4.05% rate instead of Michigan's 4.25% flat rate. It also used a $6,000 exemption instead of $5,900. Together these gave $1,226.18 instead of $30,375.59 × 0.0425 = $1,290.96."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,other,False,"It computed $1,295 using a $5,800 exemption, which is already $100 too low an exemption (the correct one is $5,900). It then inflated the answer to $1,490 by citing 'exemption phase-in estimates', but Michigan's personal exemption does not phase in or out at this income."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $21,208 employer-sponsored insurance premiums to get an AGI of $15,068. The correct starting point is the full $36,275.59 of wages. It also used a $6,200 exemption instead of $5,900, which collapsed the tax to $376.89."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reduced AGI to $15,068 by subtracting the ESI premiums, even though AGI is the full $36,275.59 of wages. It also used a $5,670 exemption instead of $5,900, which gave $399."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $5,600 personal exemption instead of the 2026 Michigan exemption of $5,900. That gave taxable income of $30,676 and tax of $1,303.73 instead of $1,290.96."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It subtracted a $6,000 personal exemption instead of $5,900. That understated taxable income by $100 and gave $1,286.73 instead of $1,290.96."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started from an AGI of $15,068 by subtracting the $21,208 ESI premiums, even though Michigan AGI is the full $36,275.59 of wages. It also used a $5,600 exemption instead of $5,900, which gave $402.39."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave no derivation. $1,150 at 4.25% implies about $27,059 of taxable income, which means it subtracted roughly $9,200 instead of the $5,900 personal exemption. The correct taxable income is $30,375.59, which gives $1,290.96."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its taxable income of $30,476 implies a $5,800 exemption instead of the 2026 amount of $5,900. That produced $1,295 instead of $1,290.96."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used an AGI of $15,068 by subtracting the ESI premiums from wages, even though AGI is $36,275.59. It also used a $5,600 exemption instead of $5,900, which gave $402.39."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed exemptions and 'standard deductions' eliminate the tax. Michigan has no standard deduction for a 44-year-old filer, and only the $5,900 personal exemption applies. That leaves $30,375.59 taxable and $1,290.96 of tax."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took AGI as $15,068 by deducting the $21,208 ESI premiums, even though AGI is the full $36,275.59 of wages. It also used a $5,600 exemption instead of $5,900, which gave $402.39."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $5,800 personal exemption instead of $5,900. That gave taxable income of $30,476 and tax of $1,295.23 instead of $1,290.96."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It subtracted a $5,800 exemption instead of Michigan's 2026 $5,900 exemption. That gave $1,295.23 instead of $1,290.96."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It invented a $20,000 Michigan standard deduction and treated the Homestead Property Tax Credit as a nonrefundable offset, which led to $121. It then reported $0 anyway. The correct tax is 4.25% × ($36,275.59 − $5,900) = $1,290.96, and the refundable homestead credit is excluded from this output."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $5,200 personal exemption instead of the 2026 Michigan exemption of $5,900. That overstated taxable income at $31,076 and gave $1,321 instead of $1,290.96."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It asserted that Michigan's 'deduction structure' leaves no taxable income. In fact, only the $5,900 personal exemption applies to this filer, which leaves $30,375.59 taxed at 4.25% for $1,290.96."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed standard deductions and nonrefundable credits fully offset the tax. Michigan allows only the $5,900 personal exemption here and has no applicable nonrefundable credit, so the tax is $1,290.96."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a 4.05% rate instead of Michigan's 4.25% flat rate, and a $5,800 exemption instead of $5,900. That gave $1,234.28 instead of $1,290.96."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $5,900 exemption was correct, but it started from an AGI of $15,068 after subtracting the $21,208 ESI premiums. AGI is the full $36,275.59 of wages, and the correct tax is $1,290.96, not $390."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed a Michigan standard deduction plus exemptions offset all $36,276 of income. Michigan gives this filer only the $5,900 personal exemption, which leaves $30,375.59 taxable and $1,290.96 of tax."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used an AGI of $15,068 by deducting the ESI premiums from wages, even though AGI is $36,275.59. It also used a $5,880 exemption instead of $5,900, which gave $390."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It projected the 2026 personal exemption at $5,800 instead of the published $5,900. That gave $1,295 instead of $1,290.96."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It subtracted a $6,000 personal exemption instead of $5,900. That gave taxable income of $30,276 and tax of $1,286.73 instead of $1,290.96."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $5,000 personal exemption instead of the 2026 amount of $5,900. That overstated taxable income at $31,276 and gave $1,329."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It used a $6,000 exemption instead of $5,900. It also subtracted about $1,159 for the Homestead Property Tax Credit. That credit is refundable and is excluded from tax before refundable credits, so the correct output stays at $1,290.96."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value and no explanation for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits. The correct answer is ($36,275.59 − $5,900) × 4.25% = $1,290.96."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It allowed a $6,000 personal exemption instead of Michigan's 2026 $5,900 exemption. That gave $1,286.73 instead of $1,290.96."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"It used a $5,000 exemption to reach about $1,329. It then acknowledged that the homestead credit is refundable and excluded, yet still reported $0 with no supporting step. The correct tax with the $5,900 exemption is $1,290.96."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It subtracted a $6,000 exemption instead of $5,900. That understated taxable income and gave $1,286.73 instead of $1,290.96."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $5,600 personal exemption instead of $5,900. That gave taxable income of $30,676 and tax of $1,303.70 instead of $1,290.96."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $5,000 personal exemption instead of the 2026 amount of $5,900. That overstated taxable income at $31,276 and gave $1,329.23."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,other,False,"It computed $1,303.73 using a $5,600 exemption, which is itself $300 too low an exemption (the correct one is $5,900, giving $1,290.96). It then reported $1,116.01, a number its own derivation does not produce."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted a nonexistent Michigan standard deduction and deducted the $5,200 of child support paid, which is not deductible. Michigan allows only the $5,900 personal exemption, so the tax is $1,290.96."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model ruled out the Homestead Property Tax Credit because the household rents. Renters qualify, with 23% of rent ($2,428.80) counted as property tax. The credit, 60% × ($2,428.80 − $1,160.82) = $760.79, was therefore dropped."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model only checked the Michigan EITC, which is $0, and never considered the refundable Homestead Property Tax Credit. For this renter that credit is 60% × (23% × $10,560 − 3.2% × $36,276) = $760.79."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,other,False,"The model correctly worked out 60% × ($2,428.80 − $1,160.83) = $760.78 in its reasoning. It then submitted an unexplained $884 as a 'rounding adjustment', so its final answer contradicts its own correct calculation."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model looked only at the EITC and the Home Heating Credit, correctly found both to be zero, and then submitted an arbitrary $1,209. It never computed the renter Homestead Property Tax Credit of 60% × (23% of rent − 3.2% of household resources) = $760.79."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated the Michigan EITC as the only refundable state credit and left out the Homestead Property Tax Credit. That credit gives this renter 60% × ($2,428.80 − $1,160.82) = $760.79."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model counted 20% of rent ($2,112) as property tax instead of 23% ($2,428.80). That shrank the excess over 3.2% of household resources and produced $570.70 instead of $760.79."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model dismissed the Homestead Property Tax Credit because no property tax was listed. A renter's rent supplies the deemed property tax, at 23% of $10,560 = $2,428.80, which yields a $760.79 refundable credit."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly found the federal and Michigan EITC to be $0, then made up a $1,089 'reduced EITC'. It never computed the Homestead Property Tax Credit of 60% × (23% of rent − 3.2% of resources) = $760.79."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used 20% of rent instead of 23%, subtracted 3.5% of income instead of 3.2%, and applied a guessed ~55% factor instead of 60%. The result was $460 instead of $760.79."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model stopped once it found the Michigan EITC was $0 and missed the refundable Homestead Property Tax Credit. For this renter that credit is 60% × ($2,428.80 − $1,160.82) = $760.79."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model cut household resources to $15,068 by subtracting the ESI premiums, and used 20% of rent instead of 23%. It also credited a $342 federal EITC for a childless filer earning $36k, who gets no federal EITC. Together these inflated the total to $1,081."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied 20% of rent instead of 23%, a 3.5% resource threshold instead of 3.2%, and an 80% credit rate instead of 60%. That gave $673.87 instead of 60% × ($2,428.80 − $1,160.82) = $760.79."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used 20% of rent instead of 23% and never applied the 60% credit percentage. It reported the raw excess of $951.17 instead of 60% × $1,267.98 = $760.79."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the correct 23%, 3.2% and 60% parameters, but it subtracted the $21,208 ESI premiums from household resources, leaving $15,068. Household resources should be the full $36,275.59, so the 3.2% offset is $1,160.82 and the credit is $760.79, not $1,167.97."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed no Michigan refundable credit applies and missed the renter Homestead Property Tax Credit. That credit equals 60% × (23% × $10,560 − 3.2% × $36,276) = $760.79."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model only evaluated the Michigan EITC, which is $0, and left out the refundable Homestead Property Tax Credit of $760.79 that this renter receives."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model included a Michigan EITC on a $207 federal EITC, but the federal EITC is $0 at $36k with no children. It also computed the homestead credit using 20% of rent and household resources reduced by the ESI premiums. The correct basis is 23% of rent less 3.2% of $36,275.59, which gives $760.79."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model returned $0 without considering Michigan's refundable Homestead Property Tax Credit. For this renter that credit equals 60% × ($2,428.80 − $1,160.82) = $760.79."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied the 30% Michigan EITC to a nonexistent $338.80 federal EITC; a childless filer earning $36k is fully phased out. It also never computed the $760.79 Homestead Property Tax Credit, which is the only state refundable credit here."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The $695.48 answer equals 60% × ($2,428.80 − 3.5% × $36,276), so the model used a 3.5% household-resource threshold instead of 3.2%. The correct offset is $1,160.82, and 60% × $1,267.98 = $760.79."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $5,200 of child support paid, which cut household resources to $31,076. The correct figure is $36,275.59, so the 3.2% offset came out too small and the credit rose to $860.62 instead of $760.79."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model computed the excess correctly, $2,428.80 − $1,160.83 = $1,267.97, but never applied the 60% credit percentage for non-senior, non-disabled claimants. The answer should be $760.79."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,other,False,"The model's reasoning arrived at a $570.70 homestead credit, using 20% of rent instead of 23%, yet it submitted $0. The final answer contradicts its own reasoning, and the reasoning itself undercounted the deemed property tax."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model concluded that only the Michigan EITC was relevant and missed the refundable Homestead Property Tax Credit. For this renter that credit is 60% × (23% of $10,560 − 3.2% of $36,276) = $760.79."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model found no refundable Michigan credit and overlooked the Homestead Property Tax Credit. That credit is available to renters at 60% × ($2,428.80 − $1,160.82) = $760.79."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model assumed refundable Michigan credits require a dependent or other unlisted conditions. The Homestead Property Tax Credit needs only rent paid and household resources under the limit, which here gives $760.79."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model counted 20% of rent ($2,112) as property tax instead of 23% ($2,428.80), which gave $570.70 instead of 60% × $1,267.98 = $760.79."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model cut household resources to $15,068 by deducting the ESI premiums, producing a $1,168 homestead credit. It also added a $104 Michigan EITC even though the childless federal EITC is $0 at $36k."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,The model treated having no children as ruling out every Michigan refundable credit. The Homestead Property Tax Credit does not depend on children and gives this renter $760.79.
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model deducted the $21,208 of insurance premiums from household resources, leaving $15,068 instead of $36,275.59. That cut the 3.2% offset to $482 and inflated the credit to $1,167.97 instead of $760.79."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used 20% of rent instead of 23% and left out the 60% credit percentage, reporting the raw excess of $951. The correct result is 60% × ($2,428.80 − $1,160.82) = $760.79."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $5,200 of child support paid, reducing household resources to $31,076 instead of $36,275.59. That shrank the 3.2% offset and gave $860.62 instead of $760.79."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model deducted the ESI premiums, cutting household resources to $15,068, and used 20% of rent instead of 23%. The result was $977.89 instead of 60% × ($2,428.80 − $1,160.82) = $760.79."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model found no qualifying state refundable credits and missed Michigan's renter Homestead Property Tax Credit of 60% × (23% of rent − 3.2% of resources) = $760.79.
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model cut household resources to $15,068 by deducting the ESI premiums and used a 3.5% threshold instead of 3.2%, producing a $1,141 homestead credit. It also added a 6% Michigan EITC on a $341 federal EITC, but the federal EITC is $0 at $36k with no children."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model deducted the $5,200 of child support paid from household resources, giving $31,076 instead of $36,275.59. That lowered the 3.2% offset and produced $861 instead of $760.79."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model concluded no Michigan refundable credit applies and missed the Homestead Property Tax Credit. For this renter that credit is 60% × ($2,428.80 − $1,160.82) = $760.79."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated the Homestead Property Tax Credit as nonrefundable, usable only against tax liability. It is fully refundable, so the $760.79 credit counts in full whatever the liability. The model also used an outdated 6% EITC rate."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no value or explanation for state_refundable_credits, so it never produced the $760.79 Homestead Property Tax Credit."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used 20% of rent instead of 23% and a 3.5% resource threshold instead of 3.2%. It reached 60% × ($2,112 − $1,269.66) = $505.40 instead of 60% × ($2,428.80 − $1,160.82) = $760.79."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model read the 'pre-subsidy rent' label as meaning no rent was actually paid and denied the credit. The listed $10,560 is rent paid, and 23% of it ($2,428.80) is the deemed property tax that produces the $760.79 credit."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model considered only the Michigan EITC, which is $0, and missed the refundable Homestead Property Tax Credit of $760.79 available to this renter."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a 3.5% household-resource threshold, an offset of $1,269.66, instead of 3.2%, which is $1,160.82. That gave $695.48 instead of 60% × $1,267.98 = $760.79."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model counted 17% of rent as property tax instead of 23% and used a 3.5% resource threshold instead of 3.2%. Its $315.32 compares with 60% × ($2,428.80 − $1,160.82) = $760.79."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model claimed the homestead credit does not qualify on the listed facts. The $10,560 of rent supplies a deemed property tax of $2,428.80, and resources of $36,276 are well within the limit, which gives a $760.79 refundable credit."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model returned $0 without evaluating Michigan's renter Homestead Property Tax Credit. That credit equals 60% × (23% × $10,560 − 3.2% × $36,276) = $760.79."
us,scenario_046,child1_chip_eligible,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied a generic 255% FPL CHIP limit that is not Oklahoma's rule. In Oklahoma a 10-year-old falls outside the separate CHIP's age coverage and gets children's coverage only through SoonerCare Medicaid, whose income test the household also fails. It also understated MAGI as $77,164 by subtracting the $14,839 FLSA overtime premium ($92,003 - $14,839), but the overtime deduction does not reduce AGI-based MAGI. Correct MAGI is about $92,003, well above Oklahoma's children's limit, so the answer is not eligible."
us,scenario_046,child1_medicaid_eligible,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model asserted that the child was “likely eligible” without testing Oklahoma's income limits or any categorical pathway. At 2.79 times FPL, child1 fails the regular children's Medicaid limit, CHIP limit, and all other applicable categories, yielding medicaid_category = NONE and value = 0."
us,scenario_046,child2_chip_eligible,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's MAGI of $77,164 is exactly $92,003 minus the $14,839 FLSA overtime premium. It treated the no-tax-on-overtime deduction as lowering MAGI, but that deduction is taken below the line and never reduces AGI or Medicaid/CHIP MAGI. Using the correct MAGI of $92,003, the four-person household sits at about 280% FPL. That is above even the 255% CHIP limit the model cited, so child2 is not CHIP-eligible."
us,scenario_046,child2_medicaid_eligible,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model assumed that being a child made Child 2 eligible without testing Oklahoma's categorical and income requirements. At 2.79 times FPL, Child 2 exceeds all applicable child Medicaid limits and qualifies through no other pathway, so the correct value is 0."
-us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its own working was nearly right: the overtime deduction, standard deduction, taxable income of about $44,864 and tax of about $4,888 less the $4,400 CTC gave about $488. It then submitted $3,465 with no derivation. Correct inputs ($32,200 standard deduction, $24,800 top of the 10% bracket) give $4,899.71 − $4,400 = $499.71."
-us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $14,839 qualified overtime deduction and used an outdated $28,700 standard deduction instead of $32,200, which inflated taxable income to $63,303 instead of $44,964. It also applied a $2,500 AOTC even though no qualified tuition expenses were listed, and it used $2,000 per child for the CTC instead of $2,200."
-us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the credits wipe out the liability without computing it. After the $32,200 standard deduction and the $14,839 overtime deduction, taxable income is $44,964 and tax is $4,899.71. That exceeds the $4,400 nonrefundable CTC, so $499.71 remains, not $0."
-us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It never applied the $14,839 qualified overtime deduction and used the 2025 $31,500 standard deduction instead of $32,200, which gave taxable income of $60,503. It also used a $2,000-per-child CTC instead of $2,200. Its submitted $4,669 does not even match its own $2,777 result."
-us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $14,839 qualified overtime deduction, so taxable income came out at $59,703 instead of $44,964. Although it said the CTC would bring tax near zero, the $6,779 it submitted is the pre-credit tax with no CTC subtracted."
-us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"It reached the correct taxable income of $44,964 but used a $24,000 top for the 10% bracket instead of $24,800. More importantly, it reported the pre-credit tax ($4,966) as the answer instead of subtracting the $4,400 nonrefundable CTC. The output is defined as tax after nonrefundable credits, so the answer is $4,899.71 − $4,400 = $499.71."
-us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the 2025 parameters (a $30,000 standard deduction and a $23,850 top for the 10% bracket) instead of the 2026 values of $32,200 and $24,800. It never applied the $14,839 qualified overtime deduction, so taxable income was $62,003 instead of $44,964. It also used a $2,000-per-child CTC instead of $2,200."
-us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It wrongly treated the FLSA overtime premium as purely informational and never took the $14,839 qualified overtime deduction, which inflated taxable income to $59,803. It then submitted $12,200, a figure unrelated to its own roughly $6,696 pre-credit tax, instead of subtracting the $4,400 CTC."
-us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized about $40.9k by counting the duplicated $12,000 premium fields twice and including non-deductible OTC costs. Allowable itemized deductions are only about $28.8k: $5,430 of medical above the 7.5% floor, $12,415 of mortgage interest, and SALT. That is less than the $32,200 standard deduction, so taxable income is $44,964 and tax of $4,899.71 exceeds the $4,400 CTC, which leaves $499.71."
-us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It never applied the $14,839 qualified overtime deduction and itemized $39,845 by double-counting the $12,000 premium fields, when the standard deduction is the better choice. It also wrongly limited the nonrefundable CTC to $400 by subtracting the refundable ACTC cap from each child's credit. In fact the full $4,400 CTC is nonrefundable up to the tax liability."
-us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied pre-TCJA law for 2026, with personal exemptions, a 15% bracket and a $1,000-per-child CTC, but OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent. The correct calculation uses the $32,200 standard deduction, the $14,839 overtime deduction, 10%/12% brackets and a $2,200-per-child CTC, giving $499.71."
-us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA had expired, so it used personal exemptions, pre-TCJA brackets and a $1,000-per-child CTC. For 2026 the law is the $32,200 standard deduction plus the $14,839 overtime deduction, giving taxable income of $44,964 and a $4,400 CTC. It also never applied the overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its taxable income of $44,964 was correct, but it used $24,400 instead of $24,800 as the top of the 2026 MFJ 10% bracket ($4,907.68 instead of $4,899.71). It also inflated the CTC to $2,260 per child instead of the statutory $2,200, which overstated the nonrefundable credit by $120."
-us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $14,839 overtime premium on top of wages, even though the prompt says wages already include overtime. It then subtracted the ESI premiums from gross wages and applied pre-TCJA personal exemptions with a $1,000-per-child CTC. Correct AGI is $92,003, and the overtime premium should be a deduction, not extra income."
-us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It never applied the $14,839 qualified overtime deduction and used a $31,200 standard deduction and a $4,000 CTC. Its $8,518 exceeds even the pre-credit tax those inputs produce (about $6,700), so the number is internally inconsistent. The correct result is $4,899.71 − $4,400 = $499.71."
-us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It wrongly subtracted the $9,208 ESI premiums from the stated gross wages and used post-TCJA-sunset rules: personal exemptions and a $1,000-per-child CTC. It also never applied the overtime deduction. Under OBBBA for 2026, the $32,200 standard deduction and the $14,839 overtime deduction give taxable income of $44,964 and a $4,400 CTC."
-us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It subtracted the ESI premiums from gross wages, used pre-TCJA personal exemptions with a $1,000-per-child CTC, and skipped the overtime deduction. It also claimed a $1,500 nonrefundable AOTC even though no qualified tuition expenses were listed, so the AOTC is $0."
-us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation. The correct result is $44,964 of taxable income (after the $32,200 standard deduction and $14,839 overtime deduction), $4,899.71 of tax, less the $4,400 CTC, for $499.71. The $3,212 figure matches taxing roughly $60k+ of income without the overtime deduction and netting only a $4,000 CTC."
-us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $1,858.40 matches the post-TCJA-sunset framework that other Gemini answers used: itemized deductions plus personal exemptions, pre-TCJA brackets and a $2,000 total CTC. Correct 2026 law uses the $32,200 standard deduction, the $14,839 overtime deduction and a $4,400 CTC, giving $499.71."
-us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied personal exemptions, which means it assumed the TCJA expired in 2026, and it never took the qualified overtime deduction. Under OBBBA, exemptions are zero and the household gets the $32,200 standard deduction, the $14,839 overtime deduction and a $2,200-per-child CTC."
-us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the 2025 $30,000 standard deduction and the 2025 $23,850 10% bracket instead of the 2026 values of $32,200 and $24,800. It left out the $14,839 qualified overtime deduction, so taxable income was $62,003 instead of $44,964. It also used $2,000 per child for the CTC instead of $2,200."
-us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no parseable value or explanation for this output. The correct result is $4,899.71 of tax on $44,964.29 of taxable income, less the $4,400 nonrefundable CTC, for $499.71."
-us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,other,False,"Its taxable income ($44,964) and tax ($4,899.68) were correct, but it limited the nonrefundable CTC to 2 × ($2,200 − $1,700) = $1,000. The full $2,200-per-child CTC is nonrefundable up to the tax liability, and the $1,700 ACTC cap only governs refunds of the unused part. All $4,400 applies, which leaves $499.71."
-us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,other,False,"It refused to compute and defaulted to $0, citing an AOTC even though no qualified tuition expenses were listed, so the AOTC is $0. The correct result is taxable income of $44,964 after the standard and overtime deductions, $4,899.71 of tax, less the $4,400 CTC, for $499.71."
-us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $6,794 matches the pre-credit tax on roughly $60k of taxable income. That means it left out the $14,839 qualified overtime deduction and never subtracted the $4,400 nonrefundable CTC. It also cited an AOTC even though there were no qualified expenses."
-us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It capped the qualified overtime deduction at $12,500, which is the cap for single filers. The married-filing-jointly cap is $25,000, so the full $14,839 premium is deductible, giving taxable income of $44,964 instead of $47,303 and tax of $4,899.71 before the $4,400 CTC."
-us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave a round $8,500 with no computation. It invoked an AOTC phase-out even though AGI is far below the threshold, and it never applied the overtime deduction or subtracted the $4,400 CTC. The correct result is $4,899.71 − $4,400 = $499.71."
-us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied pre-TCJA law with four personal exemptions, a 15% bracket and a $1,000-per-child CTC, but OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent for 2026. It also never took the $14,839 overtime deduction and itemized when the $32,200 standard deduction was larger."
-us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA had expired, so it used personal exemptions, pre-TCJA brackets and a $1,000-per-child CTC. It also never applied the qualified overtime deduction. Under 2026 law the household takes the $32,200 standard deduction and the $14,839 overtime deduction and claims a $4,400 CTC."
-us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It explicitly used a 'post-TCJA' 2026 return with $21,200 of personal exemptions and a $1,000-per-child CTC, but OBBBA made the TCJA standard deduction and CTC permanent. It also left out the $14,839 overtime deduction, so taxable income was $41,919 instead of $44,964 and its tax was computed under the wrong regime."
-us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied pre-TCJA 2026 rules with a $2,000 total CTC and arrived at only $23,508 of taxable income. The correct calculation is the $32,200 standard deduction plus the $14,839 overtime deduction, giving taxable income of $44,964 and tax of $4,899.71, less the $4,400 CTC."
-us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized with about $19,193 of medical deductions by counting both $12,000 premium fields and the non-deductible OTC expenses. Allowable medical is only about $5,430, so itemized deductions (about $28.8k) fall below the $32,200 standard deduction. Taxable income is $44,964, and tax of $4,899.71 exceeds the $4,400 CTC."
-us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no parseable value or explanation for this output. The correct result is $4,899.71 of tax on $44,964.29 of taxable income, less the $4,400 nonrefundable CTC, for $499.71."
-us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"It submitted a $9,999 placeholder with no computation. The correct derivation is the $32,200 standard deduction plus the $14,839 overtime deduction, giving $44,964 of taxable income and $4,899.71 of tax, less the $4,400 CTC, for $499.71."
-us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its taxable income of $44,964 and $4,400 CTC were correct, but it approximated tentative tax at $4,910. Using the $24,800 top of the 2026 MFJ 10% bracket, tax is exactly $2,480 + 12% × $20,164.29 = $4,899.71, which leaves $499.71."
-us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized $40,772 by treating $24,980 as medical expenses, which counts the duplicated $12,000 premium fields twice and includes non-deductible OTC costs. Correct medical deductions are about $5,430, so itemized deductions fall below the $32,200 standard deduction. Taxable income is $44,964 and tax of $4,899.71 exceeds the $4,400 CTC."
-us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It never applied the $14,839 qualified overtime deduction and itemized $38,959 by double-counting premiums and including OTC costs. It also claimed a $1,000 AOTC with zero qualified tuition expenses and used $2,000 per child for the CTC instead of $2,200."
-us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $14,839 overtime deduction, used a $31,500 standard deduction, and claimed a full $2,500 AOTC even though there were no qualified expenses. It then submitted $8,838, which contradicts its own stated $342 result. The correct calculation gives $4,899.71 of tax less the $4,400 CTC."
+us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its own work found taxable income of about $44,864, tax of $4,888, and about $488 left after the $4,400 CTC, which is close to the correct $499.71. It then submitted an unsupported $3,465 'adjusted' figure that contradicts that work. It also used a $32,300 standard deduction where the 2026 MFJ amount is $32,200."
+us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a wrong $28,700 standard deduction instead of $32,200 and left out the $14,838.71 qualified overtime deduction. It also gave a $2,500 AOTC even though no qualified tuition expenses were listed, so the AOTC is $0, and it used $2,000 per child instead of the 2026 CTC of $2,200."
+us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the credits fully offset the tax, but with the $32,200 standard deduction and the $14,838.71 overtime deduction, taxable income is $44,964.29 and tax is $4,899.71. That is more than the $4,400 CTC, so $499.71 remains. Its zero answer only works if deductions are overstated or a nonexistent AOTC is added."
+us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the OBBBA qualified overtime deduction of $14,838.71 and used the 2025 standard deduction of $31,500 instead of $32,200. It used a $2,000-per-child CTC instead of $2,200 and a 10% bracket top of $24,150 instead of $24,800. It then submitted $4,669, which does not match its own $2,777 result."
+us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $14,838.71 qualified overtime deduction, so its taxable income was $59,703 instead of $44,964.29. Its submitted $6,779 is roughly the tax before any credits. It never subtracted the $4,400 CTC ($2,200 per child, not $2,000), and the AOTC it brought up does not apply because there are no qualified expenses."
+us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"It got the correct taxable income of $44,964 but reported tax before credits instead of the requested tax after nonrefundable credits, so it never subtracted the $4,400 CTC. It also used a $24,000 top for the 10% bracket instead of $24,800, giving $4,966 instead of $4,899.71."
+us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It never applied the $14,838.71 qualified overtime deduction. It used a $30,000 standard deduction and the 2025 $23,850 bracket instead of the 2026 figures of $32,200 and $24,800, and a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200. Together these produced $2,963 instead of $4,899.71 − $4,400 = $499.71."
+us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the FLSA overtime premium as only informational, so it missed the $14,838.71 qualified overtime deduction, and it used a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200. Its final $12,200 is not connected to its own calculation of about $6,696 before credits."
+us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It got about $40.9k of itemized deductions by counting the $12,000 health premium twice: 'health insurance premiums excluding Medicare Part B' and 'other health insurance premiums' are the same $12,000. Counted once, medical above the 7.5% floor is only about $6k, so itemizing loses to the $32,200 standard deduction. Taxable income is then $44,964.29 and tax after the CTC is $499.71, not $0."
+us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized using $24,330 of medical costs, which counts the single $12,000 premium twice, and it left out the $14,838.71 overtime deduction. It also counted only $200 per child of the CTC as nonrefundable. In fact the full $4,400 offsets tax first, and only the unused part becomes refundable ACTC."
+us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed TCJA expired in 2026 and applied personal exemptions, a 15% bracket, and a $1,000-per-child CTC. OBBBA made the TCJA rates, the $32,200 standard deduction, and the $2,200 CTC permanent and added the $14,838.71 qualified overtime deduction, which it left out."
+us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied pre-TCJA 2026 law ($21,200 of personal exemptions, a 15% bracket, and a $2,000 total CTC) instead of OBBBA law. Under OBBBA the household takes the $32,200 standard deduction plus the $14,838.71 overtime deduction and gets a $4,400 CTC."
+us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got the correct taxable income of $44,964 but put the top of the 2026 MFJ 10% bracket at $24,400 instead of $24,800, giving $4,907.68 instead of $4,899.71. It also used a $2,260-per-child CTC instead of $2,200, which over-subtracted $120."
+us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $14,839 FLSA overtime premium on top of wages, even though the $92,000 already includes overtime, and it subtracted the ESI premiums from AGI. It also assumed the TCJA sunset (personal exemptions and a $1,000 CTC) instead of applying OBBBA's $32,200 standard deduction, the overtime deduction, and the $2,200 CTC."
+us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $14,838.71 qualified overtime deduction, used a $31,200 standard deduction instead of $32,200, and used a $4,000 CTC instead of $4,400. Its $8,518 does not even match its own inputs, which give about $2,800."
+us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It subtracted the $9,208 ESI premium from AGI, which is $92,003 in the reference. It also applied post-sunset TCJA law with personal exemptions, itemized deductions, and a $1,000-per-child CTC instead of the OBBBA $32,200 standard deduction, the $14,838.71 overtime deduction, and the $2,200-per-child CTC."
+us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It reduced AGI by the ESI premium and assumed the TCJA sunset with personal exemptions and a $2,000 total CTC. It also added a $1,500 AOTC even though no qualified tuition expenses were listed, and it left out the overtime deduction."
+us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no reasoning. Its $3,212 is consistent with taxing about $60k+ of income, meaning it skipped the $14,838.71 qualified overtime deduction, and with using a smaller CTC than $4,400. The correct steps give $44,964.29 taxable, $4,899.71 of tax, and $499.71 after the CTC."
+us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no usable reasoning. Its $1,858.40 does not come from the correct path: $32,200 standard deduction plus $14,838.71 overtime deduction gives $44,964.29 taxable, $4,899.71 of tax, and $499.71 after the full $4,400 CTC. It used different deductions and a smaller CTC."
+us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its mention of personal exemptions shows it applied post-TCJA-sunset law. Under OBBBA, exemptions are $0, the standard deduction is $32,200, the $14,838.71 overtime deduction applies, and the CTC is $2,200 per child."
+us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used 2025-era parameters (a $30,000 standard deduction and a $23,850 bracket) instead of the 2026 figures of $32,200 and $24,800. It left out the $14,838.71 qualified overtime deduction and used $2,000 per child instead of $2,200 for the CTC."
+us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no value or explanation for this output, so there was nothing to score."
+us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,other,False,"It got taxable income of $44,964 and tax of $4,899.68 correct, but it allowed only $1,000 of the CTC as nonrefundable by carving out $1,700 per child as refundable. The full $4,400 CTC offsets tax first, and ACTC applies only to the unused remainder, so the answer is $499.71."
+us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It relied on the American Opportunity Credit to wipe out the tax, but no qualified education expenses were listed, so the AOTC is $0. It never worked through the actual path ($44,964.29 taxable, $4,899.71 of tax, minus the $4,400 CTC)."
+us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $6,794 is roughly the tax before credits on about $60k of taxable income. That shows it left out the $14,838.71 overtime deduction and never subtracted the $4,400 nonrefundable CTC, while crediting an AOTC that is $0 without qualified expenses."
+us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It capped the qualified overtime deduction at $12,500, which is the cap for single filers. Joint filers have a $25,000 cap, so the full $14,838.71 is deductible, giving $44,964.29 of taxable income instead of $47,303."
+us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $8,500 is higher than the tax before any credits would be under correct 2026 law. It left out the overtime deduction, never subtracted the $4,400 CTC, and pointed to an AOTC phaseout that does not apply, since the AOTC is $0 without qualified expenses."
+us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA sunset with four personal exemptions, 10%/15% brackets, and a $2,000 CTC. OBBBA keeps the TCJA rates, sets the 2026 standard deduction at $32,200 and the CTC at $2,200 per child, and adds the $14,838.71 overtime deduction."
+us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied post-TCJA-sunset law ($21,168 of personal exemptions, itemized deductions, $1,000-per-child CTC) instead of OBBBA's permanent $32,200 standard deduction, $14,838.71 overtime deduction, and $2,200-per-child CTC."
+us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It treated 2026 as a pre-TCJA year with $21,200 of personal exemptions and a $1,000-per-child CTC. Under OBBBA, exemptions are $0, the $32,200 standard deduction and the $14,838.71 overtime deduction apply, and the CTC is $2,200 per child."
+us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used pre-TCJA 2026 rules and a $2,000 total CTC, which produced $23,508 of taxable income. Under OBBBA, taxable income is $44,964.29 after the $32,200 standard deduction and the overtime deduction, and the CTC is $4,400."
+us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized using about $19,193 of medical deductions, which requires counting the single $12,000 health premium twice. Counted once, itemized deductions fall below the $32,200 standard deduction, and the resulting $4,899.71 tax exceeds the $4,400 CTC by $499.71."
+us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no value or explanation for this output, so there was nothing to score."
+us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"It submitted $9,999 as a placeholder with no calculation behind it. It never worked out taxable income ($44,964.29), tax ($4,899.71), or the $4,400 CTC offset."
+us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It capped the overtime deduction at $12,500 (the single-filer cap) instead of the $25,000 joint cap, which allows the full $14,838.71. It also used the 2025 $31,500 standard deduction instead of the 2026 amount of $32,200."
+us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,other,False,"It had the right deductions and taxable income ($44,964), but it rounded the tax to 'about $4,910' instead of computing $2,480 + 12% × $20,164.29 = $4,899.71. That left it $10 high after the $4,400 CTC."
+us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted $24,980 of medical costs by adding the same $12,000 premium twice plus OTC costs, which produced itemized deductions of $40,772. With the premium counted once, itemized deductions fall below the $32,200 standard deduction, and the $4,899.71 tax is not fully offset by the $4,400 CTC."
+us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted the $12,000 premium twice to itemize and dropped the $14,838.71 overtime deduction by treating the premium as only part of wages. It also used a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200 and added a $1,000 AOTC even though there were no qualified expenses."
+us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $14,838.71 overtime deduction, used a $31,500 standard deduction instead of $32,200, and applied a $2,500 AOTC even though there were no qualified expenses. It then submitted $8,838, which contradicts its own $342 result."
us,scenario_046,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It treated the refundable CTC as the $1,700-per-child cap ($3,400) and never applied the rule that only CTC left after tax is refundable. Tax before credits (about $4,900) uses up the whole CTC, so refundable CTC is $0. Its submitted $3,200 does not even match its own $3,400 figure."
us,scenario_046,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It correctly zeroed the EITC and found the CTC fully used against tax. It then assumed the head had enough tuition to max out the AOTC and claimed its $1,000 refundable part. No qualified tuition and related expenses are listed, so the AOTC and its refundable 40% are both $0."
us,scenario_046,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It counted the $4,400 CTC as refundable along with an assumed $1,000 AOTC and reached $4,966 of credits offsetting tax. That mixes nonrefundable credits with refundable ones. The CTC is fully used against tax of about $4,900, leaving $0 refundable CTC. The AOTC is $0 because no qualified tuition expenses are listed."
@@ -4189,53 +4332,55 @@ us,scenario_046,payroll_tax,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"The model said it
us,scenario_046,payroll_tax,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,other,False,"The model's reasoning correctly reached $5,704 + $1,334 = $7,038, but it submitted 8438. The final value was mistyped and does not match its own calculation."
us,scenario_046,self_employment_tax,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_046,self_employment_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It found the correct $75,303 taxable income but applied the pre-2026 0.25%–4.75% bracket schedule, getting $3,222 instead of $2,959.14 under the 2026 0%/2.5%/3.5%/4.5% schedule. It used a $200 credit based on a $2,000-per-child CTC instead of $220 (5% of $4,400). It then submitted $3,364, which contradicts its own $3,022 result."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Taxable income ($75,303) and the $220 credit are correct, but it taxed the income under the pre-2026 0.25%–4.75% brackets ($3,221.89). The 2026 MFJ schedule is 0% to $7,500, 2.5% to $9,800, 3.5% to $14,400 and 4.5% above, which gives $2,959.14."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It started from federal taxable income using a $14,600 federal standard deduction and applied a nonexistent flat 5.85% rate, skipping the $12,700 Oklahoma standard deduction and the four $1,000 exemptions. It then cut that result by arbitrary credits to reach $1,614, instead of $2,959.14 tax on $75,303 minus the $220 child credit."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,missing_output,False,"It never computed Oklahoma tax and submitted a $0 placeholder. Taxable income is $75,303 ($92,003 − $12,700 − $4,000), which produces $2,959.14 under the 2026 brackets, less the $220 child credit."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It reached the correct $75,303 taxable income but applied the pre-2026 brackets with a 4.75% top rate above $12,200 (about $3,221), instead of the 2026 schedule that taxes $60,903 above $14,400 at 4.5% for $2,959.14. It also guessed the credit at about $211 instead of exactly 5% of the $4,400 federal CTC ($220)."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized on the Oklahoma return using the $17,000 cap. Because the household takes the federal standard deduction, Oklahoma requires the $12,700 standard deduction, so taxable income is $75,303, not $71,003. It also used the old 4.75% bracket schedule and omitted the $220 nonrefundable child credit."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its taxable income (~$75,300) is right, but its rough $2,500 figure does not come from the 2026 schedule. That schedule gives $57.50 + $161 + 4.5% × $60,903 = $2,959.14, and subtracting the $220 credit leaves $2,739.14."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed Oklahoma adopted the federal standard deduction and subtracted $30,000. Oklahoma's MFJ standard deduction is a fixed $12,700, so taxable income is $75,303, not $58,003. It also used pre-2026 brackets with a 4.75% top rate and left out the $220 credit (5% of the federal CTC)."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It first claimed Oklahoma has no income tax, then itemized $20,879 on the Oklahoma return. A household that takes the federal standard deduction must use Oklahoma's $12,700 standard deduction. It also applied a 4.75% top rate and skipped the $220 child credit, giving $3,200 instead of $2,739.14."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used inflated itemized deductions to reach about $49k of taxable income. Because the household takes the federal standard deduction, Oklahoma requires the $12,700 standard deduction, so taxable income is $75,303 and tax is $2,959.14 before the $220 credit."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It wrongly set the Oklahoma standard deduction equal to the federal MFJ amount (~$30,900) instead of $12,700 and omitted the four $1,000 exemptions. It also used old 4.75% brackets and a $200 credit based on a $2,000-per-child CTC instead of $220."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It carried federal itemized deductions into Oklahoma, getting $51,795.62 of taxable income. A household that takes the federal standard deduction uses Oklahoma's $12,700 standard deduction, which leaves $75,303. It also used the old 0.25%-start brackets instead of the 2026 0%/2.5%/3.5%/4.5% schedule and dropped the $220 credit."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted $26,958.78 of Oklahoma itemized deductions. Because the household takes the federal standard deduction, the $12,700 Oklahoma standard deduction applies. It also stated that no nonrefundable state credits apply, missing the $220 credit equal to 5% of the federal CTC."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reduced Oklahoma AGI to $77,164 by subtracting the federal overtime deduction. That deduction is taken after AGI and does not lower the $92,003 federal AGI that Oklahoma starts from. It also used pre-2026 brackets and omitted the $220 child credit."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized on the Oklahoma return ($17,000 cap plus $5,430 medical) even though the household takes the federal standard deduction, which forces the $12,700 Oklahoma standard deduction. It also computed the child credit as $100 using a single $2,000 CTC instead of 5% of the $4,400 federal CTC ($220)."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave no computation. Its $3,154 matches taxing $75,303 under the pre-2026 4.75% schedule with little or no credit, rather than $2,959.14 under the 2026 0%/2.5%/3.5%/4.5% brackets less the $220 child credit."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted itemized deductions on the Oklahoma return. Because the household takes the federal standard deduction, Oklahoma requires the $12,700 standard deduction, so taxable income is $75,303 and the tax after the $220 credit is $2,739.14."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It lowered Oklahoma AGI to $82,795 instead of the $92,003 federal AGI and subtracted $26,999 of Oklahoma itemized deductions instead of the required $12,700 standard deduction. It also used a $100 child credit instead of 5% of the $4,400 federal CTC ($220)."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave no computation. Its $3,043 is about $304 too high, which matches taxing $75,303 under the pre-2026 4.75% brackets instead of the 2026 schedule ($2,959.14) and then subtracting the $220 credit."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It explicitly used itemized deductions on the Oklahoma return. A household that takes the federal standard deduction must use Oklahoma's $12,700 standard deduction, which gives $75,303 of taxable income and $2,739.14 after the $220 credit."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It named the right steps (standard deduction, exemptions, child credit) but miscomputed the bracket tax on $75,303. The 2026 schedule gives $2,959.14, and $2,959.14 − $220 = $2,739.14; its $2,684.51 is $54.63 short."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $12,200 standard deduction instead of $12,700 and applied an old 4.75% top-rate schedule ($3,178.64) instead of the 2026 0%/2.5%/3.5%/4.5% brackets. It also took 5% of a $4,000 CTC ($200) instead of the $4,400 federal CTC ($220)."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No value or explanation was returned for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there is no answer to score."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the federal overtime deduction from Oklahoma AGI ($77,164) and used the $32,200 federal standard deduction instead of Oklahoma's $12,700, with no $1,000 exemptions. It then applied a flat 4.25% rate instead of the graduated 2026 brackets and omitted the $220 child credit."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,missing_output,False,"It submitted a $0 placeholder instead of computing the tax. The facts fully determine $75,303 of Oklahoma taxable income, $2,959.14 of bracket tax, and a $220 child credit."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used itemized deductions on the Oklahoma return, although Oklahoma requires the $12,700 standard deduction when the household takes the federal standard deduction. It also applied the federal American Opportunity Credit against state tax, while the only state nonrefundable credit is the $220 child credit."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its taxable income ($75,303) and $220 credit are correct, but its $3,064 regular tax applies 4.5% above $12,200 on top of the old 0.25%–3.75% lower brackets. The 2026 restructuring sets 0% up to $7,500, 2.5% to $9,800 and 3.5% to $14,400, with 4.5% only above $14,400, which gives $2,959.14."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the federal overtime deduction from Oklahoma income even though Oklahoma starts from the $92,003 federal AGI. Its $4,223.29 is higher than any bracket tax possible on $75,303, so the bracket arithmetic is also wrong. The correct result is $2,959.14 less the $220 credit."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied a $17,000 capped itemized deduction. Because the household takes the federal standard deduction, Oklahoma requires the $12,700 standard deduction, so taxable income is $75,303, not $71,003, and the tax is $2,959.14 before the $220 credit."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a flat 4.5% rate instead of the graduated 2026 brackets. Its taxable income (~$43,303) implies deductions far above the $12,700 Oklahoma standard deduction. It also used two $100 credits instead of 5% of the $4,400 federal CTC ($220)."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Taxable income ($75,303) and the $220 credit are correct, but its bracket tax of $2,981.14 counts $240.50 for income below $14,400. The 2026 schedule yields $218.50 on that slice (0% to $7,500, 2.5% to $9,800, 3.5% to $14,400), so the total is $2,959.14."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $2,513 understates the tax by $226. Oklahoma taxable income of $75,303 under the 2026 MFJ brackets gives $2,959.14, and subtracting the $220 child credit leaves $2,739.14."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its deduction, exemptions and $220 credit are correct, but its pre-credit tax of $3,064.14 applies 4.5% above $12,200 on top of the old lower brackets. The 2026 schedule starts the 4.5% rate above $14,400 and taxes the first $7,500 at 0%, which gives $2,959.14."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Taxable income ($75,303) and the $220 credit are correct, but its bracket tax of $2,807.14 is $152 below the $2,959.14 that the 2026 schedule produces ($57.50 + $161 + 4.5% × $60,903)."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave no computation, and its $3,800 is more than even the old 4.75% schedule produces on $75,303. The correct path is $2,959.14 under the 2026 brackets less the $220 child credit."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted $26,309 of Oklahoma itemized deductions, although a household that takes the federal standard deduction must use Oklahoma's $12,700 standard deduction. It also omitted the $220 child credit."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized $26,309 on the Oklahoma return instead of taking the required $12,700 standard deduction, and it used the old 4.75%-above-$12,200 schedule instead of the 2026 4.5%-above-$14,400 brackets. It also left out the $220 credit (5% of the federal CTC)."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used $26,309 of itemized deductions on the Oklahoma return. Because the household takes the federal standard deduction, the $12,700 standard deduction applies. It also wrongly said no nonrefundable Oklahoma credits apply, missing the $220 credit equal to 5% of the federal CTC."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a flat 4.5% rate to $45,216 of itemized-based taxable income, ignoring the graduated 2026 brackets and the required $12,700 standard deduction that gives $75,303 of taxable income. It also omitted the $220 child credit."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reduced AGI to $77,164 by subtracting the federal overtime deduction, which does not reduce the $92,003 federal AGI. It also used a ~$15,000 standard deduction instead of Oklahoma's $12,700 and omitted the $220 child credit."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No value or explanation was returned for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there is no answer to score."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the four $1,000 Oklahoma personal exemptions (taxable income $79,303 instead of $75,303) and used the old 4.75% bracket schedule. It also wrongly concluded no Oklahoma credit applies because the federal CDCC is zero, but the credit can be 5% of the federal CTC, which here is $220."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave no computation, and its $3,773 is more than any bracket schedule produces on the $75,303 taxable income. The correct result is $2,959.14 under the 2026 brackets less the $220 child credit."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $13,550 standard deduction instead of Oklahoma's fixed $12,700. Its $3,182 graduated tax reflects the old 4.75% schedule rather than the 2026 0%/2.5%/3.5%/4.5% brackets, which give $2,959.14 on $75,303."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It kept the old lower brackets (0.25%–3.75% up to $12,200) and applied 4.5% only above that, getting $3,064.14 instead of $2,959.14 under the 2026 schedule. That schedule taxes the first $7,500 at 0% and applies 4.5% above $14,400. It also omitted the $220 credit, wrongly treating the Oklahoma child credit as zero because the federal CDCC is zero."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It overstated AGI as $94,004 instead of $92,003 and omitted the four $1,000 exemptions, giving $81,304 of taxable income instead of $75,303. It also used pre-2026 brackets and left out the $220 child credit."
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It taxed federal taxable income ($60,503) with an invented 0.5%–5% schedule. Oklahoma's base is federal AGI minus the $12,700 standard deduction and $4,000 of exemptions ($75,303), taxed under the 2026 0%/2.5%/3.5%/4.5% brackets. It also ignored the $220 nonrefundable child credit."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got taxable income right at $75,303 but used the old 0.25%–4.75% brackets with 4.75% above $12,200, not the 2026 schedule (0%/2.5%/3.5%/4.5%, top rate above $14,400). It also based the OK credit on a $4,000 federal CTC, giving $200 instead of $220. Its submitted $3,364 doesn't even match its own figure of $3,022."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Taxable income ($75,303) and the $220 credit are both right, but it taxed the income under the old 0.25%–4.75% schedule and got $3,221.89. The 2026 joint schedule (0% to $7,500, 2.5% to $9,800, 3.5% to $14,400, 4.5% above) gives $2,959.14."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It began from federal taxable income using an outdated $14,600 standard deduction, skipped the OK $12,700 standard deduction and the $4,000 in exemptions, and applied an obsolete flat 5.85% rate. It then subtracted credits it never identified to arrive at $1,614."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"It never computed Oklahoma tax and submitted $0 as a placeholder. The correct figure is $75,303 of taxable income under the 2026 brackets ($2,959.14), less the $220 OK child credit."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $75,303 taxable income is right, but it applied the pre-2026 4.75% top rate above $12,200 to get about $3,221 instead of the 2026 4.5% schedule's $2,959.14. It then subtracted an unquantified 'small' credit of about $211 instead of 5% of the $4,400 federal CTC ($220)."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took a $17,000 capped itemized deduction on the OK return. Oklahoma allows itemizing only when the filer itemizes federally, and this household takes the larger $32,200 federal standard deduction, so the OK $12,700 standard deduction applies. It also used the old 4.75% brackets, left out the $220 OK child credit, and its $3,563 doesn't follow from its own $71,003 taxable income."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its taxable income of about $75,300 is right, but it never worked through the brackets and guessed $2,500. The 2026 schedule gives $2,959.14, and subtracting the $220 credit (5% of the $4,400 federal CTC) leaves $2,739.14."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It wrongly assumed Oklahoma follows the federal standard deduction and subtracted $30,000 instead of OK's fixed $12,700 joint standard deduction. It then used made-up old-style brackets with 4.75% above $14,400 and left out the $220 OK child credit based on the federal CTC."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It first claimed Oklahoma has no income tax, then itemized $20,879 on the OK return even though OK itemizing requires federal itemizing and this household takes the federal standard deduction. It also used the old 4.75% top rate and dropped the $220 child credit, ending with a guessed $3,200."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized deductions of about $39,000 to reach roughly $49,000 of taxable income. OK allows itemizing only when the filer itemizes federally, and this household takes the federal standard deduction, so the OK $12,700 standard deduction applies and taxable income is $75,303."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the ~$30,900 federal MFJ standard deduction instead of Oklahoma's fixed $12,700 and left out the $4,000 in personal exemptions. It also used old-style brackets with 4.75% on top and a $200 credit based on a $4,000 federal CTC instead of $220 based on $4,400."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted federal itemized deductions and got $51,795.62 of taxable income. OK allows itemizing only when the filer itemizes federally, and this household takes the $32,200 federal standard deduction, so the OK $12,700 standard deduction applies and taxable income is $75,303. It also left out the $220 OK child credit."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted $26,958.78 of itemized deductions on the OK return instead of the $12,700 OK standard deduction, which is required because the household takes the federal standard deduction. It also taxed the result under the old 0.25%–4.75% brackets and applied no credit, missing the $220 OK child credit."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $14,839 overtime premium from AGI to get $77,164. The federal overtime deduction comes after AGI, and Oklahoma starts from federal AGI of $92,003. It also used invented 3.75%/4.75% bracket breakpoints instead of the 2026 4.5% schedule and left out the $220 child credit."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized ($17,000 capped plus $5,430 medical) to get $65,573 of taxable income, but OK must use the $12,700 standard deduction because the household doesn't itemize federally. It also based the credit on a $2,000 total federal CTC, giving $100, when the federal CTC is $4,400 for two children and the credit is $220."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"No reasoning was given. The correct path, $75,303 of taxable income under the 2026 0%/2.5%/3.5%/4.5% brackets ($2,959.14) less the $220 credit, gives $2,739.14. Its $3,154 is consistent with the pre-2026 4.75% schedule with little or no child credit."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted itemized deductions from federal AGI on the OK return. OK allows itemizing only when the filer itemizes federally, and this household takes the federal standard deduction, so the $12,700 OK standard deduction applies, giving $75,303 of taxable income and $2,739.14 after the $220 credit."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It cut OK AGI to $82,795 by subtracting the $9,208 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums from the stated gross wages, then itemized $26,999 instead of taking the $12,700 OK standard deduction. It also based the credit on a $2,000 CTC ($100) instead of 5% of the $4,400 federal CTC ($220)."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"No reasoning was given. The 2026 OK schedule applied to $75,303 of taxable income gives $2,959.14, or $2,739.14 after the $220 credit. Its $3,043 is consistent with the old 4.75% bracket schedule less a $200 credit."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used itemized deductions on the OK return. OK allows itemizing only when the filer itemizes federally, and this household takes the $32,200 federal standard deduction, so the $12,700 OK standard deduction applies and taxable income is $75,303."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It took the right path (standard deduction, exemptions, child credit) but misapplied the 2026 joint brackets and came out $54.63 low. The correct tax is $218.50 on the first $14,400 (0% to $7,500, 2.5% to $9,800, 3.5% to $14,400) plus 4.5% of $60,903, totaling $2,959.14 before the $220 credit."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $12,200 standard deduction instead of OK's $12,700 and taxed the income at the old 4.75% top rate instead of the 2026 4.5% schedule. It also figured the credit as 5% of a $4,000 federal CTC ($200) when the federal CTC is $4,400, making the credit $220."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Taxable income ($75,303) and the $220 credit are both right, but it got $3,187.39 of tax before credits from a 4.75%-top-rate schedule. The 2026 joint brackets (0% to $7,500, 2.5% to $9,800, 3.5% to $14,400, 4.5% above) give $2,959.14."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no answer or explanation for this output, so nothing could be scored."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reduced AGI by the federal overtime deduction (which comes after AGI and doesn't change the OK starting point), used the $32,200 federal standard deduction instead of OK's $12,700, and left out the $4,000 in exemptions. It then applied a made-up flat 4.25% rate instead of the graduated 2026 schedule and skipped the $220 child credit."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,other,False,"It refused to compute and submitted $0 as a placeholder. The given facts are enough: $92,003 AGI less $12,700 and $4,000 gives $75,303, the 2026 brackets give $2,959.14, and subtracting the $220 credit leaves $2,739.14."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized deductions on the OK return and brought the federal American Opportunity Credit into the state computation. The household must take the OK $12,700 standard deduction, and the only OK nonrefundable credit here is the $220 child credit (5% of the $4,400 federal CTC)."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Taxable income ($75,303) and the $220 credit are right, but its $3,064 regular tax comes from the old 0.25%/0.75%/1.75%/2.75%/3.75% lower brackets with 4.5% only above $12,200. The 2026 law replaced the lower brackets with 0% to $7,500, 2.5% to $9,800 and 3.5% to $14,400, which gives $2,959.14."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It subtracted an overtime deduction that Oklahoma doesn't allow, yet still reported $4,223.29, an effective rate on the $75,303 base that is above the 4.5% top rate. The correct result is $2,959.14 under the 2026 brackets less the $220 child credit."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took a $17,000 capped itemized deduction on the OK return even though OK itemizing requires federal itemizing and this household takes the federal standard deduction. The correct base is $75,303 after the $12,700 OK standard deduction. Its $3,018 tax also reflects the old 4.75% schedule instead of the 2026 4.5% brackets."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a flat 4.5% to a base reduced by a federal-sized deduction, ignoring both OK's $12,700 standard deduction and the 0%/2.5%/3.5% lower brackets. It also used a $100-per-child credit instead of 5% of the $4,400 federal CTC ($220)."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Taxable income ($75,303) and the $220 credit are right, but its $2,981.14 tax before credits overstates the 2026 bracket total by $22. The correct figure is $218.50 on the first $14,400 plus 4.5% of $60,903, or $2,959.14."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no computation, and its $2,513 is $226 below the correct $2,739.14. That is consistent with an inflated state deduction rather than OK's $12,700 standard deduction plus $4,000 in exemptions on $92,003 of AGI."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got the deductions and the $220 credit right but computed $3,064.14 of tax by keeping the old 0.25%–3.75% lower brackets up to $12,200 under a 4.5% top rate. The 2026 joint schedule (0% to $7,500, 2.5% to $9,800, 3.5% to $14,400, 4.5% above) gives $2,959.14."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Taxable income ($75,303) and the $220 credit are right, but its $2,807.14 tax before credits understates the 2026 schedule by $152. Its figures imply only about $66.50 on the first $14,400, when 2.5% of $2,300 plus 3.5% of $4,600 comes to $218.50."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave no computation, and its $3,800 is above even the pre-2026 4.75% schedule's tax on $75,303. The 2026 brackets give $2,959.14, and subtracting the $220 child credit leaves $2,739.14."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted $26,309 of itemized deductions on the OK return, but OK itemizing requires federal itemizing and this household takes the federal standard deduction, so the $12,700 OK standard deduction applies. It also used the old 0.25%–4.75% brackets and left out the $220 child credit."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized $26,309 instead of taking the $12,700 OK standard deduction, which OK requires because the household doesn't itemize federally. It then used the old schedule ($236 plus 4.75% above $12,200) instead of the 2026 4.5% brackets and left out the $220 credit based on the federal CTC."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted $26,309 of itemized deductions on the OK return instead of the $12,700 standard deduction, which applies because the household takes the federal standard deduction. It also applied the old 4.75% rate above $12,200 and claimed no OK credits apply, missing the 5%-of-federal-CTC child credit ($220)."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reduced taxable income to $45,216 with itemized deductions, even though OK requires the $12,700 standard deduction for a household that takes the federal standard deduction. It then applied a flat 4.5% instead of the graduated 2026 brackets and left out the $220 child credit."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It cut AGI to $77,164 by subtracting overtime pay, which is a federal deduction taken after AGI and doesn't lower OK's starting point of $92,003. It also used a $15,000 standard deduction instead of OK's $12,700, the old brackets, and no child credit."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no answer or explanation for this output, so nothing could be scored."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It left out the $4,000 in OK personal exemptions (four at $1,000) and applied the old 4.75% schedule instead of the 2026 4.5% brackets. It also concluded no OK credit applied because the federal CDCC is $0, missing that the OK credit is the greater of 20% of the CDCC or 5% of the federal CTC ($220)."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave no computation, and its $3,773 is above the tax under either the old or the 2026 OK schedule on $75,303. The correct path is $2,959.14 under the 2026 0%/2.5%/3.5%/4.5% brackets less the $220 child credit."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It taxed about $72,250 (a base that doesn't match OK's $12,700 standard deduction and $4,000 in exemptions, which give $75,303) at rates up to the old 4.75% instead of the 2026 4.5% schedule. It also applied no child credit."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $13,550 standard deduction instead of OK's fixed $12,700, and its $3,182 graduated tax reflects the pre-2026 4.75% schedule. Under the 2026 brackets the correct $75,303 base gives $2,959.14 before the $220 credit."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the 4.5% top rate but kept the old 0.25%–3.75% lower brackets up to $12,200, getting $3,064.14 instead of the $2,959.14 that the 2026 0%/2.5%/3.5% brackets give. It also wrongly treated the OK child credit as $0, missing 5% of the $4,400 federal CTC ($220)."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It misadded AGI as $94,004 instead of $92,003 and left out the $4,000 in personal exemptions. It then used the old 4.75% brackets and applied no child credit, when the 2026 schedule on $75,303 gives $2,959.14 less $220."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It started from a made-up federal taxable income of $60,503 instead of OK AGI less the $12,700 standard deduction and $4,000 in exemptions ($75,303). It also applied invented 0.5%–5% brackets instead of the 2026 0%/2.5%/3.5%/4.5% schedule and left out the $220 child credit."
us,scenario_046,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_046,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_048,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated age and assets below $2,000 as sufficient for Ohio aged Medicaid while never establishing that the head passed the applicable income test. The head's wages and Social Security total $34,626, SSI is zero, and no Medicaid category applies."
@@ -4254,50 +4399,52 @@ us,scenario_048,snap,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,Fals
us,scenario_048,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model labeled $34,626 of annual wages and Social Security as “very low countable income” and assigned an estimated $225 monthly benefit without applying the SNAP income threshold. That income exceeds the $17,420 limit for a one-person household, producing $0."
us,scenario_048,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied Ohio's 2.75% rate to the first dollar of taxable income, ignoring Ohio's zero-tax bracket: Ohio's rate schedule imposes no tax on Ohio taxable nonbusiness income at or below the roughly $26,050 threshold, and this filer's $7,656 of wages (Social Security survivor benefits are excluded from federal AGI here because provisional income of $21,141 is under the $25,000 base amount) falls far below it, yielding $0. It compounded the error by inventing a nonexistent $1,400 Ohio 'single standard deduction' — Ohio starts from federal AGI and allows personal exemptions, not a standard deduction — and then taxed the residual $3,856 at 2.75% to reach $106."
us,scenario_048,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model taxed the entire $7,656 of Ohio taxable income at 2.75% ($210.54), skipping Ohio's zero-rate first bracket that exempts all Ohio taxable nonbusiness income up to about $26,050, under which this household's liability is $0 before any credit is considered. It also mis-specified the personal exemption as a credit equal to 2.75% of $2,400 ($66) — Ohio subtracts the $2,400 exemption from Ohio adjusted gross income and separately allows only a $20-per-exemption credit — and then netted a $50 senior citizen credit against a tax that never existed, landing on $94.54."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its own work reached $30,830 using the correct AGI, the $32,200 standard deduction and the $25,000 overtime deduction. It left out the 2026 non-itemizer cash charitable deduction ($579.76), which accounts for the $127.55 gap. It then submitted $33,223, a number with no connection to its own calculation."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the old $29,200 standard deduction and deducted the $721 IRA contribution, which is phased out. It never applied the $25,000 qualified overtime deduction or the non-itemizer charitable deduction. Its $48,837 is also far above what the 2026 joint brackets give even for its own $217,364 of taxable income."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"It reported $0 tax on $247,385 of AGI with no calculation. The 2026 joint brackets applied to $189,605 of taxable income give $30,702.59."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It skipped the $25,000 OBBBA overtime deduction and the $579.76 non-itemizer charitable deduction, and used a $31,500 standard deduction instead of $32,200. It also added Additional Medicare Tax, which is a payroll tax and not part of income tax. It then submitted $49,861, a number unrelated to its own $36,571 calculation."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It never applied the $25,000 qualified overtime deduction or the non-itemizer charitable deduction, and it used a $30,300 standard deduction with outdated brackets instead of $32,200 and the 2026 brackets. It then submitted $53,503, which does not match its own $37,055 calculation."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted the roughly $40,000 SALT cap itself as the deduction instead of the actual $20,655 of real estate taxes. That made itemized deductions look like $46,081 when they are about $25k, below the $32,200 standard deduction. It also omitted the $25,000 overtime deduction, and its $47,500 does not match even its own taxable income."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $30,000 standard deduction and 2025-era brackets instead of the 2026 values ($32,200, 22% bracket starting at $100,800). It never applied the OBBBA qualified overtime deduction ($25,000 cap on the $44,647 overtime premium) or the non-itemizer charitable deduction, so taxable income came out about $27.8k too high."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted the $721 IRA contribution, which is phased out, and omitted both the $25,000 overtime deduction and the charitable deduction. It then inflated its own $38,831 estimate to $62,700 by citing Additional Medicare wages, which are not part of income tax."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $928 auto-loan interest even though the OBBBA car-loan deduction drops by $200 for every $1,000 of MAGI over $200k on a joint return, which wipes it out at $247,385. It also skipped the $579.76 non-itemizer charitable deduction. The net $348 understatement of taxable income explains the $76.59 shortfall."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It omitted the $25,000 qualified overtime deduction and the non-itemizer charitable deduction. It also used a $31,000 standard deduction and off-schedule brackets instead of $32,200 and the 2026 joint brackets."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the TCJA had sunset and used pre-TCJA brackets with personal exemptions, although OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent with a $32,200 standard deduction for 2026. It also subtracted the $16,408 ESI premium from wages and omitted the $25,000 overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $16,408 employer-sponsored insurance premium from wages, but the only pre-tax payroll reduction is the $15,436 traditional 401(k). It also left out the $25,000 qualified overtime deduction, which pushed tax about $6k over the reference."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It got AGI, the $32,200 standard deduction and the brackets right, but skipped the $25,000 qualified overtime deduction and the $579.76 non-itemizer charitable deduction. Its $36,330.14 is exactly the reference plus 22% of $25,579.76."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset rules (personal exemptions, 15%/25% brackets) instead of the OBBBA-permanent 2026 schedule with the $32,200 standard deduction. It also excluded the $16,408 ESI premium from wages and omitted the $25,000 overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its stated taxable income of about $229,000 leaves out the $25,000 qualified overtime deduction and the charitable deduction; the correct figure is $189,605.23. Its $52,367.59 is also well above what the 2026 joint brackets give even on that figure."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used TCJA-sunset law (uncapped itemized real estate taxes plus $10,800 of personal exemptions) instead of the 2026 OBBBA rules. It also cut AGI to $230,977 by treating the $16,408 ESI premium as a pre-tax exclusion, and never applied the $25,000 overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used post-TCJA-expiration rules (itemized deductions plus $10,100 of exemptions, 25% bracket) instead of the 2026 OBBBA schedule. Its $194,141 of taxable income assumes the $16,408 ESI premium was excluded from wages and leaves out the $25,000 overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation. Its $42,203 is more than $11k above the correct figure and is consistent with ignoring the $25,000 qualified overtime deduction and applying wrong brackets to roughly $215k of taxable income."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the $16,408 ESI premium as a wage exclusion and used a $30,000 standard deduction instead of $32,200. It also omitted the $25,000 qualified overtime deduction and the non-itemizer charitable deduction."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It listed only wages, interest, dividends and the dividend rate preference, never the OBBBA qualified overtime deduction ($25,000) or the non-itemizer charitable deduction. Its $37,920.81 matches tax on roughly $215k of taxable income instead of $189,605."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $30,000 standard deduction instead of the 2026 joint amount of $32,200. It never subtracted the $25,000 qualified overtime deduction or the $579.76 non-itemizer charitable deduction, so taxable income came out at $217,385 instead of $189,605.23."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no answer and no reasoning for this output, so there was nothing to score."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It had the right AGI and the $32,200 standard deduction but omitted the $25,000 qualified overtime deduction and the $579.76 non-itemizer charitable deduction. It also miscomputed ordinary tax on $208,977: the correct figure is $35,399, not $36,982."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reasoned from an itemized set with a $10,000 SALT cap and reported $20,460 without a bracket calculation. The correct path ($247,385 AGI less $32,200 standard, $25,000 overtime and $579.76 charitable deductions) gives $30,702.59, so its figure understates tax by about $10k."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation. Its $38,566 is consistent with taxing roughly $220k of taxable income, which means it ignored the $25,000 qualified overtime deduction and the 2026 $32,200 standard deduction."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the standard, overtime and charitable deductions correctly, but subtracted the $16,408 employer-sponsored insurance premium from wages. That gave an AGI of $230,977; only the $15,436 traditional 401(k) reduces wages, so AGI is $247,385. The $16,408 understatement of taxable income at 22% accounts for the $3,610 shortfall."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the $928 qualified vehicle-loan interest deduction, but that deduction falls by $200 per $1,000 of MAGI over $200k on a joint return and is zero at $247,385. Its $30,498.38 is the reference minus 22% of $928."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It excluded the $16,408 ESI premium from wages, giving taxable income of $173,197 instead of $189,605.23. Only the $15,436 traditional 401(k) is a pre-tax wage reduction. Its other deductions were correct."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It included the vehicle-loan interest deduction, which is fully phased out above $200k MAGI on a joint return, and left out the non-itemizer charitable deduction. Its $33,473 implies about $12.6k more taxable income than the correct $189,605.23, so it also understated the $25,000 overtime deduction or misapplied the 2026 joint brackets."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the $16,408 employer-sponsored insurance premium as a pre-tax exclusion and cut AGI to $230,977. With AGI at $247,385, the same $32,200 standard, $25,000 overtime and charitable deductions give $189,605.23 of taxable income and $30,702.59 of tax."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It got AGI, the standard deduction, the overtime deduction and the brackets right, but omitted the 2026 non-itemizer cash charitable deduction ($579.76). Its $30,830.14 is exactly the reference plus 22% of $579.76."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $16,408 ESI premium from wages along with the 401(k), which understated AGI by $16,408. All of its other deductions and rates match the correct calculation."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It estimated taxable income at about $230k from capped itemized deductions and never applied the $32,200 standard deduction or the $25,000 qualified overtime deduction. The correct taxable income is $189,605.23."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset rules (personal exemptions, uncapped property taxes, pre-TCJA brackets), although OBBBA set a $32,200 standard deduction and permanent TCJA brackets for 2026. It also never applied the $25,000 overtime deduction, which left taxable income at $210,149."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used post-TCJA-sunset itemizing, personal exemptions and 10/15/25% brackets instead of the 2026 OBBBA schedule with the $32,200 standard deduction. It also omitted the $25,000 qualified overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It omitted the $579.76 non-itemizer cash charitable deduction. It also miscomputed ordinary tax on $183,977: the joint brackets give $29,899, not $30,051."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reasoned from capped itemized deductions and retirement contributions but never applied the $25,000 qualified overtime deduction or the non-itemizer charitable deduction. That left taxable income near $215k instead of $189,605."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $230,256 AGI subtracts both the $16,408 ESI premium and the $721 IRA contribution. Neither reduces AGI: the premium is not a wage exclusion and the IRA deduction is phased out. It also omitted the $25,000 overtime deduction and the charitable deduction."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the TCJA had expired and used itemized deductions plus personal exemptions with pre-TCJA brackets instead of the 2026 OBBBA $32,200 standard deduction. It also excluded the $16,408 ESI premium from wages and ignored the $25,000 overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It ran the full $190,089 of taxable income, qualified dividends included, through the ordinary brackets and then added 15% on the dividends again, which double-counts them. It also deducted the phased-out $721 IRA contribution, used a $25,675 overtime figure instead of the $25,000 joint cap and a $30,900 standard deduction instead of $32,200, and omitted the charitable deduction."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It cut AGI to $242,585 by excluding $4,800 of health premiums from wages, but the only pre-tax wage reduction is the $15,436 traditional 401(k), so AGI is $247,385. It also omitted the $579.76 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted the $721 traditional IRA contribution, which is fully phased out for an active plan participant at this MAGI. It also never applied the $25,000 qualified overtime deduction or the $579.76 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It miscomputed AGI as $258,821 ($262,821 − $15,436 is $247,385). It claimed $15,395 of itemized deductions 'exceeds' a $32,000 standard deduction and itemized anyway, and it omitted the $25,000 overtime deduction. It then submitted $51,214.75, which does not match its own $42,933 calculation."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $18,160 of 'IRA and 401(k)' deductions includes the after-tax $2,724 Roth 401(k) contribution, and it used a $32,900 standard deduction. It omitted the $25,000 qualified overtime deduction and overstated bracket tax: $44,587 on $205,441 of ordinary income, when the 2026 joint brackets give about $34.7k."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its own calculation reached $30,830 because it left out the 2026 non-itemizer cash charitable deduction (about $580, worth about $128 in tax). It then submitted $33,223, a number with no support in its reasoning."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $25,000 OBBBA qualified overtime deduction. It also subtracted the $721 traditional IRA contribution, which is not deductible because the spouse is a covered participant above the phase-out, and it used a $29,200 standard deduction instead of $32,200. On top of that, its $48,837 tax is far above what the 2026 joint brackets give even on its own $217,364 taxable income."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"It answered $0 without computing anything. AGI of $247,385 minus $57,780 of deductions (standard, overtime, non-itemizer charity) leaves $189,605 of taxable income, which produces about $30,703 of tax under the 2026 joint brackets."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $25,000 qualified overtime deduction and the non-itemizer charitable deduction, used a $31,500 standard deduction instead of $32,200, and wrongly added Additional Medicare Tax to income tax. Its reasoning ended near $36,571, but it submitted an unrelated $49,861."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $25,000 OBBBA overtime deduction and the non-itemizer charitable deduction, and it used outdated figures: a $30,300 standard deduction and brackets with a 24% tier starting at $209,400. Its reasoning reached $37,055, but it submitted an unsupported $53,503."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the roughly $40,000 SALT cap as the deductible amount, even though only $20,655 of real estate tax was paid. Real itemized deductions are $26,736, so the $32,200 standard deduction applies. It also left out the $25,000 qualified overtime deduction."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used pre-OBBBA figures (a $30,000 standard deduction and 2025 brackets) and never applied the $25,000 qualified overtime deduction or the non-itemizer cash charitable deduction. As a result its taxable income was $217,385 instead of $189,605."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $25,000 overtime deduction and subtracted the non-deductible $721 traditional IRA contribution. It then raised its own $38,831 estimate to $62,700 for 'additional Medicare wages and phase-outs', which are not part of income tax before credits."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $928 auto-loan interest, but the qualified passenger vehicle loan interest deduction is fully phased out at $247,385 MAGI ($200 per $1,000 over $200,000 joint). It also left out the roughly $580 non-itemizer cash charitable deduction. Together these leave taxable income $348 too low."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $25,000 qualified overtime deduction and the non-itemizer charitable deduction, and it used a $31,000 standard deduction and lower bracket thresholds instead of the 2026 figures ($32,200; 12% bracket ending at $100,800)."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset rules (personal exemptions, 15/25/28% brackets) instead of the OBBBA-extended 2026 law. It also excluded the $16,408 employer-sponsored premium from wages and left out the $25,000 overtime deduction."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reduced wages by the employer-sponsored insurance premium as well as the 401(k), and it never applied the $25,000 qualified overtime deduction or the non-itemizer charitable deduction. Its $36,639 is therefore well above the correct tax."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the $32,200 standard deduction but left out the $25,000 qualified overtime deduction and the $579.76 non-itemizer charitable deduction. That $25,580 gap, taxed at 22%, accounts exactly for its $36,330 answer."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the TCJA had expired in 2026 and used personal exemptions, uncapped itemized deductions and 10/15/25% brackets instead of OBBBA law. It also excluded the $16,408 ESI premium from wages and left out the $25,000 overtime deduction."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its taxable income of about $229,000 leaves out both the $25,000 qualified overtime deduction and the 401(k) exclusion. Correct taxable income is $189,605, which produces about $30,703, not $52,368."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used pre-TCJA 2026 rules (personal exemptions, unlimited SALT itemizing) instead of OBBBA law. It also subtracted the ESI premium from wages and never applied the $25,000 qualified overtime deduction."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied TCJA-expiration rules ($10,100 of personal exemptions, itemizing $26,736, brackets up to 25%) instead of the OBBBA-extended $32,200 standard deduction. It also left out the $25,000 overtime deduction, which gave it $194,141 of taxable income instead of $189,605."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation. Its $42,203 is consistent with leaving out the $25,000 qualified overtime deduction and using inflated rates, whereas $189,605 of taxable income produces about $30,703."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It excluded the $16,408 employer-sponsored premium from wages, used the pre-OBBBA $30,000 standard deduction instead of $32,200, and left out the $25,000 qualified overtime deduction and the non-itemizer charitable deduction."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It listed the correct income items but applied no qualified overtime deduction. Its $37,921 matches taxing roughly $215,000 of taxable income instead of the correct $189,605 after the $25,000 overtime deduction and non-itemizer charity."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $30,000 standard deduction and 2025 brackets, and it never applied the $25,000 qualified overtime deduction or the non-itemizer charitable deduction. As a result it taxed $217,385 instead of $189,605."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took an above-the-line deduction for the $928 auto-loan interest, but the vehicle loan interest deduction is fully phased out at $247,385 MAGI (it falls $200 for each $1,000 over $200,000). That cut its tax by about $204 below the correct $30,702.59."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,It submitted no value or explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits.
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the correct $32,200 standard deduction but left out the $25,000 OBBBA qualified overtime deduction and the non-itemizer charitable deduction. It also overstated ordinary tax on its own $208,977 ordinary income ($36,982 instead of about $35,399)."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,other,False,"It gave no real computation, and its $20,460 is far too low. AGI of $247,385 minus the $32,200 standard deduction, the $25,000 overtime deduction and about $580 of non-itemizer charity leaves $189,605 of taxable income, which produces $30,702.59."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no breakdown. Its $38,566 is consistent with leaving out the $25,000 qualified overtime deduction, which adds about $5,500 of tax to the correct $30,702.59."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It excluded the $16,408 employer-sponsored insurance premium from wages, which pushed AGI down to $230,977. Only the $15,436 traditional 401(k) reduces wages, so AGI is $247,385. That $16,408 understatement at 22% explains its $27,093."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the qualified passenger vehicle loan interest deduction for the $928, but that deduction is fully phased out at $247,385 MAGI ($200 per $1,000 over the $200,000 joint threshold). That understated tax by about $204."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the $16,408 employer-sponsored insurance premium as a pretax reduction to wages, which understated AGI by $16,408. Only the $15,436 traditional 401(k) comes out of wages."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $33,473 is about $2,770 above the correct tax, meaning it took roughly $12,600 less in deductions than the correct $57,779.77. That fits applying the $12,500 single-filer overtime cap instead of the $25,000 joint cap. It also wrongly claimed the vehicle-loan interest deduction, which is phased out at this MAGI."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reduced wages by the $16,408 employer health premium, giving AGI of $230,977 instead of $247,385. Only the traditional 401(k) deferral is excluded, so taxable income is $189,605, not $173,197."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the standard and overtime deductions correctly but left out the 2026 non-itemizer cash charitable deduction ($579.76). At 22%, that adds exactly the $127.55 by which its answer exceeds the correct tax."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It excluded the $16,408 employer-plan premium from wages, which understated AGI by $16,408. AGI is $247,385, with only the 401(k) excluded."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized about $20,000 instead of taking the larger $32,200 standard deduction, and it never applied the $25,000 qualified overtime deduction. That gave it about $230,000 of taxable income instead of $189,605."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset rules (personal exemptions, uncapped property tax itemizing, pre-TCJA brackets) instead of the OBBBA-extended 2026 law. It also left out the $25,000 qualified overtime deduction."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used post-TCJA-sunset law (personal exemptions of about $10,910 and 10/15/25% brackets) instead of the OBBBA $32,200 standard deduction. It also left out the $25,000 qualified overtime deduction."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the roughly $580 non-itemizer cash charitable deduction. It also miscalculated ordinary tax on $183,977 as $30,051, when the 2026 joint brackets give $29,899."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized (mortgage interest, capped real estate tax, charity) instead of taking the larger $32,200 standard deduction, and it never applied the $25,000 qualified overtime deduction."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $230,256 wrongly subtracts both the $16,408 employer-sponsored premium and the non-deductible $721 IRA contribution. It also left out the $25,000 qualified overtime deduction and the non-itemizer charitable deduction."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied expired-TCJA rules (personal exemptions, pre-TCJA brackets, itemizing $26,736) instead of OBBBA 2026 law, and it excluded the $16,408 ESI premium from wages. It also never took the $25,000 overtime deduction."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It ran its entire $190,089 of taxable income, qualified dividends included, through the ordinary brackets and then taxed the $6,208 of dividends again at 15%. It also subtracted the non-deductible $721 IRA contribution, set the overtime deduction at $25,675 instead of the $25,000 cap, and used a $30,900 standard deduction."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $31,000 standard deduction instead of the 2026 joint amount of $32,200, which overstated taxable income by $1,200. Its bracket arithmetic also added another roughly $100 of tax."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It excluded $4,800 of health premiums from wages as if pretax, which gave AGI of $242,585. Only the 401(k) is excluded, so AGI is $247,385. It also left out the non-itemizer cash charitable deduction."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted the $721 traditional IRA contribution even though the spouse is a covered plan participant far above the phase-out. It also never applied the $25,000 OBBBA qualified overtime deduction or the non-itemizer charitable deduction."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It made an arithmetic error ($262,821 − $15,436 is $247,385, not $258,821) and itemized $15,395 even after noting that the $32,000 standard deduction is larger. It also left out the $25,000 overtime deduction and submitted $51,215, which does not match its own $42,933."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the non-deductible $721 IRA contribution and left out the $25,000 qualified overtime deduction. It then overstated ordinary tax on $205,441 as $44,587, when the 2026 joint brackets give about $34,900."
us,scenario_049,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_049,free_school_meals_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_049,head_chip_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
@@ -4359,46 +4506,47 @@ us,scenario_049,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thr
us,scenario_049,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It itemized the interest and dividends correctly, subtracted the $4,800 joint exemption to reach $5,021, and then multiplied by a 1% rate it believed applied in 2026. That rate comes from the 2021 phase-down schedule, which the 2023 law replaced. The tax was repealed effective 2025, so the correct 2026 amount is $0, not $50.21."
us,scenario_049,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_049,tanf,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its own working reached $2,641.60 by taxing the $180 of capital gain distributions at 12% instead of the 0% long-term rate. It then submitted $3,086, which nothing in its working supports. The correct figure is 10%/12% on $23,900 of ordinary taxable income, which is $2,620."
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It put the $180 of non-Schedule D capital gains into ordinary taxable income ($24,080) and taxed it at 12%. Capital gain distributions get the 0% long-term rate at this income. Ordinary income is $23,900, so the tax is $2,620, not $2,641.60."
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted $5,389 of ESI premiums from wages, used a $15,000 standard deduction and 2024-era brackets, and then set the tax to $0 by citing the EITC. The EITC is refundable, so it does not count in this measure, and a childless filer at $40,000 is phased out of it anyway. The correct tax is $2,620."
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It rounded taxable income to about $24,000 and reported a rough $2,700 instead of applying the exact $12,400 10%-bracket edge to $23,900 of ordinary income. It also taxed the $180 of capital gains as ordinary income rather than at 0%. The exact result is $2,620."
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It first computed about $2,642 with the $180 capital gain taxed at 12%. It then switched to a $16,000 deduction and a $12,150 bracket and reported $2,960, which those figures do not produce. The correct 2026 figures ($16,100 deduction, $12,400 bracket, 0% on the gain) give $2,620."
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It computed $2,642 by including the $180 of capital gain distributions in ordinary income at 12%, then reported $2,867 without supporting it. With the gain at 0%, $23,900 of ordinary income yields $2,620."
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its own arithmetic gave $1,240 + $1,402 = $2,642, with the $180 gain taxed at 12%, but it reported $2,955 by claiming to apply 2026 brackets, which does not follow. The correct ordinary taxable income of $23,900 produces $2,620."
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 $15,000 standard deduction and the 2025 $11,925 10%-bracket edge instead of the 2026 values of $16,100 and $12,400. It also taxed the $180 of capital gains at ordinary rates. Together these overstated taxable income at $25,180 and gave $2,783 instead of $2,620."
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $12,150 10%-bracket edge instead of $12,400 and taxed the $180 gain at 12%, which gave $2,646.60. It then inflated that to $3,059 with no stated basis. The correct figure is $2,620."
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a pre-OBBBA projected $15,400 standard deduction and the 2025 $11,925 bracket edge instead of the 2026 values of $16,100 and $12,400. It said the capital gain was taxed at 0% but still left the $180 in the 12% computation. The result was $2,735 instead of $2,620."
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired in 2026 and applied a pre-TCJA standard deduction plus personal exemption and a 15% bracket. OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent, with a $16,100 deduction, no exemption, and a 12% bracket. It also subtracted $5,389 of ESI premiums that the facts never describe as pre-tax wage reductions."
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a TCJA-expiration regime: an $8,600 standard deduction, a $4,950 personal exemption, and a 15% second bracket. 2026 law under OBBBA keeps the $16,100 deduction, no exemption, and 10%/12% brackets, which gives $2,620, not $3,385.75."
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly taxed the $180 gain at 0%, but it used a pre-OBBBA projected $15,400 standard deduction and a $12,200 10%-bracket edge. The 2026 values are $16,100 and $12,400, which leave $23,900 of ordinary income taxed at $2,620, not $2,708."
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired ($8,300 deduction plus $5,150 exemption, 15% bracket) and subtracted $5,389 of ESI premiums from wages as pre-tax. These errors offset each other and landed near the correct figure. The correct 2026 computation is $40,000 − $16,100 = $23,900 at 10%/12%, or $2,620."
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It used the 2025 $15,000 standard deduction and then subtracted a $1,300 nonrefundable Child Tax Credit. This filer has no children, so no nonrefundable credits apply. The correct tax is $2,620."
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted $5,389 of ESI premiums from wages and applied a pre-TCJA standard deduction plus personal exemption of about $13,400. 2026 law allows a $16,100 standard deduction against the full $40,000 of wages, which leaves $23,900 taxable and a tax of $2,620."
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It treated 2026 as a post-TCJA-expiration year ($8,300 deduction, $5,150 exemption, 15% bracket) and wrongly reduced wages by $5,389 of ESI premiums. The two errors offset and landed $1.15 from the correct $2,620, which comes from the $16,100 deduction and 10%/12% brackets on $23,900."
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It reported $2,388 with no derivation, which understates the tax by $232. The correct computation is $40,000 − $16,100 = $23,900 of ordinary taxable income, taxed at $1,240 + 12% × $11,500 = $2,620, with the $180 capital gain at 0%."
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted $5,389 of ESI premiums from wages as pre-tax deductions and used a $15,700 standard deduction, which understated taxable income at $19,091. The full $40,000 of wages less the $16,100 deduction leaves $23,900, taxed at $2,620."
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied TCJA-expiration rules (personal exemption and a 15% bracket) to 2026. OBBBA keeps the $16,100 standard deduction and the 10%/12% brackets, which give $2,620 rather than $3,392."
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly taxed the $180 gain at 0% but assumed the TCJA expired, using an $8,300 deduction, a $5,300 exemption, and a 15% bracket. 2026 law gives a $16,100 deduction and 12% on income above $12,400, for a tax of $2,620."
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2024 $14,600 standard deduction and the 2025 $11,925 bracket edge, which gave $2,831.10. It then submitted $2,530 based on irrelevant premium tax credit reasoning that does not change pre-refundable income tax. The correct 2026 figures give $2,620."
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It ended the 10% bracket at $12,200 instead of the 2026 edge of $12,400. It also taxed the $180 of capital gain distributions at 12% instead of 0%. Correctly computed, $23,900 of ordinary income yields $2,620, not $2,645.60."
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the standard deduction wipes out all tax on $40,180 of income. The 2026 single deduction is only $16,100, which leaves $23,900 of ordinary taxable income and a tax of $2,620."
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave $2,146 with only a vague reference to the deduction and nonrefundable items, and no nonrefundable credits exist for this filer. The correct tax is $1,240 at 10% plus 12% of $11,500, or $2,620, on $23,900 of ordinary taxable income."
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It estimated a $15,350 standard deduction and a $12,000 10%-bracket edge instead of the actual 2026 values of $16,100 and $12,400. It also taxed the $180 capital gain at 12%. The result was $2,830.60 instead of $2,620."
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It ran the $180 of non-Schedule D capital gains through the ordinary 12% bracket. Capital gain distributions are taxed at 0% at this income, so only $23,900 is ordinary income, and the tax is $2,620, not $2,641.60."
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It included the $180 of capital gain distributions in the 12%-bracket income ($24,080 taxable) instead of applying the 0% long-term rate. That overstated the tax by $21.60 relative to $2,620."
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It taxed the $180 of non-Schedule D capital gains at the ordinary 12% rate. That gain carries a 0% preferential rate, so ordinary taxable income is $23,900 and the tax is $2,620."
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a standard deduction of roughly $15,500, which made taxable income $24,680, and applied unstated bracket figures to reach $2,781. The 2026 $16,100 deduction with 0% on the $180 gain leaves $23,900 of ordinary income, taxed at $2,620."
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the 2025 $15,000 standard deduction and the 2025 $11,925 bracket edge instead of the 2026 values of $16,100 and $12,400. It also taxed the $180 gain at 12%. The result was $2,783 instead of $2,620."
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 OBBBA standard deduction of $15,750 instead of the 2026 inflation-adjusted $16,100. It also taxed the $180 capital gain at 12% instead of 0%, which overstated taxable income at $24,430 and gave $2,684 instead of $2,620."
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a pre-OBBBA projected $15,400 standard deduction and a $12,225 10%-bracket edge, and it explicitly taxed the $180 gain as ordinary income. The 2026 parameters ($16,100 and $12,400) with 0% on the gain give $2,620, not $2,729.10."
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted $5,389 of ESI premiums from wages and applied a reverted pre-TCJA deduction, exemption, and 15% bracket. 2026 law applies the $16,100 standard deduction to the full $40,000 of wages with 10%/12% brackets, for a tax of $2,620."
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value and no explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was no answer to score against $2,620."
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a wrong $12,750 10%-bracket edge. It then subtracted about $545 as a supposed capital-gains credit, but applying the 0% rate to the $180 gain only removes 12% × $180 = $21.60. Correct ordinary income of $23,900 gives $2,620, not $2,090."
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly put the $180 gain at 0%, but its ordinary-income bracket arithmetic came out $3 high. The exact 2026 figures ($16,100 deduction, $12,400 10% edge) give $1,240 + 12% × $11,500 = $2,620."
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It taxed the $180 of non-Schedule D capital gains at the ordinary 12% rate inside $24,080 of taxable income. That gain is taxed at 0% at this income level, so the tax is $2,620, not $2,641.60."
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $16,300 deduction and a $12,350 bracket edge to compute $2,618.60, then submitted an unrelated $1,410. The correct 2026 parameters ($16,100 and $12,400) with the gain at 0% give $2,620."
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It claimed nonrefundable credits reduce the tax to zero, but a childless single filer with no qualifying expenses has no nonrefundable credits. The tax on $23,900 of ordinary taxable income stands at $2,620."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its reasoning reached $2,641.60 by taxing the $180 capital gain at 12% on top of $23,900 of ordinary taxable income. It then submitted $3,086, a number nothing in that derivation supports. The correct calculation is $1,240 + 12% × $11,500 = $2,620."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the right 2026 deduction and brackets but added the $180 non-Schedule-D capital gain to ordinary taxable income at 12%, which raised taxable income to $24,080. The $180 adds no tax. Only $23,900 of ordinary income is taxed, giving $2,620; its extra $21.60 comes from that gain."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,other,False,"It wrongly subtracted the $5,389 ESI premium and used the outdated $15,000 deduction and $11,600 bracket. It then zeroed the tax by citing the EITC, which is refundable and does not reduce tax before refundable credits. A childless filer earning $40,000 also gets no EITC. The correct tax before refundable credits is $2,620."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"It never did the bracket calculation. It rounded taxable income to roughly $24,000 (including the $180 gain) and guessed $2,700. The exact result is $40,000 − $16,100 = $23,900 of ordinary income, taxed at $1,240 + $1,380 = $2,620."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It first reached about $2,642 with the correct $16,100 deduction and $12,400 bracket, then replaced them with a guessed $16,000 deduction and $12,150 bracket. Even those inputs give about $2,659, not $2,960. Using the 2026 values without taxing the $180 gives $2,620."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,other,False,"It computed $1,240 + $1,402 = $2,642, which was already high because it taxed the $180 gain at 12%. It then submitted $2,867 with no arithmetic behind it. The correct tax is $2,620 on $23,900 of ordinary taxable income."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"It set up $1,240 + $1,402 (about $2,642) and then reported $2,955 with no supporting arithmetic, ignoring its own calculation. The correct result is $1,240 + 12% × $11,500 = $2,620, with the $180 gain adding no tax."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 $15,000 standard deduction and the $11,925 top of the 10% bracket instead of the 2026 values of $16,100 and $12,400. It also taxed the $180 gain at 12%, giving $25,180 of taxable income and $2,783. The correct figure is $2,620."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,other,False,"It computed $2,646.60 using a wrong $12,150 top for the 10% bracket (the correct figure is $12,400) and taxed the $180 gain as ordinary income. It then inflated the answer to $3,059 with no arithmetic basis. The correct tax is $2,620."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,400 standard deduction instead of the 2026 OBBBA $16,100 and put the top of the 10% bracket at $11,925 instead of $12,400. It also said the gain was taxed at 0% but left it inside its 12% calculation. Those errors produced $2,735 instead of $2,620."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed TCJA expired in 2026 and applied a pre-TCJA $7,493 deduction, a personal exemption and a 15% bracket. OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent, so the 2026 values are a $16,100 deduction and 10%/12% brackets with no exemption. It also wrongly subtracted the $5,389 ESI premium from wages. The correct tax is $2,620."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a pre-TCJA reversion: an $8,600 deduction plus a $4,950 personal exemption, with a 15% second bracket. Under OBBBA, 2026 uses a $16,100 standard deduction, no exemption and a 12% second bracket, which gives $2,620 instead of $3,385.75."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly taxed the $180 at 0% but used a $15,400 standard deduction instead of $16,100 and a $12,200 top for the 10% bracket instead of $12,400. That overstated ordinary taxable income at $24,600 instead of $23,900, giving $2,708 instead of $2,620."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied pre-TCJA 2026 law ($8,300 deduction, $5,150 exemption, 15% bracket) and subtracted the $5,389 ESI premium from wages. OBBBA keeps the $16,100 standard deduction and 10%/12% brackets, and wages stay at $40,000. Its $2,621.15 matches the reference only by coincidence of offsetting errors."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It subtracted a $1,300 nonrefundable Child Tax Credit even though this single filer has no children and qualifies for no nonrefundable credit. It also used the outdated $15,000 deduction. The correct result is $2,620 with no credits."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It subtracted the $5,389 ESI premium from wages and used a pre-TCJA deduction plus personal exemption of about $13,400. The correct calculation keeps wages at $40,000 and uses the 2026 $16,100 standard deduction with 10%/12% brackets, giving $2,620."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed TCJA expired: an $8,300 deduction plus a $5,150 exemption, with 15% applied above $11,600. It also took the $5,389 ESI premium out of wages. Under OBBBA, 2026 tax is $1,240 + 12% × $11,500 = $2,620 on $23,900 of taxable income."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,other,False,"It gave no derivation. $2,388 matches about $22,000 of taxable income under 2026 brackets, roughly $2,000 below the correct $23,900, which means it used deductions beyond the $16,100 standard deduction. The correct tax is $2,620."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $5,389 ESI premium from the $40,000 wages and used a $15,700 deduction with the 2025 $11,925 10% bracket, reaching $19,091 of taxable income. The correct figure is $23,900 ($40,000 − $16,100), taxed at $2,620."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied pre-TCJA law with a personal exemption and a 15% bracket. OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent for 2026: a $16,100 standard deduction, no exemption, and 10%/12% brackets that give $2,620."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed TCJA expired, used an $8,300 deduction plus a $5,300 exemption, and taxed $14,200 at 15%. Under OBBBA, 2026 has a $16,100 standard deduction and a 12% second bracket, giving $1,240 + $1,380 = $2,620."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2024 $14,600 deduction and the 2025 $11,925 bracket to get $2,831.10, then submitted $2,530 with no arithmetic basis. The 2026 $16,100 deduction and $12,400 bracket on $23,900 of ordinary income give $2,620."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It put the top of the 2026 10% bracket at $12,200 instead of $12,400 and taxed the $180 gain at 12%. Its taxable income of $24,080 should have been $23,900 of ordinary income, and the correct tax is $2,620."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the standard deduction wipes out all tax, but $40,000 of wages exceeds the $16,100 deduction by $23,900. That remainder is taxed at 10%/12% for $2,620."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"It gave no bracket calculation and referred to vague 'nonrefundable' reductions that do not exist for this childless single filer. $23,900 of ordinary taxable income produces $2,620, not $2,146."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a guessed $15,350 standard deduction and a $12,000 top for the 10% bracket instead of the 2026 $16,100 and $12,400. It also taxed the $180 gain at 12%. That produced $2,830.60 instead of $2,620."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the correct $16,100 deduction and brackets but included the $180 non-Schedule-D gain in ordinary taxable income ($24,080) and taxed it at 12%. Only $23,900 of ordinary income is taxed, giving $2,620; its extra $21.60 comes from that gain."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $180 capital gain to ordinary taxable income at 12%, reaching $24,080. The $180 adds no tax, so only $23,900 is taxed, which gives $2,620 instead of $2,641.60."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It taxed the $180 non-Schedule-D gain as ordinary income at 12%. Ordinary taxable income should be $40,000 − $16,100 = $23,900, with the $180 adding no tax, for a total of $2,620."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $24,680 of taxable income implies a stale standard deduction of about $15,500 instead of the 2026 $16,100, plus the $180 gain taxed as ordinary income. The correct $23,900 of ordinary income gives $2,620, not $2,781."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 $15,000 standard deduction and the $11,925 10% bracket instead of the 2026 $16,100 and $12,400. It also taxed the $180 gain at 12%, giving $2,783 instead of $2,620."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 OBBBA deduction of $15,750 instead of the 2026 inflation-adjusted $16,100 and taxed the $180 gain at 12%. That gave $24,430 of taxable income instead of $23,900 of ordinary income, and $2,684 instead of $2,620."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,400 standard deduction instead of $16,100 and a $12,225 top for the 10% bracket instead of $12,400. It also taxed the $180 gain at 12%, giving $2,729.10 instead of $2,620."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a pre-TCJA reversion ($8,509 deduction, $5,427 exemption, 15% bracket) and subtracted the $5,389 ESI premium from wages. Under OBBBA, 2026 uses the $16,100 standard deduction on $40,000 of wages with 10%/12% brackets, giving $2,620."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no parseable value or explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so it produced no answer to compare with the $2,620 result."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"It put the top of the 10% bracket at $12,750 instead of $12,400. It then subtracted a made-up $545 'nonrefundable credit for net capital gains', even though the 0% rate on the $180 gain saves at most $21.60. The correct tax is $2,620."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly set ordinary taxable income at $23,900 with the gain at 0%. But its split of $1,226 + $1,397 implies a 10% bracket ending near $12,260 instead of $12,400. The correct split is $1,240 + $1,380 = $2,620."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the right approach ($16,100 deduction, gain at 0%), but its $2,623 implies a top for the 10% bracket slightly below the 2026 figure of $12,400. The correct bracket gives $1,240 + 12% × $11,500 = $2,620."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the correct 2026 parameters but included the $180 non-Schedule-D gain in ordinary taxable income and taxed it at 12% ($24,080). Only $23,900 of ordinary income is taxed, giving $2,620 instead of $2,641.60."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,other,False,"It computed $2,618.60 using a wrong $16,300 deduction and $12,350 bracket, then submitted $1,410, which contradicts its own arithmetic. No nonrefundable credit applies, and the correct tax is $2,620."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It claimed nonrefundable credits reduce the tax to zero. A childless single filer with no child care, education or other qualifying expenses has no nonrefundable credits. The $2,620 tax on $23,900 of taxable income stands."
us,scenario_051,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model awarded $560 of childless EITC without applying the phaseout endpoint for a single filer. At $40,000 of earnings, the childless EITC has fully phased out."
us,scenario_051,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model supplied no value or explanation for federal_refundable_credits, violating the required output contract."
us,scenario_051,federal_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,other,False,"The model's own EITC calculation correctly reached $0 and stated that no other refundable credits apply, but it submitted $2,557.60. The submitted value contradicts its completed derivation and does not represent any applicable refundable-credit component."
@@ -4416,102 +4564,106 @@ us,scenario_051,payroll_tax,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The
us,scenario_051,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,The model supplied no payroll_tax value or explanation. It therefore failed the required structured-output contract.
us,scenario_051,payroll_tax,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,other,False,"The model correctly derived $2,480 of Social Security tax plus $580 of Medicare tax and explicitly totaled them as $3,060, but submitted $3,074.95. The submitted value is inconsistent with every component in its explanation."
us,scenario_051,self_employment_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used 2025's $12,500 deduction to calculate $830.40, then submitted $1,020 without supporting arithmetic. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used 2025's $12,500 deduction and calculated $830.40. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model claimed Louisiana has no individual income tax. Louisiana has a flat 3% individual income tax. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model claimed the standard deduction and personal exemption wipe out the liability. The reform eliminated the personal exemption, and the standard deduction does not wipe out this household's liability. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied the flat 3% rate to income less 2025's $12,500 deduction and obtained $830.40. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the unindexed $12,500 deduction to get $830.40. It then subtracted a personal credit that does not exist under the reformed Louisiana tax, which has no personal credit or exemption, and landed on $632. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used 2025's $12,500 deduction to calculate about $830, then made an unsupported downward adjustment for 'AGI rounding' to reach $812; Louisiana AGI is $40,180. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used 2025's $12,500 deduction and calculated $830.40. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted a $2,783 deduction for federal income tax, which the 2025 flat-tax reform repealed. It also used 2025's $12,500 deduction. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model computed $830.40 with the unindexed $12,500 deduction. It then raised the result to $1,080 with no rule behind it; deductions and nonrefundable credits can only lower tax. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used 2025's $12,500 deduction and calculated $830.40. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model paired the new 3% flat rate with the repealed pre-2025 offsets: a $4,500 standard deduction plus a $4,500 personal exemption. The reform replaced those offsets with a single standard deduction. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used a 4.25% rate and a $4,500 exemption instead of the reformed 3% rate and standard deduction, and subtracted the $5,389 ESI premium to cut AGI to $34,791 rather than $40,180. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used 2025's $12,500 deduction and calculated $830.40. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used 2025's $12,500 deduction and calculated $830.40. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied repealed pre-2025 Louisiana law: the federal income tax deduction, the $4,500 combined exemption and the 1.85%/3.5% brackets. It also wrongly reduced AGI to $34,791 by subtracting the ESI premium. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied progressive Louisiana brackets that the 2025 flat-tax reform replaced. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the repealed 1.85%/3.5% brackets and the old $4,500 exemption. It also started from an AGI of $34,791 by wrongly subtracting the ESI premium from wages. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model deducted federal income tax paid, which the reform repealed, and used the old $4,500 exemption and the 1.85%/3.5% brackets. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model gave $1,115 without a derivation. That figure is consistent with too small a deduction or old progressive rates. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied the repealed 1.85%/3.5% brackets with only a $4,500 deduction. It also wrongly cut AGI to $34,791 by subtracting the ESI premium. The flat 3% on $40,180 − $12,835 gives $820.35."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model started from the correct $40,180 AGI but applied pre-2025 law: a $4,500 deduction and 1.85%/3.5% brackets. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the obsolete $4,500 standard deduction and the 1.85%/3.5% bracket schedule, which the 2025 reform replaced. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used 2025's $12,500 deduction and calculated $830.40. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used 2025's $12,500 deduction and calculated $830.40. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model claimed deductions fully offset the tax, but they leave positive Louisiana liability on $40,180 of AGI. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model gave $781 with no actual computation. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used 2025's $12,500 deduction and calculated $830.40. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied the unindexed $12,500 single deduction. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used 2025's $12,500 deduction and calculated $830.40. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used 2025's $12,500 deduction and calculated $830.40. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used 2025's $12,500 deduction and calculated $830.40. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's estimated $12,500 deduction is the 2025 base amount. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used 2025's $12,500 deduction and calculated $830.40. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the unindexed $12,500 standard deduction. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model gave $680 without a derivation. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the federal standard deduction rather than Louisiana's own deduction and applied the repealed 1.85%/3.5% brackets instead of the flat 3% rate. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the unindexed $12,500 deduction and then rounded to $830. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used 2025's $12,500 deduction and calculated $830.40. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied repealed pre-2025 law throughout: a deduction for federal tax, a $4,500 standard deduction plus a $4,500 exemption, and 1.85%/3.5% brackets. It also cut AGI to $34,791 by subtracting the ESI premium. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the unindexed $12,500 deduction and rounded to $830. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no value or reasoning for this output. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used 2025's $12,500 deduction and calculated $830.40. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the obsolete $4,500 deduction and left the $180 of capital gains out of income. Its own arithmetic gave $1,065, yet it submitted $1,208. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used 2025's $12,500 deduction and calculated $830.40. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used 2025's $12,500 deduction and calculated $830.40. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the federal standard deduction and a repealed $4,500 Louisiana exemption, then applied made-up graduated rates. Its own figure was $482.52, yet it submitted $573. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model gave $1,324.80 with no derivation. The retained engine reference is $820.35 using its computed $12,835 deduction; RIB 26-019 published $12,838 after the freeze, giving $820.26, and this output is excluded under d994."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used the 2025 standard deduction of $12,500 without inflating it to $12,835 for 2026, which gave $830.40. It then submitted $1,020, a number its own arithmetic does not support. The correct figure is 3% × $27,345 = $820.35."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied the flat 3% rate correctly but used the 2025 standard deduction of $12,500. The 2026 single deduction is $12,835 after inflation indexing, so taxable income is $27,345 rather than $27,680, and the tax is $820.35 rather than $830.40."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Stated that Louisiana has no individual income tax, which is wrong. Louisiana taxes income at a flat 3% above a $12,835 single standard deduction in 2026, giving $820.35 on $40,180 of AGI."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Claimed the standard deduction and personal exemption bring Louisiana liability to zero. The only deduction is the $12,835 single standard deduction, which leaves $27,345 taxed at 3%, or $820.35."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used the $12,500 standard deduction from Act 11 at its 2025 amount and did not apply the inflation adjustment that makes it $12,835 in 2026. That overstated taxable income by $335 and the tax by $10.05, giving $830.40 instead of $820.35."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Reached $830.40 with the un-indexed $12,500 deduction, then subtracted a personal credit that does not exist to get $632. Louisiana's 2025 reform eliminated personal exemption credits, and the indexed $12,835 deduction gives $820.35."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Started from the 2025 $12,500 deduction and then cut the result to $812 with an unexplained rounding adjustment to AGI. Federal AGI is exactly $40,180, and the 2026 indexed deduction of $12,835 gives $820.35."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used the 2025 standard deduction of $12,500 instead of the 2026 inflation-indexed $12,835. That produced $830.40 instead of 3% × $27,345 = $820.35."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Deducted an estimated $2,783 of federal income tax. The 2024 reform repealed Louisiana's federal-income-tax deduction, so it does not apply. The model also used the un-indexed $12,500 standard deduction instead of $12,835, which understated the tax at $747."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Computed $830.40 using the un-indexed $12,500 deduction, then submitted $1,080 citing exemptions and credits that would lower the tax, not raise it. The indexed 2026 deduction of $12,835 at 3% gives $820.35."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Assumed a $12,500 standard deduction and did not inflate it to $12,835 for 2026. That gave $830.40 instead of $820.35."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Combined the new 3% flat rate with the repealed pre-2025 $4,500 exemption and counted that exemption twice, for $9,000. The 2026 law allows only a $12,835 single standard deduction, which gives $820.35, not $935."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied a 4.25% rate that Louisiana does not have; the 2026 rate is a flat 3%. It also subtracted the $5,389 ESI premium from AGI, which should stay at $40,180, and used the repealed $4,500 exemption instead of the $12,835 standard deduction."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used the 2025 single standard deduction of $12,500 instead of the 2026 inflation-indexed $12,835. That gave $830.40 instead of $820.35."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Did not apply the 2026 inflation indexing that raises the $12,500 deduction to $12,835. Taxable income was overstated by $335, giving $830.40 instead of $820.35."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied pre-2025 Louisiana law, which the 2024 reform replaced with a flat 3% rate and a $12,835 standard deduction. It used the federal-income-tax deduction, the $4,500 exemption, and 1.85%/3.5% brackets. It also lowered AGI to $34,791 by subtracting ESI premiums, though AGI should stay at $40,180."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied progressive bracket rates that Louisiana repealed. The 2026 tax is a flat 3% on AGI minus the $12,835 single standard deduction, which gives $820.35, not $724."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used the repealed 1.85%/3.5% brackets and the old $4,500 exemption, and reduced AGI to $34,791 by subtracting ESI premiums. Under 2026 law, $40,180 minus the $12,835 deduction is taxed at a flat 3%, giving $820.35."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied pre-reform law: a deduction for federal income tax, a $4,500 exemption, and 1.85%/3.5% brackets, on an AGI reduced by ESI premiums. The 2026 calculation is a flat 3% on $40,180 minus $12,835."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Gave $1,115 with no derivation, which is consistent with applying old progressive rates or a much smaller deduction. The 2026 law is a flat 3% on $40,180 minus the $12,835 single standard deduction, which gives $820.35."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used the repealed $4,500 combined exemption and the 1.85%/3.5% brackets on an AGI of $34,791 that wrongly excludes ESI premiums. The 2026 flat 3% rate on $40,180 − $12,835 gives $820.35."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied the pre-2025 $4,500 exemption and the 1.85%/3.5% brackets. Louisiana replaced these with a flat 3% rate and a $12,835 single standard deduction for 2026, so taxable income is $27,345, not $35,680."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used the pre-reform $4,500 deduction and the two-bracket 1.85%/3.5% schedule. Louisiana now taxes at a flat 3% above a $12,835 single deduction, which gives $820.35, not $1,042.55."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used the 2025 standard deduction of $12,500 instead of the 2026 inflation-adjusted $12,835, which gave $830.40 instead of $820.35."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied an un-indexed $12,500 single standard deduction for 2026. Louisiana indexes the deduction to $12,835, so taxable income is $27,345 and the tax is $820.35."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used the 2025 deduction of $12,500 instead of the 2026 inflation-indexed $12,835. That gave $830.40 instead of $820.35."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Claimed deductions and exemptions fully offset the tax. The $12,835 single standard deduction leaves $27,345 of the $40,180 AGI taxable at 3%, which gives $820.35."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Gave $781 with no derivation, which implies about $26,033 of taxable income. The correct figure is 3% × ($40,180 − $12,835) = $820.35."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used the 2025 $12,500 standard deduction instead of the 2026 inflation-indexed $12,835, which overstated the tax at $830.40 instead of $820.35."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied the un-indexed $12,500 single deduction. For 2026 the deduction is $12,835, which gives $820.35."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Subtracted $12,500 instead of the 2026 inflation-adjusted $12,835, which gave $830.40 instead of $820.35."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used the 2025 deduction of $12,500 without indexing it to $12,835 for 2026. That gave $830.40 instead of $820.35."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied the $12,500 deduction instead of the 2026 indexed $12,835, which overstated taxable income by $335 and gave $830.40."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Estimated the deduction at the 2025 level of $12,500 instead of the 2026 inflation-indexed $12,835. That gave $830.40 instead of $820.35."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used a $12,500 single deduction instead of the 2026 inflation-indexed $12,835, which gave $830.40 instead of $820.35."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used the un-indexed $12,500 deduction. The 2026 figure of $12,835 leaves $27,345 taxable at 3%, or $820.35."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Gave $680 with no derivation, which understates the tax. The correct calculation is 3% × ($40,180 − $12,835) = $820.35, with no nonrefundable credits."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Subtracted the federal standard deduction instead of Louisiana's own $12,835 single deduction. It also applied the repealed 1.85%/3.5% brackets instead of the flat 3% rate."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used the 2025 $12,500 deduction instead of the 2026 inflation-indexed $12,835, then rounded to $830. The correct result is $820.35."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied the un-indexed $12,500 deduction instead of $12,835 for 2026, which gave $830.40 instead of $820.35."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied pre-reform law: a federal-income-tax deduction, a separate $4,500 standard deduction and $4,500 exemption, and 1.85%/3.5% brackets. It also lowered AGI to $34,791 by subtracting ESI premiums. The 2026 calculation is 3% × ($40,180 − $12,835)."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used the 2025 $12,500 deduction instead of the 2026 indexed $12,835 and rounded to $830. The correct figure is $820.35."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Did not return a usable value or any reasoning for this output. The correct value is 3% × ($40,180 − $12,835) = $820.35."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied the un-indexed $12,500 single deduction. The 2026 deduction is $12,835, so the tax is $820.35, not $830.40."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used the repealed $4,500 deduction and left out the $180 of capital gains, which gave $1,065. It then submitted $1,208, which its own arithmetic does not support. The correct calculation is 3% × ($40,180 − $12,835) = $820.35."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Subtracted the 2025 $12,500 deduction instead of the 2026 inflation-indexed $12,835, which gave $830.40 instead of $820.35."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used $12,500 instead of the 2026 indexed single standard deduction of $12,835. That overstated taxable income by $335 and gave $830.40."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied the 2025 deduction of $12,500 without indexing it to $12,835 for 2026. That gave $830.40 instead of $820.35."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Subtracted the federal standard deduction and a repealed $4,500 exemption, then applied rates of 1.75% and 3.55% that Louisiana does not use. Its final $573 also does not match its own $482.52 subtotal. The 2026 calculation is 3% × ($40,180 − $12,835) = $820.35."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Gave $1,324.80, which roughly matches a 4.25% rate on AGI minus a $9,000 deduction. Louisiana's 2026 rate is a flat 3% with a $12,835 single standard deduction, which gives $820.35."
us,scenario_051,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its own working reached $107,277, but it submitted $117,285, an unexplained jump of about $10,000. The $107,277 is also too high: it used a $32,600 standard deduction instead of $32,200, and it estimated $106,932 of tax on $471,374 of ordinary income. The 2026 brackets (24% up to $403,550, 32% above) give about $103,750 on that amount."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly disallowed the $43 traditional IRA deduction under the active-participant phase-out, leaving rounded AGI at $504,822 and taxable income at $472,622. The frozen reference incorrectly deducts $43.28, giving taxable income of $472,578.56; the $43.44 difference also includes $0.16 from rounding the 401(k) deferral. Its $104,225.30 is $0.04 above the exclusion's recorded corrected value, $104,225.26. Its brackets, standard deduction, $127.20 QD tax, and $218.42 NIIT all match."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $28,700 MFJ standard deduction instead of the 2026 amount of $32,200, never actually ran the 2026 bracket schedule, and left out the $218.42 NIIT. It then swapped its $109,223 estimate for an unexplained $103,241. Its AGI of $504,779 matches, so the whole error is in the deduction and tax steps."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It submitted a round $105,000 without doing any bracket calculation. The frozen reference uses taxable income of $472,578.56 and ordinary tax of $103,865.78, plus $127.20 on qualified dividends and $218.42 NIIT. It incorrectly takes the $43.28 IRA deduction; the exclusion's recorded corrected value is $104,225.26, so the round guess is about $775 above that value."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $2,250 Additional Medicare Tax to income tax, but that 0.9% wage surtax belongs in payroll_tax, not in federal income tax before refundable credits. It then raised its own $107,040 total to $110,997 with no supporting calculation. It also used guessed thresholds (24% ending at $400,000) and a $32,300 standard deduction instead of $403,550 and $32,200."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its reported AGI of $505,748 fails to reflect the $926 traditional 401(k) deferral in its arithmetic. Disallowing the $43 IRA deduction agrees with the exclusion's active-participant phase-out correction, which gives AGI of $504,821.84; $504,778.56 is the frozen reference's AGI, including the defective IRA deduction. It used a $32,300 standard deduction instead of $32,200 and guessed bracket thresholds (24% up to $401,950 instead of $403,550). It also left out the $218.42 NIIT on $5,748 of net investment income."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It got taxable income roughly right (about $472,200) but reported $141,500 of tax, a bracket-arithmetic error of about $37,000. Under the 2026 MFJ schedule, about $471,350 of ordinary income produces roughly $103,740 of tax. It also left out the $218.42 NIIT."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added $2,250 of Additional Medicare Tax (Form 8959) to federal income tax before refundable credits, but that wage surtax belongs in payroll_tax. It also used a $30,000 standard deduction instead of the 2026 amount of $32,200 and its own estimated bracket thresholds, which pushed taxable income up to $474,822."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It read the $926 traditional 401(k) and $43 IRA contributions as weekly amounts and multiplied them by 52, giving $31,000 (after the cap) and $2,236, which cut AGI to $472,512. It then dropped its own $94,754 result and submitted an arbitrary $121,500. The contributions are annual totals: the $926.16 401(k) deferral reduces income, while the $43.28 IRA deduction is fully phased out under the exclusion's correction. Taxable income of $472,578.56 belongs to the frozen reference, which incorrectly takes the IRA deduction; the recorded corrected tax is $104,225.26."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the traditional IRA deduction as fully phased out, which left taxable income at about $472,622. The reference deducts the $43.28 IRA contribution, giving taxable income of $472,578.56, and that $43.44 at 32% accounts for the whole $14 gap. Its other components ($32,200 standard deduction, 2026 brackets, $127 QD tax, $218 NIIT) match."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reported $119,769 of ordinary tax on $474,822 of taxable income, about $15,000 more than the 2026 MFJ brackets produce at that income (about $104,600). It also used a $30,000 standard deduction instead of $32,200. It applied NIIT to $8,748 instead of $5,748, leaving out the $3,000 allowable capital loss that reduces net investment income."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $16,208 employer-sponsored insurance premium from wages, which cut AGI to $488,614. The reference reduces the $500,000 of wages only by the $926.16 401(k) deferral, giving AGI of $504,778.56. It also used a $30,800 standard deduction instead of $32,200 and applied NIIT to $8,748 instead of $5,748."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied pre-TCJA law to 2026: a $16,900 standard deduction, personal exemptions, and the old rate schedule. OBBBA made the TCJA brackets and the larger standard deduction permanent ($32,200 MFJ for 2026) and kept personal exemptions at zero. It also applied NIIT to $8,748 instead of $5,748, which is the amount after the $3,000 capital-loss offset."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the TCJA sunset and used a $16,700 standard deduction plus $10,600 of personal exemptions with the pre-TCJA rates. Under OBBBA, 2026 has a $32,200 MFJ standard deduction, no personal exemptions, and 24%/32% brackets for this income. It also applied NIIT to $8,748 instead of the $5,748 left after the $3,000 capital loss."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired and itemized $45,620 of deductions, including mortgage interest and state/local taxes that are not in the inputs: only a mortgage balance is listed, with no interest paid, and Texas has no income tax. It also applied the Pease limitation and a 20% dividend rate. OBBBA's 2026 rules give a $32,200 standard deduction, 24%/32% brackets, and a 15% rate on the $848 of qualified dividends."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of about $476,323 means it subtracted nearly the whole capital loss instead of the $3,000 allowed by §1211(b). Even so, its $139,198 of tax is far above what the 2026 brackets produce at that income. The frozen reference's steps are AGI of $504,778.56, taxable income of $472,578.56, and $103,865.78 of ordinary tax, plus $127.20 QD tax and $218.42 NIIT. That calculation incorrectly takes the $43.28 IRA deduction; the exclusion's recorded corrected value is $104,225.26."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation. Its $123,753 is about $19,500 too high, which fits taxing this income under the pre-TCJA schedule (15%/25%/28%/33% with a standard deduction of about $16,600) on a sunset assumption. Under OBBBA's 2026 schedule, taxable income of $472,578.56 falls in the 24%/32% brackets, giving $103,865.78 plus $127.20 QD tax and $218.42 NIIT."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used TCJA-sunset rules (a $15,300 standard deduction, $10,100 of personal exemptions, and pre-TCJA rates) instead of OBBBA's permanent 2026 parameters ($32,200 standard deduction, no exemptions, 24%/32% brackets). It also subtracted the $16,208 ESI premium from wages, which lowered AGI to $488,614 instead of $504,821.84 under the exclusion's IRA phase-out correction; $504,778.56 is the frozen reference's AGI, including the defective $43.28 IRA deduction."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted only the head's $7,200 of interest and left out the spouse's $700. It also claimed taxable income was above the top bracket, but the 37% bracket starts at $768,700 MFJ in 2026, and $472,578.56 of taxable income tops out in the 32% bracket. Its $105,744 has no supporting bracket calculation and is about $1,533 above $103,865.78 + $127.20 + $218.42."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It listed the right pieces (wages, interest, dividends, the $3,000 loss limit, and NIIT) but showed no bracket arithmetic, and the 2026 MFJ schedule does not produce its $113,421. The frozen reference uses taxable income of $472,578.56 and ordinary tax of $103,865.78, plus $127.20 at 15% on qualified dividends and $218.42 NIIT. That calculation incorrectly takes the $43.28 IRA deduction; the exclusion's recorded corrected value is $104,225.26, still about $9,200 below its answer."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $16,208 employer-sponsored insurance premium from wages, which lowered AGI to $488,614 instead of $504,821.84 under the exclusion's IRA phase-out correction. It then applied higher pre-OBBBA rates, so its regular tax came to about $117,547. The frozen reference's AGI of $504,778.56 and taxable income of $472,578.56 include the defective IRA deduction; its ordinary tax is $103,865.78 plus $127.20 QD tax. The exclusion's recorded corrected total is $104,225.26."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied a TCJA sunset, with personal exemptions and the pre-TCJA standard deduction and brackets, and it subtracted the ESI premium as a pre-tax deduction. OBBBA's permanent 2026 rules use a $32,200 standard deduction with no exemptions. Wages are reduced by the $926.16 401(k) deferral. The frozen reference's taxable income of $472,578.56 also includes an incorrect $43.28 IRA deduction; the exclusion's IRA phase-out correction disallows it and records tax of $104,225.26."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired and used a $15,900 standard deduction, phased-out personal exemptions, and the 10/15/25/28/33/35% schedule. OBBBA made the $32,200 standard deduction and the 24%/32% brackets permanent for 2026. It also left out the $218.42 NIIT on $5,748 of net investment income."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It overstated AGI at about $505,800; after the $926.16 401(k) deferral and $3,000 capital-loss deduction, AGI is $504,821.84 under the exclusion's IRA phase-out correction. The frozen reference's AGI of $504,778.56 incorrectly includes the $43.28 IRA deduction. It used a $32,400 standard deduction instead of $32,200 and rounded ordinary tax up to about $105,200, compared with the frozen reference's $103,865.78; the recorded corrected total tax is $104,225.26. It also left out the $218.42 NIIT."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave $50,504 with no bracket arithmetic, which is less than half the liability. The frozen reference's $472,578.56 of taxable income includes $848 of qualified dividends, leaving $471,730.56 of ordinary income. Its ordinary tax is $82,048 through $403,550 plus 32% of $68,180.56, or $103,865.78; its displayed QD tax and NIIT are $127.20 and $218.42, and its stored total rounds to $104,211.41. That reference incorrectly takes the $43.28 IRA deduction; the exclusion's recorded corrected value is $104,225.26."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reported zero tax on the theory that retirement contributions and health premiums wipe out the liability. Against about $508,748 of gross income, the $926.16 401(k) deferral, $3,000 capital-loss deduction, and $32,200 standard deduction apply; the $43.28 IRA deduction is fully phased out under the exclusion's correction. The frozen reference incorrectly takes that IRA deduction, giving taxable income of $472,578.56 and tax of $104,211.41; the recorded corrected tax is $104,225.26."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reported only regular tax and left out the $218.42 NIIT included in the frozen reference; the exclusion separately flags whether this output includes NIIT as an unlisted input. It correctly disallowed the $43 IRA deduction, giving rounded taxable income of $472,622; the frozen reference's $472,578.56 incorrectly includes that deduction. The exclusion's recorded IRA-corrected value is $104,225.26."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It taxed the $848 of qualified dividends at 20% ($169.60) instead of 15% ($127.20); the 20% rate starts only at $613,700 of MFJ taxable income in 2026. It left out the $218.42 NIIT and disallowed the $43 IRA deduction, using $472,622 of taxable income instead of $472,578.56."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It calculated NIIT as about $332 on $8,748 of interest plus dividends and left out the $3,000 allowable capital loss. That loss reduces net investment income to $5,748, so the NIIT is $218.42. It correctly disallowed the $43 IRA deduction under the exclusion's active-participant phase-out correction; the frozen reference incorrectly takes that deduction."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It submitted $57,891 without bracket arithmetic, about 55% of the liability. Taxable income of $472,578.56 under the 2026 MFJ schedule gives $103,865.78 of ordinary tax, plus $127.20 at 15% on the qualified dividends and $218.42 of NIIT, which its total also leaves out."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the $16,208 employer-sponsored insurance premium as a pre-tax wage reduction, which cut AGI to $488,614 and taxable income to $456,414. The reference reduces wages only by the $926.16 401(k) deferral and deducts the $43.28 IRA contribution, giving AGI of $504,778.56 and taxable income of $472,578.56."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted the 401(k) deferral and capital loss and omitted the IRA deduction, which agrees with the exclusion's active-participant phase-out correction. Its rounded taxable income of $472,622 is $43.44 above the frozen reference's $472,578.56; that difference includes the defective $43.28 IRA deduction and $0.16 of input rounding. Its $104,225.30 is $0.04 above the exclusion's recorded corrected value, $104,225.26. Its QD tax and $218 NIIT match."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It stopped at regular tax plus the 15% tax on qualified dividends ($104,006.88) and left out the $218.42 NIIT on $5,748 of net investment income. It also disallowed the $43.28 IRA deduction, so taxable income was $472,622 instead of $472,578.56."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the $16,208 employer-sponsored insurance premium as pre-tax, which cut AGI to $488,614. The reference reduces wages only by the $926.16 401(k) deferral, giving AGI of $504,778.56 and taxable income of $472,578.56 after the $32,200 standard deduction."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave a round $140,000 guess without computing taxable income or applying brackets. Taxable income of $472,578.56 is taxed at no more than 32% under the 2026 MFJ schedule, giving $103,865.78, plus $127.20 QD tax and $218.42 NIIT."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used projected post-TCJA parameters ($16,600 standard deduction, personal exemptions, and pre-TCJA rates) instead of OBBBA's permanent 2026 schedule with a $32,200 standard deduction. It also subtracted the $16,208 ESI premium from wages and applied NIIT to $8,748 instead of the $5,748 left after the $3,000 capital loss."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $30,750 MFJ standard deduction instead of the 2026 amount of $32,200, which added $1,450 of taxable income at 32%. It also disallowed the $43.28 IRA deduction, raising taxable income to $474,072 instead of $472,578.56."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $504,779 matches the frozen reference, which incorrectly takes the $43.28 IRA deduction; the exclusion's IRA phase-out correction gives AGI of $504,821.84. It then applied TCJA expiration: a $16,950 standard deduction, $5,184 of personal exemptions, and pre-TCJA rates. OBBBA kept the $32,200 MFJ standard deduction and 24%/32% brackets for 2026. The frozen reference's taxable income of $472,578.56 and ordinary tax of $103,865.78 reflect the defective IRA deduction; the recorded corrected total tax is $104,225.26."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $16,208 ESI premium from wages, which cut AGI to $488,571. It used a $30,750 standard deduction instead of $32,200 and applied NIIT to $8,748 instead of the $5,748 left after the $3,000 capital loss. Wages are reduced only by the $926.16 401(k) deferral."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reported $104,035 of ordinary tax on $471,774 of ordinary income, but the 2026 brackets ($82,048 through $403,550, then 32%) give $103,879.68, about $155 less. It also disallowed the $43.28 IRA deduction, so taxable income was $472,622 instead of $472,578.56."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value and no explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so the answer could not be parsed."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed a $4,517.80 OBBBA qualified-overtime deduction by inferring overtime pay from the 60-hour schedule. The engine allows no overtime deduction for this $500,000-salaried head, so taxable income stays at $472,578.56. It also left out the $218.42 NIIT on $5,748 of net investment income."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It mixed up two standard deduction figures ($16,100 and $30,800, versus the 2026 MFJ amount of $32,200), gave a taxable income of about $488,648 that conflicts with its own adjustments, and asserted $104,050 without bracket arithmetic. It never included the $218.42 NIIT or the $127.20 QD tax as separate items."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It calculated NIIT as about $332 on $8,748 of interest plus dividends and left out the $3,000 allowable capital loss. That loss reduces net investment income to $5,748, so the NIIT is $218.42. It correctly disallowed the $43.28 IRA deduction under the exclusion's active-participant phase-out correction. The $43.44 difference from the frozen reference's taxable income also includes input rounding; the exclusion's recorded corrected tax is $104,225.26."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI ($504,779) and taxable income ($472,579) match, but it taxed the $848 of qualified dividends at 0%. The 0% rate ends at $98,900 of MFJ taxable income in 2026, so 15% applies ($127.20). It also left out the $218.42 NIIT, so it reported only the $103,866 of ordinary bracket tax."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the full $29,922 net capital loss instead of the $3,000 allowed under §1211(b), and it ignored the 401(k) and IRA deductions. It then submitted $165,473.58, which contradicts its own $85,184.10 calculation. It also stretched the 32% bracket and taxed the dividends at 0%."
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It taxed about $219,000 at 35%, but in 2026 the MFJ 35% bracket starts at $512,450, so all of this income falls at 32% or below. It also used a $30,000 standard deduction instead of $32,200, did not subtract the $926.16 401(k) deferral, counted the $3,000 capital-loss deduction twice as a tax reduction, and left out the $218.42 NIIT."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its own working reached $107,277, but it submitted $117,285, a $10,000 jump with nothing behind it. The working also overstated ordinary bracket tax (~$106,932 vs. ~$103,750 under the 2026 MFJ schedule) and used a $32,600 standard deduction instead of $32,200. The correct path is $103,865.78 ordinary tax + $127.20 QD tax + $218.42 NIIT."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied the §219(g) active-participant phaseout and disallowed the $43 traditional IRA deduction, leaving AGI at $504,822. The reference subtracts $43.28 of IRA contributions (AGI $504,778.56), and $43.28 × 32% = $13.85 is the whole gap. Its standard deduction, brackets, 15% QD tax and $218.42 NIIT all match."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used a $28,700 MFJ standard deduction instead of 2026's $32,200 and never computed the $218.42 NIIT or a separate 15% tax on the $848 of qualified dividends. Its final $103,241 does not follow from its own $109,223 working. Its AGI of $504,779 matched, and with $32,200 it would reach $472,578.56 taxable and $104,211.41 in tax."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Submitted a rounded $105,000 guess with no bracket, qualified-dividend or NIIT calculation. $472,578.56 of taxable income gives $103,865.78 ordinary tax under 2026 MFJ brackets plus $127.20 QD tax and $218.42 NIIT, so the round number is about $789 too high."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Added the $2,250 Additional Medicare Tax, which is a payroll tax reported in payroll_tax and not part of income tax before refundable credits. It then raised its own $107,040 to $110,997 without any computation. It also guessed brackets (32% from $400,000 instead of $403,550) and used a $32,300 standard deduction instead of $32,200."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Summed AGI as $505,748 without subtracting the $926 traditional 401(k) deferral from wages, and left out the $218.42 NIIT on $5,748 of net investment income. It also used guessed brackets (24% to $401,950) and a $32,300 standard deduction instead of 2026's $403,550 threshold and $32,200."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its stated brackets and ~$472,200 taxable income work out to about $104,000, yet it reported $141,500, an arithmetic error of about $37,000. It also left out the $218.42 NIIT. The correct total is $103,865.78 + $127.20 + $218.42."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Included the $2,250 Additional Medicare Tax (Form 8959), which belongs in payroll_tax and not in federal income tax before refundable credits. It also used the outdated $30,000 standard deduction instead of 2026's $32,200, and estimated brackets with 32% starting at $405,650 instead of $403,550."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Read the $926 401(k) and $43 IRA amounts as weekly figures and annualized them, giving a $31,000 capped deferral and a $2,236 IRA deduction that cut AGI to $472,512. It then raised its own $94,754 result to $121,500 without any computation. The contributions are annual, so the 401(k) exclusion is $926.16 and AGI is $504,778.56."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Treated the $43 traditional IRA contribution as fully phased out, leaving AGI at $504,822. The reference deducts $43.28 (AGI $504,778.56), and $43.28 × 32% = $13.85 is the whole gap; the rest of its calculation matches."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used the outdated $30,000 standard deduction and reported $119,769 of ordinary tax on $474,822, about $15,000 more than the 2026 MFJ schedule gives. It also computed NIIT on $8,748 instead of $5,748, ignoring that the $3,000 allowable capital loss reduces net investment income (Reg. 1.1411-4(d)(2))."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Subtracted the $16,208 ESI premiums from the $500,000 gross wages, cutting AGI to $488,614 instead of $504,778.56. It also used a $30,800 standard deduction instead of $32,200 and computed NIIT on $8,748 instead of $5,748."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied pre-TCJA law for 2026: a $16,900 standard deduction, personal exemptions reduced by PEP, and the old rate schedule. OBBBA made the TCJA brackets permanent, with a $32,200 MFJ standard deduction and no personal exemptions. It also computed NIIT on $8,748 instead of $5,748."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Assumed TCJA expired, using a $16,700 standard deduction plus $10,600 of personal exemptions and pre-TCJA rates (ordinary tax $124,780), instead of the 2026 $32,200 standard deduction and 10/12/22/24/32% brackets. It also computed NIIT on $8,748 instead of $5,748."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Itemized $45,620 by inventing mortgage interest and state/local taxes that are not listed (only a mortgage balance is given, so deductible interest is $0), and applied pre-TCJA rates, the Pease limitation and a 20% qualified-dividend rate. Under 2026 law the $32,200 standard deduction applies, ordinary income is taxed through the 32% bracket, and the $848 of dividends is taxed at 15%."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Got AGI of about $476,323 by mishandling the capital loss and contributions, then reported $139,198 with no bracket calculation. That is about $35,000 above the $104,211.41 that $472,578.56 of taxable income produces under 2026 MFJ brackets plus 15% QD tax and $218.42 NIIT."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Gave no derivation. $123,753 is about $19,500 too high, which matches applying the expired pre-TCJA rate schedule instead of 2026's 10/12/22/24/32% brackets with the $32,200 standard deduction (ordinary tax $103,865.78 + $127.20 QD + $218.42 NIIT)."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Assumed TCJA expired ($15,300 standard deduction, $10,100 of personal exemptions, pre-TCJA rates) and subtracted the $16,208 ESI premiums from wages. Under 2026 law the $32,200 standard deduction and TCJA brackets apply to AGI of $504,778.56."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Claimed taxable income is above the top bracket, but the 2026 MFJ 37% bracket starts at $768,700 and $472,578.56 falls in the 32% bracket. It also counted only the head's $7,200 of interest, leaving out the spouse's $700, and its $105,744 has no bracket calculation behind it."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Gave no bracket calculation. $113,421 is about $9,200 above the correct $104,211.41, which shows bracket thresholds or rates other than the 2026 MFJ schedule (32% from $403,550) were applied to $472,578.56 of taxable income."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Started from AGI of $488,614, which subtracts the $16,208 ESI premiums from the $500,000 gross wages. Its $117,547 regular tax matches pre-TCJA rates rather than the 2026 TCJA brackets with a $32,200 standard deduction, which give $103,865.78 ordinary tax on AGI of $504,778.56."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Explicitly used TCJA-sunset rules (personal exemptions, a smaller standard deduction, pre-TCJA brackets) and subtracted ESI premiums from wages. OBBBA made TCJA permanent, so 2026 uses the $32,200 standard deduction and 10–37% TCJA brackets on AGI of $504,778.56."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $504,822 is only $43 off, but its implied ordinary tax of about $105,992 (after removing $127.20 QD tax and $218.42 NIIT) is about $2,100 above what the 2026 MFJ schedule gives. That points to a standard deduction below $32,200 or pre-2026 bracket thresholds instead of 2026's 32% bracket starting at $403,550."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Assumed TCJA expired in 2026, using a $15,900 standard deduction, phased-out personal exemptions and 10/15/25/28/33/35% brackets. OBBBA made the TCJA schedule permanent, so the $32,200 standard deduction and 10/12/22/24/32% brackets apply. It also left out the $218.42 NIIT."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Reported AGI of about $505,800, so the $926 401(k) deferral was never actually subtracted. It also used a $32,400 standard deduction instead of $32,200, left out the $218.42 NIIT, and rounded the result to $105,000."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"$50,504 is about half the correct liability. Ordinary tax on $471,730.56 under 2026 MFJ brackets is $103,865.78 on its own, before the $127.20 QD tax and $218.42 NIIT, so the figure comes from a large bracket arithmetic error."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Claimed zero liability on the idea that retirement contributions and health premiums wipe out the tax. In fact they reduce AGI by only $926.16 (401(k)) and $43.28 (IRA), leaving $472,578.56 of taxable income and $104,211.41 of tax."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $104,007 equals $103,879.68 of ordinary tax plus $127.20 of QD tax, with the 3.8% NIIT of $218.42 on $5,748 of net investment income left out even though MAGI exceeds the $250,000 MFJ threshold. It also did not deduct the $43 IRA contribution."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Taxed the $848 of qualified dividends at 20% ($169.60) instead of 15% ($127.20), although taxable income is well below the 2026 MFJ 20% threshold of $613,700. It also left out the $218.42 NIIT; its figure equals exactly $103,879.68 + $169.60."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Computed NIIT as $332.42 on $8,748, ignoring that the $3,000 allowable capital loss reduces net investment income to $5,748 (NIIT $218.42). Its total equals $103,879.68 + $127.20 + $332.42, and it also did not deduct the $43 IRA contribution."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"$57,891 is about 55% of the correct liability. Ordinary tax on $471,730.56 under 2026 MFJ brackets is $103,865.78, so the figure comes from a large bracket error, and the $218.42 NIIT is also missing."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Subtracted the $16,208 ESI premiums from the $500,000 gross wages, cutting AGI to $488,614. Wages should be reduced only by the $926.16 401(k) deferral, with a $43.28 IRA deduction, giving AGI of $504,778.56. The $16,164.56 AGI shortfall × 32% accounts for the $5,172.67 gap."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied the 2026 brackets, $32,200 standard deduction, 15% QD tax and $218.42 NIIT correctly, but did not deduct the $43 traditional IRA contribution. The reference deducts $43.28, and $43.28 × 32% = $13.85 is the whole gap."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Stopped at regular tax ($103,879.68 + $127.20 = $104,006.88) and left out the 3.8% NIIT of $218.42 on $5,748 of net investment income, which applies because MAGI exceeds $250,000. It also did not deduct the $43 IRA contribution."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Subtracted the $16,208 ESI premiums from gross wages, cutting AGI to $488,614 instead of $504,778.56. The premiums are not part of the $500,000 wage figure; only the $926.16 401(k) deferral reduces it. The resulting $16,164.56 AGI shortfall at 32% is the $5,172.67 gap."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Gave a round $140,000 guess with no calculation, about $35,800 too high. Under 2026 MFJ brackets, $472,578.56 of taxable income falls in the 32% bracket for $103,865.78 of ordinary tax, plus $127.20 QD tax and $218.42 NIIT."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used TCJA-sunset parameters (a $16,600 standard deduction, personal exemptions, pre-TCJA rates), subtracted the $16,208 ESI premiums from wages, and computed NIIT on $8,748 instead of $5,748. 2026 law uses the $32,200 standard deduction and 10/12/22/24/32% brackets on AGI of $504,778.56."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used a $30,750 standard deduction instead of 2026's $32,200 MFJ amount, overstating taxable income by $1,450 (about $464 of tax at 32%). It also did not deduct the $43.28 IRA contribution."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Assumed TCJA's individual provisions expired, using a $16,950 standard deduction, $5,184 of PEP-limited personal exemptions and pre-TCJA rates. Its AGI of $504,779 matched, but under OBBBA the $32,200 standard deduction and 10/12/22/24/32% brackets give $103,865.78 of ordinary tax."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Subtracted the $16,208 ESI premiums from wages (AGI $488,571 vs $504,778.56), used a $30,750 standard deduction instead of $32,200, and computed NIIT on $8,748 instead of $5,748 by ignoring the $3,000 allowable capital loss."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $472,622 of taxable income is only $43 high, but it put ordinary bracket tax at about $104,035 when $471,774 under the 2026 MFJ schedule gives $103,879.68, an arithmetic error of about $155. It also did not deduct the $43.28 IRA contribution."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Returned no value or explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so nothing was scored."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Inferred $88,400 of overtime premium from the 60-hour schedule and claimed a $4,517.80 qualified-overtime deduction. No overtime compensation is listed, so it counts as 0 and no overtime deduction applies. It also left out the $218.42 NIIT and did not deduct the $43.28 IRA contribution."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Cited two conflicting standard deductions ($16,100 and $30,800) instead of 2026's $32,200, did no bracket calculation, and never added the $218.42 NIIT. Its $104,050 is a rough estimate $161 short of $104,211.41."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Left out the 3.8% NIIT of $218.42 on $5,748 of net investment income, and its ordinary-rate calculation came out about $25 low ($103,982 vs. $104,006.88 regular tax on $472,622). It also did not deduct the $43.28 IRA contribution."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Computed NIIT as about $332 on $8,748, ignoring that the $3,000 allowable capital loss reduces net investment income to $5,748 (NIIT $218.42). Its $104,339 equals $103,879.68 + $127.20 + $332.42, and it also did not deduct the $43 IRA contribution."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Matched AGI ($504,779), taxable income and ordinary tax ($103,866), but taxed the $848 of qualified dividends at 0% instead of 15% ($127.20); the 2026 MFJ 0% bracket ends at $98,900 of taxable income. It also left out the $218.42 NIIT, and those two items are the whole $345.62 gap."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Netted the full $29,922 capital loss against ordinary income instead of the $3,000 §1211(b) limit, skipped the $926 401(k) exclusion, and taxed $6,290 of 'LTCG/QD' at 0%. Its final $165,473.58 also contradicts its own $85,184.10 working."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied a 35% marginal rate to $218,948 above a $76,256 base, but $472,578.56 of 2026 MFJ taxable income falls in the 32% bracket (35% starts at $512,450). It also used a $30,000 standard deduction, did not subtract the $926 401(k) deferral, and left out the $218.42 NIIT."
us,scenario_052,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_052,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model invented a simplified benchmark rule making a 59-year-old Medicare eligible. Medicare's standard age threshold is 65, and the prompt supplies no disability, end-stage renal disease, or other alternative eligibility basis, so the head is not eligible."
us,scenario_052,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"The model's reasoning explicitly reached the correct $20,939: $11,439 Social Security, $7,250 Medicare and $2,250 Additional Medicare. It then submitted $12,820.40, which matches neither that total nor its own $20,558.11 alternative that excluded the insurance premiums. The submitted value is disconnected from any calculation the model showed."
@@ -4547,42 +4699,44 @@ us,scenario_052,payroll_tax,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"The model computed
us,scenario_052,payroll_tax,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,other,False,"The model's reasoning totals $20,418.20, using the outdated $176,100 wage base instead of $184,500. It then submitted $32,846, which none of its stated components support."
us,scenario_052,payroll_tax,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,other,False,"The model counted the $2,250 Additional Medicare Tax twice: it added it again to a $20,418.20 subtotal that already included it. It also used the outdated $176,100 Social Security wage base instead of the 2026 base of $184,500."
us,scenario_052,spouse_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model invented a simplified rule that makes a 55-year-old Medicare eligible. The spouse is below the age-65 threshold and has no listed disability or other qualifying Medicare pathway, yielding spouse_medicare_eligible = 0."
-us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It cut wages by the $3,389 ESI premiums and also took the $950 auto loan interest deduction, which brought taxable income down to $46,530. Neither reduction applies; taxable income is $50,868.68. It then submitted $6,224, which does not match its own $5,335.60 figure."
-us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took a $950 OBBBA auto loan interest deduction, but nothing in the household facts shows a qualifying new vehicle, so the deduction does not apply. Without it, taxable income is $50,868.68, and $468.68 of that falls in the 22% bracket, giving $5,903.11."
-us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It took the $3,389 ESI premiums out of wages and used the 2024 standard deduction of $14,600 instead of 2026's $16,100. It then applied a 22% rate to almost all income, getting $12,761.60, and submitted an unrelated $5,744. The correct calculation uses $50,868.68 of taxable income and the 10%/12%/22% brackets at $12,400 and $50,400."
-us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $3,389 ESI premiums as pre-tax pay, which made taxable income $47,480 instead of $50,868.68. It also never did the bracket math: even on its own taxable income the tax is $5,449.60, not the $4,700 it guessed."
-us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $16,600 standard deduction instead of the 2026 single amount of $16,100. It then raised its own $5,796 result by an arbitrary $400 to $6,196. With the correct deduction, $468.68 of income falls above $50,400 at 22%, for a total of $5,903.11."
-us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,other,False,"Its reasoning got the right result: $50,869 of taxable income on the 2026 brackets gives $5,903. It then threw that away and submitted $6,027 as an unexplained 'rounding' adjustment."
-us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly computed about $5,903 from $50,869 of taxable income and the 2026 brackets. It then submitted $6,379, a number its own calculation does not support."
-us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a guessed $15,700 standard deduction instead of the 2026 OBBBA amount of $16,100, and 2025 bracket thresholds ($11,925/$48,475) instead of $12,400/$50,400. Those choices put $2,794 in the 22% bracket instead of $468.68."
-us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got taxable income right at $50,869, but it estimated the brackets by inflating 2025 thresholds by 2% instead of using the actual 2026 thresholds of $12,400 and $50,400. It also never worked out the bracket amounts and reported a rough $6,154 instead of $5,903.11."
-us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,650 standard deduction instead of $16,100, and bracket breakpoints of $12,200/$49,950 instead of 2026's $12,400/$50,400. As a result, $1,369 was taxed at 22% instead of $468.68."
-us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the $3,389 ESI premiums out of wages, used a $15,400 standard deduction instead of $16,100, and started the 12% bracket at $12,225 instead of $12,400. That left $48,180 of taxable income instead of $50,868.68."
-us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired in 2026 and applied an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,300 personal exemption, and 15%/25% brackets. OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent, so 2026 uses a $16,100 standard deduction, no personal exemption, and 10%/12%/22% brackets."
-us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the TCJA-sunset rules: an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,300 personal exemption, and 15%/25% brackets. OBBBA kept the $16,100 deduction and the 10/12/22 brackets for 2026. It also wrongly took the $3,389 ESI premiums out of wages."
-us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,300 standard deduction instead of $16,100. Its $3,939 answer is also far below what any 10%/12%/22% calculation gives on about $51,000 of taxable income. The correct tax on $50,868.68 is $1,240 + $4,560 + $103.11."
-us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA had expired and used pre-TCJA personal exemptions, standard deduction, and 15%/25% brackets. Under OBBBA, 2026 keeps the $16,100 standard deduction and the 10/12/22 brackets. It also subtracted the $3,389 ESI premiums, which gross wages do not exclude."
-us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the TCJA-sunset parameters for 2026: an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,300 personal exemption, and 15%/25% brackets. OBBBA made the $16,100 deduction and the 10/12/22 brackets permanent. It also subtracted the $3,389 ESI premiums from wages."
-us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave no breakdown, and its $3,737 is far below the correct result. $50,868.68 of taxable income (wages less the $16,100 deduction) on the 2026 brackets gives $1,240 + $4,560 + $103.11. Its answer is consistent with applying a much larger deduction or lower rates than 2026 law provides."
-us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the $3,389 ESI premiums out of wages as pre-tax pay, which gave $47,480 of taxable income instead of $50,868.68. That dropped all income below the 22% bracket and left out $3,389 that is taxed at 12–22%."
-us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reduced AGI by the $3,389 ESI premiums to $63,580, but AGI equals the full $66,968.68 in wages. Its $5,449.60 is the correct bracket tax on the wrong taxable income of $47,480."
-us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 standard deduction of $15,000 and 2025 brackets ($11,925/$48,475) instead of 2026's $16,100 deduction and $12,400/$50,400 thresholds. That put too much income in the 22% bracket."
-us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used 2024 parameters: a $14,600 standard deduction and brackets at $11,600/$47,150. The 2026 values are $16,100 and $12,400/$50,400. As a result, $5,219 was taxed at 22% instead of $468.68."
-us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It subtracted a 'basic CTC/nonrefundable credit' even though this single filer has no children or dependents, so no CTC or other nonrefundable credit applies. The full $5,903.11 of bracket tax on $50,868.68 of taxable income remains."
-us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It relied on rough approximations of the standard deduction and brackets instead of the actual 2026 values ($16,100 deduction, $12,400/$50,400 thresholds). That produced $5,118, about $785 short of the correct tax on $50,868.68 of taxable income."
-us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $16,000 standard deduction instead of $16,100 and then misapplied the brackets. Its own $50,969 taxable income gives $5,925 on the 2026 brackets, not $5,793. The correct figure is $5,903.11 on $50,868.68."
-us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got taxable income right at $50,869 but used the wrong bracket breakpoints, overstating the tax by about $82. Only the $468.68 above $50,400 is taxed at 22%, after $1,240 at 10% and $4,560 at 12%."
-us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted $3,389 in employer-plan premiums from wages, which gave $47,480 of taxable income. The correct starting point is the full $66,968.68 in wages, leaving $50,868.68 taxable after the $16,100 deduction."
-us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used about $15,000 as the standard deduction (the 2025 amount) instead of the 2026 amount of $16,100, and it never computed the bracket tax. It submitted a rough $5,850 instead of $1,240 + $4,560 + $103.11."
-us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It treated 2026 as a TCJA-sunset year, with an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,300 personal exemption, and 15%/25% brackets. OBBBA keeps the $16,100 deduction, no personal exemption, and the 10/12/22 brackets."
-us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired: it restored a $5,435 personal exemption, used an $8,522 standard deduction, and applied 15%/25% brackets. OBBBA kept the 2026 single standard deduction at $16,100 with 10/12/22 brackets."
-us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $16,150 standard deduction and bracket breakpoints of $12,225/$49,725. The actual 2026 values are $16,100 and $12,400/$50,400, so it taxed $1,094 at 22% instead of $468.68."
-us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied pre-TCJA law with an $8,372 standard deduction and 15%/25% brackets. OBBBA made permanent the 2026 $16,100 deduction and the 10/12/22 brackets, which give $50,868.68 of taxable income."
-us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired and used an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,300 personal exemption, and 15%/25% brackets, all replaced by OBBBA's permanent $16,100 deduction and 10/12/22 brackets. It also wrongly subtracted the $3,389 ESI premiums from wages."
-us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2023 standard deduction of $13,850 instead of 2026's $16,100, which overstated taxable income at $53,119. It then submitted $4,272, which matches neither its own $6,397.98 nor any bracket calculation."
-us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got taxable income right at $50,869, but it ended the 12% bracket at $50,150 instead of $50,400, giving $4,530 at 12% and $719 at 22%. The correct split is $4,560 at 12% and $468.68 at 22%, for a 22% portion of $103.11."
-us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $16,000 standard deduction and 2025 brackets ($11,925/$48,475) instead of 2026's $16,100 and $12,400/$50,400, which produced $6,127.18. It then submitted $8,252, which does not match its own calculation."
-us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It used an overstated standard deduction (taxable income of $49,779 instead of $50,868.68). It also subtracted a child or dependent tax credit even though this single filer has no dependents, so no nonrefundable credits apply."
+us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $3,389 of ESI premiums from wages and also took a $950 auto loan interest deduction. In this computation AGI is the full $66,969 and the auto loan interest is not deductible. Its own work reached $5,336, yet it submitted $6,224, a figure that matches no derivation; the correct result is 22% bracket tax on $50,869 of taxable income, or $5,903."
+us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took a $950 OBBBA auto loan interest deduction as an above-the-line adjustment. That deduction requires a qualifying new, US-assembled vehicle, and no such vehicle is among the listed facts, so it does not apply. Without it, taxable income is $50,869, which reaches into the 22% bracket above $50,400 and gives $5,903 instead of $5,742."
+us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It subtracted the ESI premiums from wages, used the 2024 standard deduction of $14,600 instead of the 2026 amount of $16,100, and applied made-up bracket arithmetic that came to $12,761.60. It then submitted $5,744, which is consistent with none of its own steps. The correct calculation is $66,969 − $16,100 = $50,869, taxed at 10%, 12% and 22%, for $5,903."
+us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reduced wages by the $3,389 of ESI premiums, which made taxable income $47,480 instead of $50,869. It then also understated the tax on that base: $4,700 instead of the $5,449.60 the 2026 brackets give. The correct AGI is the full wages, giving $5,903."
+us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $16,600 standard deduction instead of the 2026 amount of $16,100 and treated taxable income as fitting entirely within the 12% bracket, getting $5,796. It then raised the answer to $6,196 with no supporting calculation. Correct taxable income is $50,869, with $468.68 taxed at 22%, for $5,903."
+us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,other,False,"Its own reasoning computed the correct $5,903 from $50,869 of taxable income and the 2026 brackets of $12,400 and $50,400. It then dropped that result and submitted $6,027 based on unsupported 'rounding to bracket estimates'."
+us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly derived $5,903 from $50,869 of taxable income ($1,240 + $4,560 + $103). It then submitted $6,379, a number its reasoning does not support."
+us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 bracket thresholds of $11,925 and $48,475 and an estimated $15,700 standard deduction. The 2026 OBBBA values are $12,400 and $50,400 for the brackets and $16,100 for the deduction. That pushed $2,794 into the 22% bracket instead of $468.68, giving $6,193 instead of $5,903."
+us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got the $16,100 deduction and $50,869 of taxable income right. However, it estimated the brackets as 2025 thresholds × 1.02 instead of using the 2026 thresholds of $12,400 and $50,400, and its loose arithmetic produced $6,154. The 2026 brackets give $1,240 + $4,560 + $103.11 = $5,903."
+us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,650 standard deduction and bracket thresholds of $12,200 and $49,950 instead of the 2026 values of $16,100, $12,400 and $50,400. That made taxable income $51,319 and put $1,369 in the 22% bracket, giving $6,051.18 instead of $5,903.11."
+us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the ESI premiums from wages to get AGI of $63,580 instead of $66,969 and used a $15,400 standard deduction instead of $16,100. It also used a $12,225 top for the 10% bracket instead of $12,400. Together these understated taxable income at $48,180 and left out the 22% portion, giving $5,537.10."
+us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired in 2026 and applied an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,300 personal exemption and 15%/25% brackets. OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent: a $16,100 standard deduction, no personal exemption, and 10%/12%/22% brackets, which give $5,903."
+us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the TCJA-expiration parameters: an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,300 exemption, and 15%/25% brackets. It also subtracted the $3,389 of ESI premiums from wages. Under the 2026 OBBBA law, AGI is $66,969, the standard deduction is $16,100, and the 10%/12%/22% brackets give $5,903."
+us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,300 standard deduction instead of $16,100, and its $3,939 is far below what any 2026 bracket calculation gives. Taxing $50,869 at 10% up to $12,400, 12% up to $50,400 and 22% above that comes to $5,903."
+us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired, using pre-TCJA brackets plus a personal exemption, and subtracted the ESI premiums to get AGI of $63,580. 2026 law keeps the $16,100 standard deduction with no exemption and the 10%/12%/22% brackets on AGI of $66,969, which gives $5,903."
+us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied TCJA-expiration parameters (an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,300 exemption, and 15%/25% brackets) and subtracted the ESI premiums from wages. OBBBA made the $16,100 standard deduction and the 10%/12%/22% brackets permanent for 2026, and AGI is the full $66,969, which gives $5,903."
+us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It submitted $3,737 with no stated calculation, a figure about $2,166 below the tax on $50,869 of taxable income. The correct result is $1,240 at 10% + $4,560 at 12% + $103.11 at 22% = $5,903.11. Its number reflects misapplied brackets or a greatly overstated deduction."
+us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $3,389 of ESI premiums from wages, cutting taxable income to $47,480 instead of $50,869, and also miscalculated the tax on that base ($5,459.10 instead of $5,449.60). With AGI equal to the full $66,969 of wages, tax is $5,903."
+us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the $3,389 of ESI premiums as a pre-tax reduction, giving AGI of $63,580 and taxable income of $47,480, which is taxed entirely within the 12% bracket. AGI is the full $66,969 of wages, so taxable income is $50,869 and tax is $5,903."
+us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 standard deduction of $15,000 and the 2025 bracket thresholds of $11,925 and $48,475. The 2026 values are $16,100, $12,400 and $50,400. That overstated taxable income at $51,969 and moved $3,494 into the 22% bracket, giving $6,347.18 instead of $5,903.11."
+us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $7,796.15 matches the TCJA-expiration calculation: a roughly $8,300 standard deduction plus a $5,300 exemption, with 15%/25% brackets. Under 2026 OBBBA law, a $16,100 standard deduction and the 10%/12%/22% brackets give $5,903."
+us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used 2024 parameters: a $14,600 standard deduction and bracket thresholds of $11,600 and $47,150. The 2026 values are $16,100, $12,400 and $50,400. That made taxable income $52,369 with $5,219 taxed at 22%, giving $6,574.18 instead of $5,903.11."
+us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It reduced the tax by a 'basic CTC' and other nonrefundable credits, but this single filer has no children or other qualifying dependents, so no nonrefundable credits apply. Tax before refundable credits is the full $5,903 on $50,869 of taxable income, not $3,657."
+us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It submitted $5,118 using 'approximated' 2026 parameters, which is less than even the $5,800 owed on the first $50,400 under the 2026 10%/12% brackets. The correct calculation is $66,969 − $16,100 = $50,869, giving $1,240 + $4,560 + $103.11 = $5,903.11."
+us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $16,000 standard deduction instead of $16,100. It also misapplied the brackets: $5,793 is below the $5,800 owed on the first $50,400 alone, so it never taxed the income above $50,400 at 22%. The correct total on $50,869 is $5,903."
+us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got the $16,100 deduction and $50,869 of taxable income right, but applied the 22% rate starting below $50,400. Its $5,985 implies the 12% bracket topped out near $50,030. Under the actual 2026 thresholds only $468.68 is taxed at 22%, for $5,903."
+us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted $3,389 of ESI premiums as pretax, cutting taxable income to $47,480. In this computation AGI is the full $66,969, so taxable income is $50,869 and $468.68 is taxed at 22%, giving $5,903."
+us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a standard deduction of about $15,000 (the 2025 level) instead of the 2026 amount of $16,100 and gave a rough bracket estimate of $5,850, which is not tied to the 2026 thresholds. The correct calculation is $50,869 of taxable income taxed at 10% up to $12,400, 12% up to $50,400 and 22% above, for $5,903."
+us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired, applying an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,300 exemption and 15%/25% brackets. 2026 law under OBBBA keeps the $16,100 standard deduction and the 10%/12%/22% brackets, which give $5,903."
+us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied inflation-adjusted pre-TCJA parameters: an $8,522 standard deduction, a $5,435 exemption and 15%/25% brackets. OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent, so the $16,100 standard deduction and 10%/12%/22% brackets apply, giving $5,903."
+us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $16,150 standard deduction and bracket thresholds of $12,225 and about $49,725. The 2026 values are $16,100, $12,400 and $50,400. That put $1,094 into the 22% bracket instead of $468.68, giving $5,963 instead of $5,903."
+us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a pre-TCJA standard deduction of $8,372 with 15%/25% brackets, giving taxable income of $58,597 and tax of $9,073. 2026 law uses the $16,100 standard deduction and 10%/12%/22% brackets, which give $50,869 of taxable income and $5,903 of tax."
+us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired, using an $8,300 deduction, a $5,300 exemption and 15%/25% brackets, and subtracted the ESI premiums to get AGI of $63,580. 2026 OBBBA law applies the $16,100 standard deduction and 10%/12%/22% brackets to the full $66,969, giving $5,903."
+us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the outdated $13,850 standard deduction instead of $16,100, which overstated taxable income at $53,119 and produced $6,397.98 in its reasoning. It then submitted an unrelated $4,272. The 2026 deduction gives $50,869 of taxable income and $5,903 of tax."
+us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 standard deduction of $15,750 instead of the 2026 amount of $16,100, which raised taxable income to $51,219, and its bracket total of $6,035 is approximate. The correct taxable income of $50,869 gives $5,903."
+us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got the $16,100 deduction and $50,869 of taxable income right, but set the top of the 12% bracket at $50,150 instead of $50,400. Its $4,530 of 12% tax and 22% applied to $719 overtaxed $250 by 10 points, giving $5,928.18 instead of $5,903.11."
+us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 bracket thresholds of $11,925 and $48,475 instead of $12,400 and $50,400, and a $16,000 deduction instead of $16,100, which gave $6,127 in its reasoning. It then submitted an unrelated $8,252. The correct 2026 calculation gives $5,903."
+us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It reduced the tax by a child tax credit, dependent credit and other nonrefundable credits that this childless single filer cannot claim, and it understated taxable income at $49,779. The correct figures are $50,869 of taxable income with no credits, for $5,903."
us,scenario_053,federal_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model invented a refundable child or other-dependent credit despite the household containing no qualifying child or dependent, and it also treated this high-income childless filer as receiving refundable EITC. Neither eligibility pathway applies, so the claimed $1,966 credit has no qualifying component."
us,scenario_053,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model applied the correct 6.2% Social Security and 1.45% Medicare rates to a base of $63,580. That base came from subtracting the $3,389 employer-sponsored insurance premium, which treats the premium as a pre-tax Section 125 exclusion the household facts never state. FICA applies to the full $66,969 of gross wages, and 7.65% of that is $5,123.10."
us,scenario_053,payroll_tax,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model explicitly deducted the $3,389 employer-sponsored insurance premium as a pre-tax payroll exclusion ($66,969 - $3,389 = $63,580) before applying 7.65%. The payroll-tax wage base is the full $66,969 of gross wages, so the correct total is $4,152.06 Social Security plus $971.05 Medicare, or $5,123.10."
@@ -4595,94 +4749,98 @@ us,scenario_053,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"The model set up
us,scenario_053,payroll_tax,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model applied 7.65% to $63,580 'after pretax employer-plan premiums'. That subtracts the $3,389 employer-sponsored insurance premium as a cafeteria-plan exclusion the household facts do not state. FICA is levied on the full $66,969 of gross wages, which gives $5,123.10."
us,scenario_053,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model defined taxable payroll wages as gross wages minus the $3,389 employer-sponsored insurance premium ($63,580), then applied 6.2% and 1.45% and rounded to $4,864. The premium is not excluded from the payroll-tax base. On the full $66,969 of wages, Social Security is $4,152.06 and Medicare is $971.05, for $5,123.10 in total."
us,scenario_053,self_employment_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied the outdated 5.695% rate to a made-up $53,000 base built from a $13,969 'exemption'. It never applied the 5.3% rate above the $4,811 zero bracket and never took Idaho's $5,000 health-insurance premium subtraction. It also omitted the $10 permanent building fund tax. The correct base is $45,868.68 of taxable income."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used a wrong AGI of $66,019 and applied 5.3% to all $49,919 of taxable income, so it skipped the $4,811 zero-rate bracket. It also missed Idaho's $5,000 health-insurance premium subtraction and the $10 permanent building fund tax."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used Idaho's repealed graduated brackets (1%–7.15%) and a $7,200 deduction instead of the $16,100 standard deduction and the 5.3% flat rate above $4,811. It also cut income by the $3,389 ESI premium rather than taking the $5,000 Idaho health-insurance subtraction."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied about 5.3% to a rough federal-based taxable income with no zero-rate bracket and no Idaho subtraction for the $5,000 of health-insurance premiums. The correct result is 5.3% × ($45,868.68 − $4,811) + $10 building fund tax = $2,186.06."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Computed $2,715 at 5.3% on $51,219, then switched without basis to a 4.7% rate. It used a $15,750 standard deduction instead of $16,100 and never took the $4,811 zero bracket or the $5,000 Idaho health-insurance subtraction. It also omitted the $10 permanent building fund tax."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used the outdated 5.695% rate, then discarded its own $2,631 calculation for an unsupported $2,867. It never subtracted the $5,000 of health-insurance premiums that Idaho allows and never added the $10 permanent building fund tax."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Started from $50,869 without the $5,000 Idaho health-insurance premium subtraction. It then reached $2,650, which does not follow from its own 5.3%-above-$4,900 method, and wrongly treated the refundable grocery credit as a nonrefundable offset. It also omitted the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Correctly applied 5.3% above the $4,811 zero bracket, but to $50,869. It missed Idaho's $5,000 subtraction for health-insurance premiums, which lowers taxable income to $45,868.68. It also left out the $10 permanent building fund tax."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Subtracted the $3,389 ESI premium from federal AGI, which actually stays at the full $66,968.68 in wages. It used a $15,000 standard deduction and the outdated 5.695% rate with no $4,811 zero bracket. It also counted the $5,000 of premiums only as an itemized medical expense, so it never took the Idaho health-insurance subtraction or added the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used the 5.695% rate and a $15,000 deduction, then jumped from its own $2,960 to an unsupported $3,706. It stated that health premiums are not deductible for state income tax, but Idaho subtracts the $5,000 of health-insurance premiums. It also skipped the zero bracket and the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied 5.3% to all $50,869 of taxable income, ignoring the $4,811 zero-rate bracket. It also missed Idaho's $5,000 health-insurance premium subtraction and the $10 permanent building fund tax."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used a made-up 5.59% rate, a $4,000 personal exemption that Idaho does not have, and a $15,650 standard deduction. It omitted the $4,811 zero bracket, the $5,000 Idaho health-insurance subtraction, and the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied 5.3% to all of an unsupported $48,180 taxable income, with no $4,811 zero bracket. It did not derive the correct $45,868.68, which comes from subtracting the $5,000 of health-insurance premiums and the $16,100 standard deduction. It also omitted the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used an $8,300 standard deduction instead of the $16,100 single deduction that Idaho adopts from federal law. It applied 5.3% to all income with no $4,811 zero bracket and missed both the $5,000 health-insurance subtraction and the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied 5.3% to all $50,869, ignoring the $4,811 zero-rate bracket. It also missed Idaho's $5,000 health-insurance premium subtraction and the $10 permanent building fund tax."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied the outdated 5.695% rate to $49,980, a figure that includes a nonexistent personal exemption. It omitted the $4,811 zero bracket, the $5,000 Idaho health-insurance subtraction, and the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $2,652 matches a flat rate on roughly $50,000 of post-standard-deduction income. It applied neither the $4,811 zero bracket nor the $5,000 Idaho health-insurance subtraction. The correct result is 5.3% × ($45,868.68 − $4,811) + $10 = $2,186.06."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied an outdated 5.692% rate to all of about $49,852. It skipped the 5.3% rate above the $4,811 zero bracket, the $5,000 Idaho health-insurance subtraction, and the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Reduced federal AGI by the $3,389 ESI premium, used the repealed 5.8% rate, and added a personal exemption. It never applied 5.3% above the $4,811 zero bracket or took the $5,000 Idaho health-insurance subtraction, and it omitted the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Gave $3,450 with no derivation. That amount needs an above-5.3% rate on nearly all income with no zero bracket and no $5,000 Idaho health-insurance subtraction. The correct result is 5.3% × ($45,868.68 − $4,811) + $10 = $2,186.06."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied the outdated 5.695% rate to all $47,480, with no $4,811 zero bracket. That base wrongly subtracts the $3,389 ESI premium from AGI instead of Idaho's $5,000 health-insurance premium subtraction. It also omitted the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $2,703.41 equals 5.695% of about $47,470. That means it used the outdated rate with no zero bracket and reduced AGI by the ESI premium instead of taking the $5,000 Idaho health-insurance subtraction. It also omitted the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used a $15,000 standard deduction and the outdated 5.695% rate on all $51,969. It missed the $16,100 deduction, the 5.3% rate above $4,811, the $5,000 Idaho health-insurance subtraction, and the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Invented an Idaho deduction of $1,250 per $1,000 of income, which wiped out all taxable income. Idaho actually allows only the $16,100 standard deduction and the $5,000 health-insurance subtraction. That leaves $45,868.68 taxed at 5.3% above $4,811, plus $10."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied a made-up 5.6% rate to all $50,869, with no $4,811 zero bracket. It also missed Idaho's $5,000 health-insurance premium subtraction and the $10 permanent building fund tax."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Estimated $2,050 from vague 'state brackets' instead of Idaho's single 5.3% rate above a $4,811 zero bracket. Its taxable income has no stated $5,000 health-insurance subtraction, and it omits the $10 building fund tax that brings the total to $2,186.06."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Gave $1,195 with no derivation, which is about half the correct liability. Taxing $45,868.68 at 5.3% above $4,811 gives $2,176.06, and the $10 building fund tax brings it to $2,186.06."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Correctly used 5.3% above a zero bracket, but with a $15,750 standard deduction instead of $16,100 and a $4,489 threshold instead of $4,811. It also missed Idaho's $5,000 health-insurance premium subtraction and the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied 5.3% to all $50,869, ignoring the $4,811 zero-rate bracket. It also missed Idaho's $5,000 health-insurance premium subtraction and the $10 permanent building fund tax."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used 5.3% above a zero bracket, but started from $50,869 without Idaho's $5,000 health-insurance premium subtraction. It also used $4,946 instead of $4,811 for the zero bracket and omitted the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied 5.3% to all $50,869, with no $4,811 zero bracket. It also missed Idaho's $5,000 health-insurance premium subtraction and the $10 permanent building fund tax."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Got the full income tax calculation right ($2,176.07): the $5,000 health-insurance subtraction, the $16,100 deduction, and 5.3% above $4,811. However, it left out Idaho's $10 permanent building fund tax, which belongs in income tax before refundable credits."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied 'progressive' rates to $50,869, but Idaho has one 5.3% rate above a $4,811 zero bracket. It never took the $5,000 health-insurance premium subtraction (taxable income should be $45,868.68) and omitted the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied 5.3% above a zero bracket, but started from $50,869 without Idaho's $5,000 health-insurance premium subtraction. It also omitted the $10 permanent building fund tax."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Reduced federal AGI by the $3,389 ESI premium instead of applying Idaho's $5,000 health-insurance premium subtraction, which gave $47,480 instead of $45,868.68 of taxable income. It also omitted the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used the repealed 5.8% rate on about $52k of income with no zero bracket. It missed the 5.3% rate above $4,811, the $5,000 Idaho health-insurance subtraction, and the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used an $8,300 standard deduction instead of $16,100 and the outdated 5.695% rate on all income. It missed the $4,811 zero bracket, the $5,000 Idaho health-insurance subtraction, and the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used an $8,522 standard deduction instead of $16,100 and the outdated 5.695% rate on all income. It missed the $4,811 zero bracket, the $5,000 Idaho health-insurance subtraction, and the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Correctly applied 5.3% above a zero bracket, but with a $16,150 deduction and a $4,942 threshold. It also missed Idaho's $5,000 health-insurance premium subtraction and the $10 permanent building fund tax."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied the repealed 5.8% rate to $58,597, a base that implies a deduction of only about $8,372 instead of $16,100. It missed the $4,811 zero bracket, the $5,000 Idaho health-insurance subtraction, and the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied 5.3% to all $50,869, ignoring the $4,811 zero-rate bracket. It also missed Idaho's $5,000 health-insurance premium subtraction and the $10 permanent building fund tax."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Did not return a usable value or explanation for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits. The correct derivation is 5.3% × ($45,868.68 − $4,811) + $10 = $2,186.06."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied 5.3% to all $50,869, ignoring the $4,811 zero-rate bracket. It also missed Idaho's $5,000 health-insurance premium subtraction and the $10 permanent building fund tax."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied the outdated 5.695% rate to full AGI with no standard deduction, then submitted an unsupported $2,878. It skipped the $16,100 deduction, the $5,000 Idaho health-insurance subtraction, the $4,811 zero bracket, and the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied the outdated 5.695% rate to all $50,869. It skipped the current 5.3% rate above the $4,811 zero bracket, Idaho's $5,000 health-insurance premium subtraction, and the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Treated the $10 permanent building fund as a credit, but it is an additional $10 tax. It also applied 5.3% to all $50,869 with no $4,811 zero bracket and missed Idaho's $5,000 health-insurance premium subtraction."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used the repealed 5.8% rate on AGI reduced by the $3,389 ESI premium, then made unexplained adjustments to reach $2,702. It never applied 5.3% above the $4,811 zero bracket to $45,868.68 (which reflects the $5,000 Idaho health-insurance subtraction) and omitted the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Gave $1,588 with no derivation, well below the correct amount. Taxing $45,868.68 at 5.3% above the $4,811 zero bracket gives $2,176.06, and the $10 permanent building fund tax brings it to $2,186.06."
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said PolicyEngine treats the Idaho grocery credit as nonrefundable and that the $66,969 wages exceed an income limit. In fact the credit is refundable, has no income test, and pays $155 for a full-year resident under 65 in 2026."
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said Idaho has no refundable credits at this income and never considered the grocery credit. That credit is refundable, has no income threshold, and pays $155 per resident under 65 in 2026."
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model left out Idaho's refundable grocery credit, which pays $155 to this full-year resident under 65 in 2026 regardless of income, and answered $0."
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated the grocery credit as an offset against tax liability and so counted none of it as refundable. PolicyEngine counts the whole credit as a refundable state credit, at $155 for 2026, not the stale $120 the model cited."
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model called the grocery credit nonrefundable in effect because it offsets tax, and answered $0. The credit is fully refundable and counts in state_refundable_credits at $155 for 2026, not the outdated $120 the model cited."
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model assumed the grocery credit is used up against liability, leaving no refundable remainder. The entire $155 grocery credit is a refundable credit, whatever the filer's tax liability."
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,The model wrongly called Idaho's grocery credit nonrefundable. The credit is refundable and pays $155 to a full-year resident under 65 in 2026.
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model ruled out the grocery credit because of income and the lack of dependents. The credit has no income limit and no dependent requirement, and it pays $155 to each full-year resident under 65 in 2026."
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model correctly treated the grocery credit as refundable but used the pre-2026 amount of $120. The 2026 amount for a resident under 65 is $155.
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model invented an income phase-out for the Idaho grocery credit. The credit has no income limit or phase-out and pays the full $155 at $66,969 AGI."
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,The model assumed the grocery credit has an income limit that excludes this household. The credit has no income test and pays $155 to this full-year resident under 65.
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model correctly treated the grocery credit as refundable but used the outdated $120 per-person amount. The 2026 amount is $155.
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model identified the grocery credit correctly but used $150 per resident under 65. The 2026 base amount is $155.
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model correctly treated the grocery credit as refundable but estimated it at the pre-2026 $120 per person. The 2026 amount is $155.
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model left out Idaho's refundable grocery credit, which every full-year resident gets regardless of income, and answered $0 instead of $155."
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used $120 for a grocery credit claimant under 65, which is the pre-2026 amount. The 2026 amount is $155."
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model used an old $100 per-person grocery credit. The 2026 refundable amount for a resident under 65 is $155.
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model left out Idaho's refundable grocery credit, which pays $155 to this full-year resident regardless of income, and answered $0."
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model correctly treated the grocery credit as refundable but used the superseded $120 amount. The 2026 per-person amount is $155.
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model used an old $100 grocery credit for a single filer under 65. The 2026 amount is $155.
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model used a stale $100 per resident for the grocery credit. The 2026 amount is $155.
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,The model wrongly called Idaho's grocery credit nonrefundable. The credit is refundable and pays $155 to a full-year resident under 65 in 2026.
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model correctly identified the refundable grocery credit but used $120 and labeled it the post-2025 amount. The 2026 amount is $155.
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated refundable credits as zero because no specific facts pointed to one. Idaho's grocery credit needs only full-year residency, and it pays $155 here."
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model looked only for child-related refundable credits and missed Idaho's per-person refundable grocery credit, which pays $155 to this childless resident."
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model identified the grocery credit as the only refundable Idaho credit but used the pre-2026 $120 amount instead of $155.
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,The model claimed the income is too high for the grocery credit. The credit has no income test and pays $155 at any income level.
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model correctly treated the grocery credit as refundable but used $120 instead of the 2026 amount of $155. It also cited a phase-out threshold that does not exist.
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model left out Idaho's refundable grocery credit, which pays $155 to this full-year resident under 65 regardless of income, and answered $0."
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model correctly treated the grocery credit as refundable but used an obsolete $100 amount. The 2026 amount for a non-elderly filer is $155.
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model used an old $100 grocery credit for a non-elderly adult. The 2026 amount is $155.
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model correctly treated the grocery credit as refundable but used the pre-2026 $120 amount. The 2026 amount is $155.
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model left out Idaho's refundable grocery credit, which pays $155 to every qualifying full-year resident under 65 in 2026, and answered $0."
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model identified the grocery credit for one resident but used the outdated $120 amount. The 2026 amount is $155.
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no value and no explanation for state_refundable_credits, so there was no answer to score against the $155 reference."
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly applied the full-year grocery credit with no SNAP or incarceration reduction, but used the pre-2026 $120 amount. The 2026 amount is $155."
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model looked only for child and property-tax credits and missed Idaho's refundable grocery credit, which pays $155 to this full-year resident."
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model said the 2026 grocery credit is $120 per person. The 2026 amount is $155.
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model checked only for a state EITC and CTC, which Idaho lacks. It missed Idaho's refundable grocery credit, which pays $155 per resident under 65 in 2026."
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said no Idaho refundable credit applies. It missed the refundable grocery credit, which pays $155 to this full-year resident regardless of income."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the old 5.695% rate instead of 2026's 5.3% rate with a $4,811 zero bracket, and taxed an unexplained $53,000 base. It never applied Idaho's $5,000 health-insurance-premium subtraction or added the $10 permanent building fund tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It cut federal AGI to $66,019, which effectively deducts the $950 of auto loan interest. It then applied a flat 5.3% to all of the $49,919 without the $4,811 zero-rate bracket. It also skipped Idaho's $5,000 health-insurance-premium subtraction and the $10 permanent building fund tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used Idaho's repealed graduated brackets (up to 7.15%) and a made-up $7,200 standard deduction. Idaho now applies a 5.3% flat rate above $4,811 after the $16,100 conforming standard deduction. It also subtracted employer ESI premiums instead of the $5,000 Idaho health-premium subtraction, and it left out the $10 PBF tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It took a rough 5.3% of taxable income without the $5,000 Idaho health-insurance-premium subtraction or the $4,811 zero-rate bracket. It also never added the $10 permanent building fund tax, which correctly gives $2,186.06."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a stale $15,750 standard deduction instead of $16,100 and then switched to a guessed 4.7% rate. The correct rule is 5.3% above the $4,811 zero bracket. It also left out the $5,000 Idaho health-premium subtraction and the $10 PBF tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the outdated 5.695% rate above a $4,673 threshold, when the 2026 rule is 5.3% above $4,811. Its submitted $2,867 does not even match its own $2,631 computation. It never subtracted the $5,000 of health insurance premiums or added the $10 PBF tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It taxed $50,869 at 5.3% above about $4,900, but then reported $2,650, which does not follow from that setup. It also treated the grocery credit as a nonrefundable offset, though that credit is refundable. It missed Idaho's $5,000 health-premium subtraction, which brings taxable income to $45,868.68, and the $10 PBF tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It got the rate (5.3%), zero bracket ($4,811) and standard deduction ($16,100) right. However, it never applied Idaho's subtraction for the $5,000 of self-paid health insurance premiums, which overstates tax by $265. It also left out the $10 permanent building fund tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It took employer ESI premiums out of AGI ($63,580), used a $15,000 standard deduction and applied the old 5.695% rate with no zero bracket. It also counted the $5,000 of premiums as an itemized medical expense instead of taking them as Idaho's full health-insurance subtraction, and it omitted the $10 PBF tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the outdated 5.695% rate and a $15,000 standard deduction, which already gives $2,960. It then jumped to an unsupported $3,706. It missed the $5,000 Idaho health-premium subtraction, the $4,811 zero bracket at 5.3%, and the $10 PBF tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied 5.3% to all $50,869 of taxable income. It left out the $4,811 zero-rate bracket and Idaho's $5,000 health-insurance-premium subtraction, which brings taxable income to $45,868.68. It also never added the $10 permanent building fund tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It invented a $4,000 Idaho personal exemption and a 5.59% rate, and it used a $15,650 standard deduction instead of $16,100. The correct rule is 5.3% above a $4,811 zero bracket. It also missed the $5,000 health-premium subtraction and the $10 PBF tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied a flat 5.3% to an unexplained $48,180 base with no $4,811 zero bracket. It skipped the $5,000 Idaho health-insurance-premium subtraction, which gives taxable income of $45,868.68, and the $10 PBF tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used an $8,300 standard deduction instead of Idaho's conforming $16,100. It applied 5.3% with no $4,811 zero bracket and left out the $5,000 health-premium subtraction and the $10 PBF tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It took 5.3% of $50,869 with no $4,811 zero-rate bracket and no $5,000 Idaho health-insurance-premium subtraction. It also never added the $10 permanent building fund tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the outdated 5.695% rate with no zero bracket to $49,980, a base that wrongly excludes ESI premiums and includes a phantom personal exemption. It missed the $5,000 Idaho health-premium subtraction, the 5.3% rate above $4,811, and the $10 PBF tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its $2,652 is about a flat 5.3% on roughly $50,000, meaning AGI less the standard deduction. That skips Idaho's $5,000 health-insurance-premium subtraction, the $4,811 zero bracket and the $10 PBF tax that together give $2,186.06."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a 5.692% rate with no zero bracket to about $49,852. The 2026 rule is 5.3% above $4,811 on $45,868.68, which is taxable income after the $5,000 Idaho health-premium subtraction. It also left out the $10 PBF tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the repealed 5.8% rate, excluded employer ESI premiums from AGI, and used a $49,980 base. It never applied the $5,000 Idaho health-premium subtraction, the 5.3%-above-$4,811 structure or the $10 PBF tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $3,450 is consistent with an old 5.8%/5.695% flat rate on about $59,000–$60,000, which leaves out most of the $16,100 standard deduction. It missed the $5,000 health-premium subtraction, the 5.3% rate above $4,811, and the $10 PBF tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It took the $3,389 of employer ESI premiums out of AGI instead of applying Idaho's $5,000 health-insurance-premium subtraction. It applied the outdated 5.695% rate with no $4,811 zero bracket and omitted the $10 PBF tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the outdated 5.695% flat rate with no zero bracket to about $47,470, a base that subtracts ESI premiums instead of the $5,000 Idaho health-premium subtraction. It also omitted the $10 PBF tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a stale $15,000 standard deduction and the old 5.695% rate with no zero bracket. It never applied the $5,000 Idaho health-premium subtraction, 5.3% above $4,811, or the $10 PBF tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the standard deduction and the health insurance premium subtraction, but its $2,401.29 is about $225 above the correct $2,176.06. That shows the 5.3% rate was applied without the full $4,811 zero-rate bracket. It also never added the $10 permanent building fund tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It invented a deduction of $1,250 per $1,000 of income that wiped out all taxable income. Idaho actually allows only the $16,100 standard deduction and the $5,000 health-premium subtraction, leaving $45,868.68 taxed at 5.3% above $4,811, plus the $10 PBF tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a made-up 5.6% flat rate on all $50,869, with no $4,811 zero bracket. It also skipped the $5,000 Idaho health-premium subtraction and the $10 PBF tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It gave a vague bracket-based estimate of $2,050, which comes from applying imagined graduated 'state brackets'. The correct computation is 5.3% above $4,811 on $45,868.68, plus the $10 permanent building fund tax, for $2,186.06."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $1,195 is about half the correct liability, which points to a severely understated rate or base. The correct computation is 5.3% of $41,057.68 (taxable income of $45,868.68 above the $4,811 zero bracket), plus the $10 PBF tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used stale parameters: a $15,750 standard deduction and a $4,489 zero bracket, instead of $16,100 and $4,811. It also skipped Idaho's $5,000 health-insurance-premium subtraction and the $10 permanent building fund tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It took 5.3% of all $50,869, leaving out the $4,811 zero-rate bracket and Idaho's $5,000 health-insurance-premium subtraction. It also never added the $10 permanent building fund tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used a $4,946 zero bracket instead of $4,811 and never applied Idaho's $5,000 subtraction for self-paid health insurance premiums, which brings taxable income to $45,868.68. It also left out the $10 PBF tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied 5.3% to all $50,869 with no $4,811 zero bracket and no $5,000 Idaho health-insurance-premium subtraction. It also left out the $10 permanent building fund tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It correctly applied the $16,100 standard deduction, the $5,000 health-insurance subtraction, the $4,811 zero bracket and the 5.3% rate, arriving at $2,176.07. It then left out the $10 Idaho permanent building fund tax, which is part of income tax before refundable credits."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied nonexistent 'progressive' Idaho brackets to $50,869. It never applied the $5,000 health-premium subtraction, which brings taxable income to $45,868.68, or the single 5.3% rate above $4,811. It also omitted the $10 PBF tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied 5.3% above the zero bracket but started from $50,869. It never took Idaho's $5,000 subtraction for self-paid health insurance premiums and never added the $10 permanent building fund tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the $3,389 of employer ESI premiums out of AGI, giving $47,480, instead of applying Idaho's $5,000 subtraction for self-paid health insurance premiums, which gives $45,868.68. It also left out the $10 permanent building fund tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the repealed 5.8% rate on about $52,000 with no zero bracket. It never applied the $5,000 health-premium subtraction, 5.3% above $4,811, or the $10 PBF tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an $8,300 standard deduction instead of $16,100 and the outdated 5.695% rate with no zero bracket. It missed the $5,000 Idaho health-premium subtraction and the $10 PBF tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a made-up $8,522 standard deduction instead of $16,100 and the old 5.695% rate with no $4,811 zero bracket. It omitted the $5,000 health-premium subtraction and the $10 PBF tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used a $16,150 standard deduction and a $4,942 zero bracket, instead of $16,100 and $4,811. It never applied Idaho's $5,000 health-insurance-premium subtraction or added the $10 PBF tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the repealed 5.8% rate to $58,597, a base that reflects a far too small standard deduction. It missed the $16,100 deduction, the $5,000 health-premium subtraction, 5.3% above $4,811, and the $10 PBF tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It took 5.3% of all $50,869 with no $4,811 zero-rate bracket and no $5,000 Idaho subtraction for self-paid health insurance premiums. It also never added the $10 permanent building fund tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value and no explanation for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there is nothing to score."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied 5.3% to all $50,869, leaving out the $4,811 zero-rate bracket and Idaho's $5,000 health-insurance-premium subtraction. It also never added the $10 permanent building fund tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It said no standard deduction applies and taxed gross AGI at 5.695% ($3,814), then reported an inconsistent $2,878. Idaho uses the $16,100 standard deduction and the $5,000 health-premium subtraction, then applies 5.3% above $4,811 and adds the $10 PBF tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the outdated 5.695% rate with no zero bracket to $51,219, which uses a stale $15,750 standard deduction. It missed the $5,000 health-premium subtraction, 5.3% above $4,811, and the $10 PBF tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the old 5.695% rate to all $50,869, with no $4,811 zero bracket. It never applied Idaho's $5,000 health-insurance-premium subtraction or added the $10 PBF tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It treated the $10 permanent building fund as a credit and subtracted it, but it is an additional $10 tax added to income tax. It also applied 5.3% to all $50,869, without the $4,811 zero bracket or Idaho's $5,000 health-insurance-premium subtraction."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the repealed 5.8% rate and subtracted employer ESI premiums instead of Idaho's $5,000 self-paid health-premium subtraction. It then arrived at $2,702 through an unspecified adjustment, never applying 5.3% above $4,811 or the $10 PBF tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $1,588 is far below the correct liability, which points to a badly understated rate or an overstated deduction. The correct computation is 5.3% of $41,057.68 (Idaho taxable income of $45,868.68 above the $4,811 zero bracket), plus the $10 PBF tax."
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Wrongly said PolicyEngine treats Idaho's grocery credit as nonrefundable and that $66,969 of wages exceeds an income limit. The grocery credit is refundable, has no income limit, and is worth $155 for a full-year resident under 65, so the answer should be $155, not 0."
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Only looked for a state EITC and income-tested credits, and never counted Idaho's refundable grocery credit. That credit has no income threshold and is worth $155 per person in 2026."
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Said no refundable Idaho credits apply, missing the refundable grocery credit that every full-year resident gets. For one person under 65 it is $155 in 2026."
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Treated the grocery credit as absorbed by Idaho tax liability and so not refundable. PolicyEngine counts the full grocery credit as a refundable credit whatever the liability, and the 2026 amount is $155, not $120."
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Called the grocery credit nonrefundable in effect because it offsets income tax, and set refundable credits to 0. The grocery credit is a refundable credit counted in full in state_refundable_credits, and its 2026 value is $155, not $120."
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied the grocery credit against tax liability and left nothing as refundable. The grocery credit is itself a refundable credit worth $155 in 2026, and PolicyEngine reports the full amount in state_refundable_credits."
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Wrongly said Idaho's grocery credit is nonrefundable. It is refundable, and for a full-year resident under 65 it is worth $155 in 2026."
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Dismissed the grocery credit as offset-only and pointed to the lack of dependents. The grocery credit is a refundable per-person credit with no income or dependent requirement, worth $155 for this single filer."
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Correctly counted the refundable grocery credit for one person but used the old $120 amount. The 2026 amount is $155 per person.
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Applied an income phase-out to the grocery credit that does not exist. The credit is a flat $155 per resident with no AGI phase-out, so $66,969 of AGI does not reduce it."
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Gave the grocery credit an income limit it does not have. The credit is a flat $155 refundable amount for a full-year resident under 65, regardless of AGI."
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Correctly treated the grocery credit as refundable for the head but used the old $120 per-person amount instead of $155 for 2026.
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Correctly identified the grocery credit for one resident under 65 but used $150 instead of the $155 per-person amount for 2026.
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Estimated the refundable grocery credit at $120 per person for 2026. The 2026 amount is $155.
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,Said no state refundable credits apply and ignored Idaho's refundable grocery credit. That credit is worth $155 for a full-year resident under 65 and has no income test.
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Correctly identified the refundable grocery credit but used the old $120 amount for someone under 65. The 2026 amount is $155.
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Correctly counted the refundable grocery credit but used an outdated $100 per-person amount. The 2026 amount is $155.
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Said no state refundable credits apply, leaving out Idaho's refundable grocery credit. That credit gives this full-year resident $155."
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Correctly applied the refundable grocery credit but at the old $120 per resident instead of $155 for 2026.
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Correctly identified the grocery credit for someone under 65 but used an outdated $100 amount instead of $155 for 2026.
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Used an outdated $100 per-resident grocery credit amount. The 2026 refundable grocery credit is $155 per person.
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Correctly counted one eligible resident for the refundable grocery credit but used $120 instead of the $155 amount for 2026.
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,Wrongly said Idaho's grocery credit is nonrefundable. It is refundable and gives this full-year resident under 65 $155 in 2026.
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Called $120 the post-2025 grocery credit amount. Idaho's 2025 increase set it at $155 per person, so the credit is $155."
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,Looked only for credits triggered by listed facts and missed Idaho's refundable grocery credit. Every full-year resident gets that credit with no other qualifying facts needed; it is $155 here.
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,Only checked child-related refundable credits and left out Idaho's universal refundable grocery credit. That credit is $155 for this one-person household.
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Correctly picked out the grocery credit as the only refundable Idaho credit but used the old $120 amount instead of $155 for 2026.
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,Applied an income cap to the grocery credit that does not exist. The credit is a flat $155 per full-year resident with no income phase-out.
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied the refundable grocery credit to one resident but at the old $120 amount, and it invented a phase-out threshold. The 2026 credit is a flat $155."
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Said no state refundable credits apply and missed Idaho's refundable grocery credit, which is worth $155 for this resident."
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Correctly treated the grocery credit as the only refundable Idaho credit but used an outdated $100 amount instead of $155 for 2026.
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Correctly identified the refundable grocery credit for an adult under 65 but used $100 instead of the $155 amount for 2026.
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Correctly applied the refundable grocery credit for one resident under 65 but used the old $120 amount instead of $155.
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,Said no state refundable credits apply and left out Idaho's refundable grocery credit. That credit gives every full-year resident $155 in 2026.
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Correctly counted the grocery credit for one resident but used about $120 instead of the $155 per-person amount for 2026.
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Gave no value or explanation for state_refundable_credits, so there was nothing to score. The correct answer is Idaho's $155 refundable grocery credit."
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Got the full-year grocery credit eligibility right, including checking for SNAP months and incarceration, but used $120 instead of $155 for 2026."
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,Checked for child and property-tax credits but missed Idaho's refundable grocery credit. That credit needs no children or rent facts and is worth $155 for this resident.
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Correctly treated the grocery credit as refundable for one adult resident but used the old $120 amount instead of $155.
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Said the 2026 grocery credit is $120 per family member. Idaho's 2025 increase set it at $155 per person, so the credit is $155."
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,Correctly ruled out a state EITC and CTC but never counted Idaho's refundable grocery credit. That credit has no child requirement and is worth $155 here.
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Said Idaho has no refundable credit for this household, missing the refundable grocery credit. That credit is worth $155 for a full-year resident under 65 in 2026."
us,scenario_054,child1_chip_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model applied only a CHIP upper-income threshold and concluded that income below it establishes eligibility. It omitted the Medicaid-exclusion step: the child’s low income qualifies them for Medicaid under the OLDER_CHILD category, which makes CHIP eligibility false."
us,scenario_054,child1_chip_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,The model treated being below North Carolina’s CHIP income limit and lacking other coverage as sufficient. It failed to test Medicaid eligibility first; the 10-year-old is Medicaid-eligible under the OLDER_CHILD category and therefore cannot qualify for CHIP.
us,scenario_054,child1_chip_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model inferred CHIP eligibility directly from low income and the absence of employer-sponsored insurance. It omitted that low income places Child 1 in Medicaid’s OLDER_CHILD pathway, and Medicaid eligibility disqualifies the child from CHIP."
@@ -4710,42 +4868,44 @@ us,scenario_054,child2_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_elig
us,scenario_054,child2_wic_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model placed the age-2 child in WIC's child category correctly, then asserted the household ""exceeds WIC eligibility limits"" without applying the actual screen: WIC tests gross income against 185% of the federal poverty guideline, roughly $49,000 for a three-person household in 2026, and this household's income is at most the head's $17,100 of self-employment income (and $0 in the engine's WIC income measure) — under a third of the limit. It also skipped adjunctive eligibility, which qualifies the child through the household's Medicaid/SNAP/TANF eligibility even before the income screen is reached, and it disregarded the head's listed WIC receipt, which itself establishes the household was certified under the 185% FPL test."
us,scenario_054,child2_wic_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model answered from the absence of an explicit WIC-receipt flag on Child 2 rather than running WIC's eligibility test, applying the prompt's ""treat unlisted facts as false"" rule to a computed output instead of to inputs, in direct conflict with the instruction to report eligibility ""not whether they are currently enrolled."" Running the test yields eligibility: age 2 falls inside WIC's child category (ages 1 through 4), and household income far below 185% FPL (about $49,000 for three people) clears the income screen, with the head's own WIC receipt confirming household-level certification."
us,scenario_054,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,other,False,"It computed a refundable CTC of about $2,190 but left it out of the total and reported only an unsupported EITC of $3,995. The correct EITC is 40% phase-in × $15,891.93 earned income (SE profit less half SE tax) = $6,356.77, plus ACTC of $2,008.79."
-us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It made EITC eligibility depend on income above the standard deduction and set refundable credits to $0. The EITC and ACTC are based on earned income ($15,891.93 of SE earnings), not taxable income, so they yield $6,356.77 + $2,008.79."
-us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly derived AGI of $15,892 after the half-SE-tax deduction, but then ran the credits on $15,792 and reached a combined $8,686. It then arbitrarily 'adjusted' that to $6,269, which drops the refundable CTC. Using $15,891.93 earned income gives EITC $6,356.77 plus ACTC $2,008.79."
-us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It placed earned income of about $15,800 incorrectly on the EITC schedule and guessed an EITC of about $2,300–3,000. That income is in the 40% two-child phase-in, so the EITC is 40% × $15,891.93 = $6,356.77. It also understated SE tax ($2,233) and based the ACTC on $15,793 instead of $15,891.93."
-us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It treated about $17,100 as being in the EITC phase-out region and cut the credit to about $4,700. Earned income of $15,891.93 (after the half-SE-tax deduction) is in the 40% phase-in, which gives $6,356.77. It also computed the ACTC on gross $17,100 instead of $15,891.93."
-us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It had the correct AGI of $15,893 but guessed an EITC of $6,164 instead of applying the 40% phase-in rate (40% × $15,891.93 = $6,356.77). It also miscomputed 15% × ($15,893 − $2,500) as $1,914 instead of $2,008.79."
-us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used net SE earnings of $17,100 × 0.9235 = $15,791.85 as earned income. Earned income for the EITC and ACTC is SE profit minus the half-SE-tax deduction, which is $15,891.93, so the EITC is $6,356.77 and the ACTC is $2,008.79."
-us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its EITC of $6,356.77 was correct, but it applied the pre-TCJA $3,000 ACTC earned-income threshold. Under the $2,500 threshold, which OBBBA made permanent, the ACTC is 15% × ($15,891.93 − $2,500) = $2,008.79, not $1,933.79."
-us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used gross SE profit of $17,100 as earned income without subtracting the $1,208.07 half-SE-tax deduction, which inflated the EITC to $6,840 instead of $6,356.77. For the ACTC it applied the expired $1,000-per-child CTC and the $3,000 threshold instead of the 2026 rules, which give 15% × ($15,891.93 − $2,500) = $2,008.79."
-us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took earned income as $17,100 × 0.9235 = $15,791.85, the Schedule SE net-earnings base. The correct earned income is SE profit less half of SE tax, $15,891.93, which gives EITC $6,356.77 and ACTC $2,008.79."
-us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reduced income twice, applying the 92.35% factor and also subtracting half of SE tax, to get $14,584. Earned income is $17,100 − $1,208.07 = $15,891.93. It also used the expired $3,000 ACTC threshold instead of $2,500."
-us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,other,False,"Its EITC of about $6,370 was close, but it allowed only about $497 of refundable CTC. With zero tax liability the ACTC is the full 15% × ($15,891.93 − $2,500) = $2,008.79, which is under the $3,400 cap."
-us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It computed the EITC correctly at $6,356.77 but applied the expired $3,000 ACTC threshold. With the $2,500 threshold, which OBBBA made permanent, the ACTC is $2,008.79 instead of $1,933.79."
-us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied pre-TCJA ACTC rules: a $3,000 threshold and a $1,000-per-child limit. The 2026 rules use a $2,500 threshold and a $1,700-per-child refundable cap, which gives 15% × ($15,891.93 − $2,500) = $2,008.79 alongside the correct $6,356.77 EITC."
-us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It returned $0 with no derivation and missed that $15,891.93 of SE earned income with two qualifying children produces an EITC of $6,356.77 (40% phase-in) and a refundable CTC of $2,008.79."
-us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $8,291 equals EITC $6,356.77 plus an ACTC of $1,933.79, which comes from the expired $3,000 threshold. The $2,500 threshold gives an ACTC of $2,008.79."
-us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $8,290.56 equals the correct EITC of $6,356.77 plus 15% × ($15,891.93 − $3,000). That uses the pre-TCJA $3,000 ACTC threshold instead of the permanent $2,500 threshold, which gives $2,008.79."
-us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $8,291 matches EITC $6,356.77 plus an ACTC computed above a $3,000 threshold. The ACTC threshold is $2,500, which makes the refundable CTC $2,008.79."
-us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,other,False,"It omitted the EITC entirely, even though $15,891.93 of SE earned income with two children yields $6,356.77 in the phase-in. It also computed the ACTC on gross $17,100 instead of on income net of the half-SE-tax deduction."
-us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It treated the CTC as fully refundable at $2,300 per child. Under OBBBA the CTC is $2,200 per child, and the refundable portion is limited to 15% of earned income over $2,500 ($2,008.79), with a cap of $1,700 per child. It also double-reduced earned income to $14,584 instead of $15,891.93."
-us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It declined to compute any credit and returned $0. The prompt assumes tax filing and take-up, so the head's $15,891.93 of SE earned income with two qualifying children produces EITC $6,356.77 and ACTC $2,008.79."
-us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It claimed there were no eligibility triggers and set credits to $0. Self-employment earnings and two qualifying children are sufficient for both credits, and filing is assumed, which yields an EITC of $6,356.77 and a refundable CTC of $2,008.79."
-us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used gross SE profit of $17,100 as earned income. EITC and ACTC earned income is net of the $1,208.07 half-SE-tax deduction, which gives $15,891.93, so the EITC is $6,356.77 instead of $6,840 and the ACTC is $2,008.79 instead of $2,190."
-us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It computed both credits on gross $17,100 and ignored the subtraction of the half-SE-tax deduction. Earned income is $15,891.93, which gives EITC $6,356.77 and ACTC $2,008.79."
-us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its EITC of $5,834 and ACTC of $1,813 both rest on earned income of $14,584. That figure applies the 92.35% factor and also subtracts half of SE tax. The correct earned income is $17,100 − $1,208.07 = $15,891.93."
-us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,other,False,"It gave an unsupported total of $5,978 and suggested that only one child counts fully. Both children are qualifying children, and $15,891.93 of earned income yields a two-child EITC of $6,356.77 plus ACTC of $2,008.79."
-us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the pre-TCJA $3,000 ACTC threshold instead of $2,500. It also used the 92.35% net-earnings figure of $15,792 instead of SE profit less half SE tax ($15,891.93), which understates both credits."
-us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It computed the ACTC above a $3,000 threshold instead of the permanent $2,500 threshold. It also used $15,792 (net SE earnings at 92.35%) as earned income instead of $15,891.93, which gives $6,317 + $1,919 instead of $6,356.77 + $2,008.79."
-us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used gross $17,100 as earned income without subtracting the half-SE-tax deduction, which inflated the EITC to $6,840. It also assumed the CTC reverted to $1,000 per child with a $3,000 threshold in 2026, but OBBBA keeps the $2,500 threshold and a $1,700 refundable cap, which gives $2,008.79."
-us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took earned income as gross $17,100 instead of $15,891.93 after the half-SE-tax deduction, which produced an EITC of $6,840 instead of $6,356.77. It also applied the reverted $1,000-per-child CTC and $3,000 threshold, which OBBBA superseded."
-us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It computed the EITC on gross $17,100 instead of $15,891.93 after the half-SE-tax deduction, giving $6,840 instead of $6,356.77. It also set the ACTC at a flat $1,000 per child instead of 15% × ($15,891.93 − $2,500) = $2,008.79."
-us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No answer or explanation was returned for federal_refundable_credits, so there is no value to score."
-us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"Its reasoning reached $7,932 but it submitted an unrelated $672. Even that reasoning used understated earned income of $13,093 and granted the full $3,400 ACTC, ignoring the 15%-of-earned-income-over-$2,500 limit, which gives $2,008.79."
-us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated gross SE profit of $17,100 as earned income. EITC and ACTC earned income subtracts the $1,208.07 half-SE-tax deduction, giving $15,891.93, so the credits are $6,356.77 and $2,008.79, not $6,840 and $2,190."
-us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly claimed that SSTB self-employment income is not earned income for the EITC. SSTB status matters only for the §199A QBI deduction, and SE earnings of $15,891.93 qualify for both the EITC ($6,356.77) and the ACTC ($2,008.79)."
-us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,other,False,"It cut the ACTC to $375 on the theory that the CTC first offsets regular tax. Regular tax is $0, because AGI of $15,891.93 is below the head-of-household standard deduction, so the full $2,008.79 is refundable. It also understated earned income ($15,522) and the EITC ($5,757 instead of 40% × $15,891.93 = $6,356.77)."
+us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It reported only an EITC of $3,995 and left out the refundable CTC it had just estimated. That EITC is also far below the phase-in amount of 40% × $15,891.93 = $6,356.77. The correct total adds a $2,008.79 ACTC (15% of earned income over $2,500)."
+us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It refused the EITC because of zero taxable income. But the EITC is based on earned income, not taxable income: $15,891.93 of SE earned income with two qualifying children gives $6,356.77. It also ignored the $2,008.79 refundable CTC."
+us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It worked out about $8,686 but submitted an arbitrary $6,269, which drops the ACTC entirely. Its own ACTC of 15% × $15,792 also skipped subtracting the $2,500 threshold. And it used $15,792 as earned income instead of $15,891.93, which is SE profit minus half of SE tax."
+us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It mixed up where the phase-in ends and estimated the EITC at about $2,300–$3,000. At $15,891.93 of earned income the credit is in the 40% phase-in, which gives $6,356.77. It also based the ACTC on $15,793 instead of $15,891.93."
+us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It put the household in the EITC phase-out and estimated about $4,700. But $15,891.93 of earned income is still in the 40% phase-in, so the EITC is $6,356.77. It also figured the ACTC on gross $17,100 instead of $15,891.93."
+us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It called the EITC 'near the plateau' and used an unexplained $6,164 rather than computing 40% × $15,891.93 = $6,356.77. It also understated the ACTC at $1,914 when 15% × ($15,891.93 − $2,500) = $2,008.79."
+us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the 92.35% net-earnings figure ($15,791.85) as earned income. For the EITC and ACTC, earned income is SE profit minus the deductible half of SE tax, which is $15,891.93. That undercounts both credits by a combined $55.04."
+us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got earned income and the EITC right ($6,356.77) but used the expired $3,000 refundable-CTC threshold. The 2026 threshold is $2,500, so the ACTC is $2,008.79, not $1,933.79."
+us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used gross $17,100 as earned income without subtracting the deductible half of SE tax, which inflates the EITC to $6,840. It also used the pre-TCJA $1,000-per-child CTC with a $3,000 threshold. The 2026 rules have a $2,500 threshold and a $1,700-per-child refundable cap, giving an ACTC of $2,008.79."
+us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took $17,100 × 0.9235 = $15,791.85 as earned income. Credit earned income is SE profit minus half of SE tax, which is $15,891.93. That understates the EITC by $40 and the ACTC by $15."
+us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reduced earned income twice: it applied the 92.35% factor and then also subtracted half of SE tax, arriving at $14,584 instead of $15,891.93. It also used the outdated $3,000 ACTC threshold instead of $2,500."
+us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Its EITC of about $6,370 is close, but it allowed only about $497 of refundable CTC. The ACTC is 15% × ($15,891.93 − $2,500) = $2,008.79, well under the $3,400 two-child cap."
+us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got the right earned income and EITC but used the old $3,000 refundable-CTC threshold. The 2026 law uses $2,500, which makes the ACTC $2,008.79 instead of $1,933.79."
+us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the pre-TCJA $3,000 earned-income threshold and $1,000-per-child cap for the ACTC. The 2026 rules have a $2,500 threshold and a $1,700-per-child refundable cap, giving $2,008.79 instead of $1,933.80."
+us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It gave zero refundable credits with no derivation. A head-of-household filer with $15,891.93 of SE earned income and two qualifying children gets a $6,356.77 EITC and a $2,008.79 refundable CTC."
+us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $8,291 matches the correct EITC ($6,356.77) plus an ACTC built on the expired $3,000 threshold. The 2026 $2,500 threshold gives an ACTC of $2,008.79."
+us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $8,290.56 is the correct EITC plus an ACTC of 15% × (earned income − $3,000). The 2026 threshold is $2,500, so the ACTC is $75 higher at $2,008.79."
+us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $8,291 comes from figuring the refundable CTC with the outdated $3,000 threshold. The 2026 threshold is $2,500, which gives $2,008.79 and a total of $8,365.56."
+us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got the EITC right at $6,356.77 but computed the ACTC above a $3,000 threshold. The 2026 refundable-CTC threshold is $2,500, giving $2,008.79."
+us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It counted only the refundable CTC and left out the $6,356.77 EITC the household qualifies for. It also figured the ACTC on gross $17,100 instead of $15,891.93, which is SE profit minus half of SE tax."
+us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It treated the whole $2,200–$2,300-per-child CTC as refundable. The refundable portion is the lesser of $1,700 per child and 15% of earned income over $2,500, which is $2,008.79. It also double-reduced earned income to $14,584 instead of $15,891.93."
+us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It returned zero even though the prompt says to assume filing and take-up. $15,891.93 of SE earned income with two qualifying children gives a $6,356.77 EITC and a $2,008.79 refundable CTC."
+us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It said eligibility couldn't be established and returned zero, ignoring the instruction to assume filing and take-up. The EITC ($6,356.77) and refundable CTC ($2,008.79) follow directly from the SE earnings and the two children."
+us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used gross $17,100 as earned income. EITC and ACTC earned income from self-employment is profit minus the deductible half of SE tax, which is $15,891.93. That puts the EITC at $6,356.77 rather than $6,840, and the ACTC at $2,008.79 rather than $2,190."
+us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It based both credits on gross $17,100 without subtracting the $1,208.07 deductible half of SE tax. Earned income is $15,891.93, which gives a $6,356.77 EITC and a $2,008.79 ACTC."
+us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $5,834 EITC and $1,813 ACTC both come from a double-reduced earned income of $14,584 (the 92.35% factor and then half of SE tax again). The correct figure is $15,891.93, profit minus half of SE tax only."
+us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It gave $5,978 with no real derivation and miscounted the household as 'one qualifying child and one young child'. Both children qualify, which gives 40% × $15,891.93 = $6,356.77 of EITC plus $2,008.79 of ACTC."
+us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the pre-TCJA $3,000 ACTC threshold instead of 2026's $2,500. It also used net SE earnings of $15,792 as earned income instead of $15,891.93 (profit minus half of SE tax)."
+us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It figured the ACTC as 15% over $3,000 when the 2026 threshold is $2,500. It also used $15,792 (the 92.35% figure) instead of $15,891.93 as earned income, which understates both credits."
+us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the CTC reverted to $1,000 per child in 2026. OBBBA made the $2,500 refundability threshold and $1,700-per-child refundable cap permanent, so the ACTC is $2,008.79. It also used gross $17,100 instead of $15,891.93 for the EITC."
+us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It capped the refundable CTC at a reverted $1,000 per child with a $3,000 threshold. The 2026 law caps it at $1,700 per child with a $2,500 threshold, giving $2,008.79. It also used gross $17,100 instead of $15,891.93 as earned income for the EITC."
+us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It set the refundable CTC at a flat $1,000 per child. The ACTC is 15% × (earned income − $2,500) = $2,008.79. It also computed the EITC on gross $17,100 instead of $15,891.93, which is SE profit minus half of SE tax."
+us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No value or explanation was returned for federal_refundable_credits, so there is nothing to score against the $8,365.56 reference."
+us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It drafted $7,932, wrote 'let me reconsider', and then submitted an unexplained $672. Its draft understated earned income ($13,093 instead of $15,891.93) and gave the full $3,400 ACTC cap without applying the 15%-over-$2,500 limit."
+us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used $15,791.85 (profit × 0.9235) as earned income. EITC and ACTC earned income is profit minus the deductible half of SE tax, which is $15,891.93. That leaves both credits slightly low."
+us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the full $17,100 SE profit as earned income. Subtracting the $1,208.07 deductible half of SE tax gives $15,891.93, so the EITC is $6,356.77 and the ACTC is $2,008.79."
+us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly treated SSTB self-employment income as excluded from EITC earned income. SSTB status only affects the QBI deduction. The $15,891.93 of SE earned income qualifies for both the $6,356.77 EITC and the $2,008.79 ACTC."
+us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It limited the ACTC to $375 on the assumption that regular tax used up most of the CTC. But the HoH standard deduction exceeds AGI, so regular tax is zero and the full $2,008.79 (15% over $2,500) is refundable. It also understated the EITC at $5,757 instead of $6,356.77."
us,scenario_054,free_school_meals_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model asserted that household income exceeds the free-meal threshold, but $17,100 for a three-person household is 63% of the 2026 federal poverty guideline — far below the 130% FPG free-meal cutoff (roughly $35,000 for a household of three) and even below the 185% reduced-price line. It applied a nonexistent income ceiling and never checked the SNAP categorical-eligibility pathway, which independently confers free meals on the 10-year-old school-age child regardless of the income test."
us,scenario_054,free_school_meals_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model made free-meal eligibility contingent on an explicit eligibility flag or a positively stated SNAP amount in the household facts, when the benchmark required it to compute SNAP itself ($524.80/month here) and to apply the school-meal income test to the given $17,100 of self-employment income. It never evaluated either qualifying pathway — the 63%-of-FPG income share against the 130% free-meal threshold, or SNAP/TANF categorical eligibility for the 10-year-old K-12 student — and defaulted to 0 from the absence of a stated indicator rather than from a rule."
us,scenario_054,head_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model classified the head as a ""non-disabled childless adult without dependents"" when the household explicitly contains the head's two children (ages 10 and 2), which places the head in the parent/caretaker-relative category the engine assigned. It compounded this by asserting North Carolina has not expanded Medicaid, when NC implemented expansion to 138% FPL on December 1, 2023 under S.L. 2023-7 and that coverage is in force for 2026."
@@ -4782,94 +4942,98 @@ us,scenario_054,self_employment_tax,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,other,False,"The mode
us,scenario_054,self_employment_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model computed $17,100 × 0.9235 × 0.153 ≈ $2,414, which is close to correct. It then claimed that excluding Additional Medicare Tax and rounding gave $1,596. Additional Medicare Tax is $0 at these earnings, and nothing should be subtracted from regular SECA, so the answer is $2,416.15."
us,scenario_054,self_employment_tax,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"The model got net SE earnings of $15,792 and SE tax of about $2,416.18, which is essentially correct. It then submitted $2,419.95, a number that matches none of its own figures. The correct value is $15,791.85 × 0.153 = $2,416.15."
us,scenario_054,self_employment_tax,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model correctly reached $2,416 of SE tax. It then applied 0.9235 a second time and subtracted the deductible half of SE tax from the SE tax itself, producing $1,578. The half-SE-tax deduction is an above-the-line deduction against income tax and does not reduce SE tax, which stays at $2,416.15."
-us,scenario_054,snap,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model projected a maximum allotment of ~$820 for three people from the wrong FY2025 base ($768). The actual FY2026 figure is $785, so the correct benefit is $785 − $280 = $505/month, not $540."
-us,scenario_054,snap,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,other,False,"The model had the right inputs ($785 maximum, $931 net income) but subtracted the unrounded 30% contribution of $279.30. SNAP rounds the contribution up to $280, which gives $505/month and $6,060/year, not $505.70 × 12."
-us,scenario_054,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"The model treated the $14,000 bank balance as disqualifying. NC's broad-based categorical eligibility (TANF non-cash eligibility) waives the SNAP resource limit, so the household is eligible for $505/month."
-us,scenario_054,snap,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"The model zeroed out SNAP on asset and income grounds. BBCE waives the asset test in NC, and gross income of $1,425/month is only 64% of the poverty guideline, so the household gets $505/month."
-us,scenario_054,snap,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted half of SE tax from self-employment income, but SNAP counts the full $1,425/month when no business expenses are listed. It also used a $224 standard deduction and a $789 maximum instead of $209 and $785, then inflated the result to $7,152 with no basis."
-us,scenario_054,snap,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,other,False,"The model's own computation reached about $508/month, close to the correct $785 − $280 = $505. It then dropped that result for an unsupported 'refined' $707/month."
-us,scenario_054,snap,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model used an $800 maximum allotment and guessed ~$583/month without doing the subtraction. The $785 maximum minus the $280 contribution on $931 net income gives $505/month.
-us,scenario_054,snap,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"The model subtracted 30% of $931 as $279.30 without rounding it up to the whole dollar. With the contribution rounded up to $280, the allotment is $505/month, or $6,060/year, not $6,068.40."
-us,scenario_054,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied a nonexistent 40% cost-of-doing-business cut to self-employment income, giving $855/month instead of the full $1,425. It also used outdated $228 and $766 parameters and submitted $5,532, which contradicts its own $7,548 calculation."
-us,scenario_054,snap,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the FY2025 $768 maximum and a ~$204 standard deduction instead of $785 and $209. It then miscalculated: even its own figures give about $488/month, not $350. The correct benefit is $505/month."
-us,scenario_054,snap,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"The model used the 30% contribution unrounded at $279.30 instead of rounding up to $280. That turned $505/month ($6,060/year) into $505.70 and $6,068."
-us,scenario_054,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model deducted $2,416 of SE tax from self-employment income, but SNAP gross earned income is the full $1,425/month. It also used a $198 standard deduction and a $775 maximum instead of $209 and $785."
-us,scenario_054,snap,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model used a $781 maximum allotment and a $202 standard deduction instead of the FY2026 values of $785 and $209. That raised net income to $938 and cut the benefit to $499 instead of $505.
-us,scenario_054,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a $784 maximum and a $208 standard deduction instead of $785 and $209. It also left the 30% contribution unrounded ($279.60) rather than rounding up to the next whole dollar, which gave $504.40 instead of $505."
-us,scenario_054,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a $787 maximum allotment instead of $785. It also left the contribution at $279.30 instead of rounding up to $280, which gave $507.70/month instead of $505."
-us,scenario_054,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model used outdated figures: a $766 maximum allotment and a $198 standard deduction (net $942) instead of the FY2026 $785 and $209 (net $931). That gave $483.40/month instead of $505.
-us,scenario_054,snap,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,other,False,"The model gave no derivation, and its $310/month is far below the correct $505. The correct figure is $785 minus a $280 contribution on $931 net income ($1,425 less $285 earned-income and $209 standard deductions)."
-us,scenario_054,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's $483.40/month matches a $766 maximum minus 30% of $942 net income, i.e. outdated maximum allotment and $198 standard deduction values. The FY2026 parameters are $785 and $209, which give $505/month."
-us,scenario_054,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model used a $747 maximum allotment and a $198 standard deduction instead of the FY2026 $785 and $209. That gave $464/month instead of $505.
-us,scenario_054,snap,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model claimed income exceeds SNAP limits. Gross income of $1,425/month is 64% of the $2,220.83 poverty guideline and net income of $931 is 42%, so the household passes both tests and gets $505/month."
-us,scenario_054,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"$7,548 ($629/month) matches cutting self-employment income by 40% to $855/month and using outdated $766 and $228 parameters. SNAP counts the full $1,425/month, which gives net income of $931 and $505/month."
-us,scenario_054,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"$485/month matches the FY2025 $768 maximum minus 30% of $942 net income, which uses the $198 FY2025 standard deduction. The FY2026 $785 maximum and $209 deduction give $505/month."
-us,scenario_054,snap,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,$487/month matches the FY2025 $768 maximum allotment instead of the FY2026 $785. The correct benefit is $785 − $280 = $505/month.
-us,scenario_054,snap,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used an $800/month maximum ($9,600/year) and a $228/month standard deduction instead of $785 and $209. It also did the calculation on annual totals rather than with the monthly rounded contribution of $280."
-us,scenario_054,snap,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Net income ($931) was right, but the model used an $816 maximum allotment instead of the FY2026 $785. The correct benefit is $785 − $280 = $505/month."
-us,scenario_054,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,other,False,"The model treated countable income as 'very low' and gave a near-maximum $739/month. It never subtracted the $280 expected contribution on $931 net income from the $785 maximum, which gives $505/month."
-us,scenario_054,snap,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"The model said eligibility couldn't be assessed and defaulted to $0, ignoring the given household size of three and $1,425/month of self-employment income. Those facts produce a $505/month allotment under BBCE."
-us,scenario_054,snap,gpt-5.5,llm_error,other,False,The model had the correct $785 maximum and $931 net income but got the subtraction wrong: it reported $575/month when $785 − $280 is $505.
-us,scenario_054,snap,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"The model applied an NC resource limit to the $14,000 bank balance. NC confers categorical eligibility through TANF non-cash eligibility, which removes the asset test, so the household gets $505/month."
-us,scenario_054,snap,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,other,False,"The model rounded the $505.70 benefit up to $506 instead of rounding the 30% contribution ($279.30) up to $280. The correct allotment is $505/month, or $6,060/year."
-us,scenario_054,snap,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,other,False,The model rounded the benefit to $506 instead of rounding the expected contribution up to $280 first. The correct allotment is $785 − $280 = $505/month.
-us,scenario_054,snap,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,other,False,"The model's formula used 0.30 × $931 = $279.30 unrounded. SNAP rounds the contribution up to $280, which gives $505/month and $6,060/year."
-us,scenario_054,snap,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,other,False,"The model annualized $505.70 instead of rounding the $279.30 contribution up to $280. The correct allotment is $505/month, or $6,060/year."
-us,scenario_054,snap,grok-4.3,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"The model claimed income and assets exceed the limits. BBCE waives the asset test, and $1,425/month gross is 64% of the poverty guideline, so the household gets $505/month."
-us,scenario_054,snap,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a $766/month maximum ($9,192/year) and a $198/month standard deduction ($2,376/year) instead of the FY2026 $785 and $209. That understated the benefit relative to $505/month."
-us,scenario_054,snap,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model used the FY2025 $768 maximum and a $204 standard deduction instead of the FY2026 $785 and $209. That gave about $487/month instead of $505.
-us,scenario_054,snap,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model used the FY2025 $768 maximum and a $204 standard deduction instead of the FY2026 $785 and $209. It also skipped the monthly round-up of the 30% contribution.
-us,scenario_054,snap,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model used an $811 maximum allotment and a ~$205 standard deduction instead of $785 and $209. That gave $531/month instead of $505.
-us,scenario_054,snap,inkling,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"The model treated $14,000 in bank assets as exceeding an NC resource limit. NC's broad-based categorical eligibility (TANF non-cash eligibility) eliminates the asset test, so the household gets $505/month."
-us,scenario_054,snap,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"The model applied a countable-resource limit, but NC confers categorical eligibility through TANF non-cash eligibility, which waives the SNAP asset test. The household gets $785 − $280 = $505/month."
-us,scenario_054,snap,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly rounded the contribution up to $280, but used a $783 maximum allotment instead of the FY2026 $785. That gave $503/month instead of $505."
-us,scenario_054,snap,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"The model said $17,100 exceeds 130% of the poverty line (~$26,000), which is backwards: the income is well below that limit (64% of the guideline). The household passes and gets $505/month."
-us,scenario_054,snap,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model used the FY2025 $768 maximum and a smaller standard deduction (net $936) instead of the FY2026 $785 and $209 (net $931). That gave $487/month instead of $505.
-us,scenario_054,snap,ox-alpha,llm_error,other,False,"The model subtracted $279.30 rather than rounding the 30% contribution up to $280. The correct allotment is $505/month and $6,060/year, not $505.70 and $6,068.40."
-us,scenario_054,snap,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model awarded a full maximum benefit of $934/month, which overstates the $785 FY2026 maximum for three. It also skipped the $280 expected contribution on $931 net income, which brings the benefit to $505/month."
-us,scenario_054,snap,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,other,False,"The model used $1,579 of self-employment earnings and claimed net income exceeds the limit. Net income is $931, 42% of the $2,220.83 poverty guideline, which passes the net income test and gives $505/month."
+us,scenario_054,snap,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model projected an FY2026 maximum allotment of about $820 for three people, but the actual figure is $785. It also used a $211 standard deduction instead of $209. With the correct $785 maximum minus a $280 contribution, the benefit is $505 a month, not $540."
+us,scenario_054,snap,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,other,False,"All of the model's inputs were correct ($785 maximum, $931 net income), but it did not round the 30% expected contribution of $279.30 up to the next whole dollar ($280). That left a fractional $505.70 a month instead of $505, which is $6,060 a year."
+us,scenario_054,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model applied a SNAP asset limit to the $14,000 bank balance and gave $0. It missed that the household is categorically eligible in NC through TANF non-cash broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE), so the bank balance does not block eligibility. The correct benefit is $505 a month."
+us,scenario_054,snap,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model concluded that the asset and income tests deny eligibility. In fact, NC BBCE makes the $14,000 in assets irrelevant, and gross income of $1,425 a month is only 64% of the poverty guideline. Income after deductions is $931, which gives $505 a month."
+us,scenario_054,snap,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted half of the self-employment tax from SNAP income, but the reference counts the full $1,425 a month. It also used a $224 standard deduction instead of $209 and a $789 maximum instead of $785. It then inflated its own $6,456 figure to $7,152 with an unexplained COLA adjustment."
+us,scenario_054,snap,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's own computation came to about $508 a month ($6,096 a year), close to the correct $505. It then replaced that with an unsupported 'refined' $707 a month, a figure no SNAP formula produces from $931 of net income and a $785 maximum."
+us,scenario_054,snap,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used an $800 maximum allotment instead of $785. Its $583-a-month figure also does not follow from its own inputs: $1,425 less the $285 earned income deduction and the $209 standard deduction is $931 of net income, and $785 minus a $280 contribution is $505."
+us,scenario_054,snap,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"The model had the correct $785 maximum and $931 net income, but it did not round the 30% contribution ($279.30) up to $280. It reported $505.70 a month instead of the whole-dollar $505, so its annual figure is $6,068.40 instead of $6,060."
+us,scenario_054,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied a 40% cost-of-doing-business deduction to self-employment income that the reference does not use; the reference counts the full $1,425 a month. It also used a $228 standard deduction and a $766 maximum. Its reasoning concluded $7,548, yet it submitted an unrelated $5,532."
+us,scenario_054,snap,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model listed the 20% earned income deduction twice and used the FY2025 $768 maximum instead of the FY2026 $785. Its arithmetic is also wrong: $768 minus roughly $280 is $488, not $350. The correct figure is $785 − $280 = $505 a month."
+us,scenario_054,snap,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"The model's inputs were correct ($785 maximum, $931 net income), but it kept the unrounded $505.70 a month. It should have rounded the 30% contribution up to $280, which gives a $505 allotment and $6,060 a year."
+us,scenario_054,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted $2,416 of self-employment tax before counting income, but the reference counts the full $1,425 a month. It also used a $198 standard deduction instead of $209 and a $775 maximum instead of $785. Both errors lowered its net income figure and raised the benefit."
+us,scenario_054,snap,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model used a $781 maximum allotment and a $202 standard deduction instead of the FY2026 values of $785 and $209. That gave $938 of net income and $499 a month instead of $931 and $505.
+us,scenario_054,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a $784 maximum allotment and a $208 standard deduction instead of $785 and $209. It also did not round the 30% contribution up to a whole dollar, so it got $504.40 a month instead of $505."
+us,scenario_054,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a $787 maximum allotment instead of the FY2026 $785 for three people. It also did not round the $279.30 contribution up to $280, so it got $507.70 a month instead of $505."
+us,scenario_054,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used an outdated $766 maximum allotment and a $198 standard deduction, which produced $942 of net income. The FY2026 values are $785 and $209, which give $931 of net income and $505 a month, not $483.40."
+us,scenario_054,snap,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model gave no derivation. Its $3,720 works out to $310 a month, which far understates the correct $785 − $280 = $505 for a household with $931 of net income. That shortfall implies a much lower maximum allotment or a much higher countable income than the facts support."
+us,scenario_054,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's $5,800.80 matches an outdated $766 maximum less 30% of $942 of net income, which comes from a $198 standard deduction. The FY2026 values are $785 and $209, which give $505 a month."
+us,scenario_054,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model used a stale $747 maximum allotment and a $198 standard deduction instead of the FY2026 values of $785 and $209. That gave $464 a month instead of $505.
+us,scenario_054,snap,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model claimed the household's income exceeds SNAP limits. In fact, gross income of $1,425 a month is 64% of the $2,220.83 poverty guideline, and net income of $931 is 42%, so both tests pass easily and the benefit is $505 a month."
+us,scenario_054,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's $7,548 ($629 a month) reproduces a calculation that cuts self-employment income by 40% for business costs and uses a $766 maximum. The reference counts the full $1,425 a month of self-employment income, which gives $931 of net income and $505 a month."
+us,scenario_054,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's $5,820 ($485 a month) is consistent with an outdated maximum of about $766–768 and a pre-FY2026 standard deduction. With the FY2026 $785 maximum and $209 standard deduction, net income is $931 and the benefit is $505 a month."
+us,scenario_054,snap,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's $5,844 ($487 a month) matches the FY2025 $768 maximum less about $281. The FY2026 parameters are a $785 maximum and a $209 standard deduction, which give $785 − $280 = $505 a month."
+us,scenario_054,snap,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's $5,856 ($488 a month) is consistent with the FY2025 $768 maximum allotment. It missed the FY2026 $785 maximum, which gives $505 a month after the $280 contribution."
+us,scenario_054,snap,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used an $800-a-month maximum ($9,600 a year) and a $228-a-month standard deduction instead of the FY2026 values of $785 and $209. That inflated the benefit to $6,317 a year instead of $6,060."
+us,scenario_054,snap,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly reached $931 of net income, but it used an $816 maximum allotment instead of the FY2026 $785 for three people. That gave $537 a month instead of $785 − $280 = $505."
+us,scenario_054,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model treated countable income as very low and gave a near-maximum $739 a month. It ignored the 30% contribution on $931 of net income ($280), which cuts the $785 maximum to $505."
+us,scenario_054,snap,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model wrongly treated the facts as insufficient and defaulted to $0. The household size (3) and $17,100 of self-employment income fully determine the benefit: $931 of net income and $505 a month under NC BBCE."
+us,scenario_054,snap,gpt-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"The model correctly identified the $785 maximum and $931 of net income, then made a subtraction error: $785 − $279.30 is $505.70, not $575. With the contribution rounded up to $280, the correct benefit is $505 a month, or $6,060 a year."
+us,scenario_054,snap,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model applied an NC resource limit to the $14,000 bank balance. NC's TANF non-cash broad-based categorical eligibility means the balance does not disqualify the household, so the correct benefit is $505 a month."
+us,scenario_054,snap,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,other,False,"The model correctly found $931 of net income, but it rounded the benefit up to $506. SNAP rounds the 30% contribution up ($279.30 becomes $280), which makes the allotment $785 − $280 = $505 a month."
+us,scenario_054,snap,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,other,False,"The model rounded $505.70 up to $506 instead of rounding the 30% contribution up to $280. The correct allotment is $505 a month, or $6,060 a year."
+us,scenario_054,snap,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,other,False,"The model's formula and parameters were correct, but it skipped rounding the 30% contribution ($279.30) up to $280. It reported $505.70 a month instead of $505."
+us,scenario_054,snap,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,other,False,"The model kept the fractional $505.70 a month instead of rounding the contribution up to $280. The correct benefit is $505 a month, which annualizes to $6,060, not $6,068."
+us,scenario_054,snap,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model asserted that income and assets exceed SNAP limits. In fact, gross income of $1,425 a month is 64% of the poverty guideline, and NC BBCE removes the asset barrier, so the household gets $505 a month."
+us,scenario_054,snap,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used an outdated $766-a-month maximum ($9,192 a year) and a $198-a-month standard deduction ($2,376 a year). The FY2026 values are $785 and $209, which give $9,420 minus $3,360 = $6,060."
+us,scenario_054,snap,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the FY2025 $768 maximum and $204 standard deduction instead of the FY2026 values of $785 and $209. That understated the benefit at $5,846 instead of $6,060."
+us,scenario_054,snap,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the FY2025 $768 maximum allotment and $204 standard deduction instead of the FY2026 values of $785 and $209. It also did not round the monthly contribution up to a whole dollar, so it got $5,846.40 instead of $6,060."
+us,scenario_054,snap,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model used an estimated $811 maximum allotment and a standard deduction of about $205 instead of the FY2026 values of $785 and $209. That raised the benefit to $531 a month instead of $505.
+us,scenario_054,snap,inkling,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model denied SNAP because the $14,000 bank balance exceeded a resource limit. Under NC broad-based categorical eligibility through TANF non-cash, the balance does not block eligibility, and the benefit is $505 a month."
+us,scenario_054,snap,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model applied the federal countable resource limit for households without an elderly or disabled member. It missed that NC's TANF non-cash BBCE makes this household categorically eligible regardless of the $14,000 in assets, which yields $505 a month."
+us,scenario_054,snap,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly reached $931 of net income and rounded the contribution up to $280, but it used a $783 maximum allotment instead of the FY2026 $785. That gave $503 a month instead of $505."
+us,scenario_054,snap,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model said $17,100 exceeds a 130% FPL limit that it put at about $26,000, which contradicts its own numbers. Monthly gross income of $1,425 is only 64% of the $2,220.83 poverty guideline, so the household passes the gross test and gets $505 a month."
+us,scenario_054,snap,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model used a $788 maximum and about $940 of net income instead of $785 and $931. Its $506 a month overshoots the correct $785 − $280 = $505.
+us,scenario_054,snap,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the FY2025 $768 maximum and a standard deduction of about $204, which gave $936 of net income. The FY2026 values are $785 and $209, which give $931 of net income and $505 a month, not $487."
+us,scenario_054,snap,ox-alpha,llm_error,other,False,"The model's parameters were correct ($785 maximum, $931 net income), but it did not round the 30% contribution of $279.30 up to $280. It reported $505.70 a month instead of $505, and $6,068.40 a year instead of $6,060."
+us,scenario_054,snap,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model awarded the full maximum and inflated it to $934 a month. The FY2026 maximum for three is $785, and it must be reduced by the $280 contribution on $931 of net income, which gives $505 a month."
+us,scenario_054,snap,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used $1,579 a month of earnings instead of $1,425 and claimed net income exceeds the limit. Net income after deductions is $931, only 42% of the $2,220.83 net-income limit, so the household gets $505 a month."
us,scenario_054,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model correctly applied North Carolina's $19,125 head-of-household standard deduction against federal AGI of $15,892 and stated twice in its own reasoning that NC taxable income floors at $0 and ""NC tax = 0,"" then discarded that conclusion and submitted $245. No NC computation produces $245 from these facts: at the 2026 flat rate of 3.99% it implies $6,140 of taxable income, which the household does not have once the standard deduction is applied."
us,scenario_054,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"After correctly computing $0 NC taxable income using the head-of-household standard deduction of $19,125, the model reassigned the filer to single status and its $12,750 standard deduction despite two qualifying children in the household, yielding $3,142 of taxable income and $133.50 of tax. It then submitted $596, a figure tied to neither derivation and roughly 3.75% of gross self-employment income with no standard deduction at all."
us,scenario_054,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied the $12,750 single-filer standard deduction rather than the $19,125 head-of-household deduction the head qualifies for with two dependent children, and used the 2025 rate rather than the 2026 flat rate of 3.99%: $15,892 − $12,750 = $3,142 taxed at 4.5% is $141.39, matching its $142. Under the correct head-of-household deduction the base is zero and the tax is $0."
us,scenario_054,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied a rate directly to gross self-employment income with no standard deduction and no half-SE-tax adjustment: $342 is exactly 2% of the $17,100 SSTB figure. North Carolina's 2026 flat rate is 3.99% and it applies to taxable income after the $19,125 head-of-household standard deduction, which exceeds the $15,892 AGI and zeroes the base."
-us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly applied the $18,150 standard deduction, the $1,123 phased senior deduction and the 2026 brackets. But it left out the OBBBA §170(p) $1,000 charitable deduction for non-itemizers, even though the filer gave $15,647 in cash. That put taxable income at $137,003 instead of $136,002, and the tax came out exactly $240 (24% of $1,000) too high."
-us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a made-up $23,750 standard deduction and 2023 bracket thresholds. It also left out the phased $1,123 senior deduction and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction. Its own bracket math produced about $25,392, but it then reported $14,829 with no calculation behind it."
-us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It understated taxable Social Security at about $4,300 instead of $4,880.71 and showed no bracket math. Correctly, taxable income is $136,002 after the $18,150 standard deduction, the $1,123 senior deduction and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, which gives $25,239 at 2026 rates. Its $13,900 matches taxable income of only about $87,000, so it under-taxed the income by roughly $49,000."
-us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It claimed the full $6,000 OBBBA senior deduction 'phaseout-free'. That deduction actually shrinks by 6% of MAGI above $75,000, leaving $1,123.45. It also missed the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction. Its own bracket math gave $24,431, but it reported $13,802 with no supporting arithmetic."
-us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It mentioned the senior bonus deduction but never subtracted the phased $1,123. It also left out the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, overstated the standard deduction at $18,600 instead of $18,150, and set the top of the 22% bracket at $107,500 instead of $105,700. The result was taxable income of $137,676 against the correct $136,002."
-us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted the $1,181 of auto loan interest as a deduction. That deduction is fully phased out once MAGI exceeds $100,000 by this much. It also left out the $1,123 senior deduction and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction and used a $17,750 standard deduction. Its stated taxable income of $138,526 gives about $25,844 at 2026 rates, not the $24,196 it reported."
-us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It projected 2025 parameters forward by inflation: a $15,700 base plus $2,000 aged add-on, and a 22% bracket ending at $106,150. The actual OBBBA-reset 2026 figures are $16,100 plus $2,050, with the 22% bracket ending at $105,700. It also left out the $1,123 senior deduction and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, which put taxable income at $138,576 instead of $136,002."
-us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It guessed the phased senior deduction at about $4,000. The 6% phaseout above $75,000 MAGI actually leaves $1,123.45. It also missed the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction. Its own bracket math gave $24,788, which it then cut to $18,033 with no computation."
-us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It got the standard deduction, the $1,123 phased senior deduction and the 2026 brackets right. It left out the OBBBA §170(p) $1,000 charitable deduction for non-itemizers, so taxable income was $137,002 instead of $136,002 and the tax came out $240 too high."
-us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,500 base standard deduction instead of $16,100 and made-up bracket widths ($12,075/$37,100/$55,700). It also left out both the $1,123 phased senior deduction and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, which put taxable income at $138,726 instead of $136,002."
-us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset law: a $5,293 personal exemption, a roughly $9,934 standard deduction and 15/25/28% brackets. OBBBA made the TCJA rates and the larger standard deduction permanent and kept the personal exemption at zero. It also missed the $1,123 senior deduction and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, so it itemized when the $18,150 standard deduction was larger."
-us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied repealed pre-TCJA 2026 rules: a $5,400 personal exemption and 15/25/28% brackets. Under OBBBA there is no exemption, the standard deduction is $18,150 plus a $1,123 senior deduction and a $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, and the 10/12/22/24% brackets apply. Its submitted $28,095.43 also differs from its own computed $28,345.68."
-us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed TCJA expired: a $5,419 personal exemption, itemizing $16,484, and 10/15/25/28% brackets. OBBBA kept the 10/12/22/24% brackets and the $16,100 base standard deduction permanently. With the aged add-on, the $1,123 senior deduction and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, taxable income is $136,002."
-us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It explicitly assumed 2026 returns to pre-TCJA rules, with a $5,300 personal exemption and 15/25/28% brackets. OBBBA made TCJA permanent, so the filer takes the $18,150 standard deduction, the $1,123 senior deduction and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, and is taxed at 10/12/22/24%."
-us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated all $5,742 of Social Security as taxable, though only 85% ($4,880.71) is. It used a $16,800 standard deduction instead of $18,150 and left out the $1,123 senior deduction and the $1,000 charitable deduction. Its own taxable income of about $140,337 gives about $26,800 at 2026 rates, so the reported $17,296 is also an arithmetic understatement."
-us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset law: itemizing $16,484 plus a personal exemption, taxed at 15/25/28%. OBBBA kept the TCJA brackets and standard deduction and eliminated the exemption. The correct deductions are the $18,150 standard deduction, the $1,123 phased senior deduction and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
-us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It claimed a $5,050 personal exemption and post-TCJA-expiration brackets, even though OBBBA made the TCJA rate structure permanent. Under the actual 2026 rules, the $18,150 standard deduction, the $1,123 senior deduction and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction leave $136,002 taxed at 10/12/22/24%."
-us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no deduction or bracket math. The correct path is $156,276 AGI less $18,150 standard, $1,123 senior and $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deductions, which leaves $136,002 and $25,239 of tax. Its $19,304 matches taxable income of only about $111,000, so roughly $25,000 of income went untaxed."
-us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted only the standard deduction and the age-65 add-on. It left out the OBBBA senior deduction, phased down to $1,123.45, and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction. Its $26,105 matches taxable income of about $139,600 instead of $136,002."
-us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted only a standard deduction with the aged add-on, about $17,800. It left out the $1,123 phased senior deduction and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, which leaves taxable income near $138,500 instead of $136,002."
-us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used 'pre-TCJA rules' with a reinstated $5,450 personal exemption and the 28% bracket. OBBBA permanently kept the zero exemption and the 10/12/22/24% brackets. The correct deductions are the $18,150 standard deduction, the $1,123 senior deduction and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
-us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a projected $15,400 base standard deduction instead of $16,100 and inflation-projected brackets ($12,250/$49,800/$106,150) instead of the 2026 figures ($12,400/$50,400/$105,700). It also left out the $1,123 phased senior deduction and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, which put taxable income at $138,826 instead of $136,002."
-us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 $15,000 base standard deduction instead of the 2026 $16,100. It also left out the $1,123 phased senior deduction and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, which put taxable income at $139,226 instead of $136,002."
-us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no deduction amounts or bracket math. Correctly, $156,276 of AGI less the $18,150 standard, $1,123 senior and $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deductions leaves $136,002, which is $25,239 at 2026 rates. Its $16,348 matches taxable income below $100,000, so roughly $38,000 of income went untaxed."
-us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed deductions offset the income completely. The available deductions total only $20,273 ($18,150 standard, $1,123 senior, $1,000 non-itemizer charitable) against $156,276 of AGI, so $136,002 remains taxable and owes $25,239."
-us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,missing_output,False,"It refused to compute and submitted 0 as a placeholder. The facts were enough: $156,276 AGI less $20,273 of deductions gives $136,002 of taxable income and $25,239 of tax at 2026 brackets."
-us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Its $24,379 matches taxable income of about $132,400, roughly $3,600 below the correct $136,002. That is consistent with taking most of the $6,000 senior deduction without the 6%-of-MAGI-over-$75,000 phaseout, which cuts it to $1,123.45."
-us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the standard deduction, the aged add-on and the phased senior deduction correctly. It left out the OBBBA $1,000 charitable deduction for non-itemizers, so taxable income was $137,003 and the tax came out exactly $240 too high at $25,479."
-us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It included all $5,742 of Social Security in gross income instead of the capped 85% ($4,880.71). It deducted only $17,000, leaving out the $1,123 senior deduction and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction. Its own $140,137 of taxable income gives about $26,231 at 2026 rates, not the $21,842 it reported."
-us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a projected TCJA-sunset regime: about a $10,500 standard deduction, a $5,400 personal exemption and 15/25/28% brackets. OBBBA made the TCJA brackets and $16,100 base standard deduction permanent. With the aged add-on, the $1,123 senior deduction and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, taxable income is $136,002 at 10/12/22/24%."
-us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It explicitly assumed 'TCJA-sunset law' with a $5,300 personal exemption and 10/15/25/28% brackets. OBBBA repealed the sunset, so the filer takes the $18,150 standard deduction plus the $1,123 senior and $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deductions under the 10/12/22/24% schedule."
-us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It correctly took the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, but treated it as reducing AGI. It then ran the senior deduction phaseout on $155,276 and got $1,183. The §170(p) deduction is taken below the line, so the 6% phaseout runs on $156,276 MAGI and leaves $1,123.45. Its own $135,943 of taxable income gives about $25,224 at 2026 rates, not the $25,314 it reported."
-us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed a post-TCJA-expiration $9,650 standard deduction and 10/15/25/28% brackets. OBBBA made the TCJA schedule permanent, with a $16,100 base plus a $2,050 aged add-on. It also left out the $1,123 senior deduction and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, so it itemized when the standard deduction was larger."
-us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied 'pre-expiration' 2026 rules: itemizing $16,484, a $5,200 personal exemption and 15/25/28% brackets. OBBBA kept the TCJA 10/12/22/24% brackets and a zero exemption, and the correct deductions are the $18,150 standard, $1,123 senior and $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deductions."
-us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a projected $17,400 total standard deduction instead of $18,150 and projected brackets instead of the 2026 $12,400/$50,400/$105,700 thresholds. It also left out the $1,123 phased senior deduction and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, which put taxable income at $138,876 instead of $136,002."
-us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It made up about $11,980 of mortgage interest from the loan balance, even though no interest paid was listed and unlisted inputs are $0. It mis-stated AGI as $139,737. It then wiped out its own estimate of about $18,500 with nonrefundable credits that do not exist, reporting 0 when $136,002 of taxable income owes $25,239."
-us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It computed taxable Social Security as $2,045. Provisional income of $154,266 triggers the 85% cap, which is $4,880.71. It used a $15,700 standard deduction with no aged add-on and no senior deduction, then itemized $16,524, including medical expenses below the 7.5% floor and charitable gifts with no 0.5%-of-AGI floor. The correct choice is $18,150 standard plus $1,123 senior plus $1,000 charitable."
-us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation. Its $30,253 matches taxing roughly $157,000, essentially all gross income, at 2026 rates with no deductions. The correct return subtracts the $18,150 standard, $1,123 senior and $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deductions to reach $136,002 of taxable income."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It got AGI, the $18,150 standard deduction, and the phased $1,123 senior deduction right. It left out the OBBBA $1,000 charitable cash deduction for non-itemizers (IRC §170(p), starting 2026), which applies because the filer takes the standard deduction and gave $15,647. Taxable income should be $136,002, not $137,003, and that $1,000 at 24% is exactly the $240 overstatement."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an invented standard deduction ($20,550 + $3,200), counted all of the Social Security, used pre-2024 brackets, and ignored the senior deduction and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction. Its final $14,829 also contradicts its own ~$25,392 bracket calculation and does not follow from any taxable income it stated."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"It showed no bracket math and understated taxable Social Security (~$4,300 instead of the 85% maximum of $4,880.71). Its $13,900 is about half the tax that 2026 brackets produce on the correct $136,002 of taxable income, so it never applied the 10/12/22/24% brackets consistently."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It claimed the full $6,000 OBBBA senior deduction as 'phaseout-free'. In fact the deduction drops by 6% of MAGI above $75,000, to $1,123.45. It also left out the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction and then replaced its own $24,431 result with an unexplained $13,802."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It overstated the basic standard deduction ($16,550 instead of $16,100). It mentioned the senior deduction but never subtracted the phased $1,123.45, and it left out the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction. It also put the top of the 22% bracket at $107,500 instead of $105,700, which produced $137,676 of taxable income instead of $136,002."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted $1,181 of auto loan interest as a deduction. The OBBBA vehicle loan interest deduction is fully phased out at this MAGI ($200 per $1,000 above $100,000). It then settled on a ~$17,750 deduction without the phased $1,123.45 senior deduction or the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction. Its $24,196 also doesn't match 2026 brackets applied to its own $138,526 of taxable income."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an inflation-projected standard deduction of $15,700 + $2,000 instead of OBBBA's $16,100 + $2,050, and guessed brackets instead of 12,400/50,400/105,700. It also left out the phased senior deduction ($1,123.45) and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, which put taxable income at $138,576 instead of $136,002."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It guessed the senior deduction at ~$4,000; the correct figure is $6,000 − 6% × ($156,276 − $75,000) = $1,123.45. It left out the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction. Then it cut its own $24,788 to $18,033 by an 'adjustment' that no rule supports."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly applied the $18,150 standard deduction and the $1,123 phased senior deduction. It left out the 2026 OBBBA $1,000 charitable deduction for non-itemizers, which overstated taxable income by $1,000 and tax by $240."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $15,500 basic standard deduction instead of $16,100 and old bracket thresholds (12,075/49,175/104,875). It also left out the phased OBBBA senior deduction ($1,123.45) and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, which put taxable income at $138,726 instead of $136,002."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired, so it used a personal exemption, a ~$9,934 standard deduction, and 15/25/28% brackets. OBBBA made the TCJA brackets, the $16,100 standard deduction, and the zero personal exemption permanent. The correct path is standard deduction plus senior deduction plus the $1,000 charitable deduction, totaling $20,273.45."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied TCJA-expiration law: a $5,400 personal exemption and 15/25/28% brackets. OBBBA kept the 10/12/22/24% brackets and the $16,100 + $2,050 standard deduction for 2026. Its submitted $28,095.43 also doesn't match the $28,345.68 in its own reasoning."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used 'pre-TCJA' 2026 rules: a $5,419 personal exemption, itemized deductions, and 15/25/28% brackets. OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent, so the filer gets the $18,150 standard deduction plus the $1,123.45 senior deduction and the $1,000 charitable deduction, taxed at 10/12/22/24%."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired and applied a $5,300 personal exemption with 10/15/25/28% brackets. OBBBA kept zero personal exemptions, the $16,100 + $2,050 standard deduction, and 10/12/22/24% brackets for 2026, and added the phased senior deduction and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted all $5,742 of Social Security (gross $157,137) instead of the 85% taxable share ($4,880.71). It used a $16,800 deduction without the senior or charitable deductions. Its $17,296 is also far below what 2026 brackets give on its own ~$140,337 of taxable income."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It itemized $16,484 and took a personal exemption under TCJA-expiration assumptions. Under OBBBA the personal exemption is zero and the 10/12/22/24% brackets stay. The $20,273.45 combination of standard, senior, and charitable deductions beats itemizing."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied 'post-TCJA expiration' rules with a $5,050 personal exemption and pre-2018 brackets. OBBBA made the TCJA rate structure and zero personal exemption permanent, so the correct taxable income is $136,002.41 taxed at 10/12/22/24%."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,other,False,"It gave no derivation. $19,304 is about $5,900 below the correct tax and matches no consistent use of the 2026 brackets. The correct path is AGI $156,275.86 minus $20,273.45 of deductions (standard, phased senior, and $1,000 charitable), leaving $136,002.41 of taxable income."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted only the standard deduction and the aged add-on. It left out the OBBBA senior deduction ($1,123.45 after phase-out) and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction. Its $26,105.17 implies about $139,600 of taxable income, versus $136,002.41."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took only the standard deduction with the age-65 add-on and left out the phased OBBBA senior deduction ($1,123.45) and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction. Its $25,836.43 implies about $138,500 of taxable income instead of $136,002.41."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied 'pre-TCJA' 2026 rules with a $5,450 personal exemption and a 28% bracket. OBBBA kept the 10/12/22/24% brackets and zero personal exemption, and the standard, senior, and charitable deductions ($20,273.45) beat itemizing."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It itemized $16,484 and took a 2026 personal exemption on the assumption that the TCJA expired. OBBBA eliminated the personal exemption permanently and kept TCJA brackets, so the correct $20,273.45 deduction set gives $136,002.41 of taxable income."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,400 basic standard deduction instead of $16,100 and projected brackets (12,250/49,800/106,150) instead of OBBBA's 12,400/50,400/105,700. It also left out the phased $1,123.45 senior deduction and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $15,000 basic standard deduction instead of $16,100, and it left out the phased OBBBA senior deduction ($1,123.45) and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction. That made taxable income $139,226 instead of $136,002.41."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,other,False,"It showed no computation. $16,348 is about $8,900 below the correct tax and matches no taxable-income figure taxed at the 2026 10/12/22/24% brackets. The correct taxable income is $136,002.41, after $20,273.45 of standard, senior, and charitable deductions."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the standard deduction and itemizing wipe out the tax. Total deductions are only $20,273.45 against $156,275.86 of AGI, leaving $136,002.41 of taxable income, and no nonrefundable credits apply."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,missing_output,False,"It declined to compute and submitted a placeholder 0, so it never derived AGI, deductions, or the 2026 bracket tax. The correct calculation taxes $136,002.41 at 10/12/22/24%."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"$24,379 matches taking the full $6,000 senior deduction without the phase-out (taxable income ≈ $132,100). The correct senior deduction is $1,123.45 after the 6% reduction on MAGI above $75,000, plus the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the standard deduction, aged add-on, and phased senior deduction but left out the 2026 OBBBA $1,000 charitable deduction for non-itemizers. That overstated taxable income by $1,000 and tax by $240."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted all of the Social Security (gross $157,137) instead of the 85% taxable share, and used a $17,000 deduction without the senior or charitable deductions. Its $21,842 is also inconsistent with 2026 brackets applied to its own $140,137 of taxable income (about $26,500)."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied TCJA-expiration rules: a ~$10,500 standard deduction, a $5,400 personal exemption, and 10/15/25/28% brackets. OBBBA made the $16,100 + $2,050 standard deduction, zero exemption, and 10/12/22/24% brackets permanent, and added the senior and charitable deductions."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA sunset in 2026 and took a $5,300 personal exemption with 15/25/28% brackets. OBBBA prevented the sunset, so the filer takes $20,273.45 of standard, senior, and charitable deductions taxed at 10/12/22/24%."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It treated the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction as an above-the-line reduction to AGI. It is a below-the-line deduction under §170(p), so MAGI stays $156,275.86 and the senior deduction is $1,123.45, not $1,183. Its tax of $25,314 also miscalculates the brackets on its own $135,943 of taxable income, which gives $25,224."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used projected TCJA-expiration rules: a $9,650 standard deduction, itemizing, and 15/25/28% brackets. OBBBA kept the TCJA structure, so the correct deduction is the $20,273.45 set of standard, senior, and charitable deductions, with tax at 10/12/22/24% on $136,002.41."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied pre-TCJA 2026 law with a ~$5,200 personal exemption and 10/15/25/28% brackets. OBBBA made zero personal exemptions and TCJA brackets permanent, and the standard, senior, and charitable deductions ($20,273.45) beat itemizing."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a projected ~$17,400 standard deduction instead of $18,150 and projected brackets instead of 12,400/50,400/105,700. It also left out the phased $1,123.45 senior deduction and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It made up ~$11,980 of mortgage interest from the loan balance, although interest paid is unlisted and therefore 0. It mangled the Social Security inclusion and claimed nonrefundable credits cut the tax to zero, when no nonrefundable credits apply to this childless filer."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a ~$17,550 standard deduction instead of $18,150 and left out the phased OBBBA senior deduction ($1,123.45) and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction. That made taxable income about $138,726 instead of $136,002.41."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It put taxable Social Security at $2,045 even though provisional income of $154,266 triggers the 85% maximum ($4,880.71). It itemized without the 0.5%-of-AGI floor on charitable gifts, skipped the senior deduction, and used invented brackets (49,275/111,875) instead of OBBBA's 50,400/105,700."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"$30,253 matches taxing roughly all gross income (~$157,000) at 2026 brackets with no deduction at all. It never subtracted the $18,150 standard deduction, the $1,123.45 senior deduction, or the $1,000 charitable deduction."
us,scenario_055,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,other,False,"The model named the correct rule — 6.2% employee Social Security plus 1.45% employee Medicare on the $83,635 of wages, i.e. 7.65% × $83,635 — but never executed the multiplication, submitting a round $6,400 instead of the $6,398.08 its own stated formula produces. The error is purely arithmetic execution: it rounded the FICA product to the nearest hundred dollars rather than computing $5,185.37 + $1,212.71."
us,scenario_055,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,other,False,"The model identified the right base and rates (6.2% Social Security under the wage base plus 1.45% Medicare on $83,635, no Additional Medicare Tax, no Florida employee payroll tax), but mis-multiplied: 7.65% × $83,635 = $6,398.08, while it reported $6,437.70, an effective 7.697% rate that is $39.62 too high. Every structural judgment was right and only the arithmetic failed."
us,scenario_055,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's explanation states the correct derivation — wages of $83,635 below the wage base, 6.2% plus 1.45% employee-side, no Additional Medicare Tax, no Florida payroll tax — which yields $6,398.08, yet it submitted $10,534, an effective 12.6% of wages. It abandoned the 7.65% employee share it had just described and emitted a figure only reachable by applying combined employer-plus-employee-level rates to the $83,635 wage."
@@ -4891,151 +5055,157 @@ us,scenario_056,head_medicaid_eligible,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,health_coverage,Fa
us,scenario_056,head_wic_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_056,local_income_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_056,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model invented a wage-equivalent payroll-tax base despite the prompt setting unlisted wages to zero. It incorrectly subjected nonwage income or self-employment income to the 7.65% employee Social Security and Medicare rates; with no wages, employee payroll tax is $0, and self-employment income is handled under self_employment_tax."
-us,scenario_056,self_employment_tax,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model stated the correct base adjustment and combined rate but did not perform its own multiplication: $4,340 × 92.35% × 15.3% equals $613.22, not $305. Its answer effectively omitted about half of the combined self-employment tax."
-us,scenario_056,self_employment_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model invoked the self-employment tax rate schedule without applying the 15.3% combined rate to the 92.35% net-earnings base. The stated inputs produce $613.22, while $268 does not follow from the required Social Security and Medicare computation."
-us,scenario_056,self_employment_tax,grok-4.3,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model used the correct formula but rounded the result incorrectly. $4,340 × 92.35% × 15.3% equals $613.22, not $612."
-us,scenario_056,self_employment_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model supplied no self_employment_tax output or explanation, violating the required output contract."
-us,scenario_056,self_employment_tax,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model reversed the $400 threshold rule: $4,340 of self-employment income is above, not below, $400. Applying the 92.35% net-earnings adjustment and 15.3% combined rate yields $613.22."
-us,scenario_056,self_employment_tax,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model incorrectly declared $4,340 below the $400 self-employment-tax threshold. Because the threshold is exceeded, the 92.35% net-earnings base is taxed at 15.3%, producing $613.22."
-us,scenario_056,snap,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Added the $564/mo of mortgage interest (plus an SUA, though no utilities were listed) to shelter costs and took the capped ~$744 excess shelter deduction, which gave net income of ~$462 and $159/mo. PolicyEngine's shelter cost is only the $995.75/mo of property taxes, so the excess shelter deduction is $395.49, net income is $805, and the $63 formula benefit is raised to New Jersey's $95/mo state minimum ($1,140/yr)."
-us,scenario_056,snap,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Treated mortgage interest plus property tax ($18,722/yr) as shelter costs and took the full $8,928 capped shelter deduction, which gave annual net income of $5,535. The frozen reference uses property taxes alone, but mortgage interest counts if the mortgage is on the occupied home. The $1,140 annual reference assumes 40 weekly work hours and remains excluded because work hours and mortgage residence are unlisted."
-us,scenario_056,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Claimed $17,839 of gross income exceeds the SNAP limit and treated the $100,341 mortgage balance as an asset. Gross income is only 112% of FPL, well under New Jersey's BBCE gross limit, and a mortgage balance is a debt, not a countable resource. Under the frozen reference's assumed 40 weekly work hours and property-tax-only shelter costs, the formula benefit is $63/mo and New Jersey's $95 monthly minimum produces $1,140/yr; those unlisted inputs leave the output excluded from scoring."
-us,scenario_056,snap,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Gave no computation and returned $0. The household passes the gross test (112% of FPL) and the net test (61% of FPL). Under the frozen reference's assumed 40 weekly work hours and property-tax-only shelter costs, the formula benefit is $63/mo and New Jersey's $95 monthly minimum produces $1,140/yr; those unlisted inputs leave the output excluded from scoring."
-us,scenario_056,snap,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied no excess shelter deduction even though the household pays $995.75/mo in real estate taxes, then wrongly said net income of ~$1,400 exceeds the net limit. Under the frozen reference's assumed 40 weekly work hours and property-tax-only shelter costs, the formula benefit is $63/mo and New Jersey's $95 monthly minimum produces $1,140/yr; those unlisted inputs leave the output excluded from scoring."
-us,scenario_056,snap,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Zeroed the benefit because of assets it assumed from home ownership and the financial assistance. A home is an excluded resource, and New Jersey's BBCE removes the asset test. Under the frozen reference's assumed 40 weekly work hours and property-tax-only shelter costs, the formula benefit is $63/mo and New Jersey's $95 monthly minimum produces $1,140/yr; those unlisted inputs leave the output excluded from scoring."
-us,scenario_056,snap,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Asserted that $17,839 of income exceeds the gross and net limits for one person. Gross income of $1,486.54/mo is 112% of FPL and net income of $805 is 61% of FPL, so both tests pass. Under the frozen reference's assumed 40 weekly work hours and property-tax-only shelter costs, the formula benefit is $63/mo and New Jersey's $95 monthly minimum produces $1,140/yr; those unlisted inputs leave the output excluded from scoring."
-us,scenario_056,snap,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Left the $12,000 of financial assistance ($1,000/mo) out of income, used only $487/mo, and also counted mortgage interest as a shelter cost, which pushed net income to $0 and gave the maximum allotment. PolicyEngine counts the financial assistance as unearned income, giving net income of $805 and a $63 formula benefit that New Jersey's $95 minimum raises to $1,140/yr."
-us,scenario_056,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Found the household eligible but returned $0 because 30% of net income exceeded the maximum allotment. It left out the $395.49 excess shelter deduction from the $995.75/mo of property taxes and did not apply New Jersey's $95/mo state minimum benefit, which applies to eligible households whose formula benefit is below $95."
-us,scenario_056,snap,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Claimed countable income exceeds 130% of FPL. Gross income of $1,486.54/mo is 112% of the $1,330 guideline, and net income of $805 is 61% of it. Under the frozen reference's assumed 40 weekly work hours and property-tax-only shelter costs, the formula benefit is $63/mo and New Jersey's $95 monthly minimum produces $1,140/yr; those unlisted inputs leave the output excluded from scoring."
-us,scenario_056,snap,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Explicitly left the $12,000 of financial assistance out of income and added mortgage interest to shelter costs, which drove net income to zero and gave the full $298/mo allotment. PolicyEngine counts the assistance as unearned income ($1,000/mo) and only property taxes as shelter costs, so net income is $805, the formula benefit is $63/mo, and NJ's $95 minimum sets the annual benefit at $1,140."
-us,scenario_056,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Stopped at a non-positive formula benefit after only the earned-income and standard deductions. It omitted the property-tax shelter deduction and NJ minimum used in the frozen calculation. The frozen $1,140 annual value assumes 40 weekly work hours and property-tax-only shelter costs; those inputs are unlisted and the output is excluded."
-us,scenario_056,snap,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Disqualified the household under the ABAWD time limit. The frozen reference passes the work test because it assumes 40 weekly work hours. The prompt leaves hours unlisted and defaults them to zero; the developer decision recognizes that reading and excludes the output, so the ABAWD conclusion is not disproved by the $1,140 reference."
-us,scenario_056,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Took a capped $712 excess shelter deduction by counting mortgage interest with the property taxes, which gave net income of $498 and $142/mo. The frozen reference uses property taxes alone, but mortgage interest counts if the mortgage is on the occupied home. The $1,140 annual reference assumes 40 weekly work hours and remains excluded because work hours and mortgage residence are unlisted."
-us,scenario_056,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Concluded that 30% of net income exceeds the maximum allotment and returned $0. Its $0 explanation says 30% of net income exceeds the maximum allotment, without showing deductions or discussing the NJ minimum used in the frozen calculation. The frozen $1,140 annual value assumes 40 weekly work hours and property-tax-only shelter costs; work hours and occupied-home mortgage status are unlisted, so the output remains excluded."
-us,scenario_056,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Took a capped $672 shelter deduction based on mortgage interest, property tax, and utilities that were never listed, which gave net income of $544. PolicyEngine's shelter cost is only the $995.75/mo of property taxes, giving a $395.49 deduction, $805 net income, and a $63 formula benefit that New Jersey's $95 minimum raises to $1,140/yr."
-us,scenario_056,snap,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Claimed gross income exceeds SNAP limits. Gross income of $1,486.54/mo is 112% of FPL, below the income limit. The frozen $1,140 annual value additionally assumes 40 weekly work hours and property-tax-only shelter costs; those inputs are unlisted and the output is excluded."
-us,scenario_056,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Counted mortgage interest with property taxes to reach the maximum excess shelter deduction, which gave net income of $489 and $158/mo. The frozen reference uses property taxes alone, but mortgage interest counts if the mortgage is on the occupied home. The $1,140 annual reference assumes 40 weekly work hours and remains excluded because work hours and mortgage residence are unlisted."
-us,scenario_056,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Listed self-employment and alimony as countable income and returned an estimated maximum of $292/mo without explaining its treatment of the $12,000 financial assistance. Under the frozen reference's assumed 40 weekly work hours and property-tax-only shelter costs, the formula benefit is $63/mo and New Jersey's $95 monthly minimum produces $1,140/yr; those unlisted assumptions leave the output excluded from scoring."
-us,scenario_056,snap,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Gave no derivation for $0. Under the frozen reference's assumed 40 weekly work hours and property-tax-only shelter costs, the formula benefit is $63/mo and New Jersey's $95 monthly minimum produces $1,140/yr; those unlisted inputs leave the output excluded from scoring."
-us,scenario_056,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Its $140.72/mo matches a capped shelter deduction built from mortgage interest plus property taxes. PolicyEngine's shelter cost is only the $995.75/mo of property taxes, giving a $395.49 deduction, $805 net income, and a $63 formula benefit that New Jersey's $95 minimum raises to $1,140/yr."
-us,scenario_056,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Returned $3,504/yr, equal to $292 × 12, without a detailed income or shelter calculation. The release convention holds the FY2026 one-person maximum at $298/mo. Mortgage payments including interest count as SNAP shelter costs if the household occupies the mortgaged home; the frozen $1,140 reference instead assumes 40 weekly work hours and property-tax-only shelter costs, and remains excluded because work hours and occupied-home mortgage status are unlisted."
-us,scenario_056,snap,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Disqualified the head as an ABAWD with zero work hours. The frozen reference passes the work test because it assumes 40 weekly work hours. The prompt leaves hours unlisted and defaults them to zero; the developer decision recognizes that reading and excludes the output, so the ABAWD conclusion is not disproved by the $1,140 reference."
-us,scenario_056,snap,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Added $564/mo of mortgage interest to the $995.75/mo of property taxes and capped the shelter deduction at $733, which gave $160/mo. The frozen reference uses property taxes alone, but mortgage interest counts if the mortgage is on the occupied home. The $1,140 annual reference assumes 40 weekly work hours and remains excluded because work hours and mortgage residence are unlisted."
-us,scenario_056,snap,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Excluded the $12,000 of financial assistance as TANF-type welfare and applied no shelter deduction, so it computed from $487/mo of income. PolicyEngine counts the assistance as unearned income, giving net income of $805 after the $395.49 property-tax shelter deduction and a $63 formula benefit that New Jersey's $95 minimum raises to $1,140/yr."
-us,scenario_056,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Defaulted to $0 without computing eligibility. Under the frozen reference's assumed 40 weekly work hours and property-tax-only shelter costs, the formula benefit is $63/mo and New Jersey's $95 monthly minimum produces $1,140/yr; those unlisted inputs leave the output excluded from scoring."
-us,scenario_056,snap,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Said there were no low-income indicators and returned $0. Monthly gross income of $1,486.54 is 112% of FPL, but the frozen $1,140 annual benefit also assumes 40 weekly work hours and property-tax-only shelter costs; those inputs are unlisted and the output is excluded."
-us,scenario_056,snap,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied about $23/mo as the federal minimum; c_snap_hold_fy2026 holds the federal minimum at $24/mo, while New Jersey's state minimum is $95/mo. The shown frozen formula benefit of $63.18 exceeds the federal minimum. The $1,140 annual reference remains excluded because work hours and occupied-home mortgage status are unlisted."
-us,scenario_056,snap,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Returned a zero allotment because net income was too high. Its $0 explanation attributes the result to high net income without showing deductions or discussing the NJ minimum used in the frozen calculation. The frozen $1,140 annual value assumes 40 weekly work hours and property-tax-only shelter costs; work hours and occupied-home mortgage status are unlisted, so the output remains excluded."
-us,scenario_056,snap,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied the capped excess shelter deduction by counting mortgage interest with property taxes, which gave $159/mo. Mortgage interest counts if the mortgage is on the occupied home; the sidecar recheck reproduces $1,908/yr with 40 weekly work hours and that shelter-cost reading. The frozen $1,140 reference uses different unlisted assumptions and remains excluded."
-us,scenario_056,snap,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Built a capped shelter deduction from mortgage interest plus property taxes, which gave $158/mo. PolicyEngine's shelter cost is only the property taxes ($995.75/mo), so the excess deduction is $395.49, net income is $805, and the $63 formula benefit is raised to New Jersey's $95/mo minimum."
-us,scenario_056,snap,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Took the full $8,928 capped shelter deduction by counting mortgage interest as a shelter cost, which gave annual net income of $5,535. The frozen reference uses property taxes alone, but mortgage interest counts if the mortgage is on the occupied home. The $1,140 annual reference assumes 40 weekly work hours and remains excluded because work hours and mortgage residence are unlisted."
-us,scenario_056,snap,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,Returned $0 because 30% of net income exceeded the maximum allotment. It left out the $395.49 property-tax shelter deduction and did not apply New Jersey's $95/mo minimum benefit for eligible households.
-us,scenario_056,snap,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Counted mortgage interest as a shelter cost and took the full $8,928 capped shelter deduction. The frozen reference uses property taxes alone, but mortgage interest counts if the mortgage is on the occupied home. The $1,140 annual reference assumes 40 weekly work hours and remains excluded because work hours and mortgage residence are unlisted."
-us,scenario_056,snap,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Called the household ineligible on income and assets. Gross income is 112% of FPL and New Jersey's BBCE removes the asset test. The frozen $1,140 annual value additionally assumes 40 weekly work hours and property-tax-only shelter costs; those inputs are unlisted and the output is excluded."
-us,scenario_056,snap,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Acknowledged that income is within limits but returned $0, citing incomplete shelter details. Under the frozen reference's assumed 40 weekly work hours and property-tax-only shelter costs, the formula benefit is $63/mo and New Jersey's $95 monthly minimum produces $1,140/yr; those unlisted inputs leave the output excluded from scoring."
-us,scenario_056,snap,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Assumed no shelter costs because no rent or utilities were listed, whereas the frozen calculation uses the real estate taxes as shelter costs. Its $1,140 annual benefit assumes 40 weekly work hours and property-tax-only shelter costs; those inputs are unlisted and the output is excluded."
-us,scenario_056,snap,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Left the $12,000 of financial assistance out of countable income and applied no shelter deduction despite the property taxes. Under the frozen reference's assumed 40 weekly work hours and property-tax-only shelter costs, the formula benefit is $63/mo and New Jersey's $95 monthly minimum produces $1,140/yr; those unlisted inputs leave the output excluded from scoring."
-us,scenario_056,snap,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Computed annual net income of $13,479 with no shelter deduction and returned $0 once 30% of net income exceeded the maximum allotment. It left out the $395.49/mo property-tax shelter deduction and did not apply New Jersey's $95/mo minimum benefit for eligible households."
-us,scenario_056,snap,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Took a capped $712 shelter deduction from mortgage interest plus property taxes, which gave net income of $493 and $144/mo. The frozen reference uses property taxes alone, but mortgage interest counts if the mortgage is on the occupied home. The $1,140 annual reference assumes 40 weekly work hours and remains excluded because work hours and mortgage residence are unlisted."
-us,scenario_056,snap,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No SNAP value or explanation was returned, so nothing was available to score against the $1,140 reference."
-us,scenario_056,snap,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Added $564/mo of mortgage interest to the property taxes ($1,560.17 shelter cost) and took the $744 capped deduction, which gave $158/mo. PolicyEngine's shelter cost is only the $995.75/mo of property taxes, so the deduction is $395.49, net income is $805, and the $63 formula benefit is raised to New Jersey's $95/mo minimum."
-us,scenario_056,snap,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Claimed income exceeds SNAP limits for one person. Both income tests pass in the frozen derivation. Its $1,140 annual value additionally assumes 40 weekly work hours and property-tax-only shelter costs; those inputs are unlisted and the output is excluded."
-us,scenario_056,snap,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,Applied only the earned-income and standard deductions and returned $0 once 30% of net income exceeded the maximum allotment. It left out the $395.49 property-tax shelter deduction and did not apply New Jersey's $95/mo minimum benefit for eligible households.
-us,scenario_056,snap,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied the shelter cap using $564/mo of mortgage interest plus $996/mo of property taxes, which gave net income of ~$500 and $150/mo. The frozen reference uses property taxes alone, but mortgage interest counts if the mortgage is on the occupied home. The $1,140 annual reference assumes 40 weekly work hours and remains excluded because work hours and mortgage residence are unlisted."
-us,scenario_056,snap,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Claimed $17,839 exceeds the gross limit even though its own figure for the limit (~$19,000) is higher, then returned $0. Under the frozen reference's assumed 40 weekly work hours and property-tax-only shelter costs, the formula benefit is $63/mo and New Jersey's $95 monthly minimum produces $1,140/yr; those unlisted inputs leave the output excluded from scoring."
-us,scenario_056,snap,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Asserted that gross income exceeds 130% of FPL and net income exceeds the net limit. Gross income of $1,486.54/mo is 112% of FPL and net income in the frozen derivation is 61% of FPL. Its $1,140 annual value additionally assumes 40 weekly work hours and property-tax-only shelter costs; those inputs are unlisted and the output is excluded."
+us,scenario_056,self_employment_tax,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model said the household has no net self-employment income. It ignored the $4,340 of SSTB self-employment income, which counts as SE income. That income gives $4,007.99 in net SE earnings (×0.9235) and $613.22 in SE tax at 15.3%."
+us,scenario_056,self_employment_tax,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model correctly named the 92.35% base and the 15.3% rate but got $305, which is about half the correct amount. $4,007.99 × 0.153 = $613.22, while $305 is close to $4,007.99 × 7.65%. This means the model in effect applied only the employee-equivalent half of the rate."
+us,scenario_056,self_employment_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model gave $268 from a vague 'rate schedule' without applying the standard method. That method is $4,340 × 0.9235 = $4,007.99 in net SE earnings, times the full 15.3% rate, for $613.22. The model's $268 is an effective rate of about 6.7% on net earnings, which means it understated both the rate and the base."
+us,scenario_056,self_employment_tax,grok-4.3,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model used the right method (92.35% of $4,340 times 15.3%) but did the arithmetic loosely and reported $612 instead of $613.22. $4,340 × 0.9235 = $4,007.99, and × 0.153 that is $613.22."
+us,scenario_056,self_employment_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no value or explanation for self_employment_tax, so its answer for this output was missing. The correct value is $4,340 × 0.9235 × 0.153 = $613.22."
+us,scenario_056,self_employment_tax,minimax-m3,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model claimed $4,340 of SE income yields net SE earnings below the $400 threshold. That comparison is wrong: net SE earnings are $4,007.99, about ten times the $400 floor. The full 15.3% SE tax therefore applies, giving $613.22."
+us,scenario_056,self_employment_tax,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model stated that $4,340 of net self-employment income is below the $400 threshold, which is a basic numeric comparison error. Net SE earnings of $4,007.99 ($4,340 × 0.9235) exceed $400, so SE tax at 15.3% is $613.22."
+us,scenario_056,snap,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Added the $564/mo mortgage interest to the $996/mo property taxes and took the capped $744 excess shelter deduction, which gave $462 net income and $159/mo. The engine's shelter costs are the property taxes only, so it gets a $395.49 deduction, $805.03 net income and a $63.18 formula benefit, which NJ's $95 minimum raises to $1,140."
+us,scenario_056,snap,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Put mortgage interest plus property taxes ($18,722/yr) into shelter costs and took the capped $8,928 annual shelter deduction, which gave $5,535 net income. The engine counts only the $11,949 property taxes: $395.49/mo excess shelter, $805/mo net income and a $63 formula benefit, raised to NJ's $95/mo minimum."
+us,scenario_056,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Decided that $17,839 gross income ($1,487/mo) is over the one-person SNAP limit, but it is only 112% of FPL, under both the 130% limit and NJ's BBCE limit. Also treated the mortgage balance as a disqualifying asset, even though the home is an excluded resource. The household is eligible and receives NJ's $95/mo minimum."
+us,scenario_056,snap,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Returned $0 without running the SNAP test even while calling income 'very low'. Gross income of $1,486.54 is 112% of FPL and net income of $805.03 is 61%, so the household is eligible. Its $63 formula benefit rises to NJ's $95/mo minimum ($1,140/yr)."
+us,scenario_056,snap,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Left out the excess shelter deduction for the $11,949 property taxes, which the engine sets at $395.49/mo, and wrongly said even ~$1,200 net income fails the net test, when it is under the $1,330 FPL. It then zeroed the benefit instead of applying the minimum allotment: net income is $805, the formula gives $63, and NJ's $95 minimum applies."
+us,scenario_056,snap,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Saw that the shelter deductions make the household eligible, then gave $0 because of assets implied by owning a home and receiving financial assistance. The home is an excluded resource and NJ's BBCE removes the asset test. The $63 formula benefit is raised to NJ's $95/mo minimum."
+us,scenario_056,snap,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Said the $17,839 income exceeds the SNAP gross and net limits for one person. Gross income is 112% of FPL and net income after the standard, earned-income and property-tax shelter deductions is 61% of FPL, so both tests pass. The benefit is NJ's $95/mo minimum."
+us,scenario_056,snap,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Left the $12,000 financial assistance out of countable income (it used $487/mo), which brought net income to $0 and gave the $298 maximum. The engine counts the assistance as unearned income: gross $1,486.54, net $805.03 after a $395.49 property-tax shelter deduction, a $63 formula benefit and NJ's $95 minimum."
+us,scenario_056,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Left out the excess shelter deduction for the $11,949 property taxes, which leaves net income at $1,216 instead of $805. It also set the negative formula result to $0, though its own math showed the household passes both income tests, so an eligible one-person household gets the minimum allotment. NJ's minimum is $95/mo."
+us,scenario_056,snap,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Said countable income exceeds 130% of the poverty line, but $1,486.54/mo is 112% of the $1,330 guideline and net income is 61%. The household is eligible and its $63 formula benefit is raised to NJ's $95/mo minimum."
+us,scenario_056,snap,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Explicitly left the $12,000 financial assistance out of income, so countable income was $487/mo and net income $0, giving the maximum allotment. The engine counts the assistance as unearned income: net income is $805.03, the formula benefit is $63.18, and NJ's $95 minimum applies."
+us,scenario_056,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied only the earned-income and standard deductions, with no shelter deduction for the $11,949 property taxes, and treated 30% of net income above the maximum as ineligibility. The household passes both income tests, so the $63 formula benefit is raised to New Jersey's $95/mo minimum, not $0."
+us,scenario_056,snap,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied the ABAWD time limit to zero out benefits, but the engine treats this household as meeting the work requirement. The standard calculation then gives $805 net income and a $63 formula benefit, which NJ's $95/mo minimum raises to $1,140/yr."
+us,scenario_056,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Included mortgage interest in shelter costs and took the capped $712 excess shelter deduction, which gave $498 net income and $142/mo. The engine's shelter costs are property taxes only, giving a $395.49 deduction, $805 net income and a $63 formula benefit raised to NJ's $95 minimum."
+us,scenario_056,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Concluded that 30% of net income exceeds the maximum and returned $0. It skipped the property-tax shelter deduction ($395.49/mo) and missed that an income-eligible one-person household gets a minimum benefit, which in New Jersey is $95/mo ($1,140/yr)."
+us,scenario_056,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Built a capped $672 shelter deduction from mortgage interest, property taxes and utility costs that were never listed, which gave $544 net income and $128/mo. The engine's shelter costs are the $995.75/mo property taxes only, giving a $395.49 deduction, $805 net income and a $63 formula benefit raised to NJ's $95 minimum."
+us,scenario_056,snap,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Said gross income exceeds SNAP limits, but $1,486.54/mo is 112% of the $1,330 poverty guideline, within the gross test. The household is eligible and gets NJ's $95/mo minimum benefit."
+us,scenario_056,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Took the maximum (capped) excess shelter deduction based on mortgage interest plus property taxes, which gave $489 net income and $158/mo. The engine counts only the property taxes as shelter cost: a $395.49 deduction, $805 net income and a $63 formula benefit raised to NJ's $95 minimum."
+us,scenario_056,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Counted only self-employment and alimony income, dropping the $12,000 financial assistance, so net income came out at zero and it gave the $292 maximum. The engine counts the assistance: gross $1,486.54, net $805.03, a $63.18 formula benefit and NJ's $95/mo minimum."
+us,scenario_056,snap,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Returned $0 with no computation. The household passes the gross (112% FPL) and net (61% FPL) income tests, and its $63 formula benefit is raised to NJ's $95/mo minimum ($1,140/yr)."
+us,scenario_056,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Its $140.72/mo benefit implies about $500 net income, which matches a capped shelter deduction that includes mortgage interest. The engine's shelter cost is the property taxes only, so the deduction is $395.49, net income is $805 and the $63 formula benefit is raised to NJ's $95 minimum."
+us,scenario_056,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Gave the full $292 maximum, which implies zero net income. That is only possible if the $1,000/mo financial assistance is excluded and shelter is overstated. With the assistance counted and only property taxes as shelter, net income is $805 and the benefit is NJ's $95 minimum."
+us,scenario_056,snap,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Treated the 20-year-old as an ABAWD with no work hours and ruled the household ineligible. The engine finds the household meets the work requirement, so the standard calculation applies and gives a $63 formula benefit, raised to NJ's $95/mo minimum."
+us,scenario_056,snap,gemini-4-argon,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Counted only the $13,499 of unearned income and left out the $4,340 self-employment income. Combined with a capped shelter deduction that includes mortgage interest, net income came out near $172 and the benefit at $246/mo. The engine includes the $361.67/mo SE income and gets $805 net income, a $63 formula benefit and NJ's $95 minimum."
+us,scenario_056,snap,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Added $564/mo mortgage interest to $996/mo property taxes and capped the excess shelter deduction at ~$733, which gave $471 net income and $160/mo. The engine's shelter costs are property taxes only, giving a $395.49 deduction, $805 net income and a $63 formula benefit raised to NJ's $95 minimum."
+us,scenario_056,snap,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Excluded the $12,000 financial assistance as TANF-type income, but the engine counts it as unearned income. It also took no property-tax shelter deduction. With $1,486.54 gross and $805 net income, the formula benefit is $63, which NJ's $95/mo minimum raises."
+us,scenario_056,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Assumed $0 because the facts supposedly do not support a benefit. The listed income and property taxes fully determine eligibility: gross 112% FPL, net 61% FPL, a $63 formula benefit and NJ's $95/mo minimum."
+us,scenario_056,snap,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Returned $0 because of a supposed lack of low-income indicators, yet $1,486.54/mo gross income is only 112% of FPL. The household is eligible, and its $63 formula benefit is raised to NJ's $95/mo minimum."
+us,scenario_056,snap,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Correctly found the household eligible with a formula benefit below the minimum, but used the federal $23/mo minimum allotment. New Jersey pays a state minimum SNAP benefit of $95/mo, giving $1,140/yr."
+us,scenario_056,snap,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Concluded that the calculated allotment is zero. It skipped the $395.49 property-tax shelter deduction and the minimum-benefit rule: the household is income-eligible, so its $63 formula benefit is raised to NJ's $95/mo minimum."
+us,scenario_056,snap,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied a capped excess shelter deduction that includes the mortgage interest, which gave $159/mo. The engine's shelter cost is the $995.75/mo property taxes only, giving a $395.49 deduction, $805 net income and a $63 formula benefit raised to NJ's $95 minimum."
+us,scenario_056,snap,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied a capped excess shelter deduction built from mortgage interest plus property taxes, which gave $158/mo. The engine counts only property taxes as shelter cost, so the deduction is $395.49, net income $805 and the $63 formula benefit is raised to NJ's $95 minimum."
+us,scenario_056,snap,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Took the capped $8,928 annual shelter deduction by counting mortgage interest with property taxes, which gave $5,535 net income. The engine's shelter deduction is $395.49/mo from property taxes alone, so net income is $805/mo and the $63 formula benefit is raised to NJ's $95 minimum."
+us,scenario_056,snap,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Ruled that 30% of net income exceeds the maximum and returned $0. It skipped the property-tax shelter deduction and missed that an income-eligible one-person household gets the minimum allotment, $95/mo in New Jersey."
+us,scenario_056,snap,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Put mortgage interest into shelter costs and applied the cap, which gave $5,535 annual net income and $1,915.50. The engine's shelter cost is property taxes only, giving a $395.49/mo deduction, $805/mo net income and a $63 formula benefit raised to NJ's $95 minimum."
+us,scenario_056,snap,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Said income and assets make the household ineligible. Gross income is 112% of FPL, the home is an excluded resource, and NJ's BBCE removes the asset test, so the household is eligible for NJ's $95/mo minimum."
+us,scenario_056,snap,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Admitted income is within limits but returned $0 because shelter details were 'incomplete'. The listed $11,949 property taxes give a $395.49 excess shelter deduction, net income is $805, and the $63 formula benefit is raised to NJ's $95 minimum."
+us,scenario_056,snap,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Took no shelter deduction because no rent or utilities were listed, overlooking that the $11,949 property taxes are a shelter cost. It also set the result to $0 instead of the minimum allotment: net income is $805 and the $63 formula benefit is raised to NJ's $95 minimum."
+us,scenario_056,snap,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Counted only alimony and self-employment income, dropping the $12,000 financial assistance, and gave no shelter deduction for property taxes. The engine counts the assistance ($1,486.54 gross), deducts $395.49 shelter, and gets $805 net income and a $63 formula benefit raised to NJ's $95 minimum."
+us,scenario_056,snap,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Left out the property-tax excess shelter deduction and set the benefit to $0 when 30% of net income exceeded the maximum. The household is income-eligible, so the $63 formula benefit is raised to New Jersey's $95/mo minimum ($1,140/yr)."
+us,scenario_056,snap,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied a capped $712 shelter deduction for mortgage interest plus property taxes, which gave $493 net income and $144/mo. The engine's shelter cost is property taxes alone: a $395.49 deduction, $805 net income and a $63 formula benefit raised to NJ's $95 minimum."
+us,scenario_056,snap,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No SNAP value or explanation was returned, so there is no answer to score against the $1,140 reference."
+us,scenario_056,snap,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Counted $1,560.17/mo of mortgage interest plus property taxes and capped the excess shelter deduction at $744, which gave $466.25 net income and $158/mo. The engine's shelter cost is the $995.75 property taxes only, giving a $395.49 deduction, $805 net income and a $63 formula benefit raised to NJ's $95 minimum."
+us,scenario_056,snap,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Said income exceeds the one-person limits, but gross income is 112% of FPL and net income is 61% of FPL, so both tests pass. The benefit is NJ's $95/mo minimum."
+us,scenario_056,snap,muse-spark-1.3,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Correctly found the household eligible with a formula benefit below the floor, but applied the federal $23/mo minimum. New Jersey's state-funded minimum SNAP benefit is $95/mo, which gives $1,140/yr."
+us,scenario_056,snap,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied only the earned-income and standard deductions and zeroed the benefit when 30% of net income exceeded the maximum. It missed the property-tax shelter deduction and the minimum allotment for an eligible one-person household, which is $95/mo in New Jersey."
+us,scenario_056,snap,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Used a capped excess shelter deduction from $564/mo mortgage interest plus $996/mo property taxes, which gave ~$500 net income and $150/mo. The engine counts only the property taxes, giving a $395.49 deduction, $805 net income and a $63 formula benefit raised to NJ's $95 minimum."
+us,scenario_056,snap,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Said $17,839 exceeds the gross limit while quoting a ~$19,000 limit itself, then returned $0 without any shelter deduction or minimum benefit. Income is 112% of FPL, net income after the property-tax shelter deduction is $805, and the benefit is NJ's $95/mo minimum."
+us,scenario_056,snap,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Said gross income exceeds 130% of FPL, but $1,486.54/mo is 112% of the $1,330 guideline, and net income of $805 is under the net limit. The household is eligible and gets NJ's $95/mo minimum."
us,scenario_056,ssi,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_056,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model built the correct NJ gross income base of $5,839 but never applied New Jersey's $10,000 minimum filing threshold for single filers, which exempts this household's entire liability and drives the tax to $0.00. It compounded this by inventing a ""$2,000 standard deduction"" that New Jersey's gross income tax does not provide, then taxed the residual $2,839 at 1.4% to reach $39.75."
us,scenario_056,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model reproduced PolicyEngine's intermediate NJ main income tax exactly — $5,838.53 of gross income less the $1,000 regular exemption, taxed at the 1.4% first-bracket rate — and submitted that $67.75 as the final answer. It omitted the last step: New Jersey's minimum filing threshold exempts a single filer whose gross income is at or below $10,000, so the $67.74 preliminary liability is fully offset to $0.00."
us,scenario_056,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model swept the $12,000 of financial assistance into NJ gross income to reach $17,839, which New Jersey does not tax, and then claimed a $1,428 charitable deduction that the New Jersey gross income tax does not allow at all. Its residual $3,462 taxed at 1.4% yields $48.47, and it never reached the dispositive rule — the $10,000 single-filer minimum filing threshold that zeroes the liability on the true $5,838.53 gross income base."
us,scenario_056,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no value and no explanation for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so the required key was absent from the submitted outputs. This is a contract failure rather than a substantive modeling error: the correct derivation is $5,838.53 of NJ gross income less the $1,000 regular exemption at 1.4% = $67.74, fully exempted by New Jersey's $10,000 minimum filing threshold to $0.00."
us,scenario_056,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model treated the $12,000 of financial assistance as New Jersey gross income, inflating the base to $13,772.82 after the $1,000 exemption, when NJ gross income is only the $1,498.53 alimony plus $4,340.00 self-employment income. It then abandoned its own $192.82 arithmetic and submitted $299.43, a figure no step in its reasoning produces, and it never applied New Jersey's $10,000 single-filer minimum filing threshold, which exempts the entire $67.74 preliminary liability to $0.00."
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Applied the federal age-25 minimum for childless workers and stopped there. It missed that NJ extends its 40% EITC to childless filers aged 18–24, which makes the 20-year-old eligible on $4,033.39 of net SE earnings."
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Applied the NJ age-18 extension and computed 40% × the 7.65% phase-in on $4,033.39 ($308.55) = $123.42. The engine instead credits 40% of the full $664 childless maximum ($265.60) after its reduction step on the −$5,882.05 AGI, so the model's phase-in-limited figure is $142.18 lower."
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Asserted that New Jersey has no state EITC or refundable credits. NJ has a refundable EITC at 40% of the federal-formula credit, and it covers childless filers aged 18 and older, including this 20-year-old with SE earnings."
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Tied refundable credits to having NJ tax liability and qualifying children. The NJ EITC is refundable regardless of liability and is available to childless filers aged 18 and older with earned income, as this 20-year-old has."
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Used an age-21 floor for the childless NJ EITC. NJ lowered the minimum age to 18, so the 20-year-old qualifies on $4,033.39 of net SE earnings."
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Denied the credit because the head has no children, is an unmarried partner, and has unearned income. None of these bars the NJ childless EITC: the 20-year-old has $4,033.39 of net SE earnings, and alimony is not investment income."
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,Required federal EITC eligibility and applied the under-25 exclusion. It missed NJ's extension of the childless EITC to filers aged 18–24.
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Applied the NJ age-18 childless rule and computed 40% × 7.65% × $4,033.39 = $123.42. The engine produces $265.60, which is 40% of the $664 childless maximum after its reduction step on the negative AGI, rather than 40% of the $308.55 phased-in amount."
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Treated federal EITC eligibility (ages 25–64 for childless filers) as a precondition for the NJ EITC. NJ grants its own credit to childless filers aged 18–24, so the 20-year-old qualifies."
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Assumed the head was a dependent or failed the childless age-25 test. NJ's EITC covers childless filers aged 18 and older, and nothing in the facts makes this head a dependent."
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Credited the $50 NJ property tax credit as refundable. That credit is refundable only for filers who are 65+, blind, or disabled. The model also missed the NJ childless EITC for filers aged 18 and older, which is the actual refundable credit here."
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,Required federal EITC eligibility for the NJ credit and so excluded the 20-year-old. It missed NJ's statutory extension of the childless EITC to ages 18–24.
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,Computed the NJ EITC as 40% of a $0 federal EITC. It missed that NJ computes a federal-formula credit for childless filers aged 18–24 who fail only the federal age test.
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Applied the NJ age-18 rule but used gross SE income of $4,340 as earned income instead of $4,033.39 (after the $306.61 deductible half of SE tax). It got $132.80, while the engine credits 40% of the $664 childless maximum ($265.60)."
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,Tied the NJ EITC to a federal EITC that is $0 because of the age-25 floor. It missed NJ's separate eligibility for childless filers aged 18–24.
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Conditioned NJ EITC eligibility on federal EITC eligibility. It ignored that NJ extends the childless credit to filers aged 18–24, which covers this 20-year-old with SE earnings."
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Returned $0 without identifying the NJ EITC. It missed that NJ's childless EITC at 40% of the federal formula applies to a 20-year-old with $4,033.39 of net SE earnings."
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Applied NJ's age-18 rule and took 40% of the ~$309 phased-in credit on $4,033, giving $123. The engine's $265.60 is 40% of the full $664 childless maximum, produced by its reduction step on −$5,882.05 AGI."
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Applied the NJ 18–24 look-alike EITC at 40% to a phased-in credit (using $4,008 of earnings rather than $4,033.39), giving $123. The engine's $265.60 is 40% of the $664 childless maximum, not of the phased-in amount."
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Gave $0 with no supporting rule. It missed the NJ childless EITC that applies to filers aged 18 and older with earned income, which this 20-year-old self-employed head meets."
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Derived the NJ EITC from a $0 federal EITC. It missed NJ's extension of childless eligibility to ages 18–24, which covers this 20-year-old."
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Applied an age-21 minimum to NJ refundable credits. NJ's childless EITC minimum age is 18, so the 20-year-old qualifies."
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Required federal EITC eligibility or a child under 6, mixing up the NJ EITC with the NJ Child Tax Credit. It missed that the NJ EITC covers childless filers aged 18–24."
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,Applied the federal 25–64 childless age range to the NJ EITC. NJ independently extends the credit to childless filers aged 18–24.
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Stated that NJ's childless EITC requires age 21 or older. NJ lowered the threshold to 18, so the 20-year-old head qualifies."
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Found no refundable NJ credit. It overlooked the NJ EITC for childless filers aged 18 and older, which applies to the head's $4,033.39 of net SE earnings."
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,Treated the absence of children as ruling out NJ refundable credits. The NJ EITC is available to childless filers aged 18 and older with earned income.
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,Required dependents and positive NJ tax liability for a refundable credit. The NJ EITC is refundable without liability and covers childless filers aged 18 and older.
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Declared that no NJ EITC applies. It missed NJ's childless EITC eligibility for filers aged 18–24, which this 20-year-old with SE earnings meets."
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Treated the $50 NJ property tax credit as refundable for a non-elderly, non-disabled homeowner, when it is refundable only for filers who are 65+, blind, or disabled. The model also missed the NJ childless EITC for filers aged 18 and older."
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Applied the 7.65% phase-in to gross SE income of $4,340 ($332) instead of net earned income of $4,033.39 (after the $306.61 half of SE tax). It got $132.80, while the engine credits 40% of the $664 childless maximum ($265.60)."
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Applied the NJ age-18 extension and took 40% of the 7.65% phase-in on $4,033.39, giving $123.42. The engine credits 40% of the $664 childless maximum ($265.60) after its reduction step on the −$5,882.05 AGI."
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Concluded that the head does not qualify for the NJ EITC. NJ extends the childless credit to filers aged 18 and older, and the head has $4,033.39 of net SE earnings."
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Applied the NJ childless extension and took 40% of the $308.55 phased-in federal-formula credit, giving $123.42. The engine's $265.60 is 40% of the full $664 childless maximum."
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Applied the NJ age-18 rule and 40% match to the phased-in credit on net earnings, giving $123.42. The engine instead credits 40% of the $664 childless maximum ($265.60) after its reduction step on negative AGI."
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Asserted that no state credit qualifies. It missed the NJ childless EITC for filers aged 18 and older, which applies to this 20-year-old with SE earnings."
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,Derived the NJ EITC as a share of a $0 federal EITC. It missed NJ's separate eligibility for childless filers aged 18–24.
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,Treated the lack of a federal EITC as eliminating the NJ EITC. NJ computes the credit for childless filers aged 18–24 who are excluded federally only by age.
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,Correctly ruled out the $50 property tax credit but computed the NJ EITC from a $0 federal EITC. It missed that NJ extends the childless EITC to filers aged 18–24.
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,Computed the NJ EITC as 40% of a $0 federal EITC. It missed that NJ grants the childless credit to filers aged 18–24 who fail only the federal age test.
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Treated federal EITC ineligibility as disqualifying for NJ. NJ's EITC independently covers childless filers aged 18 and older, including this 20-year-old."
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Gave no value or explanation for state_refundable_credits, so no answer could be scored."
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Applied the federal 25–64 childless age range to the NJ EITC. NJ extends the credit to childless filers aged 18–24, which makes the 20-year-old eligible."
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Ruled out NJ credits because of household composition. The NJ EITC is available to a single childless filer aged 18 or older with earned income, as this head is."
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Found no eligibility basis for an NJ refundable credit. It missed NJ's childless EITC for filers aged 18 and older, which applies to $4,033.39 of net SE earnings."
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,Computed the NJ EITC from a federal EITC that is $0 because of the age-25 floor. It missed NJ's extension of the childless credit to ages 18–24.
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Required qualifying children for the NJ EITC. NJ grants the EITC to childless filers aged 18 and older with earned income, and the head has $4,033.39 of net SE earnings."
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,Required children and NJ tax liability for refundable credits. The NJ EITC is refundable without liability and covers childless filers aged 18 and older with earned income.
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Applied the federal minimum age of 25 for childless filers to the NJ EITC. New Jersey extends its childless EITC to filers 18 and older, so this 20-year-old with $4,033.39 of earned income gets a refundable NJ EITC."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Correctly used NJ's age-18 childless EITC and earned income of $4,033.39. It applied the 40% match to the $308.55 phased-in federal-formula credit to get $123.42. The engine's $265.60 equals 40% of the $664 2026 maximum childless credit, not 40% of the phased-in amount."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Said New Jersey has no state EITC or other refundable credit. In fact NJ has a refundable EITC at 40% of the federal formula that covers childless filers 18 and older, so this 20-year-old self-employed head qualifies."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Made NJ refundable credits depend on having tax liability and qualifying children. The NJ EITC is refundable whether or not there is liability, and it covers childless filers 18 and older, so the head's $4,033.39 of earned income produces a credit."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Used an outdated NJ childless-EITC age floor of 21. New Jersey lowered the minimum age to 18, so this 20-year-old with self-employment earnings qualifies for the refundable NJ EITC."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Ruled out the NJ EITC because of age, unmarried-partner status, and 'significant unearned income'. NJ's childless EITC covers filers 18 and older, and the head's only unearned income is $1,499 of alimony, which is not investment income for the EITC test, so it does not disqualify them."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Required federal EITC eligibility and used the federal under-25 exclusion. New Jersey separately extends its EITC to childless filers 18 and older, so the head qualifies on $4,033.39 of earned income."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Correctly found the NJ childless EITC for ages 18 and older, with earned income of $4,033.39 and a phased-in credit of $308.55. It took 40% of that to get $123.42. The engine's $265.60 equals 40% of the $664 2026 maximum childless credit."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Assumed the NJEITC requires federal EITC eligibility and applied the federal 25–64 age range. New Jersey extends its EITC to childless filers 18 and older without federal eligibility, so this 20-year-old receives a refundable NJ EITC."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Applied the federal age requirement of 25 or older for childless workers and speculated that the head was someone's dependent. The head is the filer, and NJ's childless EITC covers filers 18 and older, so a refundable NJ EITC is owed on $4,033.39 of earned income."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Awarded the $50 NJ property tax credit, but gross income of $5,839 is below NJ's $10,000 filing threshold, and filers below the threshold get that credit only if they are 65 or older, blind, or disabled. It also missed the NJ childless EITC for filers 18 and older, which is the household's actual refundable credit."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Assumed NJ's refundable EITC requires federal EITC eligibility. New Jersey extends the credit to childless filers 18 and older who are too young for the federal credit, so the 20-year-old head qualifies."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Set the NJ EITC to 40% of a $0 federal EITC. NJ computes a federal-formula credit for childless filers aged 18–24 who are federally ineligible only because of age, so the head receives a positive refundable credit."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Correctly used NJ's age-18 childless EITC, but applied 7.65% to the gross $4,340 of self-employment income. EITC earned income is net self-employment earnings minus the deductible half of SE tax ($306.61), which is $4,033.39. The 40% match it used also does not produce the engine's $265.60."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Used the federal age-25 floor and so set the NJ EITC to 40% of $0. New Jersey's childless EITC covers filers 18 and older, so this 20-year-old with $4,033.39 of earned income qualifies."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Required federal EITC qualification for the NJ EITC. New Jersey grants its EITC to childless filers 18 and older who fail only the federal age test, so the head receives a refundable credit."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Its $0 answer means it never applied New Jersey's childless EITC for filers 18 and older. That credit applies to this 20-year-old's $4,033.39 of earned income (self-employment income minus half of SE tax), and the engine computes $265.60."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Correctly used NJ's age-18 rule, the 40% match, and earned income of $4,033, giving a $309 phased-in federal-formula credit and a $123 NJ credit. The engine's $265.60 equals 40% of the $664 2026 maximum childless credit, not 40% of the phased-in amount."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Correctly applied NJ's look-alike EITC for ages 18–24 at 40% of the phased-in federal-formula credit. Its earned income figure of $4,008 was slightly off from $4,033.39, giving about $123. The engine's $265.60 equals 40% of the $664 2026 maximum childless credit."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Gave $0 without a derivation, which means it missed New Jersey's refundable EITC for childless filers 18 and older. That credit applies to the head's $4,033.39 of self-employment earned income, and the engine computes $265.60."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Made the NJ EITC depend on federal EITC eligibility and on having qualifying children. NJ extends its EITC to childless filers 18 and older who are federally ineligible because of age, so the head qualifies."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Used an outdated minimum age of 21 for the NJ childless EITC. New Jersey lowered the floor to 18, so this 20-year-old with self-employment earnings receives the refundable NJ EITC."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Mixed up the NJ Child Tax Credit's under-6 child requirement with EITC eligibility and required federal EITC eligibility. NJ's EITC covers childless filers 18 and older, so the head qualifies on $4,033.39 of earned income."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Treated income below NJ's filing threshold as ruling out the NJ EITC. The NJ EITC is refundable and can be claimed by filers below the threshold, and it covers childless filers 18 and older, so the head receives it. The filing-threshold limit applies only to the $50 property tax credit."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Carried the federal 25–64 childless age range over to the NJ EITC. New Jersey extends the credit to childless filers 18 and older, so this 20-year-old qualifies."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Said the NJ childless EITC requires age 21 or older, which is the superseded rule. The current NJ floor is 18, so the 20-year-old head qualifies for the refundable credit."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Found no NJ refundable credit and missed New Jersey's EITC for childless filers 18 and older. That credit applies to the head's $4,033.39 of earned income (self-employment income minus half of SE tax)."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Treated the absence of children as ruling out any NJ refundable credit. NJ's EITC is available to childless filers 18 and older, so the 20-year-old self-employed head receives it."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Made refundable credits depend on having dependents and positive NJ liability. The NJ EITC is refundable regardless of liability and covers childless filers 18 and older, so the head receives it on $4,033.39 of earned income."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Concluded that no state EITC applies, missing New Jersey's extension of its EITC to childless filers 18 and older. The 20-year-old head with self-employment earnings qualifies for it."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Awarded the $50 NJ property tax credit, but filers below NJ's $10,000 filing threshold get that credit only if they are 65 or older, blind, or disabled, and gross income here is $5,839. It also missed the NJ childless EITC for filers 18 and older, which is the household's actual refundable credit."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Correctly applied NJ's age-18 childless EITC, but computed the federal-formula credit as $332 (7.65% × gross $4,340 of self-employment income). EITC earned income is reduced by the deductible half of SE tax to $4,033.39, and its 40% match does not produce the engine's $265.60."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Correctly used NJ's age-18 childless EITC and earnings net of half of SE tax, and applied 40% to the $308.55 phased-in credit to get $123.42. The engine's $265.60 equals 40% of the $664 2026 maximum childless credit."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Said the head does not qualify for the state EITC. New Jersey's EITC covers childless filers 18 and older, so this 20-year-old with $4,033.39 of earned income receives a refundable NJ EITC."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Correctly applied NJ's EITC for childless 20-year-olds at 40% of the $308.55 age-adjusted federal-formula credit, giving $123.42. The engine's $265.60 equals 40% of the $664 2026 maximum childless credit."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Correctly applied NJ's childless EITC for ages 18 and older with a 40% match on the age-independent federal-formula credit from net earned income, giving $123.42. The engine's $265.60 equals 40% of the $664 2026 maximum childless credit."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Found no qualifying state credit and missed New Jersey's refundable EITC for childless filers 18 and older. That credit applies to the head's $4,033.39 of self-employment earned income."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Assumed that no federal EITC means no NJ EITC. New Jersey computes its own federal-formula credit for childless filers aged 18–24 who fail only the federal age test, so the head qualifies."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Linked the NJ EITC to receiving the federal EITC. NJ extends the credit to childless filers 18 and older who are federally ineligible because of age, so the 20-year-old head receives it."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Correctly rejected the $50 property tax credit, but set the NJ EITC to 40% of a $0 federal EITC. New Jersey grants its EITC to childless filers 18 and older who are too young for the federal credit."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Set the NJ EITC to 40% of a $0 federal EITC, missing NJ's own eligibility rule for childless filers 18 and older. Under that rule the 20-year-old head receives a refundable credit on $4,033.39 of earned income."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Assumed that federal ineligibility rules out the NJ EITC. New Jersey extends the EITC to childless filers 18 and older regardless of the federal age-25 floor, so the head qualifies."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No value or explanation was returned for state_refundable_credits, so there was no answer to score."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Computed the NJ EITC as 40% of a federal EITC set to $0 by the 25–64 age range. New Jersey extends the credit to childless filers 18 and older, so this 20-year-old qualifies."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Concluded that the household's composition rules out any NJ refundable credit. NJ's EITC covers single, childless filers 18 and older, so the head receives it on $4,033.39 of earned income."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Treated the absence of qualifying children as ruling out NJ refundable credits. New Jersey's EITC is available to childless filers 18 and older, so the head qualifies."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,Required a federal EITC as the basis for any NJ refundable credit. New Jersey separately grants its EITC to childless filers 18 and older who fail only the federal age test.
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Computed the NJ EITC as a share of a federal EITC that is $0 for an age-ineligible childless filer. NJ's own eligibility rule covers childless filers 18 and older, so the 20-year-old head receives a credit."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Concluded that the NJ EITC does not apply without qualifying children. New Jersey's EITC covers childless filers 18 and older, and the head's $4,033.39 of self-employment earned income qualifies."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Made refundable credits depend on having children and positive NJ liability. The NJ EITC is refundable without liability and covers childless filers 18 and older, so the head receives it."
us,scenario_056,tanf,glm-5.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model read the $12,000 `financial_assistance` input as if it were reported TANF receipt and echoed it back verbatim as the computed benefit, when the question asks what PolicyEngine computes for `tanf` from the household facts. It never applied TANF's categorical requirement that the assistance unit contain a dependent child — New Jersey's WorkFirst NJ TANF covers only units with a child under 18 (or 18 and in school full time), while childless adults fall to WFNJ General Assistance, which is not TANF — so this childless 20-year-old head yields $0. Its answer of exactly 12000 is arithmetically identical to the input line it copied, confirming no eligibility test or benefit computation was performed at all."
us,scenario_056,tanf,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no `tanf` entry in its `outputs` object and no explanation, so the required key was absent rather than substantively wrong. The correct derivation is that WorkFirst NJ TANF requires an assistance unit containing a dependent child, and this single 20-year-old head with zero children fails that categorical test, producing $0."
-us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly placed earned income of about $9,604 on the plateau, below the phase-out. It then cut its own ~$659 maximum to $636 with an invented 'lookup-table rounding' adjustment. On the plateau the credit equals the 2026 statutory maximum of $664, with no table reduction."
-us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model assumed that zero taxable income means no refundable credits, and claimed income exceeded the EITC thresholds. The EITC is refundable whatever the tax liability. AGI of about $9,665 is far below the roughly $18,000 joint phase-out start, so the full $664 childless credit applies."
-us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model ruled out the childless EITC with muddled reasoning about qualifying status. A joint filer with no children qualifies when either spouse is 25–64, and the 43-year-old head meets that test. Self-employment earnings of about $9,665 put the household on the $664 plateau."
-us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's reasoning ended on a plateau maximum of about $649, a 2025-level figure, yet it submitted $397, which nothing in its work supports. The correct result is the 2026 childless maximum of $664, because earned income of about $9,604 exceeds the phase-in ceiling and AGI is below the joint phase-out."
-us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model put AGI of about $9,665 in the childless EITC phase-out range. The 2026 joint phase-out does not start until about $18,000, so the household is on the plateau and gets the full $664, not $218."
-us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model guessed a ~$690 maximum and then applied a partial phase-out to reach $566, even though its own reasoning notes that phase-out starts above ~$18,000 for joint filers. Earned income of about $9,665 is on the plateau, so the credit is the 2026 maximum of $664."
-us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model reasoned its way to about $600, then submitted $967 after treating both spouses as workers. The childless EITC is a single credit per joint return, capped at the 2026 maximum of $664, and the household is on the plateau, so the credit is exactly $664."
-us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model capped the credit at $650, essentially the 2025 maximum of $649. The 2026 inflation-adjusted maximum for filers with no qualifying children is $664, and earned income of about $8,870–$9,665 is past the phase-in, so the credit is $664."
-us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 2025 childless EITC maximum of $649 without indexing it to 2026. Its plateau placement is correct, but the 2026 maximum is $664."
-us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model required both spouses to be 25–64 for the childless EITC. IRC §32(c)(1)(A)(ii)(II) requires only the taxpayer or the spouse to meet the age range, and the 43-year-old head does, so the household gets the $664 plateau credit."
-us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The plateau placement is correct, but the model projected the 2026 childless maximum at $666. The published 2026 maximum is $664."
-us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model indexed a wrong 2024 base of $600 (the actual figure was $632) and arrived at $630. The 2026 childless EITC maximum for a household on the plateau is $664.
-us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said the household fails the qualifying-child or earned-income requirements. The childless EITC needs no qualifying child, the 43-year-old head meets the age test, and about $9,665 of self-employment earnings puts the household on the $664 plateau."
-us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model correctly put the household on the childless EITC plateau but overstated the 2026 maximum as $666. The indexed 2026 maximum is $664.
-us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly treated the household as eligible but understated the 2026 childless maximum at $620. Earned income is past the phase-in and below the phase-out, so the credit is the full 2026 maximum of $664."
-us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model claimed self-employment income and disability benefits disqualify the household from the EITC. Net self-employment earnings count as earned income, and the $38 of disability benefits has no effect on eligibility, so the childless EITC is the full $664."
-us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The plateau placement is correct, but the model used $660 as the 2026 childless maximum. The indexed 2026 maximum is $664."
-us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model applied the 2025 childless EITC maximum of $649 instead of the 2026 figure of $664 for a household on the plateau.
-us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly computed earned income of $9,665 and applied the age test correctly, but capped the credit at the 2025 maximum of $649. The 2026 maximum is $664."
-us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used an invented $1,231/$1,283 maximum and a wrong $8,320 earned-income figure for the childless EITC. The 2026 childless maximum is $664, and earned income of about $9,665 from self-employment puts the household on the plateau at exactly that amount."
-us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model multiplied the full $10,400 by the 7.65% phase-in rate and never capped the result at the maximum credit. The phase-in ends at about $8,680 of earned income, so the credit tops out at the 2026 maximum of $664."
-us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated wages as the only earned income that supports an EITC. Net self-employment earnings (about $9,665) are earned income for the EITC, which puts the childless household on the $664 plateau."
-us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model never evaluated the childless EITC. The household's self-employment earnings, the 43-year-old head's age, and AGI below the joint phase-out produce the full $664 credit."
-us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The plateau placement is correct, but the model projected the 2026 childless maximum at $667. The indexed 2026 maximum is $664."
-us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model used the 2025 childless EITC maximum of $649 instead of the 2026 maximum of $664.
-us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model held that the 20-year-old spouse makes the joint return fail the childless EITC age test. Only one spouse on a joint return has to be 25–64, and the 43-year-old head satisfies that, so the credit is $664."
-us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model claimed income phase-outs eliminate the EITC. AGI of about $9,665 is well below the roughly $18,000 joint phase-out start for 2026, so the full $664 childless credit applies."
-us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The age test and plateau placement are correct, but the model projected the 2026 childless maximum at $667. The indexed 2026 maximum is $664."
-us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The age test and plateau placement are correct, but the model overstated the 2026 childless maximum as $666. The indexed 2026 maximum is $664."
-us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model used a 2025-level maximum of about $648 instead of the 2026 childless EITC maximum of $664 for a household on the plateau.
-us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model disqualified the household because the spouse is 20. For a joint return, the childless EITC age test is met when either spouse is 25–64, and the 43-year-old head qualifies, so the credit is $664."
-us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model required both spouses to be at least 25. The childless EITC rule needs only the taxpayer or the spouse to be in the 25–64 range, and the head at 43 meets it, which yields the $664 plateau credit."
-us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model invented an EITC income threshold tied to SSTB status. The SSTB label matters only for the QBI deduction, and earned income of about $9,665 is on the childless plateau, so the credit is $664."
-us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model used a wrong 2025 base of $611 (the actual figure was $649) and indexed it to $625. The 2026 childless maximum for a household on the plateau is $664.
-us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model claimed income was below a threshold and that disability benefits reduce EITC eligibility. Neither is an EITC rule: $9,665 of self-employment earnings exceeds the phase-in ceiling, and the $38 of disability benefits is irrelevant, so the credit is $664."
-us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated the absence of wages and children as ruling out the EITC. Net self-employment earnings are earned income, and childless joint filers with one spouse aged 25–64 qualify, giving the $664 plateau credit."
+us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly put the couple on the EITC plateau, but it used a max of about $659 and then cut that to $636 for 'lookup-table rounding'. On the plateau the credit is the full 2026 childless maximum of $664, with no rounding reduction."
+us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated refundable credits as needing positive tax liability and said the income was above EITC thresholds. The EITC is refundable regardless of liability, and about $9,665 of net self-employment earnings sits on the childless joint-filer plateau, which pays $664."
+us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It ruled out the EITC because there are no qualifying children. Childless filers are eligible when one spouse is 25–64, and Head is 43, so the couple gets the $664 childless maximum."
+us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,other,False,Its reasoning found the couple eligible at the plateau maximum (it estimated about $649) but then submitted an unrelated $397. The correct plateau amount is the 2026 childless maximum of $664.
+us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It put earned income of about $9,665 in the phase-out range and produced a small $218 credit. The joint-filer childless phase-out starts near $18,000, so this income is on the plateau and gets the full $664."
+us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It assumed a max of about $690 and then applied a phase-out reduction to get $566, even though income is far below the joint phase-out start. With no phase-out, the credit is the 2026 maximum of $664."
+us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,other,False,"It estimated about $600 and then raised the answer to $967 by treating both spouses as separate workers. The EITC is computed once per return, and this return gets the single childless maximum of $664."
+us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It capped the credit at an assumed 2026 maximum of $650, essentially the 2025 figure. The indexed 2026 childless maximum is $664."
+us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It placed the couple on the plateau correctly but used the 2025 childless maximum of $649 without indexing it to 2026, when it is $664."
+us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It required both spouses to meet the 25–64 age test and denied the credit because the spouse is 20. For a joint return only one spouse has to qualify, and Head (43) does, so the couple gets $664."
+us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,It identified the plateau correctly but overestimated the 2026 childless maximum at $666. The indexed maximum is $664.
+us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,It indexed the maximum from a wrong 2024 base of $600 (the actual 2024 figure is $632) and got $630. The 2026 childless maximum paid on the plateau is $664.
+us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It said the household failed the EITC earned-income test. About $9,665 of net self-employment earnings is earned income above the phase-in amount, and Head's age qualifies the couple for the $664 childless maximum."
+us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,It placed the couple on the plateau correctly but used $666 as the 2026 childless maximum. The indexed maximum is $664.
+us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,It found the couple eligible but underestimated the 2026 childless maximum at $620. The plateau credit is $664.
+us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated the self-employment income and the small disability benefits as disqualifying. Net self-employment earnings count as EITC earned income, the disability benefits have no effect, and the couple gets $664."
+us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,It identified the credit correctly but used $660 as the 2026 childless maximum. The indexed maximum is $664.
+us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,It used the 2025 childless maximum of $649 instead of the 2026 maximum of $664.
+us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its age test and earned income (about $9,665) were right, but it capped the credit at the 2025 maximum of $649 instead of the 2026 maximum of $664."
+us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a made-up earned income of $8,320 and expanded-style parameters (a $1,231–$1,283 max) that do not apply in 2026. Under the actual 2026 rules the childless maximum is $664."
+us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the 7.65% phase-in rate to the full $10,400 without capping at the earned-income amount of about $8,680. The capped credit is the $664 maximum."
+us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It denied the EITC because there were no wages. Net self-employment earnings count as EITC earned income, so the couple gets the $664 childless maximum."
+us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,It returned zero without checking the childless EITC. Head's net self-employment earnings and age 43 qualify the couple for the $664 plateau credit.
+us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,It identified the plateau correctly but overestimated the 2026 childless maximum at $667. The indexed maximum is $664.
+us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 childless maximum of $649 as the 2026 figure, when the 2026 maximum is $664."
+us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It treated the 20-year-old spouse as failing the joint return's age test. On a joint return only one spouse has to be 25–64, and Head (43) satisfies it, so the couple gets $664."
+us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It said income phase-outs eliminated the EITC, but AGI of about $9,665 is far below the joint-filer phase-out start near $18,000. The couple gets the full $664."
+us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its age test and plateau placement were right, but it projected the 2026 maximum at $667 instead of the indexed $664."
+us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,It identified the plateau correctly but used $666 as the 2026 childless maximum. The indexed maximum is $664.
+us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It placed the couple on the plateau correctly but used $648 as the 2026 maximum, close to the 2025 figure. The 2026 maximum is $664."
+us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It denied the childless EITC because the spouse is under 25. On a joint return one qualifying spouse is enough, and Head is 43, so the couple gets $664."
+us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It required both joint filers to be at least 25. The childless EITC age test is met when either spouse is 25–64, and Head (43) is, so the credit is $664."
+us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It invented an SSTB-related EITC income threshold. SSTB status affects only the qualified business income deduction, not the EITC, and the couple's earned income is on the plateau worth $664."
+us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,It placed the couple on the plateau correctly but used $667 as the 2026 maximum instead of the indexed $664.
+us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,It indexed from a wrong 2025 base of $611 (the actual 2025 figure is $649) and got $625. The 2026 childless maximum paid on the plateau is $664.
+us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It claimed disability benefits reduce EITC eligibility and that income was below a threshold. Neither is true: the $38 in disability benefits does not affect the EITC, and earned income of about $9,665 is on the plateau, which pays $664."
+us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It dismissed $10,400 of self-employment income as too small and not earned. Net self-employment earnings are EITC earned income, and this amount reaches the plateau, which pays $664."
us,scenario_057,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said the head's self-employment income plus disability benefits exceeds 138% FPL. Net self-employment earnings of about $9,700 for a two-person household come to only 0.45× FPL, well under the expansion limit. The model also missed that the blind, disabled head receives SSI (about $7,231), which gives automatic Medicaid in the SSI_RECIPIENT category."
us,scenario_057,head_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said the head's income exceeds Louisiana's Medicaid limits. Household MAGI is 0.45× FPL, far below the 138% expansion limit. The model also ignored the head's SSI receipt (about $7,231 as a blind and disabled person), which makes Medicaid automatic through the SSI_RECIPIENT category."
us,scenario_057,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model answered 0 because it judged the disability flag and small disability benefits insufficient on their own. It never worked out that a blind and disabled head with about $10,400 of self-employment income and $912 in assets qualifies for SSI (about $7,231). SSI receipt confers automatic Louisiana Medicaid through the SSI_RECIPIENT category."
@@ -5058,54 +5228,56 @@ us,scenario_057,self_employment_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_out
us,scenario_057,self_employment_tax,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model computed the correct $1,469.46 from $9,604.40 × 15.3%, then added roughly $82.60 of 0.9% Additional Medicare Tax by treating $400 as the AMT threshold; the AMT threshold is $250,000 of combined earnings for joint filers, and the prompt explicitly excludes Additional Medicare Tax from this output. Its arithmetic is also self-contradictory — the stated components sum to $1,552.06, not the $1,531.79 submitted — where the correct answer is the unadjusted $1,469.47."
us,scenario_057,self_employment_tax,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model fabricated a ""$12,000 threshold for self-employment tax liability"" and zeroed the tax; no such filing floor exists, and the only threshold in §1402(b) is $400 of net earnings, which $9,604.40 clears. Applying the 15.3% rate to that base gives $1,469.47."
us,scenario_057,self_employment_tax,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model derived the correct liability — 0.153 × $9,604.40 = $1,469.47 — and then reported half of it, confusing the §164(f) above-the-line deduction for one-half of SE tax with the tax owed; that deduction reduces AGI and never reduces the §1401 liability itself. Its submitted $734.76 is not even the correct half ($734.74), and the requested output is the full $1,469.47."
-us,scenario_057,snap,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It counted only the $10,400 of self-employment income and $38 of disability benefits (about $870/month). It left out the $602.58/month SSI that PolicyEngine computes for the blind, disabled head, which is counted unearned income for SNAP. That put its net income near $485 instead of $1,090.08, so it overstated the monthly benefit by about $160."
-us,scenario_057,snap,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It counted SSI at about $1,099/month (the $1,491 couple FBR minus combined countable earnings), while PolicyEngine's SSI is $602.58/month (the $994 individual FBR minus the head's $391.42 countable income). This raised net income to $1,586 instead of $1,090.08 and the contribution to about $476 instead of $327. It also used the $546 maximum for all 12 months and missed the October increase to $558.24."
-us,scenario_057,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It recognized that countable income was very low but still returned $0, citing net income 'slightly exceeding' the limit. In fact, net income of $1,090.08 is 62% of the $1,762.50 poverty line, and SSI receipt makes the household categorically eligible. It also wrongly cut self-employment income with a 92.35% SE-tax factor, which SNAP does not apply."
-us,scenario_057,snap,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It denied SNAP even though the $912 in bank assets is far below any limit, SSI receipt confers categorical eligibility, and net income of $1,090.08 passes the net income test. The correct benefit is $219/month for January–September and $232.74/month for October–December."
-us,scenario_057,snap,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It left out the head's $602.58/month SSI and subtracted a monthly standard deduction from annual income. It then dropped its own computed $3,990 and submitted $6,240, close to the full maximum allotment, with no supporting arithmetic. The correct contribution is $327/month on net income of $1,090.08."
-us,scenario_057,snap,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It left out the $602.58/month SSI and inconsistently treated the $38 annual disability benefits as $456. It then raised its own $4,536 estimate to $5,736 for medical deductions that do not exist, since $40/year of over-the-counter costs is below the $35/month threshold."
-us,scenario_057,snap,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It assumed net income was near zero and used a $304 two-person maximum allotment. The FY2026 two-person maximum is $546, and net income is $1,090.08 once the $602.58 SSI and $866.67 of self-employment income are counted, which gives a $327 contribution."
-us,scenario_057,snap,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It counted SSI of $1,098.58/month at the couple rate, while PolicyEngine's SSI is $602.58 ($994 individual FBR minus $391.42). That inflated net income to $1,586 and cut the benefit to $70/month. It also kept the $546 maximum through December and missed the FY2027 $558.24 maximum for October–December."
-us,scenario_057,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It left out the head's $602.58/month SSI. It also applied a 40% cost-of-production deduction to self-employment income, while PolicyEngine counts the full $866.67/month as earned income. It used a $535 maximum instead of $546, which drove net income down to $205 instead of $1,090.08."
-us,scenario_057,snap,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It cut self-employment income by a self-employment-tax deduction that SNAP does not use and left out the $602.58/month SSI. It then asserted net income of about $2,000/month and a $297 benefit with no consistent arithmetic. The correct net income is $1,090.08, which yields $219/month."
-us,scenario_057,snap,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It counted SSI of about $1,099/month at the couple rate instead of PolicyEngine's $602.58/month at the individual rate. That overstated net income by about $496 (giving $1,586 vs $1,090.08) and gave a $70 monthly benefit. It also ignored the higher October–December FY2027 maximum."
-us,scenario_057,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It counted only self-employment and disability income (about $870/month) and left out the $602.58/month SSI that is unearned SNAP income. This gave net income of $488.51 instead of $1,090.08. It also used a $536 maximum and a $208 standard deduction instead of $546 and $209."
-us,scenario_057,snap,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It left out the head's $602.58/month SSI from gross income, so net income came out at $489.34 instead of $1,090.08 and the benefit at about $389/month instead of $219. It also used outdated $204 standard-deduction and $536 maximum values."
-us,scenario_057,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It counted SSI of $1,067.17/month at about the couple rate instead of PolicyEngine's $602.58, and treated the $38 annual disability benefits as monthly income. That pushed net income to $1,594.50, and it applied an outdated $536 maximum for the whole year."
-us,scenario_057,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It left out the $602.58/month SSI the head receives, so it computed net income of $492.50 instead of $1,090.08. As a result, its contribution was $147.75 instead of $327."
-us,scenario_057,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It counted SSI of $13,122.96/year at the couple rate instead of PolicyEngine's $7,230.96 ($602.58/month). It also added a $60 medical deduction even though $40/year of over-the-counter costs never exceeds the $35/month threshold, and it used a made-up $6,600 annual maximum."
-us,scenario_057,snap,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It declared the household ineligible, but the household is categorically eligible through SSI receipt. Net income of $1,090.08 is only 62% of the poverty line, which produces $219/month for January–September and $232.74/month for October–December."
-us,scenario_057,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Its $76/month benefit implies about $1,567 of net income, which reflects SSI at the roughly $1,099 couple rate. PolicyEngine counts $602.58/month of SSI, which gives net income of $1,090.08 and a $219 benefit."
-us,scenario_057,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It counted $12,729/year of SSI plus disability benefits (about $1,061/month), while PolicyEngine's SSI is $602.58/month, about $7,231/year. That overstated unearned income by about $455/month and cut the benefit to about $65/month."
-us,scenario_057,snap,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It concluded the benefit is zero 'under Louisiana rules', but the household passes every test: assets of $912, categorical eligibility through SSI, and net income of $1,090.08 under the $1,762.50 limit. The $546 maximum minus the $327 contribution leaves $219/month."
-us,scenario_057,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It submitted $268/month with no income or deduction computation. Correctly counting $1,472.42 of gross income (including $602.58 of SSI), minus $173.33 earned-income and $209 standard deductions, gives a $219 benefit for January–September and $232.74 for October–December."
-us,scenario_057,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It gave $282/month with no derivation. The correct calculation counts the head's $602.58 SSI with self-employment and disability income to reach net income of $1,090.08 and a $327 contribution against the $546 maximum."
-us,scenario_057,snap,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It built gross income from only the $10,400 of self-employment income and $38 of disability benefits, leaving out the $602.58/month SSI. It also used a $200 standard deduction instead of $209, so net income came out at $496.50 instead of $1,090.08."
-us,scenario_057,snap,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It treated SNAP as an unlisted benefit receipt and set it to zero, ignoring the instruction to assume take-up and compute eligibility. The household is eligible for $219/month for January–September and $232.74/month for October–December."
-us,scenario_057,snap,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It counted about $1,100/month of SSI at the couple rate instead of PolicyEngine's $602.58, and used a $230 standard deduction instead of $209. That produced net income of $1,566 instead of $1,090.08 and a $66 benefit."
-us,scenario_057,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It claimed counted income was too high. Gross income of $1,472.42 is 84% and net income of $1,090.08 is 62% of the poverty line, and SSI receipt confers categorical eligibility, so the household receives $219–$232.74 per month."
-us,scenario_057,snap,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It set SNAP to zero because no benefit amount was given, instead of computing the benefit under assumed take-up. With $1,090.08 of net income, the $546 maximum minus the $327 contribution gives $219/month."
-us,scenario_057,snap,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It computed annual gross income as just $10,438 and left out the head's $7,230.96 of annual SSI, which is counted unearned income for SNAP. Net income was therefore understated by about $7,231/year, and the benefit was overstated by about $2,100."
-us,scenario_057,snap,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It claimed medical deductions that do not apply, since $40/year of over-the-counter costs is below the $35/month threshold, and it left out the $602.58/month SSI from income. Its $340/month figure does not match the correct net income of $1,090.08 and the $219 benefit."
-us,scenario_057,snap,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Its $70/month benefit implies net income of about $1,586, which reflects SSI at the roughly $1,099 couple rate instead of PolicyEngine's $602.58/month. It also applied $546 for all 12 months instead of $558.24 for October–December."
-us,scenario_057,snap,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It counted SSI at about the $1,099/month couple rate, which gave a $70 allotment. PolicyEngine counts $602.58/month of SSI, which gives net income of $1,090.08 and a $219 allotment, rising to $232.74 for October–December."
-us,scenario_057,snap,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It estimated SSI of about $13,183/year at the couple rate (giving $23,621 of income), while PolicyEngine's SSI is $7,230.96/year at the individual rate. That overstated net income by about $5,950/year, and it also used a flat annual maximum that misses the FY2027 increase in October–December."
-us,scenario_057,snap,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It computed net income of $487.67 from self-employment and disability income alone and left out the head's $602.58/month SSI. The correct net income is $1,090.08, with a $327 contribution."
-us,scenario_057,snap,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Its $842.10 result implies about $1,586/month of net income, which comes from counting SSI at the roughly $1,099 couple rate instead of PolicyEngine's $602.58/month. It also ignored the October–December FY2027 maximum of $558.24."
-us,scenario_057,snap,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It reached net income of $1,586.08 by counting SSI of about $1,098.58/month at the couple rate. PolicyEngine's SSI is $602.58/month ($994 individual FBR minus $391.42), which gives net income of $1,090.08 and a $219 benefit."
-us,scenario_057,snap,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It asserted that income and assets exceed the limits, but the $912 in assets is far below any limit, SSI receipt confers categorical eligibility, and net income of $1,090.08 yields a positive $219/month benefit."
-us,scenario_057,snap,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It counted about $1,058/month of SSI (monthly gross of $1,928) instead of PolicyEngine's $602.58, and used an outdated $204 standard deduction. That raised net income to about $1,551 and cut the benefit to $71/month."
-us,scenario_057,snap,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It counted about $1,085/month of SSI at roughly the couple rate instead of PolicyEngine's $602.58, and used a $536 maximum and a $204 standard deduction. That gave net income of $1,578 and a $63 benefit."
-us,scenario_057,snap,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It counted $13,123/year of SSI at the couple rate instead of PolicyEngine's $7,230.96/year. That overstated annual net income by about $5,900, and it used a flat $6,552 annual maximum that misses the October–December FY2027 increase."
-us,scenario_057,snap,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It subtracted a $209 monthly standard deduction from annual income, mixing periods, and left out the head's $602.58/month SSI. Its $4,155 result reflects neither the monthly net income of $1,090.08 nor the $219/month benefit."
-us,scenario_057,snap,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It counted gross income of only about $870/month and left out the $602.58/month SSI that PolicyEngine computes for the blind, disabled head. That understated net income at about $488 instead of $1,090.08."
-us,scenario_057,snap,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It submitted no SNAP value or explanation, so there was nothing to score against the $2,669.22 annual benefit."
-us,scenario_057,snap,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It estimated SSI of $13,183/year from the $1,491 couple FBR, while PolicyEngine's SSI is $602.58/month ($994 individual FBR minus $391.42). That gave net income of $1,586.08 instead of $1,090.08, and it applied the $546 maximum to all 12 months."
-us,scenario_057,snap,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It claimed the $912 in bank assets exceeds an asset limit that it itself put at about $4,500, which is self-contradictory. The household passes the asset test, is categorically eligible through SSI, and receives $219–$232.74 per month."
-us,scenario_057,snap,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It counted about $1,102/month of SSI at the couple rate instead of PolicyEngine's $602.58/month. That inflated net income to about $1,590 instead of $1,090.08 and cut the benefit to $69/month."
-us,scenario_057,snap,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It counted only $867 of earnings and $3 of disability benefits and left out the $602.58/month SSI. That gave net income of about $488 instead of $1,090.08 and a benefit of about $400 instead of $219."
-us,scenario_057,snap,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It wrongly excluded all income of SSI-eligible members from SNAP. SNAP counts the $866.67 of self-employment income, $3.17 of disability benefits, and $602.58 of SSI. It also used a made-up $635 maximum allotment instead of $546."
-us,scenario_057,snap,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It found no positive benefit, but the household is categorically eligible through SSI and passes both income tests. Net income of $1,090.08 gives a $219/month benefit for January–September and $232.74 for October–December."
+us,scenario_057,snap,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It counted only the $10,400 SE income and $38 of disability benefits. It left out the head's SSI of $602.58/month, which SNAP counts as unearned income, so its net income came out near $485 instead of $1,090.08. That inflated the benefit to about $380/month, against the correct $219 (Jan–Sep) and $232.74 (Oct–Dec)."
+us,scenario_057,snap,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It counted SSI at the couple rate of $1,099/month. PolicyEngine pays SSI only to the head, at the $994 individual rate less $391.42 of countable earnings, which is $602.58. That pushed net income to $1,586 instead of $1,090.08 and cut the benefit to about $70/month instead of $219. It also kept the FY2026 $546 maximum for October–December instead of using the FY2027 values."
+us,scenario_057,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Its own reasoning described low income and assets under the limit, yet it gave $0 by guessing that income exceeded the net limit. Net income of $1,090.08 is 62% of the $1,762.50 poverty line, and SSI receipt makes the household categorically eligible. The correct benefit is $219/month for most of the year."
+us,scenario_057,snap,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It claimed the asset and net income tests rule out a benefit. The $912 in bank assets is well under the limit, and net income of $1,090.08 is under 100% of the poverty line, so the household gets $546 − $327 = $219/month for most of the year."
+us,scenario_057,snap,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It left the head's $602.58/month SSI out of income. It also mixed periods, subtracting a monthly $219 standard deduction from annual income and then reporting $6,240, which doesn't follow from its own $3,990 result. Done correctly, monthly net income is $1,090.08 and the benefit is $219/month."
+us,scenario_057,snap,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It left out the head's $602.58/month SSI and mis-annualized the $38 of disability benefits as $456. It then raised its estimate for medical deductions that don't exist: $40/year of OTC expenses is far below the $35/month threshold. With SSI counted, net income is $1,090.08 and the benefit is $219/month."
+us,scenario_057,snap,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It assumed net income near zero and used a two-person maximum allotment of about $304/month. The FY2026 maximum is $546. Net income is actually $1,090.08 once the $866.67 SE earnings and $602.58 SSI are counted, so the household's expected contribution is $327/month."
+us,scenario_057,snap,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It counted SSI of $1,098.58/month, the couple-rate figure. PolicyEngine's SSI is $602.58, paid to the head alone at the $994 individual rate less $391.42 of countable earnings. That raised net income to $1,586 instead of $1,090.08 and dropped the benefit to $70/month instead of $219. It also ignored the higher October–December allotment."
+us,scenario_057,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It left the head's $602.58/month SSI out of income. It also applied a 40% cost-of-production deduction to SE income, but PolicyEngine counts the full $866.67/month as earned income. Together these gave net income of about $205/month instead of $1,090.08, plus it used an outdated $535 maximum."
+us,scenario_057,snap,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It cut SE income using a self-employment-tax-style 50% adjustment, invented a $5 medical deduction, and left out the head's $602.58/month SSI. Its final $297/month doesn't follow from any consistent net income figure. The correct chain is $1,472.42 gross, minus $173.33 earned deduction and $209 standard deduction, giving $1,090.08 net and a $219/month benefit."
+us,scenario_057,snap,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It added SSI of about $1,099/month, the couple-rate figure. PolicyEngine pays the head alone $602.58 at the individual rate. That raised net income to about $1,586 instead of $1,090.08 and left a benefit of $70/month instead of $219."
+us,scenario_057,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It treated gross income as only $869.84/month of SE income and disability benefits. It left out the head's $602.58/month SSI, which SNAP counts, so net income came out at about $489 instead of $1,090.08 and the benefit at about $389/month instead of $219."
+us,scenario_057,snap,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It used gross income of $870/month and left out the head's $602.58/month SSI. Net income came out at $489.34 instead of $1,090.08, which overstated the benefit at $389.20/month against the correct $219."
+us,scenario_057,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It counted SSI of $1,067.17/month, a couple-level amount, instead of the head's individual-rate $602.58. It also counted the $38 annual disability benefit as monthly income. That gave net income of $1,594.50 instead of $1,090.08 and a benefit of $57.65/month instead of $219."
+us,scenario_057,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It left the head's $602.58/month SSI out of gross income, so net income came out at $492.50 instead of $1,090.08. The benefit was overstated at $398.25/month against the correct $546 − $327 = $219."
+us,scenario_057,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It counted $13,122.96/year of SSI, which is couple-level, instead of the head's $7,231 ($602.58/month). It also added a $60 excess medical deduction that doesn't apply, since $40/year of OTC costs is below the $35/month threshold. These pushed net income to about $1,586/month instead of $1,090.08."
+us,scenario_057,snap,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It declared the household ineligible. The household is categorically eligible through SSI receipt and passes the net income test at 62% of the poverty line ($1,090.08 vs $1,762.50), so it gets $219/month for January–September."
+us,scenario_057,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Its benefit of about $76/month only works with a couple-rate SSI of about $1,099/month. PolicyEngine pays the head alone $602.58/month, which gives net income of $1,090.08 and a $219/month benefit."
+us,scenario_057,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It counted $12,729/year of SSI and disability income, a couple-level SSI amount. The correct unearned income is $602.58 SSI plus $3.17 disability, $605.75/month or about $7,269/year. The overcount pushed the benefit down to about $65/month instead of $219."
+us,scenario_057,snap,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It claimed income and assets rule out a benefit. Assets of $912 and net income of $1,090.08, which is 62% of the poverty line, both pass, and SSI receipt gives categorical eligibility, so the benefit is $219/month for most of the year."
+us,scenario_057,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It gave no derivation, and its $268/month implies net income of about $927. The correct net income is $1,090.08: $866.67 SE earnings plus $602.58 SSI plus $3.17 disability, minus the $173.33 earned-income deduction and $209 standard deduction. That gives $219/month for January–September and $232.74 for October–December."
+us,scenario_057,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It gave no derivation, and its $282/month implies net income of about $880. That is consistent with undercounting the head's $602.58/month SSI. Correctly counted, net income is $1,090.08 and the benefit is $219/month for most of the year."
+us,scenario_057,snap,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It counted only $869.83/month of SE and disability income and left out the head's $602.58/month SSI. Net income came out at $496.50 instead of $1,090.08, which overstated the benefit at $397.05/month against $219."
+us,scenario_057,snap,gemini-4-argon,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It counted $13,048/year of SSI, a couple-rate amount. PolicyEngine pays the head alone $602.58/month ($7,231/year) at the $994 individual rate. That inflated net income to $18,900/year instead of about $13,081 and shrank the benefit to $882/year."
+us,scenario_057,snap,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It read SNAP as an unlisted benefit and set it to 0. The prompt says to assume program take-up, so SNAP has to be computed: net income of $1,090.08 gives $219/month for January–September and $232.74 for October–December."
+us,scenario_057,snap,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It counted SSI of about $1,100/month, the couple-rate amount, instead of the head's individual-rate $602.58. It also used an inflated $230 standard deduction instead of $209. Its net income of about $1,566, against the correct $1,090.08, cut the benefit to about $66/month instead of $219."
+us,scenario_057,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It asserted that counted income is too high for SNAP. Gross income of $1,472.42 is 84% of the poverty line and net income of $1,090.08 is 62%, and the household is categorically eligible through SSI, so it gets $219/month for most of the year."
+us,scenario_057,snap,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It set SNAP to 0 because no benefit amount was listed, which ignores the instruction to assume program take-up. The household is eligible, and the computed allotment is $546 − $327 = $219/month for January–September."
+us,scenario_057,snap,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It treated gross income as only $10,438/year and left out the head's $602.58/month SSI. Net income came out at $5,862/year instead of about $13,081, which overstated the benefit at $4,793.40."
+us,scenario_057,snap,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Its $340/month implies net income of about $687. It also cited medical deductions that don't apply, since $40/year of OTC costs is below the $35/month threshold. Counting the head's $602.58/month SSI with the SE earnings gives net income of $1,090.08 and a $219/month benefit."
+us,scenario_057,snap,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Its $70/month benefit matches counting a couple-rate SSI of about $1,099/month. PolicyEngine pays the head alone $602.58 at the individual rate, which gives net income of $1,090.08 and a $219/month benefit."
+us,scenario_057,snap,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Its $70/month allotment matches counting a couple-rate SSI of about $1,099/month instead of the head's individual-rate $602.58. That overstated net income by about $496/month and understated the benefit, which is $219/month."
+us,scenario_057,snap,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It estimated SSI at about $13,183/year, the couple-rate amount of $1,098.58/month. PolicyEngine pays the head alone $602.58/month, so annual net income is about $13,081, not $19,033, and the allotment is $219/month."
+us,scenario_057,snap,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It left the head's $602.58/month SSI out of countable income, so net income came out at $487.67 instead of $1,090.08. That overstated the benefit at about $400/month against $219."
+us,scenario_057,snap,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Its $842.10 matches a couple-rate SSI of $1,098.58/month feeding a net income of $1,586. PolicyEngine counts the head's individual-rate SSI of $602.58, which gives net income of $1,090.08 and a benefit of $219/month."
+us,scenario_057,snap,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It estimated SSI at the couple rate, giving net income of $1,586.08. PolicyEngine's SSI is the head's $602.58 at the $994 individual rate, which gives net income of $1,090.08 and a $219/month benefit, not $70."
+us,scenario_057,snap,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It asserted that income and assets exceed SNAP limits. Assets of $912 and net income of $1,090.08, which is 62% of the poverty line, both pass, so the household gets $219/month for January–September and $232.74 for October–December."
+us,scenario_057,snap,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It counted about $1,058/month of SSI, a couple-level amount, instead of the head's individual-rate $602.58. That pushed net income to about $1,551 instead of $1,090.08 and the benefit down to about $71/month instead of $219."
+us,scenario_057,snap,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It counted about $1,085/month of SSI, close to the couple rate, instead of the head's individual-rate $602.58. That gave net income of about $1,578 instead of $1,090.08 and a $63/month benefit instead of $219."
+us,scenario_057,snap,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It counted $13,123/year of SSI at the couple rate. PolicyEngine pays the head alone $7,231/year ($602.58/month), so annual net income is about $13,081, not $18,973, and the benefit is $219/month."
+us,scenario_057,snap,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It left out the head's $602.58/month SSI. It also mixed periods by subtracting the monthly $209 standard deduction from annual income, and used an inflated $6,600 annual maximum. Done correctly, monthly net income is $1,090.08 and the benefit is $546 − $327 = $219/month."
+us,scenario_057,snap,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It used gross income of only about $870/month and left out the head's $602.58/month SSI. Net income came out at about $488 instead of $1,090.08, which overstated the benefit at $399/month against $219."
+us,scenario_057,snap,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no SNAP value and no explanation, so there was nothing to score against the $2,669.22 annual allotment."
+us,scenario_057,snap,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It estimated SSI at $13,183/year, the couple-rate amount. PolicyEngine's SSI is the head's $602.58/month at the $994 individual rate. Its net income of $1,586.08 should be $1,090.08, and the benefit is $219/month, not about $70."
+us,scenario_057,snap,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It said $912 in bank assets exceeds a limit of about $4,500, which contradicts itself: $912 is far below that limit. The household passes the asset test and gets $219/month for most of the year."
+us,scenario_057,snap,muse-spark-1.3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It counted only about $870/month of gross income and left out the head's $602.58/month SSI. Net income came out at about $493 instead of $1,090.08, which overstated the benefit at about $388/month against $219."
+us,scenario_057,snap,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It counted about $1,102/month of SSI at the couple rate instead of the head's individual-rate $602.58. That gave net income of about $1,590 instead of $1,090.08 and a $69/month benefit instead of $219."
+us,scenario_057,snap,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It treated gross income as only $870/month and left out the head's $602.58/month SSI. Net income came out at about $488 instead of $1,090.08, which overstated the benefit at about $400/month against $219."
+us,scenario_057,snap,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It claimed SNAP excludes all income of SSI-eligible people. In fact SE earnings and SSI payments both count, and gross income is $1,472.42/month. It also used a $635 maximum allotment instead of $546, giving a near-maximum benefit when the correct figure is $219/month."
+us,scenario_057,snap,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It concluded the household doesn't qualify. The household passes the gross test (84% of poverty), the net test (62%) and the asset test, and is categorically eligible through SSI, so it gets $219/month for January–September and $232.74 for October–December."
us,scenario_057,spouse_chip_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model incorrectly treated Louisiana CHIP as covering low-income adults through a standalone income test. It failed to apply the controlling Medicaid exclusion: the 20-year-old spouse is Medicaid-eligible in the adult category and therefore is not eligible for CHIP, regardless of being below an asserted CHIP income threshold."
us,scenario_057,spouse_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model asserted that income exceeds Louisiana's Medicaid limits, but household MAGI is 0.45 x FPL — roughly $10,438 against a 138% FPL expansion cutoff near $29,200 for a household of two in 2026 — so it compared the $10,400 self-employment figure against a threshold far lower than the one the ACA adult expansion actually applies. It also gave the spouse's disability status weight while never running the only test that governs a 20-year-old in an expansion state: MAGI at or below 138% FPL under the ADULT category."
us,scenario_057,spouse_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated Medicaid as requiring an affirmative qualifying attribute in the fact pattern and defaulted to 0 in its absence, missing that Louisiana's ACA adult expansion makes age 19–64 plus MAGI at or below 138% FPL sufficient on its own. The listed facts fully determine eligibility — spouse age 20, non-dependent, household MAGI at 0.45 x FPL — so the ADULT expansion category resolves to eligible without any additional detail."
@@ -5120,92 +5292,95 @@ us,scenario_057,spouse_medicare_eligible,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,age_disability,Fa
us,scenario_057,spouse_medicare_eligible,kimi-k3,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model said being disabled satisfies the under-65 Medicare pathway. That pathway requires 24 months of SSDI entitlement (or ESRD/ALS), not disabled status alone. The spouse has no SSDI months, so under-65 eligibility fails."
us,scenario_057,spouse_wic_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model invented WIC coverage for women up to age 60 and treated disability as a route to postpartum or other categorical eligibility. The spouse is not pregnant, breastfeeding, or postpartum, so satisfying an income limit cannot establish WIC eligibility."
us,scenario_057,spouse_wic_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated being a 20-year-old disabled woman as a qualifying WIC category. Age, sex, and disability do not replace the required pregnancy, breastfeeding, or postpartum status, none of which is present."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Submitted a placeholder 0 without doing any SSI computation. The head is SSI-eligible through blindness with $912 in resources, under the $2,000 individual limit. Countable income of $391.42/month against the $994 individual FBR yields $602.58/month, or $7,231/yr."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Treated the 20-year-old spouse as an SSI-eligible disabled person and applied the $1,491/month eligible-couple FBR ($17,892/yr), pooling both spouses' $38 of disability benefits. Only the head is aged/blind/disabled, so the $994/month individual FBR applies against the head's own countable income of $391.42/month, which yields $7,231."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Treated the $14 and $24 disability benefits as monthly amounts and subtracted only the $65/month earned exclusion, never applying the one-half earned-income exclusion. It then declared ineligibility even though its own $10,076 countable income was below its own couple FBR. The correct head-only countable income is $391.42/month against the $994 individual FBR, which yields $7,231."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Assumed no SSI without running the income test. The blind head passes the resource test, and after the $20 general exclusion, the $65 earned exclusion and halving, the $10,400 of self-employment income leaves countable income of $391.42/month. Against the $994/month individual FBR that leaves $602.58/month, or $7,231/yr."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Applied an approximately $17,604 couple FBR on the assumption that the spouse is SSI-eligible, and double-used the $20 general exclusion against both earned and pooled unearned income. Only the head is eligible, at the $994/month individual FBR, with countable income of $391.42/month. That yields $7,231."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Used an inflated $1,538/month couple FBR on the assumption that both spouses are SSI-eligible, then reported a number that does not follow from its own $14,271.50 arithmetic. The head alone is eligible at the $994/month individual FBR, less $391.42/month of countable income, which is $7,231/yr."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Counted about $9,600 of net earnings as countable income and skipped the one-half earned-income exclusion, so it wrongly concluded income exceeds the FBR. After the $20 and $65 exclusions and halving, the head's countable income is $391.42/month, below the $994 individual FBR, which yields $7,231/yr."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Treated the spouse as SSI-eligible, applied the $1,491 couple FBR and pooled both spouses' unearned income. The head is an eligible individual with an ineligible spouse, so the benefit is $994 − $391.42 = $602.58/month, or $7,231/yr."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Applied a $1,486/month couple FBR on the assumption that both spouses qualify, and in its final pass dropped the unused general exclusion from earned income ($4,828 countable). Only the head is SSI aged/blind/disabled, so the $994 individual FBR less $391.42/month of countable income gives $7,231."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Computed a positive couple-rate benefit of about $12,590 using a $1,450 couple FBR, then submitted 0, contradicting its own work. The couple rate is also wrong because the spouse is not SSI-eligible. The head's individual benefit is $994 − $391.42 = $602.58/month, or $7,231/yr."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Treated both spouses as an eligible couple at the $1,491/month couple FBR. The spouse is not SSI aged/blind/disabled, so the head receives the $994/month individual FBR less $391.42 of countable income, which is $7,231/yr."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Paid the spouse a separate near-full individual benefit of about $991/month, but the spouse is not SSI aged/blind/disabled and receives $0. It also overstated the head's countable income at about $430/month instead of $391.42. The head alone receives $602.58/month, or $7,231/yr."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Correctly derived about $392 of countable income from pooled exclusions, but subtracted it from a $1,483 couple FBR on the assumption that the spouse is eligible. With only the head eligible, the $994 individual FBR less $391.42 yields $7,231/yr."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Applied the $1,486 eligible-couple FBR and overstated countable income at $418.83 by failing to carry the unused general exclusion over to earnings. The head alone is eligible at the $994 individual FBR, with $391.42/month of countable income, which gives $7,231."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Used the $1,491 couple FBR on the assumption that the spouse is SSI-eligible. Only the blind head qualifies, so the benefit is the $994 individual FBR less $391.42 of countable income, or $7,231/yr."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Applied a $1,486/month couple FBR for two disabled spouses and pooled their $38 of unearned income. The spouse is an ineligible spouse, so the head receives $994 − $391.42 = $602.58/month, or $7,231/yr."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Asserted that $10,400 of earnings disqualifies the household, without applying the $20 general exclusion, the $65 earned exclusion or the one-half earned-income exclusion. Those reduce the head's countable income to $391.42/month, below the $994 individual FBR, which yields $7,231/yr."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Used the couple maximum benefit on the assumption that both spouses are SSI-eligible. Only the head is aged/blind/disabled, so the $994/month individual FBR less $391.42 of countable income gives $7,231/yr."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Subtracted $4,709 of countable income from an approximately $17,400 couple FBR on the assumption that both spouses qualify. The head alone is eligible at the $994/month individual FBR with $4,697/yr of countable income, which yields $7,231."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Claimed that income and resources exceed SSI limits. Resources of $912 are under the $2,000 individual limit, and after the earned-income exclusions the head's countable income is $391.42/month, below the $994 FBR, which yields $7,231/yr."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Computed an eligible-couple benefit on the assumption that the 20-year-old spouse is SSI-disabled. The spouse is ineligible, so the head receives the $994 individual FBR less $391.42 of countable income, or $7,231/yr."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Treated both adults as an eligible couple and applied the about $1,486 couple FBR. Only the blind head is SSI aged/blind/disabled, so the benefit is $994 − $391.42 = $602.58/month, or $7,231/yr."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Declared SSI not simulated and returned 0, ignoring the instruction to assume take-up. The blind head meets the resource and income tests and receives $602.58/month ($994 FBR − $391.42 countable income), or $7,231/yr."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Assumed that $10,400 of self-employment income exceeds SSI limits and treated the absence of listed SSI receipt as disqualifying, despite the take-up instruction. After the $20 and $65 exclusions and halving, countable income is $391.42/month, below the $994 individual FBR, which yields $7,231/yr."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Subtracted $390.83 of countable income from an approximately $1,490.56 couple FBR, treating the spouse as SSI-eligible. The head alone is eligible at the $994 individual FBR, with $391.42 of countable income, which gives $7,231/yr."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Claimed assets exceed the SSI limit, but $912 of bank assets is under the $2,000 individual resource limit, and earnings are mostly excluded. The head's countable income of $391.42/month against the $994 FBR yields $7,231/yr."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Treated SSI as an unlisted receipt and set it to 0, instead of computing eligibility under the take-up assumption. The blind head qualifies, and $994 − $391.42 countable income gives $602.58/month, or $7,231/yr."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Applied the $1,491 eligible-couple FBR ($17,892/yr) and pooled both spouses' disability benefits, on the assumption that the spouse is SSI-eligible. Only the head qualifies, so the $994 individual FBR less $4,697/yr of the head's countable income yields $7,231."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Used a couple FBR (about $1,450/month) on the assumption that both adults are SSI-disabled, and overstated countable income by not carrying the unused general exclusion to earnings. The head alone is eligible at $994/month less $391.42, which is $7,231/yr."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Reduced the 2026 couple maximum on the assumption that both spouses qualify. The spouse is not SSI aged/blind/disabled, so the head's individual FBR of $994/month less $391.42 of countable income gives $7,231/yr."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Computed an eligible-couple benefit of $13,183 from the $1,491 couple FBR. Only the blind head is eligible, so the benefit is $994 − $391.42 = $602.58/month, or $7,231/yr."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Measured $4,709 of countable income against the $17,892 couple maximum, treating the spouse as SSI-eligible. The head is an eligible individual with an ineligible spouse: $11,928 individual FBR less $4,697 of the head's own countable income yields $7,231."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Used the $1,491 couple FBR on the assumption that both spouses are SSI-disabled. Only the head qualifies, at the $994 individual FBR, with $391.42/month of countable income, which yields $7,231/yr."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Reduced the $1,491/month couple benefit by countable earnings, treating the spouse as eligible. The spouse is not SSI aged/blind/disabled, so the $994 individual FBR less $391.42 gives $7,231/yr."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Applied the $17,892 couple maximum for two disabled spouses. Only the head is SSI-eligible, so the $11,928 individual FBR less $4,697 of countable income yields $7,231."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Concluded that countable self-employment income exceeds the FBR, ignoring the one-half earned-income exclusion. After the $20 and $65 exclusions and halving, the head's countable income is $391.42/month, below the $994 individual FBR, which yields $7,231/yr."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Used a projected $1,486 couple FBR on the assumption that both spouses are eligible. The head alone is eligible at the $994 individual FBR less $391.42 of countable income, which gives $7,231/yr."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Applied a $17,832 couple FBR, and its $4,810 countable income wastes the general exclusion on unearned income. Only the blind head is eligible, with $4,697 of countable income against the $11,928 individual FBR, which yields $7,231."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Treated both spouses as an eligible couple at $1,486/month. The spouse is an ineligible spouse, so the head receives $994 − $391.42 = $602.58/month, or $7,231/yr."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Subtracted $4,690 of countable income from an approximately $17,835 couple FBR on the assumption that both spouses qualify. The head alone is eligible at the $11,928 individual FBR with $4,697 of countable income, which yields $7,231."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Used an approximately $1,490 couple FBR and understated countable income at about $370/month. Only the head is SSI-eligible, so the $994 individual FBR less $391.42 of countable income gives $7,231/yr."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No answer or explanation was returned for ssi. The correct value is the head's individual benefit: $994 FBR less $391.42 of countable income, or $7,231/yr."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Applied the $17,892 eligible-couple rate on the assumption that both spouses are disabled for SSI. Only the head qualifies, so $11,928 less the head's $4,697 of countable income yields $7,231."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Inferred from the small disability-benefit amounts that no SSI is payable and never ran the SSI income test. The blind head passes the resource test, and countable income of $391.42/month against the $994 FBR yields $7,231/yr."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Used the approximately $1,491 couple FBR with about $389 of countable income, treating the spouse as eligible. The head alone is eligible at $994/month less $391.42, which is $7,231/yr."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Subtracted $390.83 of countable income from the $1,491 couple FBR, treating the spouse as SSI-disabled. Only the head qualifies, so the $994 individual FBR less $391.42 yields $7,231/yr."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Treated the annual $14 and $24 disability benefits as monthly amounts and cycled through invented FBRs ($674 to $1,058) before submitting $8,472, which matches none of its own computations. The 2026 individual FBR is $994/month and the head's countable income is $391.42/month, which gives $7,231/yr."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Asserted that income and resources produce no benefit without applying the SSI exclusions. Resources of $912 are under the limit, and after the $20 and $65 exclusions and halving, the head's countable income is $391.42/month, below the $994 FBR, which yields $7,231/yr."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It submitted a placeholder 0 without doing any SSI calculation. The blind and disabled head passes the $2,000 individual resource test with $912 and has $391.42/month of countable income against the roughly $994/month individual rate, which gives $602.58/month ($7,231/year)."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It treated the 20-year-old spouse as SSI-disabled and applied the $1,491/month couple rate to pooled couple income. The spouse is not SSI aged/blind/disabled, so the head is an eligible individual on the roughly $994/month individual rate with $391.42/month of countable income, which gives $7,231."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It treated the $14 and $24 annual disability benefits as monthly amounts and never applied the one-half earned-income disregard, which overstated countable income at $10,076. It then declared the household ineligible even though that figure was below its own benefit rates. With the correct exclusions, the head's countable income is $391.42/month against the roughly $994/month individual rate, which gives $7,231."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It asserted ineligibility without doing any calculation. The blind and disabled head meets the resource test with $912 and has only $391.42/month of countable income after the $20, $65 and one-half exclusions, which leaves $602.58/month on the individual rate."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It treated the spouse as SSI-eligible and used a roughly $17,604 couple rate. It also applied the $85 of exclusions once to annual income instead of each month. The spouse is not SSI aged/blind/disabled, so the head alone receives the roughly $994/month individual rate minus $391.42/month of countable income."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It used an eligible-couple rate of $1,538/month even though the spouse is not SSI aged/blind/disabled. It also applied the $20 and $65 exclusions once to annual totals instead of monthly, and its final $13,628 does not follow from its own arithmetic. The head's correct benefit is the roughly $994/month individual rate minus $391.42 of countable income, or $7,231/year."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It took about $9,600 of self-employment earnings as countable and ignored the one-half earned-income disregard. Monthly, the $866.67 of earnings minus $18.83 of leftover general exclusion and $65, then halved, is $391.42, well below the roughly $994 individual rate, so the head receives $602.58/month."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It treated the household as an eligible couple on the $1,491/month couple rate and pooled the spouse's unearned income, which gave $392.42 of countable income. The spouse is not SSI aged/blind/disabled, so the head's own countable income is $391.42 against the roughly $994/month individual rate, which gives $7,231."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It used a $1,486/month couple rate because it treated the spouse as SSI-eligible. It also switched to applying the $20 general exclusion only once per year, which gave $4,828 of countable income. The head is an eligible individual with an ineligible spouse, so the roughly $994/month individual rate minus $391.42/month of countable income applies."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Its own reasoning reached about $12,590 using a $1,450 couple rate, but it then submitted 0, which contradicts that calculation. The couple framing is also wrong because the spouse is not SSI aged/blind/disabled, so the head receives the roughly $994/month individual rate minus $391.42 of countable income."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It applied the $1,491/month eligible-couple rate on the assumption that both spouses qualify. The spouse is not SSI aged/blind/disabled, so the head is paid on the roughly $994/month individual rate minus $391.42 of countable income, or $7,231/year."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It computed separate individual SSI benefits for both spouses and added them together, including about $991/month for the spouse. The spouse is not SSI aged/blind/disabled and receives $0. The head's countable income is $391.42/month, not about $430, so the head alone receives $602.58/month."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It pooled the spouse's unearned income and subtracted countable income from an estimated $1,483/month couple rate. The spouse is not SSI aged/blind/disabled, so the head's $391.42 of countable income comes off the roughly $994/month individual rate, which gives $7,231."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It used a $1,486/month couple rate and treated the $38 of annual disability benefits as monthly income, which gave $418.83 of countable income. The head is an eligible individual whose countable income is $391.42/month against the roughly $994/month individual rate."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It applied the $1,491/month eligible-couple rate and pooled both spouses' unearned income. The spouse is not SSI aged/blind/disabled, so the head receives the roughly $994/month individual rate minus $391.42 of countable income, which is $7,231/year."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It assumed both spouses qualify and used a $1,486/month couple rate. Only the head is SSI aged/blind/disabled, so the roughly $994/month individual rate minus the head's $391.42/month of countable income applies."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It claimed $10,400 of earnings disqualifies the household from SSI. After the $20 and $65 exclusions and the one-half earned-income disregard, the head's countable income is only $391.42/month against the roughly $994 individual rate, which leaves $602.58/month."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It applied the couple maximum benefit on the assumption that both spouses are SSI-eligible. The spouse is not SSI aged/blind/disabled, so the head receives the roughly $994/month individual rate minus $391.42 of countable income."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It subtracted $4,709 of countable income from an approximately $17,400 annual couple rate after treating both spouses as eligible. Only the head qualifies, so the roughly $994/month individual rate minus $391.42/month of countable income ($4,697/year) gives $7,231."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It claimed the household's income and resources exceed SSI limits. The $912 of resources is under the $2,000 individual limit, and the head's countable income after exclusions is $391.42/month, well below the roughly $994 individual rate."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It treated both spouses as an eligible disabled couple and applied the couple benefit rate. The spouse is not SSI aged/blind/disabled, so the head receives the roughly $994/month individual rate minus $391.42 of countable income."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It treated both adults as an eligible couple and used the couple rate (about $1,486/month). Only the head is SSI aged/blind/disabled, so the benefit is the roughly $994/month individual rate minus $391.42 of countable income, or $7,231/year."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It claimed SSI is not simulated for this household. The blind and disabled head is SSI-eligible with $912 of resources and $391.42/month of countable income, which gives $602.58/month."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,gemini-4-argon,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It pooled the spouse's $24 into unearned income and used a $1,479.75/month couple rate after treating the spouse as SSI-disabled. The spouse is not SSI aged/blind/disabled, so the head's $391.42/month of countable income comes off the roughly $994 individual rate."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It assumed income and resources exceed SSI limits and that unlisted SSI receipt means no benefit, even though the prompt says to assume program take-up. The head's $912 is under the $2,000 resource limit, and countable income of $391.42/month leaves $602.58/month on the individual rate."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It subtracted countable income from a roughly $1,490.56/month couple rate after treating the spouse as SSI-eligible. It also applied the full $85 to earnings without first using part of the general exclusion on the head's unearned income. The head's countable income is $391.42 against the roughly $994 individual rate."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It claimed assets exceed the SSI limit and earnings disqualify the household. The $912 of bank assets is below the $2,000 individual resource limit, and the head's countable income after exclusions is $391.42/month, which gives $602.58/month."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It returned 0 because SSI receipt was not listed, which ignores the prompt's instruction to assume program take-up. The blind and disabled head qualifies and receives the roughly $994/month individual rate minus $391.42 of countable income."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It applied the $17,892 annual eligible-couple rate and pooled the spouse's $24 into unearned income. The spouse is not SSI aged/blind/disabled, so the head is paid on the roughly $994/month individual rate, which with $4,697 of countable income gives $7,231."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It applied a couple rate after treating both adults as SSI-disabled. Only the head qualifies, so the roughly $994/month individual rate minus $391.42/month of countable income gives $7,231."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It reduced the 2026 couple maximum on the assumption that both spouses meet the disability criteria. The spouse is not SSI aged/blind/disabled, so the individual rate (about $994/month) minus the head's $391.42 of countable income applies."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It treated both adults as eligible and computed a couple benefit of $13,183. The spouse is not SSI aged/blind/disabled, so the head receives the roughly $994/month individual rate minus $391.42 of countable income."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It used the $17,892 annual couple maximum and pooled the spouse's $24 of unearned income. Only the head is SSI-eligible, so the head's $4,697 of countable income comes off the individual rate (about $994/month), which gives $7,231."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It subtracted $392.42 of countable income from the $1,491 couple rate after treating both spouses as disabled SSI recipients. The spouse is not SSI aged/blind/disabled, so the head's $391.42 comes off the roughly $994 individual rate."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It applied the $1,491/month couple benefit. The engine pays the head as an eligible individual with an ineligible spouse, using the roughly $994/month individual rate minus $391.42 of countable income."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It used the $17,892 annual couple maximum because it assumed both spouses qualify. The spouse is not SSI aged/blind/disabled, so the head alone receives the individual rate minus $4,697 of annual countable income, or $7,231."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It claimed countable self-employment income exceeds the benefit rate. After the $20 and $65 exclusions and the one-half earned-income disregard, the head's countable income is $391.42/month, well under the roughly $994 individual rate."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It used a projected $1,486/month couple rate after treating both spouses as disabled SSI recipients. Only the head qualifies, so the roughly $994/month individual rate minus $391.42 of countable income gives $602.58/month."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It applied the $17,832 couple rate and never carried the unused general exclusion over to earned income, which gave $4,810 of countable income. The head is an eligible individual whose countable income is $4,697/year against the individual rate, which gives $7,231."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It applied the $1,486/month couple rate after treating both spouses as disabled SSI recipients. The spouse is not SSI aged/blind/disabled, so the head is paid on the roughly $994/month individual rate minus $391.42 of countable income."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It subtracted $4,690 of countable income from an approximately $17,835 couple rate. Only the head is SSI-eligible, so the individual rate (about $994/month) minus $4,697 of annual countable income applies."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It used a roughly $1,490/month couple rate and understated countable income at about $370. The head is an eligible individual with an ineligible spouse and has $391.42/month of countable income against the roughly $994 individual rate."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no SSI value and no explanation, so no answer could be parsed."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It applied the $17,892 annual couple rate on the assumption that both spouses qualify. The spouse is not SSI aged/blind/disabled, so the head's $4,697 of countable income comes off the individual rate, which gives $7,231."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It inferred from the small disability benefit amounts that no SSI is payable and never ran the SSI computation. The blind and disabled head passes the resource test and has $391.42/month of countable income, which leaves $602.58/month on the individual rate."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,muse-spark-1.3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It subtracted about $392 of countable income from the roughly $1,491 couple rate after treating both spouses as SSI-disabled. Only the head qualifies, so the roughly $994 individual rate minus $391.42 applies."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It used the roughly $1,491 couple rate and understated countable income at about $389. The head alone is SSI-eligible, with $391.42/month of countable income against the roughly $994 individual rate."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It applied the $1,491 couple rate and took the full $85 of exclusions off earnings. Only the head is SSI-eligible, and after $1.17 of the head's unearned income uses part of the $20 general exclusion, countable income is $391.42 against the roughly $994 individual rate."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It used invented benefit rates (individual rates of $674 to $706 and couple rates of $979 to $1,058), treated the $14 and $24 annual benefits as monthly, and submitted $8,472, which does not match any of its own computations. The correct calculation is the roughly $994/month individual rate minus the head's $391.42 of countable income, or $7,231/year."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"It asserted that income and resources produce no benefit without doing any calculation. The head's $912 is under the $2,000 resource limit and countable income is $391.42/month, which leaves $602.58/month on the individual rate."
us,scenario_057,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied Louisiana's correct post-reform 3% flat rate but subtracted only $9,000 as the ""MFJ standard deduction"" — that is the repealed $4,500-per-filer personal exemption amount, not the deduction. Under Act 11 of the 2024 Third Extraordinary Session, Louisiana's standard deduction for married filing jointly is $25,000 (indexed beginning 2026), which exceeds the household's ~$9,665 federal AGI, so Louisiana taxable income is zero. Its $665 base is arithmetic on the wrong subtraction, and 3% of a base that does not exist produced the $20."
us,scenario_057,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It reconstructed the pre-2025 Louisiana regime on two counts: it subtracted $4,500-per-filer personal exemptions ($9,000) and applied a graduated first-bracket rate, both eliminated effective tax year 2025 when Louisiana moved to a 3% flat tax with a $25,000 MFJ standard deduction. Its cited ""1.75% on the first $12,500"" matches neither the current flat rate nor the former 1.85% first bracket, whose MFJ width was $25,000. The $25,000 standard deduction alone wipes out the ~$9,665 federal AGI, leaving $0 rather than a $665 taxable base."
us,scenario_057,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No value or explanation was returned for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so the miss is a contract failure rather than a substantive rule error. The required derivation runs $10,400 of SSTB self-employment income to roughly $9,665 federal AGI after the deductible half of self-employment tax, then against Louisiana's $25,000 married-filing-jointly standard deduction under its 3% flat tax, giving $0."
-us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model knew about Louisiana's 5% EITC match and that the 43-year-old head meets the age test, but it treated the federal childless EITC as negligible and submitted 0. Earned income of about $9,665 is past the phase-in ceiling and below the joint phase-out start, so the federal EITC is the full $664 and the Louisiana credit is $33.20."
-us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Louisiana offers no applicable refundable credits and missed Louisiana's refundable EITC, which equals 5% of the federal EITC. The couple gets the full $664 federal childless EITC, so the Louisiana credit is $33.20."
-us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model assumed a refundable credit needs qualifying children or wage income. Self-employment income counts as earned income for the federal childless EITC ($664 here), and Louisiana refunds 5% of it, which is $33.20."
-us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said Louisiana's earned income credit needs children and called the $10,400 of self-employment income too small. The childless federal EITC reaches its $664 maximum once earned income passes about $8,680, and this household has about $9,665, so Louisiana's 5% match is $33.20."
-us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model recognized the 5% Louisiana match on the federal childless EITC but called the federal credit minimal and rounded the state credit to zero. Net earned income of about $9,665 gives the full $664 federal maximum, so the state credit is $33.20, not zero."
-us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model called Louisiana's 5% EITC nonrefundable or limited, but it is refundable and is paid even when there is no state tax liability. Applied to the $664 federal childless EITC, it equals $33.20."
-us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Louisiana has no state EITC in 2026. Louisiana does have a refundable EITC at 5% of the federal credit, which gives $33.20 on the household's $664 federal EITC."
-us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model called Louisiana's EITC-like credit generally nonrefundable and said the household lacks qualifying dependents. Louisiana's EITC is refundable and also covers childless filers, at 5% of the $664 federal childless EITC, or $33.20."
-us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no refundable Louisiana credit applies and missed Louisiana's refundable EITC at 5% of the federal EITC. With the full $664 federal childless credit, that is $33.20."
-us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used an outdated $632 federal childless EITC maximum (the 2024 value) instead of the 2026 maximum of $664, then rounded 5% of it to $32. The correct figure is 5% × $664 = $33.20."
-us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model used the 2025 federal childless EITC maximum of $649 instead of the 2026 maximum of $664. That gave $32.45 instead of 5% × $664 = $33.20.
-us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model set the federal EITC to $0. On a joint return, the 43-year-old head meets the 25–64 age test, and about $9,665 of net self-employment earnings gives the full $664 childless credit. Louisiana's 5% refundable match is therefore $33.20."
-us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the correct 5% Louisiana rate but used a $630 federal EITC, an outdated childless maximum, instead of the 2026 maximum of $664. That gave $31.50 instead of $33.20."
-us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no state refundable credits apply and missed Louisiana's refundable EITC, which equals 5% of the $664 federal childless EITC, or $33.20."
-us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said the household qualifies for no Louisiana refundable credit. The couple qualifies for the $664 federal childless EITC, and Louisiana refunds 5% of it, or $33.20."
-us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model reported no Louisiana refundable credits and missed the refundable state EITC at 5% of the household's $664 federal EITC, which is $33.20."
-us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model used the 2025 federal childless EITC maximum of $649 instead of the 2026 maximum of $664. That gave $32.45 instead of $33.20.
-us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model used the 2025 federal childless EITC maximum of $649 instead of the 2026 maximum of $664. That gave $32.45 instead of 5% × $664 = $33.20.
-us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model ruled the couple out of the EITC because the spouse is under 25. For married filing jointly, the childless age test needs only one spouse to be 25–64, and the 43-year-old head meets it. That gives the $664 federal credit and the $33.20 Louisiana match."
-us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model computed a $795.60 federal EITC by applying the 7.65% phase-in rate to the full $10,400. It did not cap the credit at the 2026 childless maximum of $664 and did not subtract half of SE tax from earned income. With the cap, 5% of $664 is $33.20."
-us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model found no Louisiana refundable credits and missed the refundable state EITC at 5% of the household's $664 federal childless EITC, which is $33.20."
-us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no Louisiana refundable credits apply and missed the 5% refundable state EITC on the $664 federal childless EITC, which is $33.20."
-us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model assumed a household without children cannot qualify for a Louisiana refundable credit. Louisiana's refundable EITC matches the federal childless EITC at 5%, and here that is 5% × $664 = $33.20."
-us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model found no Louisiana refundable credit eligibility and missed that self-employment earnings qualify the couple for the $664 federal childless EITC. Louisiana refunds 5% of that, or $33.20."
-us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model had the correct $664 federal EITC but used a 3.5% Louisiana match, the rate before 2018, instead of the current 5%. That gave $23.24 instead of $33.20."
-us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no state refundable credits apply and missed Louisiana's refundable EITC at 5% of the $664 federal childless EITC, which is $33.20."
-us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Louisiana offers no applicable refundable credits, but Louisiana's EITC is refundable at 5% of the federal EITC. That gives $33.20 on the household's $664 federal credit."
-us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no Louisiana refundable credits apply and missed the refundable state EITC at 5% of the $664 federal childless EITC, which is $33.20."
-us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model set the federal EITC to $0. On a joint return, the 43-year-old head meets the childless age test, and about $9,665 of earned income gives the full $664 credit. Louisiana's 5% match is therefore $33.20."
-us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no value or explanation for state_refundable_credits, so there was no answer to grade against the $33.20 Louisiana EITC."
-us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model had the correct $664 federal EITC but used a 10% Louisiana match instead of the actual 5%. That gave $66.40 instead of $33.20.
-us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed Louisiana has no individual income tax. Louisiana does levy a state income tax and offers a refundable EITC at 5% of the federal EITC, which is $33.20 here."
-us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model assumed zero liability and no children rule out any refundable credit. Louisiana's EITC is refundable regardless of liability and covers childless filers, giving 5% × $664 = $33.20."
-us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed Louisiana has no individual income tax. Louisiana taxes individual income and pays a refundable EITC at 5% of the federal EITC, which is $33.20 on the $664 federal credit."
-us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no Louisiana refundable credits apply and missed the refundable state EITC at 5% of the household's $664 federal childless EITC, which is $33.20."
+us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model recognized Louisiana's 5% EITC match and that the 43-year-old head is in the 25–64 window, but it still answered 0. It should have taken the federal childless EITC of $664 (earned income about $9,665 after half of SE tax) and applied the refundable 5% match to get $33.20."
+us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Louisiana has no refundable individual credits that apply here. It missed Louisiana's refundable EITC, which is 5% of the federal EITC. The couple's $664 federal childless EITC gives a $33.20 state credit, and it is refundable even with zero state tax liability."
+us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model assumed a credit needs qualifying children or wage income. But net self-employment income counts as earned income for the federal childless EITC ($664 here), and Louisiana pays a refundable 5% match of it, which is $33.20."
+us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model claimed Louisiana's refundable credits require children and treated the self-employment income as too small to count. The federal EITC is open to childless filers aged 25–64, and the head's net SE earnings of about $9,665 reach the $664 maximum, so the 5% Louisiana match is $33.20."
+us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model identified the 5% match on the childless federal EITC, then called the credit 'minimal' and rounded it to zero. The federal EITC is the full $664 maximum, because earned income is past the phase-in and below the MFJ phaseout threshold, so the state credit is $33.20, not zero."
+us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Louisiana's 5% EITC is nonrefundable. It is a refundable credit, so the full 5% × $664 = $33.20 is paid even though the household owes no Louisiana tax."
+us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said outright that Louisiana has no state EITC in 2026. Louisiana has a refundable EITC of 5% of the federal credit, and here that is 5% × $664 = $33.20."
+us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Louisiana has no refundable EITC and that the household lacks qualifying dependents. Louisiana's EITC is refundable and needs no dependents: it matches 5% of the federal childless EITC of $664, which is $33.20."
+us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model gave 0 without applying Louisiana's refundable 5% match of the federal EITC. The couple qualifies for a $664 federal childless EITC through the 43-year-old head's net SE earnings, so the state credit is $33.20."
+us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used $632 as the federal childless EITC maximum, which is the 2024 figure, and also rounded its result. The 2026 maximum is $664, so the 5% Louisiana match is $33.20."
+us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the correct 5% Louisiana rate but to $649, the 2025 childless EITC maximum. The 2026 maximum is $664, which gives $33.20."
+us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model set the federal EITC to $0. The head is 43, inside the 25–64 window, and on a joint return only one spouse needs to meet it. Net SE earnings of about $9,665 produce the $664 childless maximum, so the 5% Louisiana match is $33.20."
+us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a federal EITC of $630, which is below even the 2024 maximum. The 2026 childless maximum is $664, and 5% of that is $33.20."
+us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model gave 0 and missed Louisiana's refundable EITC, which is 5% of the federal EITC. The couple's $664 federal childless EITC makes the state credit $33.20."
+us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model gave 0 without applying Louisiana's refundable 5% EITC match. The head's net SE earnings support the $664 federal childless EITC, so the state credit is $33.20."
+us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model gave 0 and missed that Louisiana refunds 5% of the federal EITC. With a $664 federal childless EITC, that is $33.20."
+us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the correct 5% Louisiana match to $649, the 2025 childless EITC maximum. The 2026 maximum is $664, which gives $33.20."
+us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used $649, the 2025 childless EITC maximum, as the federal base. The 2026 maximum is $664, and 5% of that is $33.20."
+us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model ruled the couple ineligible because the spouse is under 25. For a joint return, the childless EITC age test is met if either spouse is 25–64, and the 43-year-old head is. The federal EITC is therefore $664 and the Louisiana match is $33.20."
+us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's federal EITC of $795.60 is 7.65% × the gross $10,400 SE income. That skips subtracting half of SE tax from earned income and ignores the $664 cap on the 2026 childless credit. The correct federal EITC is $664, giving a 5% match of $33.20."
+us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no Louisiana refundable credit applies. It missed Louisiana's refundable EITC of 5% of the federal EITC, which on the couple's $664 federal childless EITC is $33.20."
+us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model gave 0 without applying Louisiana's refundable 5% EITC match. The household's $664 federal childless EITC produces a $33.20 state credit.
+us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated having no children as disqualifying. The federal EITC covers childless filers aged 25–64 (here $664), and Louisiana refunds 5% of it, which is $33.20."
+us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model found no Louisiana refundable credit eligibility. It missed that the household's $664 federal childless EITC carries a refundable 5% Louisiana match of $33.20.
+us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model had the correct $664 federal EITC but used a 3.5% match rate, which is Louisiana's old pre-increase rate. The current rate is 5%, which gives $33.20."
+us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model gave 0 and missed Louisiana's refundable EITC, which is 5% of the federal EITC. The couple's $664 federal childless EITC gives $33.20."
+us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Louisiana has no refundable income-tax credits that apply. Louisiana's EITC is refundable at 5% of the federal credit, so it pays $33.20 on the $664 federal childless EITC."
+us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no Louisiana refundable credit applies. It missed the refundable 5% Louisiana EITC match, which on the $664 federal childless EITC is $33.20."
+us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model set the federal EITC to $0. The 43-year-old head meets the childless EITC age test for the joint return, and net SE earnings of about $9,665 produce the $664 maximum. Louisiana's 5% match is $33.20."
+us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no value and no explanation for state_refundable_credits. The correct value is Louisiana's refundable 5% match of the $664 federal EITC, which is $33.20."
+us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model had the correct $664 federal EITC but applied a 10% match rate. Louisiana's 2026 EITC rate is 5%, which gives $33.20."
+us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed Louisiana has no state individual income tax, which is false. Louisiana taxes individual income and pays a refundable EITC of 5% of the federal EITC, which is $33.20 here."
+us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a 7% Louisiana rate and a $667 federal EITC. The correct inputs are a 5% rate and the 2026 childless maximum of $664, which give $33.20."
+us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated zero liability and no children or expenses as ruling out any refundable credit. Louisiana's EITC is refundable regardless of liability and pays 5% of the $664 federal childless EITC, which is $33.20."
+us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed Louisiana has no state individual income tax, which is false. Louisiana has an income tax with a refundable EITC of 5% of the federal credit, and here that is 5% × $664 = $33.20."
+us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model gave 0 without applying Louisiana's refundable 5% EITC match. The household's $664 federal childless EITC produces a $33.20 state credit.
us,scenario_059,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model treated taxable Social Security as roughly 85% of benefits. The tiered formula gives only $6,129.20 because provisional income is just $152 over $44,000. It also failed to net the deductions correctly: AGI of $31,729.20 minus the $35,500 standard deduction (with age add-ons) and the $12,000 senior deduction is below zero. Its claimed taxable income of about $30,000 is impossible."
us,scenario_059,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model guessed taxable Social Security at about $16,400 instead of computing $6,000 + 85% × ($44,152 − $44,000) = $6,129.20. That inflated AGI to $42,000. It also left out the $12,000 OBBBA senior deduction, and then raised its own $540 result to $1,177 with no basis. The correct AGI of $31,729 is below even the $36,600 deduction it used."
us,scenario_059,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model computed AGI correctly at $31,729. It then used an $18,100 standard deduction instead of the 2026 MFJ amount, which is $32,200 plus $1,650 per spouse aged 65+ (TCJA levels made permanent by OBBBA), and it left out the $12,000 senior deduction. The full deductions exceed AGI, so taxable income is $0."
@@ -5291,38 +5466,40 @@ us,scenario_064,child1_wic_eligible,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_outpu
us,scenario_064,child1_wic_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model asserted that a 12-year-old is ""in the WIC-eligible age range,"" but WIC's child category ends at the fifth birthday, so a 12-year-old has no WIC categorical status at all — the model appears to have imported a school-age or free-school-meals age frame into WIC. It also skipped the WIC income test entirely, which caps countable income at 185% of the federal poverty guideline and disqualifies this household's ~$98,810 of income for 5 people regardless of age."
us,scenario_064,dependent1_chip_eligible,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_064,dependent1_chip_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model gave the claimed dependent the head and spouse's tax-unit MAGI and compared it with a 5-person 100% FPL limit. The engine measures Dependent 1's MAGI-based adult-category income level from their own zero income (0.00 x FPL), which passes the adult income test."
-us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model counted the head's bank, stock, and home assets against Dependent 1 under an asset test. Dependent 1 qualifies through the MAGI-based adult category, which has no asset test, and their own income level is 0.00 x FPL."
-us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model used household income and a disability-group limit. It never checked the MAGI adult category, where Dependent 1's own income is zero (0.00 x FPL) and passes the income test."
-us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model applied the head's high household MAGI to the 27-year-old dependent. The engine computes Dependent 1's adult-category MAGI level from their own zero income, 0.00 x FPL, which is below the threshold."
-us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model tested Dependent 1 against the head's household income. The engine places them in the MAGI adult category with their own income at 0.00 x FPL, so they are eligible."
-us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model gave the adult dependent the household's income. Dependent 1's own MAGI income level is 0.00 x FPL, which qualifies them under the adult expansion category."
-us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model compared the whole household's MAGI (head's wages, partnership income, and 401(k) distributions) with 138% FPL. The engine computes Dependent 1's adult-category income level from their own zero income (0.00 x FPL), which is eligible."
-us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,The model applied household income to the adult dependent. The engine evaluates Dependent 1 under the MAGI adult category at their own 0.00 x FPL income level and finds them eligible.
-us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model correctly identified the adult BadgerCare category but tested the household's income against 100% FPL. Dependent 1's own MAGI is zero (0.00 x FPL), which is under the adult limit."
-us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model treated the household's income as Dependent 1's. Under the engine's MAGI adult category, Dependent 1's own income level is 0.00 x FPL, so they are eligible."
-us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model gave no reasoning, and its 0 implies it attributed the head's income to Dependent 1. The engine places Dependent 1 in the MAGI adult category at their own 0.00 x FPL income, which makes them eligible."
-us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model tested household income against the WI adult threshold. The engine uses Dependent 1's own zero MAGI (0.00 x FPL), which is under the adult limit."
-us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model denied eligibility on household income. Dependent 1's own MAGI income level is 0.00 x FPL, which qualifies them for the adult expansion category."
-us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model correctly used the adult category but applied family income to it. The engine measures Dependent 1's income level from their own zero income, 0.00 x FPL, which is eligible."
-us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model assigned the tax unit's $100k+ MAGI to the dependent and also cited employer-sponsored insurance as a barrier. The engine computes Dependent 1's MAGI level from their own zero income (0.00 x FPL), and ESI does not block Medicaid eligibility."
-us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No answer or explanation was returned for this output, so nothing could be scored. The correct result is eligible under the MAGI adult category at 0.00 x FPL."
-us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model judged eligibility from the household's high income. The engine places Dependent 1 in the adult category using their own 0.00 x FPL income level, which is eligible."
-us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model defaulted to ineligible on simplified household-income assumptions. Dependent 1's own MAGI is zero (0.00 x FPL), which passes the adult expansion income test."
-us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model explicitly applied the family's household MAGI to the adult tax dependent. The engine computes Dependent 1's adult-category income level from their own zero income, 0.00 x FPL, which is eligible."
-us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model applied household income and resource rules. Dependent 1 qualifies through the MAGI adult category, which has no resource test, with their own income at 0.00 x FPL."
-us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model cited household income and assets. The MAGI adult category has no asset test, and Dependent 1's own income level is 0.00 x FPL, so they are eligible."
-us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model applied the household's income to Dependent 1. The engine evaluates the adult category with Dependent 1's own zero MAGI (0.00 x FPL), which is below the threshold."
-us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model applied an ABD resource test and the household's MAGI. The engine qualifies Dependent 1 through the MAGI adult category, which has no asset test, at their own 0.00 x FPL income."
-us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model correctly picked the MAGI adult rules but counted household income and resources against Dependent 1. The engine measures their own income at 0.00 x FPL, which passes the adult limit."
-us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model used household MAGI for the adult category. Dependent 1's own MAGI income level is 0.00 x FPL, which qualifies them without SSI receipt."
-us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model gave the dependent a household MAGI of about 273% FPL and applied ABD asset limits. The engine evaluates the MAGI adult category, which has no asset test, at Dependent 1's own 0.00 x FPL."
-us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No answer or explanation was returned for this output, so nothing could be scored. The correct result is eligible under the MAGI adult category at 0.00 x FPL."
-us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model gave no reasoning, and its 0 implies it attributed household income to Dependent 1. The engine computes Dependent 1's adult-category MAGI at their own 0.00 x FPL, which makes them eligible."
-us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model applied household income and financial rules. Dependent 1's own MAGI is zero (0.00 x FPL), which qualifies them under the adult expansion category."
-us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model gave Dependent 1 a family MAGI of about 350% FPL and counted the head's bank and stock assets. The engine evaluates the MAGI adult category at Dependent 1's own 0.00 x FPL with no asset test, so they are eligible."
-us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model included the head's $97,295 wages and other income in Dependent 1's MAGI. The engine uses Dependent 1's own zero income (0.00 x FPL), which is under the adult limit."
-us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model said Dependent 1's income is too high, but Dependent 1 has no income. Their own MAGI income level is 0.00 x FPL, which qualifies them for the adult expansion category."
+us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model counted the parents' tax-unit income toward the claimed dependent's Medicaid income group and compared it to a 100% FPL limit for a family of 5. PolicyEngine measures Dependent 1's MAGI income level at 0.00 × FPL, so they are eligible under the ACA adult expansion category."
+us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model applied household asset limits (bank account, stocks, home equity) to Dependent 1. However, the ACA adult expansion category is MAGI-based and has no resource test. Dependent 1's MAGI income level is 0.00 × FPL, so they are eligible."
+us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model judged Dependent 1 against household income under a disability pathway. PolicyEngine uses the ACA adult expansion category with Dependent 1's own MAGI income level of 0.00 × FPL, which is under the threshold."
+us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model used the head's wages, 401(k) distributions and partnership income as Dependent 1's MAGI. PolicyEngine measures Dependent 1's MAGI income level at 0.00 × FPL, which meets the adult expansion limit."
+us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model gave the household's roughly $97k+ income to Dependent 1. In the ACA adult expansion category, PolicyEngine measures Dependent 1's MAGI income level at 0.00 × FPL, so they are financially eligible."
+us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model said household income exceeds the limit. PolicyEngine measures this adult dependent's MAGI income level at 0.00 × FPL, so they are eligible under the ACA adult expansion category."
+us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model correctly named the 138% FPL expansion limit but measured it against the tax unit's MAGI. PolicyEngine measures Dependent 1's MAGI income level at 0.00 × FPL, which is well under 138%, so they are eligible."
+us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model tested household income against the limit. PolicyEngine places Dependent 1 in the ACA adult expansion category with a MAGI income level of 0.00 × FPL, which is under the threshold."
+us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model compared household income to Wisconsin's adult limit. Dependent 1's own MAGI income level is 0.00 × FPL, which is under that limit, so they are eligible in the adult expansion category."
+us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model gave household income to Dependent 1. PolicyEngine measures Dependent 1's MAGI income level at 0.00 × FPL, which qualifies them under the ACA adult expansion category."
+us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model gave no reason for its 'No'. The correct derivation puts the 27-year-old in the ACA adult expansion category with a MAGI income level of 0.00 × FPL, which makes them eligible. The 'No' fits a shortcut of testing the parents' household income."
+us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model applied the household's income to the adult threshold. PolicyEngine uses Dependent 1's MAGI income level of 0.00 × FPL, which meets the adult expansion limit."
+us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model said household income disqualifies Dependent 1. PolicyEngine measures Dependent 1's MAGI income level at 0.00 × FPL, which makes them eligible as an expansion adult."
+us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model used family income for Dependent 1's adult Medicaid test. PolicyEngine measures Dependent 1's MAGI income level at 0.00 × FPL, which qualifies them under the ACA adult expansion category."
+us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-4-argon,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model applied household income and an asset test. The ACA adult expansion category has no asset test, and Dependent 1's MAGI income level is 0.00 × FPL, so they are eligible."
+us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model used the tax unit's $100k+ MAGI against 138% FPL and counted employer-sponsored insurance against eligibility. PolicyEngine measures Dependent 1's MAGI income level at 0.00 × FPL, and the adult expansion category does not consider ESI, so they are eligible."
+us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no parseable answer for dependent1_medicaid_eligible. The correct value is Yes, because PolicyEngine places Dependent 1 in the ACA adult expansion category at 0.00 × FPL."
+us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model treated the household's high income as Dependent 1's income. PolicyEngine measures Dependent 1's MAGI income level at 0.00 × FPL, so they are eligible under the adult expansion category."
+us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model looked for a disability-specific pathway and tested household income. The relevant category is ACA adult expansion, where Dependent 1's MAGI income level of 0.00 × FPL makes them eligible."
+us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model used the family's household MAGI for Dependent 1 because they are an adult tax dependent. PolicyEngine measures Dependent 1's MAGI income level at 0.00 × FPL, which is under Wisconsin's expansion-adult threshold."
+us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model applied income and resource rules. The ACA adult expansion category has no resource test, and Dependent 1's MAGI income level is 0.00 × FPL, so they are eligible."
+us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model used household income and assets. PolicyEngine's ACA adult expansion category tests only MAGI, and Dependent 1's MAGI income level is 0.00 × FPL, so they are eligible."
+us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model said income exceeds the threshold by counting household income. PolicyEngine measures Dependent 1's MAGI income level at 0.00 × FPL, which qualifies them under the adult expansion category."
+us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model correctly ruled out the ABD route on resources, but it failed the MAGI adult test by using household income. Dependent 1's MAGI income level is 0.00 × FPL, so the ACA adult expansion category makes them eligible."
+us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model correctly picked MAGI adult rules but put Dependent 1 over the limit using household income. PolicyEngine measures Dependent 1's MAGI income level at 0.00 × FPL, so the adult expansion category makes them eligible."
+us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model said household MAGI exceeds the adult limit. PolicyEngine measures Dependent 1's MAGI income level at 0.00 × FPL, which qualifies them under the ACA adult expansion category."
+us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model gave Dependent 1 a household MAGI of about 273% FPL and applied ABD asset limits. PolicyEngine measures Dependent 1's MAGI income level at 0.00 × FPL in the asset-free ACA adult expansion category, so they are eligible."
+us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no parseable answer for dependent1_medicaid_eligible. The correct value is Yes, because PolicyEngine places Dependent 1 in the ACA adult expansion category at 0.00 × FPL."
+us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model gave no reasoning. The correct derivation puts the 27-year-old in the ACA adult expansion category with a MAGI income level of 0.00 × FPL, which makes them eligible. The 'No' fits testing the parents' income instead."
+us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,muse-spark-1.3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model applied household income and asset limits to Dependent 1. PolicyEngine's ACA adult expansion category has no asset test and measures Dependent 1's MAGI income level at 0.00 × FPL, so they are eligible."
+us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model used household income for Dependent 1. PolicyEngine measures Dependent 1's MAGI income level at 0.00 × FPL, so they are eligible under the ACA adult expansion category."
+us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model put Dependent 1 at about 350% FPL using family income and applied SSI-related asset tests. PolicyEngine measures Dependent 1's MAGI income level at 0.00 × FPL in the asset-free ACA adult expansion category, so they are eligible."
+us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model counted the head's $97,295 wages and partnership income toward Dependent 1's MAGI. PolicyEngine measures Dependent 1's MAGI income level at 0.00 × FPL, which is under the adult threshold."
+us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model said Dependent 1 has income that is too high, but Dependent 1 has no income of their own. PolicyEngine measures their MAGI income level at 0.00 × FPL, so they are eligible under the ACA adult expansion category."
us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicare_eligible,claude-fable-5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model assumed 'SSDI-based eligibility' just because Dependent 1 is disabled, but the household lists no SSDI benefits, and unlisted amounts are 0. The under-65 disability path needs 24 months of actual SSDI entitlement, which Dependent 1 does not have, so the correct answer is not eligible (0)."
us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicare_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model said a disability alone qualifies someone for Medicare at any age. Under 65, Medicare instead requires 24 months of SSDI entitlement, or ESRD or ALS. Dependent 1 has no SSDI income, so a 27-year-old is not eligible."
us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicare_eligible,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model correctly named the 24-month SSDI entitlement rule but then applied it without any SSDI receipt, using only the disability flag. The household has $0 in Social Security disability benefits and no months of receipt, so the SSDI path does not apply. A 27-year-old with no ESRD or ALS is not eligible."
@@ -5348,51 +5525,53 @@ us,scenario_064,dependent2_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,household
us,scenario_064,dependent2_medicaid_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It gave no value or explanation for dependent2_medicaid_eligible, so its answer is missing rather than wrong on substance. The correct answer is 0: household MAGI of 3.22× FPL exceeds Wisconsin's child limits, and no disability, pregnancy or caretaker pathway applies."
us,scenario_064,dependent2_medicare_eligible,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_064,dependent2_wic_eligible,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"It reached the correct structure (AGI $114,422, $13,899 overtime deduction, $510 QBI, $3,200 of credits) and a pre-credit tax of about $7,630, which leaves about $4,430. It then added an unexplained ~$1,529 of 'adjustments' to report $5,959."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $14,000 SE partnership income on top of the $19,350 partnership/S-corp income, although the $14,000 is a component of it, which inflated gross income to $128,530. It also deducted the repealed $1,796 domestic production deduction and took a $3,310 QBI deduction instead of 20% × $2,550 = $510."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $13,899 overtime premium on top of wages that already include it, applied the full $18,235 capital loss instead of the $3,000 limit, and used a $14,600 single-filer standard deduction instead of the $32,200 MFJ amount. It also never took the OBBBA overtime deduction and finished with an unexplained credit reduction to $9,631."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no calculation. Taxable income of $67,812 produces $7,641 of tax, and only $3,200 of nonrefundable CTC/ODC applies, so a $0 answer means it assumed deductions and credits that eliminate a liability that actually remains."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It computed SE tax on the $14,000 partnership income without netting the $16,800 farm loss (net SE earnings are negative, so there is no SE tax or half-SE-tax deduction) and omitted the $13,899 OBBBA overtime deduction. It also used a $2,000 CTC, capped its nonrefundable portion at $1,072 even though tax liability covers the full credit, and added an arbitrary $1,000."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It omitted the $13,899 overtime deduction and took a half-SE-tax deduction even though the farm loss makes net SE earnings negative. It also added $1,978 of SE tax into income tax (this output excludes SE tax) and padded the result upward to $14,959, which is more than its own pre-credit tax."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted the repealed $1,796 DPAD and a half-SE-tax deduction that does not exist here, took a $3,900 QBI deduction instead of $510, and omitted the $13,899 overtime deduction. It then reported $11,200, which is above its own ~$8,700 pre-credit tax, instead of subtracting the $3,200 of credits."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It never applied the OBBBA $13,899 FLSA overtime-premium deduction. It used the old $30,000 standard deduction and 2025 brackets instead of the 2026 $32,200 amount, and it subtracted a $1,560 SE health insurance deduction and a $989 half-SE-tax deduction that do not apply, because the premiums are employer coverage and the farm loss wipes out net SE earnings. It also used a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted the repealed $1,796 DPAD and a half-SE-tax amount, omitted the $13,899 overtime deduction, and used a $30,300 standard deduction. It then raised its own ~$9,300 tax to $12,500 by citing Additional Medicare Tax and NIIT, which do not belong in this output, and gave no credit for the $2,200 CTC and $1,000 ODC."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its ~$128.5k AGI counts the $14,000 SE partnership income in addition to the $19,350 partnership income, which double-counts it, and it took a $3.3k QBI deduction instead of $510. It also omitted the $13,899 overtime deduction, which left taxable income at ~$92.9k instead of $67,812."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It double-counted the $14,000 SE partnership income in its $16,550 business net, deducted the repealed $1,796 DPAD, took a $3,310 QBI deduction, and omitted the $13,899 overtime deduction. It also treated the 18-year-old as a CTC-qualifying child ($4,000 for two children) instead of applying $2,200 for the 12-year-old plus $500 each for the two other dependents."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied pre-TCJA sunset law, using personal exemptions, a $15,900 standard deduction, a 15% bracket and a $1,000 CTC, instead of the permanent OBBBA rules: $32,200 standard deduction, 10%/12% brackets, $2,200 CTC and $500 ODC. It also omitted the overtime deduction and wrongly subtracted $1,560 of health premiums from wages."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used pre-TCJA rules (five personal exemptions and a $1,000 CTC phased out above $110,000) instead of the 2026 OBBBA $32,200 standard deduction, no exemptions, $2,200 CTC with a $400,000 phase-out threshold, and $500 ODC. It also omitted the $13,899 overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It got AGI ($114,422) and QBI ($510) right but omitted the $13,899 OBBBA overtime-premium deduction and deducted the repealed $1,796 DPAD. It also used a $30,750 standard deduction instead of $32,200 and a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $19,648 employer insurance premium from wages, which the facts do not support, itemized medical expenses that include those premiums, and applied pre-TCJA personal exemptions and a $1,000 CTC. It also used the $1,796 DPAD as a QBI deduction and omitted the $13,899 overtime deduction and the $500 other-dependent credits."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $11,090 is more than the $7,641 pre-credit tax on the correct $67,812 of taxable income. That number fits an answer that omitted the $13,899 overtime deduction and never subtracted the $3,200 of CTC/ODC."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It explicitly used pre-TCJA 2026 rules (personal exemptions, $16,200 standard deduction, $1,000 CTC), subtracted ESI premiums from wages, and deducted the repealed DPAD. It also added a $2,000 10% early-withdrawal penalty that is not part of this output and omitted the overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied personal exemptions and a $1,000 CTC under the expired pre-TCJA regime, from an AGI understated at $94,756, instead of the OBBBA $32,200 standard deduction, $13,899 overtime deduction, $2,200 CTC and two $500 ODCs."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation. Its $11,940 is above the $7,641 pre-credit tax on the correct $67,812 of taxable income, which fits an answer that skipped the $13,899 overtime deduction and the $3,200 of nonrefundable credits."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Adding back its $3,200 of credits implies ~$9,415 of tax on ~$82,600 of taxable income, roughly the $67,812 correct figure plus the $13,899 overtime premium. It omitted the OBBBA overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $4,324 implies a pre-credit tax of $7,524 on ~$66,830 of taxable income, about $980 below the correct $67,812. It overstated its below-AGI deductions by roughly that amount while otherwise applying the $32,200 standard deduction, overtime deduction and $3,200 of credits."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $4,057 implies ~$7,257 of pre-credit tax on ~$64,600 of taxable income, about $3,200 below the correct $67,812. That fits an inflated QBI deduction (20% of $16,550 instead of 20% of $2,550) or the repealed DPAD added on top of the correct deductions."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value or explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was nothing to score."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value or explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was nothing to score."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It asserted that deductions and credits wipe out the tax without computing anything. Taxable income is $67,812, giving $7,641 of tax, and only $3,200 of nonrefundable CTC/ODC applies, so $4,441 remains."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed liability is zero without computing it. After the $32,200 standard deduction, $13,899 overtime deduction and $510 QBI deduction, taxable income is still $67,812 ($7,641 of tax), and the $3,200 of credits does not eliminate it."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $2,219 implies ~$5,419 of pre-credit tax on ~$49,300 of taxable income, about $18,500 below the correct $67,812. That fits treating the $19,648 employer insurance premium as a reduction of taxable wages, which the facts do not support."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the right components (2026 standard deduction, overtime deduction, $3,200 of credits), but its $44 excess equals about $360 of extra taxable income. One of its deduction amounts (QBI, IRA or the 401(k) exclusion) was understated by that much."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Its explanation subtracts only the qualifying-child credit, and $5,455 is about $1,000 above the correct $4,441. It dropped the two $500 credits for other dependents (the disabled 27-year-old and the 18-year-old)."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $92,978 AGI equals the correct $114,422 less the $19,648 employer insurance premium and the $1,796 DPAD. It treated ESI premiums as a pre-tax wage reduction, which the facts do not support, and deducted the repealed domestic production deduction."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $5,570 implies $8,770 of pre-credit tax on ~$77,200 of taxable income, about $9,400 above the correct $67,812. That fits double-counting the $14,000 SE partnership income on top of the $19,350 partnership income, partly offset by the DPAD and a $3,310 QBI deduction."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted the repealed $1,796 DPAD, which brought AGI to $112,626 instead of $114,422. It also claimed $1,500 of other-dependent credits instead of $1,000, since only Dependent 1 and Dependent 2 qualify for the $500 ODC."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation. Its $13,500 is far above the $7,641 pre-credit tax on the correct $67,812 of taxable income, which fits an answer that omitted the overtime deduction, overstated income and applied no CTC/ODC."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It explicitly applied TCJA-sunset rules ($17,000 standard deduction, $27,000 of personal exemptions, a 15% bracket and a $1,000 CTC phased out above $110,000) instead of the permanent OBBBA rules: $32,200 standard deduction, $13,899 overtime deduction, $2,200 CTC and two $500 ODCs."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $114,523 figure adds the $14,000 SE partnership income on top of the $19,350 partnership/S-corp income, which double-counts it, and it took a $3,310 QBI deduction instead of $510. It also used a $30,700 standard deduction instead of $32,200."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It double-counted the $14,000 SE partnership income in AGI and took a $3,310 QBI deduction instead of $510. It also added a $2,000 early-distribution penalty that is not part of this output."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted $21,208 of ESI and health premiums from income, double-counted the $14,000 SE partnership income, took a half-SE-tax deduction, and used the $1,796 DPAD as QBI. It also omitted the $13,899 overtime deduction and claimed only a $2,000 CTC, with no $500 credits for the two other dependents."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added a $2,000 early-withdrawal penalty on the 401(k) distribution, which is not part of this output. It also used an understated $97,723 AGI and deducted the repealed $1,796 DPAD instead of the $510 QBI deduction and $13,899 overtime deduction applied to the $114,421 AGI."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It double-counted the $14,000 SE partnership income, deducted Dependent 1's own 401(k) and IRA contributions on the parents' return, and took a $6,670 QBI deduction on $33,350. It also omitted the $13,899 overtime deduction and used a $2,000 CTC with only one $500 ODC, leaving out the 18-year-old's ODC."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It never excluded the $2,315 traditional 401(k) deferral from wages, so AGI came out at $116,737 instead of $114,421. It also deducted the repealed $1,796 DPAD instead of the $510 QBI deduction, which left taxable income $1,030 too high."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave $0 with no reasoning. The correct $67,812 of taxable income produces $7,641 of tax, and only $3,200 of nonrefundable CTC/ODC offsets it, so a zero answer means it assumed a liability-eliminating deduction or credit that does not exist."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the correct structure (standard, overtime and QBI deductions and $3,200 of credits), but its $23 excess equals about $190 of extra taxable income. One of its deduction inputs was slightly understated compared with the $67,812 taxable-income result."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted the $14,000 SE partnership income in addition to the $19,350 partnership income and took a half-SE-tax deduction. It also deducted the repealed $1,796 DPAD, took a $3,310 QBI deduction instead of $510, and omitted the $13,899 overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted the full $18,235 capital loss instead of the $3,000 limit and omitted the overtime, QBI and IRA deductions. It denied the $3,200 of CTC/ODC (the $400,000 phase-out threshold is far away), then reported $14,629.40 even though its own tax figure was $7,629.40."
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted the full capital loss and $11,827 of retirement contributions that include employee Roth and dependents' amounts, and it claimed both itemized medical expenses and the standard deduction. It then added a fictitious $12,150 child tax credit to the tax instead of subtracting the correct $3,200 of CTC/ODC."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its AGI ($114,422), overtime deduction, $510 QBI deduction and $3,200 of credits all match the correct path, and its own figures give about $7,630 − $3,200 ≈ $4,430. It then added about $1,529 of unexplained 'adjustments' to reach $5,959 instead of reporting tax minus credits."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $14,000 SE partnership income on top of the $19,350 partnership/S-corp income, which counts it twice. It also subtracted the $1,796 domestic production deduction, which was repealed after 2017, and took a $3,310 QBI deduction on $16,550 instead of $510 on the $2,550 net business income. Together these overstate taxable income by about $9,405 ($77,217 vs $67,812.12)."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $13,899 overtime premium on top of wages that already include it, deducted the full $18,235 capital loss instead of the $3,000 limit, and used a $14,600 standard deduction instead of the $32,200 joint amount for 2026. It never took the overtime deduction, and it applied unexplained extra credits to reach its figure."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no computation. Taxable income is $67,812.12 after the $32,200 standard, $510 QBI and $13,899.29 overtime deductions, and the resulting $7,641.46 of tax is larger than the $3,200 of CTC/ODC, so liability is $4,441.46. A $0 answer assumes deductions and credits wipe out the tax, which they do not."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the 2026 deduction for the $13,899 FLSA overtime premium. It also deducted half of an SE tax on the $14,000 partnership income, but that income nets against the $16,800 farm loss so no SE tax arises. On top of that, it cut the nonrefundable CTC to $1,072 even though tax is well above the full $3,200 of credits, and it added an unexplained $1,000."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It omitted the $13,899 overtime-premium deduction and added $1,978 of SE tax into income tax; SE tax is a separate liability, and here the farm loss eliminates it anyway. It also never subtracted the CTC/ODC it identified, so its $14,959 is higher than its own pre-credit total."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the repealed $1,796 domestic production deduction and an SE-tax deduction that doesn't apply (there is no SE tax here), took a $3,900 QBI deduction instead of $510, and omitted the $13,899 overtime deduction. It then added an unexplained 'additional tax' that pushed its answer above its own pre-credit figure, and it used $2,500 of credits instead of $3,200."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used pre-OBBBA 2025 values: a $30,000 standard deduction instead of $32,200, 2025 brackets, and a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200. It never took the $13,899 overtime-premium deduction, and it claimed an SE health insurance deduction and an SE-tax deduction even though net SE income is negative once the farm loss is included."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It omitted the $13,899 overtime deduction and subtracted the repealed $1,796 domestic production deduction. It then dropped the CTC as 'mostly refundable' even though tax is high enough to use the full $3,200 nonrefundably, and it inflated its own ~$9,300 tax estimate to $12,500 for Medicare/NIIT effects that don't apply."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $128.5k AGI counts the $14,000 SE partnership income twice, on top of the $19,350 partnership income. It used a $3.3k QBI deduction instead of $510 and omitted the $13,899 overtime-premium deduction, which overstates taxable income by about $25k ($92.9k vs $67.8k)."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted the $14,000 SE partnership income in addition to the $19,350 partnership income, subtracted the repealed $1,796 domestic production deduction, used a $3,310 QBI deduction and a $30,750 standard deduction, and never took the $13,899 overtime deduction. It also treated the 18-year-old as a CTC-qualifying child ($4,000 CTC); only the 12-year-old qualifies, with the two older dependents getting the $500 ODC each."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the TCJA-sunset rules: a $15,900 standard deduction, personal exemptions, a 15% bracket and a $1,000 CTC. OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent, so 2026 has a $32,200 joint standard deduction, no exemptions, a 12% bracket, a $2,200 CTC plus $500 ODCs, and the overtime-premium deduction. It also subtracted health premiums from wages, which is wrong."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the expired TCJA-sunset rules: personal exemptions, pre-TCJA brackets, and a $1,000 CTC phasing out at $110,000. Under OBBBA, 2026 has a $32,200 standard deduction, a $13,899.29 overtime deduction, a $2,200 CTC and $500 ODCs with a $400,000 phaseout, so the full $3,200 credit applies."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $114,422 AGI is right, but it omitted the $13,899 overtime-premium deduction and subtracted the repealed $1,796 domestic production deduction. It also used a $30,750 standard deduction instead of $32,200 and a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied pre-TCJA rules: personal exemptions and a $1,000 CTC. It also subtracted the employer-sponsored insurance premiums from wages and itemized medical expenses built from those same premiums, which aren't included in wages and aren't deductible a second time. Under 2026 law it should have taken the $32,200 standard deduction, the $510 QBI deduction, the overtime deduction and $3,200 of credits."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized instead of taking the $32,200 standard deduction and gave no sign of the $13,899.29 overtime deduction or the $3,200 of CTC/ODC. Its $11,090 is more than the correct $7,641.46 pre-credit tax on $67,812.12 of taxable income."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used pre-TCJA rules (personal exemptions, a $16,200 standard deduction, a $1,000 CTC), subtracted ESI premiums and the repealed domestic production deduction from AGI, and omitted the overtime deduction. It also added a $2,000 early-withdrawal penalty, which is not part of income tax before refundable credits."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied pre-TCJA personal exemptions and a $1,000 CTC, and it understated AGI at $94,756 by subtracting employer insurance premiums from wages. The correct 2026 OBBBA path uses $114,421.41 of AGI, the $32,200 standard deduction, the $13,899.29 overtime deduction, the $510 QBI deduction and $3,200 of CTC/ODC."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no computation. Its $11,940 is above even the correct $7,641.46 pre-credit tax, which means it left out the overtime and QBI deductions and the $3,200 of CTC/ODC that reduce tax to $4,441.46."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $6,215 is $1,774 too high, which is about $14,800 of extra taxable income at 12%. That matches leaving out the $13,899.29 FLSA overtime-premium deduction while taking the standard deduction and the $3,200 of CTC/ODC."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $4,324 is $117 too low, which is about $975 of excess deductions at 12%. It overstated a deduction; the correct figures are the $32,200 standard deduction and a $510 QBI deduction (20% of the $2,550 net of partnership income and the farm loss), giving $67,812.12 of taxable income."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $4,057 is $384 too low, which is about $3,200 of excess deductions at 12%. That matches a QBI deduction of about 20% of $16,550 instead of 20% of the $2,550 net business income ($510), with the overtime deduction and $3,200 of credits otherwise applied."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It never took the $13,899 overtime-premium deduction and deducted half of an SE tax that doesn't exist, since the farm loss offsets the SE partnership income. It used the $2,000 pre-OBBBA CTC instead of $2,200 and added a $2,000 early-withdrawal penalty, which is not part of income tax before refundable credits."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No value or explanation was returned for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was nothing to score against the $4,441.46 reference."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No value or explanation was returned for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was nothing to score against the $4,441.46 reference."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed deductions and credits wipe out the tax. After the $32,200 standard, $510 QBI and $13,899.29 overtime deductions, taxable income is still $67,812.12, and the $7,641.46 of tax on it exceeds the $3,200 of CTC/ODC, leaving $4,441.46."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed deductions and credits eliminate liability. $114,421.41 of AGI less the standard, QBI and overtime deductions leaves $67,812.12 of taxable income and $7,641.46 of tax, which is more than the $3,200 of nonrefundable CTC/ODC."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $2,219 is $2,222 too low, which is about $18,500 of excess deductions at 12%. The capital loss is limited to $3,000 against ordinary income, and the QBI deduction is only $510, so the correct taxable income is $67,812.12."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $4,485 is $43.54 too high, which is about $363 too little in deductions at 12%. It understated a small deduction, such as the $510 QBI deduction or the $108.19 IRA deduction, or used a slightly wrong 2026 bracket or standard-deduction figure instead of the $32,200 deduction and $24,800 10% bracket."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Its explanation subtracts only the qualifying-child credit, and $5,455 is about $1,000 above the correct figure. It left out the $500 credit for other dependents for each of the two adult dependents (the disabled 27-year-old and the 18-year-old)."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $92,978 AGI comes from subtracting the $19,648 employer-sponsored insurance premiums, which aren't part of the reported wages, and the $1,796 domestic production deduction, which was repealed after 2017. This understates AGI relative to the correct $114,421.41 and taxable income by about $21,443."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $5,570 corresponds to taxable income $9,405 too high. That is exactly what you get from adding the $14,000 SE partnership income on top of the $19,350 partnership income, subtracting the repealed $1,796 domestic production deduction, and taking a $3,310 QBI deduction instead of $510."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the repealed $1,796 domestic production deduction, which lowered AGI to $112,626 instead of $114,421.41. It also claimed $1,500 of other-dependent credits; only the two adult dependents qualify, for $1,000."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $13,500 is well above the correct $7,641.46 pre-credit tax. It ignored the $13,899.29 overtime and $510 QBI deductions that bring taxable income to $67,812.12, and it did not net the $3,200 of CTC/ODC."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $114,422 AGI is right, but it applied the TCJA-sunset rules: a $17,000 standard deduction, personal exemptions, a 15% bracket and a $1,000 CTC phasing out at $110,000. OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent, so it should have used the $32,200 standard deduction, the overtime deduction, the 12% bracket and $3,200 of CTC/ODC."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $14,000 SE partnership income on top of the $19,350 partnership income, which cancels nearly all of the $13,899 overtime deduction it took. It also used a $30,700 standard deduction instead of $32,200 and a $3,310 QBI deduction instead of $510."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted the $14,000 SE partnership income twice and took a $3,310 QBI deduction instead of $510, putting taxable income at $79,013 instead of $67,812.12. It also added a $2,000 early-distribution penalty, which is not part of income tax before refundable credits."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted $21,208 of employer and other health premiums from AGI, counted the $14,000 SE partnership income twice, deducted half of an SE tax that doesn't exist, used the repealed $1,796 domestic production deduction as QBI, and omitted the overtime deduction. It also claimed only a $2,000 CTC, with no $500 other-dependent credits."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,other,False,"It added a $2,000 10% early-withdrawal penalty on the 401(k) distribution, which is not part of income tax before refundable credits. It also understated AGI at $97,723 instead of $114,421.41 and subtracted the repealed $1,796 domestic production deduction in place of the $510 QBI deduction."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $14,000 SE partnership income on top of the $19,350 partnership income and deducted Dependent 1's 401(k) and IRA contributions on the filers' return. It also took a $6,670 QBI deduction instead of $510, omitted the $13,899 overtime deduction, and denied the 18-year-old's $500 ODC while using a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It did not remove the $2,315.40 traditional 401(k) deferral from wages, which put AGI at $116,737. It also subtracted the repealed $1,796 domestic production deduction instead of the $510 QBI deduction, overstating taxable income by about $1,030."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no computation. The correct path leaves $67,812.12 of taxable income and $7,641.46 of tax, and $3,200 of CTC/ODC brings that to $4,441.46. A $0 answer treats the household as having no remaining liability, which is wrong."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted both the repealed $1,796 domestic production deduction and a $3,870 QBI deduction (the correct QBI is $510), deducted the dependent's $18 IRA contribution on the filers' return, and used a $32,500 standard deduction. It also applied a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $4,464 is $22.54 too high, which is about $188 too little in deductions at 12%. It dropped part of the small deductions (the $108.19 IRA deduction, the $510 QBI deduction, or the cents of the $13,899.29 overtime premium) that bring taxable income to $67,812.12."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted the $14,000 SE partnership income on top of the $19,350 partnership income, deducted half of an SE tax that doesn't exist, subtracted the repealed $1,796 domestic production deduction, took a $3,310 QBI deduction instead of $510, and omitted the $13,899 overtime deduction."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted the full $18,235 capital loss instead of the $3,000 limit, omitted the overtime deduction, and denied the CTC/ODC on income grounds, although the $400,000 joint phaseout is far above AGI. Its final $14,629.40 also adds an unexplained $7,000 to its own $7,629.40 tax."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,other,False,"It added the $12,150 'child tax credit' to tax instead of subtracting it, and it deducted both itemized medical expenses and the standard deduction. It also deducted the full capital loss and the dependents' retirement contributions, and it never applied the overtime deduction or the correct $3,200 of CTC/ODC."
us,scenario_064,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It equated the refundable credit with the full $2,000 CTC for Child 1, skipping the ACTC computation entirely — the CTC first offsets federal income tax liability and only the unused remainder becomes refundable, capped at $1,700 per child and at 15% of earned income over $2,500. With $97,295 of wages plus $20,000 of taxable 401(k) distributions and $19,350 of partnership income, MFJ tax before refundable credits far exceeds $2,000, so the entire CTC is consumed nonrefundably and nothing spills into the refundable column. Its own AGI estimate of ~$120,610 also double-counted, adding partnership income while ignoring that the capital loss deduction is capped at $3,000."
us,scenario_064,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its reasoning reached the correct conclusion — 'with significant federal tax owed, CTC is nonrefundable' — and it then submitted the $1,700 statutory ACTC ceiling anyway, converting a per-child maximum into an entitlement. The ACTC equals only the CTC remaining after the credit is applied against federal income tax liability; here liability on ~$98,810 of income absorbs the full $2,000 for the one under-17 child, so the refundable amount is $0."
us,scenario_064,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It counted Dependent 2 (age 18) as a CTC qualifying child, but the credit requires age under 17 at year end, so that dependent yields only the $500 nonrefundable other-dependent credit rather than a $1,700 refundable share. It then paid out the per-child ACTC ceiling without applying the rule that only the CTC unused against tax liability is refundable; MFJ tax before refundable credits on ~$98,810 of income exceeds $2,000, so even the single qualifying child's credit is fully nonrefundable and the correct total is $0. Checking the $400,000 phaseout threshold was irrelevant — the binding constraint is the liability offset, not the income phaseout."
@@ -5464,53 +5643,55 @@ us,scenario_064,ssi,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model
us,scenario_064,ssi,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated Dependent 1 as SSI-disabled, applied the one-third reduction for living in another person's household ($644.67 × 12 ≈ $7,736) and added an estimated Wisconsin supplement to reach $7,952. Dependent 1 fails the engine's SSI aged/blind/disabled test (is_ssi_aged_blind_disabled=False), so no federal benefit or state supplement is paid and SSI is $0."
us,scenario_064,ssi,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no SSI value and no explanation, so there is no answer to score. The correct derivation is $0: no member meets SSI's aged/blind/disabled requirement under the engine's inputs."
us,scenario_064,ssi,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model correctly excluded Head and Spouse as neither 65+ nor disabled, but wrongly declared Dependent 1 'categorically SSI-eligible' because of the disability flag and paid $994 × 12 = $11,928. The engine's SSI aged/blind/disabled test is also False for Dependent 1, so no member is eligible and SSI is $0."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"It wrongly subtracted a $989 self-employment tax deduction, but the $16,800 farm loss offsets the $14,000 self-employment partnership income, so there is no self-employment tax. It also added back $2,500 under a $500 Wisconsin capital-loss cap and skipped the $2,315 401(k) exclusion. It then cut its own $4,964 gross tax to $2,699 with an invented itemized-deduction credit and unexplained 'precision' adjustments. The household has no nonrefundable credits, so the tax should be $4,599.62."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started from a federal AGI of $126,626, which counts the $14,000 self-employment partnership income on top of the $19,350 partnership/S-corp income that already includes it. It also added back $2,500 under a $500 capital-loss cap. That gave taxable income of about $117,700 instead of $101,968.14."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It built taxable income by subtracting the full $18,235 capital loss instead of the $3,000 limit. It then cited a 5.3%–7.65% rate schedule, leaving out the 3.5% and 4.4% brackets. The correct calculation is federal AGI of $114,421.41, minus the $8,953.27 sliding-scale deduction and $3,500 of exemptions, giving $101,968.14 taxable."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,missing_output,False,"It openly skipped the Wisconsin calculation and entered 0. The joint return actually owes $4,599.62 on $101,968.14 of taxable income."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,other,False,"It counted only four $700 exemptions instead of five and left out the $2,315 401(k) and $108 IRA reductions to AGI. It then subtracted about $875 for school property tax and itemized deduction credits. The household lists no property tax or rent and has no itemized deductions above the standard deduction, so no nonrefundable credits apply."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the old 4.4% bracket ceiling of $38,190, but the 2026 joint bracket runs to roughly $69,000. That overtaxed the income between those levels at 5.3%. It then raised its own $4,784 figure to $5,074 with no supporting calculation."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added back $2,500 by applying a $500 Wisconsin capital-loss cap. Under the 2026 rules the $3,000 federal deduction carries over, so Wisconsin AGI equals federal AGI of $114,421.41. The addback, together with a slightly smaller standard deduction of about $8,000, raised taxable income to $105,422 instead of $101,968.14."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted a $990 self-employment tax deduction that doesn't exist here, because the farm loss eliminates net self-employment earnings. It disallowed the $108 IRA deduction and added back $2,500 under a $500 capital-loss cap. It phased the standard deduction down to $3,957 instead of $8,953.27, used the old narrow brackets, and then subtracted $520 of made-up credits."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted the $14,000 self-employment partnership income on top of the $19,350 partnership/S-corp income and subtracted the repealed $1,796 domestic production deduction. It used a $14,000 standard deduction and only four exemptions. Its $4,200 does not even follow from its own $109,826 taxable income."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It put taxable income at about $125,000 instead of $101,968.14, which overstates income from AGI of $114,421.41. It also allowed only three dependent exemptions, dropping the $700 exemptions for the head and spouse."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a made-up schedule: 4% on the first $23,000 and 5.3% on everything above. The 2026 joint schedule is 3.5%, then 4.4% up to roughly $69,000, then 5.3%. Its schedule taxes about $46,000 at 5.3% that should be taxed at 4.4%."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the repealed $1,796 domestic production deduction and used a flat $25,000 standard deduction. Wisconsin's sliding-scale deduction phases down to $8,953.27 at this income, so taxable income fell to $82,566 instead of $101,968.14."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its taxable income of $119,774.69 is $17,806.55 above the correct $101,968.14. That gap roughly matches the $16,800 farm loss, which it failed to net. Its tax on that base also reflects the old narrow 4.4% bracket rather than the 2026 bracket running to about $69,000."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the five $700 Wisconsin exemptions as a $3,500 dollar-for-dollar tax credit, but they are deductions from income. It also used outdated 3.54%/4.65% rates and an overstated $13,197 standard deduction instead of $8,953.27."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It overstated the sliding-scale standard deduction as $13,506 instead of $8,953.27 and used the old narrow 4.4% bracket. It then subtracted a $150 'dependent credit' that does not exist. Wisconsin allows no nonrefundable credits for this household."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,other,False,"It gave no calculation, and its $4,652.12 is $52.50 above the correct tax. That gap equals about $990 of extra taxable income at the 5.3% marginal rate, the size of the self-employment tax deduction that isn't owed here. The correct tax applies the 2026 schedule to $101,968.14."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It understated AGI as $92,978 instead of $114,421.41, a $21,443 shortfall, so taxable income was about $78,969 instead of $101,968.14."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It put net taxable income at $82,256 instead of $101,968.14, nearly $20,000 too low, by over-deducting from AGI of $114,421.41. The sliding-scale deduction is only $8,953.27, and there are $3,500 of exemptions."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no calculation, and its $6,950 implies taxable income of about $146,000. That is consistent with not netting the $16,800 farm loss and $3,000 capital loss and skipping the sliding-scale deduction and exemptions. The correct taxable income is $101,968.14."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no calculation, and its $4,125 is $474.62 too low. That matches about $8,955 of extra deductions at the 5.3% marginal rate, which means it used roughly double the phased-down $8,953.27 standard deduction."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no calculation, and its $3,212 is $1,387.62 too low. That implies about $26,000 of extra deductions or invented nonrefundable credits. At this income the standard deduction is only $8,953.27, and the household has no nonrefundable credits."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no calculation, and its $2,490 is $2,109.62 too low. That is consistent with using the full, unphased standard deduction instead of the sliding-scale $8,953.27, or subtracting credits the household doesn't have."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It submitted no usable value for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was nothing to score against $4,599.62."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It submitted no usable value for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was nothing to score against $4,599.62."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed deductions and retirement adjustments wipe out the tax. In fact, after the $8,953.27 sliding-scale deduction and $3,500 of exemptions, $101,968.14 of income remains taxable, and no credits offset the $4,599.62."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed deductions and credits cancel the tax. Federal AGI of $114,421.41 leaves $101,968.14 taxable after the sliding-scale deduction and exemptions, and Wisconsin offers this household no nonrefundable credits."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left the $3,000 capital loss out of its $117,222 income and used a $15,166 standard deduction instead of $8,953.27. It allowed only two $700 exemptions instead of five. It then subtracted a $472 itemized-deduction credit, but medical costs are below the floor and no mortgage interest is listed, so no credit applies."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,other,False,"It gave no calculation, and its $2,800 is $1,799.62 too low. That implies heavy over-deduction or invented nonrefundable credits. The household has $101,968.14 of taxable income and no credits."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $4,872 is $272.38 above the correct tax. That matches using the old 4.4% bracket ceiling of about $40,000 instead of the 2026 joint ceiling of roughly $69,000, which taxes about $29,000 at 5.3% instead of 4.4%."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied 'exemption credits' against the tax. Wisconsin's $700 personal exemptions are deductions from income, not credits, and no nonrefundable credits apply. That cut the tax $528.62 below $4,599.62."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added back $2,500 under a $500 capital-loss cap and subtracted $2,340 of health insurance premiums. Wisconsin AGI equals federal AGI here, with no medical-insurance subtraction for employer-covered workers. Its 'estimated indexed' brackets were also too low, producing $3,254.36 when taxable income near $102,000 gives about $4,600."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no calculation, and its $5,654 is $1,054.38 too high. That equals about $19,900 of extra taxable income at 5.3%, consistent with double counting the $14,000 self-employment partnership income or not netting the farm loss. The correct taxable income is $101,968.14."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started from the correct AGI of $114,421, but its $4,200 is $399.62 too low. That implies about $7,500 more in deductions than the $8,953.27 sliding-scale deduction plus five $700 exemptions allow."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted a $4,135 health-premium deduction to reach $110,286. No such Wisconsin subtraction applies to these employer-covered premiums. That lowered taxable income and inflated the standard deduction to $10,207.94, and its rate arithmetic also used a narrower 4.4% bracket than the 2026 schedule."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,other,False,"It gave no calculation, and its round $4,500 is $99.62 short. It never applied the 2026 joint schedule precisely to the $101,968.14 left after the $8,953.27 deduction and $3,500 of exemptions."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the five $700 personal exemptions entirely and used a sliding-scale deduction of about $6,500 instead of $8,953.27. That put taxable income at $107,900 instead of $101,968.14."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its taxable income of $101,947 is essentially correct, but it used bracket breaks of $29,350 and $58,700. The 2026 joint schedule breaks at about $20,000 and $69,000, so it overstated the tax by $10.38."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its taxable income of about $102,274 is close, but its $4,876 implies the old 4.4% bracket ending near $40,000. The 2026 joint bracket runs to roughly $69,000, so it taxed about $29,000 too much at 5.3%."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied 2024 brackets with 4.75% and 5.75% rates, which are not in the 2026 schedule of 3.5%/4.4%/5.3%. It also understated AGI at $106,225, used a $13,500 standard deduction instead of $8,953.27, and left out the $3,500 of exemptions."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the federal overtime deduction out of AGI and then added it back. That deduction never reduces AGI, so its starting AGI of $97,723 is wrong; the correct federal AGI is $114,421.41. It then over-deducted to about $90,000 of taxable income instead of $101,968.14."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It submitted no usable value for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was nothing to score against $4,599.62."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied an obsolete 6.27% rate to the third bracket, but the 2026 rate is 5.3%. It also left the $2,315 401(k) deferral out of AGI and understated the sliding-scale deduction at $5,481 instead of $8,953.27."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"It entered 0 with no calculation. The joint return has $101,968.14 of Wisconsin taxable income and owes $4,599.62 with no offsetting nonrefundable credits."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,other,False,"It gave only a vague description, and its $4,448 is $151.62 short. It never applied the 2026 joint schedule to the exact $101,968.14 left after the $8,953.27 sliding-scale deduction and $3,500 of exemptions."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $31,300 federal-style standard deduction instead of Wisconsin's sliding-scale $8,953.27 and left out the five $700 exemptions. It overstated AGI at $127,253 instead of $114,421.41 and used made-up bracket breaks of $29,430 and $58,860."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It excluded the $13,899 overtime premium from federal AGI, but that deduction does not reduce AGI and Wisconsin does not adopt it. It used a $13,500 standard deduction, no exemptions, and an obsolete 4.65% rate. It then reported $4,221.67, which does not match its own $3,767."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted $11,827 of retirement contributions, including non-deductible Roth amounts and a 401(k) deferral already excluded from wages. It also deducted medical expenses, which Wisconsin does not allow as a deduction. Both pushed taxable income far below $101,968.14."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It took a half-SE-tax deduction of about $989 even though the $14,000 SE partnership income nets against the $16,800 farm loss to negative SE earnings, left out the $2,315 401(k) exclusion, and used the old $19,090/$38,190 brackets, reaching $4,964. It then cut that to $2,699 using an itemized-deduction credit and unexplained adjustments. No nonrefundable credit applies: medical costs are below the 7.5% floor and no mortgage interest is listed."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its $126,626 federal AGI counts the $14,000 SE partnership income on top of the $19,350 partnership/S-corp income and subtracts the repealed $1,796 domestic production deduction. It then added a $2,500 capital-loss add-back. Its $117,700 of taxable income is about $15,700 above the $101,968 that comes from $114,421 AGI less the $8,953 sliding deduction and $3,500 of exemptions."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It deducted the full $18,235 capital loss instead of the $3,000 limit, started from 'federal taxable income' instead of federal AGI, and cited 5.3%–7.65% rates. It never computed the $8,953 sliding deduction or the $3,500 of exemptions. Its $4,512 does not come from the actual $101,968 of taxable income taxed at 3.5%/4.4%/5.3%."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It entered 0 and said Wisconsin tax was not computed. Wisconsin AGI is $114,421; after the $8,953 sliding deduction and $3,500 of exemptions, taxable income is $101,968, which produces $4,599.62 with no nonrefundable credits."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It left out the $2,315 401(k) exclusion and the $108 IRA deduction (AGI $116,845 instead of $114,421), counted only four $700 exemptions instead of five, and used 2023 brackets without the expanded 4.4% band. It then subtracted about $875 of school property tax and itemized-deduction credits, but no property tax or mortgage interest is listed and medical costs are below the federal floor."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its own bracket math on $100,000 of taxable income gave $4,784, but it then raised the answer to $5,074 while calling the $700 exemptions 'credit-equivalents'. Wisconsin exemptions are subtractions already reflected in the $101,968 of taxable income, and no nonrefundable credits apply. It also used the 2024 thresholds ($19,090/$38,190) instead of the expanded 2026 4.4% bracket."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied Wisconsin's $500 net capital loss cap and added back $2,500, making Wisconsin AGI $116,922 instead of the engine's $114,421, which keeps the full $3,000 federal loss. It also rounded the sliding deduction to about $8,000. Its taxable income of $105,422 is $3,454 above the engine's $101,968."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It phased a $22,010 standard deduction out on a straight line from $34,000 to $134,000, leaving $3,957 instead of the $8,953 that the 19.778% sliding-scale rate yields. It then subtracted $520 of invented 'homestead/other' credits. It also took a half-SE-tax deduction, disallowed the $108 IRA deduction even though AGI is below the phase-out, added a $2,500 capital-loss add-back, and used 2023 brackets."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted the $14,000 SE partnership income separately from the $19,350 partnership/S-corp amount, subtracted the repealed $1,796 domestic production deduction (AGI $126,626), and counted only four exemptions. Its stated $4,200 does not follow from its own $109,826 of taxable income. The correct chain is $114,421 − $8,953 − $3,500 = $101,968, giving $4,599.62."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used about $125,000 of taxable income and only three $700 dependent exemptions, leaving out the two filer exemptions. That is roughly $23,000 more than the $101,968 that comes from $114,421 AGI less the $8,953 sliding deduction and five exemptions."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used an invented schedule (4% on the first ~$23,000, 5.3% on the rest) and skipped the $3,500 of exemptions. Wisconsin's 2026 joint schedule taxes income at 3.5% up to about $20,150, 4.4% up to about $69,260 and 5.3% above that, which on $101,968 gives $4,599.62."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It subtracted the repealed $1,796 domestic production deduction and took a flat $25,000 standard deduction with no sliding-scale phase-out. At $114,421 of AGI the deduction phases down to $8,953, so its $82,566 of taxable income is about $19,400 too low."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its $119,775 of taxable income is $17,807 above the correct $101,968, so it overstated Wisconsin AGI, which is $114,421 after the farm loss, the $3,000 capital loss, the 401(k) exclusion and the IRA deduction. It also taxed that income with the old thresholds and the narrower 4.4% band."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It got AGI right ($114,422) but overstated the sliding deduction at $13,197 instead of $8,953 and used nonexistent 3.54%/4.65% rates. It also subtracted the $3,500 of exemptions directly from tax as a credit instead of from income, cutting tax by about $3,300 too much."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used a $13,506 sliding deduction instead of $8,953, which gave $97,576 of taxable income instead of $101,968. It taxed that with the old thresholds (4.4% band ending near $38,000) and then subtracted a $150 'dependent credit' that Wisconsin does not provide here."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It showed no computation, and its $4,652.12 is $52.50 above the correct figure. That figure comes from $114,421 AGI less the $8,953 sliding deduction and $3,500 of exemptions, giving $101,968 taxed under the 2026 joint schedule. Its number is a rough estimate, not that exact calculation."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It started from a $92,978 AGI, which drops $21,443 of income from the correct $114,421. Its taxable income of $78,969 is about $23,000 too low, and it taxed it with the old, narrower 4.4% band."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It understated taxable income at $82,256 (correct: $101,968) by inflating the sliding deduction. It then applied a flat 5.3% to all of it (0.053 × $82,256 ≈ $4,356) instead of the graduated 3.5%/4.4%/5.3% schedule."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It gave no computation. Its $6,950 is $2,350 too high, which equals taxing about $131,000 at 5.3%. That skips the farm and capital losses, the $8,953 sliding deduction, the $3,500 of exemptions and the lower brackets."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It gave only a label with no computation. Its $4,125 is $474.62 short of the tax on $101,968, which equals about $9,000 too little taxable income at the 5.3% marginal rate, i.e. an oversized deduction."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It cut the tax with nonrefundable credits, but none apply here. There is no married couple credit because the spouse has no earned income. There is no itemized-deduction credit because medical costs are below the floor and no mortgage interest is listed. Its $3,212 is $1,388 below the tax on $101,968 of taxable income."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It subtracted nonrefundable credits that this household does not qualify for: no married couple credit (the spouse has no earnings) and no itemized-deduction credit. Its $2,490 is $2,110 below the $4,599.62 on $101,968 of taxable income."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It added a $666.67 'early withdrawal penalty' that is not part of this income-tax output and subtracted a medical-insurance-premium amount the engine does not apply. It also netted a married couple credit even though the spouse has no earned income. Its Wisconsin AGI ($115,322) used a $500 capital-loss cap instead of the $114,421 federal AGI."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No value was returned for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so nothing could be scored."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No value was returned for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so nothing could be scored."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It assumed deductions bring the tax to zero. At $114,421 of AGI the Wisconsin sliding-scale deduction is only $8,953, and after $3,500 of exemptions $101,968 is still taxable, producing $4,599.62."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It assumed deductions and credits outweigh the tax. The sliding deduction phases down to $8,953 at $114,421 of AGI, exemptions total $3,500, no nonrefundable credits apply, and the remaining $101,968 is taxed at $4,599.62."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its $117,222 income figure leaves out the $3,000 capital-loss deduction. It also overstated the sliding deduction ($15,166 instead of $8,953), counted only two of the five $700 exemptions, and subtracted an invented $472 itemized-deduction credit even though medical costs are below the 7.5% floor and no mortgage interest is listed."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It showed no figures. Its $2,800 is $1,800 below the $4,599.62 on $101,968 of taxable income, which means it removed far more through deductions and nonrefundable credits than the household qualifies for; no nonrefundable credit applies."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its $4,872 is what the correct $101,968 of taxable income yields under the old schedule, where the 4.4% joint band ends near $39,400. It missed 2025 Wisconsin Act 15, which extended the 4.4% joint bracket to about $69,260 for 2026, so about $30,000 more is taxed at 4.4% instead of 5.3%."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It treated Wisconsin exemptions as 'exemption credits' against tax. In fact the five $700 exemptions are subtractions from income ($3,500), and no nonrefundable credits apply, so $4,071 is $529 below the $4,599.62 on $101,968 of taxable income."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It subtracted a $2,340 health-insurance premium amount, including the dependent's $780 premium, that the engine does not apply, and added a $2,500 capital-loss add-back. It then misapplied the brackets: its own taxable income of roughly $102,000 produces about $4,600 under the 2026 joint schedule, not $3,254."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its $5,654 is $1,054 above the correct figure, which implies about $122,000 of taxable income instead of $101,968. It therefore left out major subtractions: the $16,800 farm loss, the $3,000 capital loss, the 401(k) deferral, or the $8,953 sliding deduction plus $3,500 of exemptions."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It started from the correct $114,422 AGI, but its $4,200 is $400 low, which implies about $7,500 more in deductions than the $8,953 sliding deduction plus $3,500 of exemptions allow. With those amounts, taxable income is $101,968 and tax is $4,599.62."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It subtracted a health-premium deduction of about $4,135 (AGI cut to $110,286) that the engine does not apply. That also inflated the sliding deduction to $10,208, so taxable income fell to about $96,578 instead of $101,968."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It gave a rounded $4,500 without computing the exact chain: $114,421 AGI less the $8,953 sliding deduction and $3,500 of exemptions gives $101,968, which is taxed at $4,599.62 under the 2026 joint schedule."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used the correct $114,422 AGI but understated the sliding deduction at about $6,500 (correct: $8,953) and never subtracted the five $700 exemptions ($3,500). Its taxable income was therefore about $107,900 instead of $101,968."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its $101,947 of taxable income essentially matches the correct $101,968. But it ended the 3.5% bracket at $29,350 and the 4.4% bracket at $58,700, instead of about $20,150 and $69,260 in the 2026 joint schedule, which overstated tax by about $10."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its AGI of $114,523 leaves out the $108 IRA deduction, giving about $102,274 of taxable income. It then used the old 4.4% band, which ends near $40,000, so about $29,000 was taxed at 5.3% instead of 4.4%, adding roughly $260."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its AGI of $106,225 is $8,196 too low. It also took an oversized $13,500 deduction, skipped the $3,500 of exemptions, and used 4.75%/5.75% rates that are not in Wisconsin's 3.5%/4.4%/5.3% schedule."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It started from a federal AGI of about $97,723, roughly $16,700 below the correct $114,421, and treated the overtime deduction as an AGI item needing a Wisconsin add-back. The federal overtime deduction is taken below the line, so AGI already includes the $13,899 premium. Its taxable income of about $90,000 is about $12,000 short of $101,968."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No value was returned for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so nothing could be scored."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its $116,737 AGI leaves out the $2,315 traditional 401(k) deferral that should come off wages. It understated the sliding deduction at $5,481 and applied a 6.27% top rate; for 2026 the rate on this income is 5.3%. Together these inflate the tax to $6,091."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It returned 0 with no work shown. Taxable income is $101,968 after the $8,953 sliding deduction and $3,500 of exemptions, and no credit offsets the resulting $4,599.62."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It took a $19,800 standard deduction, ignoring the 19.778% sliding-scale phase-out that cuts it to $8,953 at $114,421 of AGI. It also skipped the $3,500 of exemptions and taxed $94,600 with the old, narrower 4.4% band."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It gave no figures. Its $4,448 is $151.62 short, which equals about $2,900 too little taxable income at the 5.3% marginal rate compared with the $101,968 that comes from $114,421 AGI less $8,953 and $3,500."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied the full $31,300 joint standard deduction with no sliding-scale phase-out (correct: $8,953), skipped exemptions, and started from a $127,253 AGI that is $12,832 too high. It also used invented bracket tops of $29,430/$58,860."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It removed the overtime premium from AGI, but the federal overtime deduction is taken below the line and Wisconsin does not adopt it, so AGI is $114,421, not $100,523. It also skipped the $3,500 of exemptions, and its final $4,221.67 does not match its own $3,767 bracket calculation."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"After starting from AGI, it subtracted $11,827 of 'retirement contributions' again, which double-counts deferrals and pulls in Roth and dependent contributions. It also subtracted medical expenses, which Wisconsin does not allow as a deduction. Wisconsin AGI is $114,421 and taxable income is $101,968."
us,scenario_064,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model enumerated every Wisconsin refundable credit — Homestead (income too high), the WI EITC (federal EITC is $0, and the WI credit is a straight percentage of it), Farmland Preservation, and the Veterans and Surviving Spouses Property Tax Credit — and stated that each one does not apply, then submitted $154 rather than the $0 its own enumeration produces. No credit it named yields $154: the Homestead Credit is additionally barred because no rent or property tax is listed, and the Married Couple and Itemized Deduction credits it correctly identified as nonrefundable are excluded from this output entirely."
us,scenario_064,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model omitted the state_refundable_credits key from its outputs object, so it submitted no value for a variable the prompt required exactly once. The correct derivation sums Wisconsin's refundable credits — WI EITC at $0 because the federal EITC is $0 on $97,295 of wages, Homestead at $0 under its household-income ceiling and with no rent or property tax listed, Farmland Preservation at $0 absent a preservation agreement — for a total of $0."
us,scenario_064,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no state_refundable_credits entry, leaving the required key unanswered rather than making a substantive Wisconsin credit error. Working the rule set through yields $0: the WI EITC is a percentage of a federal EITC that is $0 at this income, the Homestead Credit fails both the income ceiling and the requirement that rent or property tax be paid, and the Farmland Preservation Credit requires an unlisted farmland preservation agreement."
@@ -5536,195 +5717,205 @@ us,scenario_066,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligib
us,scenario_066,head_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said other means-tested coverage rules out Medicaid. Current coverage does not affect eligibility, and the head qualifies in Virginia's expansion adult category with MAGI of 0.03x FPL."
us,scenario_066,head_medicaid_eligible,minimax-m3,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"The model applied a $2,000 asset limit to the $14,000 bank balance. MAGI-based categories, including Virginia's ACA adult expansion category, have no resource test, so the head is eligible on $520 of income alone."
us,scenario_066,head_medicaid_eligible,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,period_annualization,False,"The model annualized the $32 hourly wage at 40 hours a week into about $66,560 of earnings instead of using the stated $520 of annual wages. It also treated existing means-tested coverage as disqualifying. With actual MAGI of 0.03x FPL, the head meets the expansion adult limit, and current coverage has no bearing on eligibility."
-us,scenario_066,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the federal $2,500/$3,750 SNAP resource limit to the $14,000 bank balance. It missed that Virginia's broad-based categorical eligibility makes the household categorically eligible through the TANF non-cash tests, so the federal asset limit does not apply. The household gets the full $298/month maximum, or $3,576 a year."
-us,scenario_066,snap,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It ruled the household ineligible because $14,000 exceeds the federal SNAP resource limit. It ignored Virginia's broad-based categorical eligibility, under which the household passes the TANF non-cash asset test and the federal resource limit is waived. The correct benefit is the $298/month one-person maximum."
-us,scenario_066,snap,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly applied BBCE and found net income of $0, but it used a one-person maximum allotment of $275/month. The FY2026 contiguous-US maximum is $298/month, which gives $3,576 a year, not $3,300."
-us,scenario_066,snap,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly found net income of zero and the $298 maximum ($3,576 a year). It then subtracted an invented 'small income offset' to get $2,496 (about $208/month). With $0 net income, the 30% net-income contribution is $0, so the benefit equals the full maximum allotment."
-us,scenario_066,snap,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly found net income near zero and the household entitled to the maximum allotment, but it used $283/month instead of the FY2026 one-person maximum of $298/month. That understates the annual benefit by $180."
-us,scenario_066,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It wrongly asserted that Virginia limits categorical eligibility to TANF/SSI recipients and then applied the $2,750 federal asset limit to the $14,000 balance. Virginia runs broad-based categorical eligibility through TANF non-cash benefits, which this household's income and assets satisfy. That waives the federal resource test and yields the $298/month maximum."
-us,scenario_066,snap,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It misread the $520 annual wage total as weekly earnings and computed about $2,253/month, so the household failed the 130% FPL gross income test. Actual monthly earnings are $43.33, well under every income limit, and the household gets the full $298/month maximum."
-us,scenario_066,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly found net income of $0, but it used a $294/month one-person maximum allotment. The FY2026 contiguous-US maximum is $298/month, so the annual benefit is $3,576, not $3,528."
-us,scenario_066,snap,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It cut benefits to 3 months under the ABAWD time limit even though the head usually works 40 hours a week, which satisfies the 20-hour work requirement. The household therefore passes the work rules in all 12 months. It also used the outdated $292 maximum instead of $298."
-us,scenario_066,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly applied Virginia BBCE and found net income of $0, but it used the FY2025 one-person maximum of $292/month. The FY2026 maximum is $298/month, so the correct total is $3,576, not $3,504."
-us,scenario_066,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly waived the asset test under BBCE and found net income of $0, but it used a $291/month maximum allotment. The FY2026 one-person contiguous-US maximum is $298/month, or $3,576 a year."
-us,scenario_066,snap,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It returned $0 without applying any actual rule. It never recognized that Virginia's broad-based categorical eligibility waives the asset test, or that $43.33 of monthly earnings leaves net income at $0. Correctly applied, those rules give the full $298/month one-person maximum."
-us,scenario_066,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly applied BBCE and the maximum-benefit logic, but it used $291/month instead of the FY2026 one-person maximum of $298/month. That understates the annual benefit by $84."
-us,scenario_066,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly applied Virginia BBCE and found net income of zero, but it used a $291/month maximum allotment. The FY2026 one-person maximum is $298/month, giving $3,576 a year."
-us,scenario_066,snap,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $3,504 equals 12 × $292, the FY2025 one-person maximum allotment. The FY2026 maximum is $298/month, so the full-benefit household receives $3,576."
-us,scenario_066,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly waived the asset test under BBCE and found net income of $0, but its $3,504 annual maximum reflects the FY2025 figure of $292/month instead of the FY2026 figure of $298/month."
-us,scenario_066,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used $292/month, the FY2025 one-person maximum allotment. The FY2026 maximum is $298/month, so the annual benefit is $3,576."
-us,scenario_066,snap,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly found net income of $0, but it applied the FY2025 one-person maximum of $292/month instead of the FY2026 maximum of $298/month. That understates the benefit by $72."
-us,scenario_066,snap,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its deductions and BBCE treatment were correct, but it rounded the one-person maximum allotment to about $300/month. The FY2026 contiguous-US maximum is exactly $298/month, or $3,576 a year."
-us,scenario_066,snap,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly applied BBCE and found net income of $0, but it used $297/month as the one-person maximum. The FY2026 maximum is $298/month, so the annual total is $3,576, not $3,564."
-us,scenario_066,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It disqualified the household for having $14,000 in bank assets under 'typical resource limits'. It missed that Virginia's broad-based categorical eligibility removes the federal SNAP asset test for this household. The household is eligible for the $298/month maximum."
-us,scenario_066,snap,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its own reasoning acknowledged that SNAP is available at this very low income, yet it returned $0 without citing any disqualifying rule. With $43.33 of monthly earnings, Virginia BBCE and $0 net income, the household gets the full $298/month maximum."
-us,scenario_066,snap,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the federal resource limit for a nonelderly, nondisabled household to the $14,000 balance. It overlooked Virginia's broad-based categorical eligibility, which waives that limit because the household meets the TANF non-cash tests."
-us,scenario_066,snap,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It denied SNAP because the $14,000 in assets exceeds the federal limit, and it also cited the household's other health coverage, which has no bearing on SNAP. Virginia's broad-based categorical eligibility waives the asset test, so the household receives the $298/month maximum."
-us,scenario_066,snap,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly applied BBCE and the shelter deduction to reach $0 net income, but it used an estimated $292/month maximum (the FY2025 figure). The FY2026 one-person maximum is $298/month."
-us,scenario_066,snap,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly found BBCE eligibility and $0 net income, but it used the outdated $292/month one-person maximum allotment instead of the FY2026 figure of $298/month. That gives $3,504 instead of $3,576."
-us,scenario_066,snap,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It reached net income of zero and the maximum benefit (even though it misstated the standard deduction as $204 a year), but it applied the FY2025 maximum allotment of $292/month. The FY2026 one-person maximum is $298/month."
-us,scenario_066,snap,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly treated the household as getting the maximum allotment, but it rounded that allotment to $300/month. The FY2026 one-person contiguous-US maximum is $298/month, which gives $3,576 a year."
-us,scenario_066,snap,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the federal resource limit because 'no categorical-eligibility waiver is listed'. Virginia's broad-based categorical eligibility applies automatically through TANF non-cash benefits, and this household passes those tests, so the $14,000 in assets does not disqualify it."
-us,scenario_066,snap,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It recognized the income was far below the limits, but it disqualified the household on the federal asset limit. It missed that Virginia's broad-based categorical eligibility waives that limit, leaving the household entitled to the $298/month maximum."
-us,scenario_066,snap,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It subtracted an $872 '30% income contribution', which is not 30% of anything in this case: 30% of the $520 gross is only $156, and the contribution should be 30% of net income, which is $0 after the standard and shelter deductions. It also used the outdated $292 maximum instead of $298/month."
-us,scenario_066,snap,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a fabricated $213/month maximum allotment, subtracted 30% of annual gross income from a monthly figure, and invented a $149/month minimum benefit floor. The correct calculation gives net income of $0 after deductions and the FY2026 one-person maximum of $298/month."
-us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Correctly found the refundable Virginia EITC and a federal childless EITC of about $40, but used the old 15% rate. Since tax year 2024, Virginia's refundable EITC has been 20% of the federal credit, so the answer is 20% × $39.78 = $7.96, not about $6."
-us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Said Virginia has no refundable individual credits and treated the EITC as federal-only. Virginia does have a refundable EITC equal to 20% of the federal EITC, which here is 20% × $39.78 = $7.96. The model also described $520 as $32 × 40 hours, but $520 is simply the listed annual wage."
-us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Said no refundable Virginia credit applies and missed the refundable EITC. That credit is 20% of the federal EITC. The federal EITC is 7.65% × $520 = $39.78, so the state credit is $7.96."
-us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Treated the federal childless EITC as effectively zero at $520 of earnings. The credit starts at the first dollar earned, at 7.65%, so it is $39.78. The model also used 15% instead of Virginia's 20% refundable rate, which gives $7.96."
-us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Found Virginia's refundable EITC but rounded it to zero, assuming it depends on tax liability. The refundable EITC is paid even when tax is zero. It equals 20% of the $39.78 federal EITC, or $7.96. The model also used the outdated 15% rate."
-us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied only the nonrefundable Virginia low-income credit/EITC option, limited by zero tax. It missed that Virginia also offers a refundable EITC at 20% of the federal EITC, which pays $7.96 here even with no tax liability."
-us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Claimed the federal childless EITC needs earnings above about $600. The phase-in starts at $1 at 7.65%, so $520 of wages produces a $39.78 federal EITC. Virginia's 20% refundable EITC on that is $7.96, not $0."
-us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Assumed the refundable Virginia EITC applies only if elected and that no election was made. The prompt says to assume take-up of credits when required. The refundable EITC is 20% of the $39.78 federal EITC, or $7.96."
-us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Said Virginia's earned income credit is nonrefundable only. Virginia also has a refundable EITC equal to 20% of the federal EITC, which here is 20% × $39.78 = $7.96."
-us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Got the federal EITC exactly right at $39.78 but applied the pre-2024 15% rate. Virginia's refundable EITC is 20% of the federal credit, so the answer is $7.96, not $5.97."
-us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Said no state refundable credits apply and missed Virginia's refundable EITC. That credit is 20% of the federal EITC of 7.65% × $520 = $39.78, which gives $7.96."
-us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Found the refundable EITC but used 15% and a rounded $40 federal EITC. Virginia's rate is 20%, applied to the exact $39.78 federal EITC, which gives $7.96."
-us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Got the federal EITC right at $39.78 but applied the outdated 15% rate. Since tax year 2024, Virginia's refundable EITC is 20% of the federal credit, which is $7.96."
-us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Said Virginia has no refundable credits for this profile and missed the refundable EITC. That credit is 20% of the $39.78 federal childless EITC, or $7.96."
-us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Correctly used the $39.78 federal EITC but applied 15% instead of Virginia's current 20% refundable EITC rate. The answer is $7.96.
-us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Correctly used the $39.78 federal EITC but applied the old 15% rate. Virginia's refundable EITC is 20% of the federal credit, which is $7.96."
-us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Concluded that zero tax liability rules out refundable credits. Virginia's refundable EITC is paid regardless of liability, at 20% of the $39.78 federal EITC, or $7.96."
-us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Said the Virginia EITC is nonrefundable. Virginia offers a refundable EITC at 20% of the federal EITC, which pays $7.96 here despite $0 state tax."
-us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Said no refundable Virginia credit is triggered. The $520 of earnings produces a $39.78 federal EITC, which triggers Virginia's 20% refundable EITC of $7.96."
-us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Assumed no state refundable credits at this income level. Virginia's refundable EITC is 20% of the $39.78 federal EITC, or $7.96."
-us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Found the refundable Virginia EITC but used 15% of about $40. The current rate is 20% of the exact $39.78 federal EITC, which gives $7.96."
-us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Concluded that a childless single adult gets no refundable Virginia credit. Childless filers do get a federal EITC (7.65% × $520 = $39.78), and Virginia refunds 20% of it, or $7.96."
-us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,Assumed a childless household cannot get a Virginia refundable credit. The childless federal EITC of $39.78 qualifies the head for Virginia's 20% refundable EITC of $7.96.
-us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Said no refundable Virginia credit applies to a childless filer at these earnings. The $39.78 federal childless EITC passes through to Virginia's 20% refundable EITC, which is $7.96."
-us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Assumed refundable credits need tax liability. A refundable credit is paid even with zero liability, and Virginia's refundable EITC here is 20% of $39.78, or $7.96."
-us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Missed Virginia's refundable EITC entirely. That credit is 20% of the federal EITC, which is 7.65% × $520 = $39.78, so the state credit is $7.96."
-us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied the outdated 15% rate to a rounded $40 federal EITC. Virginia's refundable EITC is 20% of the exact $39.78 federal EITC, which is $7.96."
-us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Claimed Virginia's refundable EITC expired before 2026. The refundable EITC remains in effect at 20% of the federal EITC, which gives $7.96 for this household."
-us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Said Virginia has no state EITC. Virginia has a refundable EITC equal to 20% of the federal EITC, which here is 20% × $39.78 = $7.96."
-us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used 15% of a rounded $40 federal EITC. Virginia's refundable EITC rate is 20% applied to $39.78, which gives $7.96."
-us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Treated zero state tax and no dependents as ruling out any refundable credit. Virginia's refundable EITC is paid regardless of liability and covers childless filers, giving 20% × $39.78 = $7.96."
-us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Claimed Virginia's refundable EITC applied only for 2022–2025. The refundable EITC is still in effect for 2026, at 20% rather than the 15% the model cited, so the answer is 20% × $39.78 = $7.96."
-us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Missed Virginia's refundable EITC. That credit is 20% of the $39.78 federal childless EITC, which is $7.96."
-us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Assumed Virginia's EITC needs tax liability and does not pay out beyond it. Virginia's refundable EITC pays 20% of the federal EITC in full, so the household receives $7.96 with $0 tax."
-us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Concluded that a filer with no qualifying children gets no refundable Virginia credit. Childless filers get the $39.78 federal EITC, and Virginia refunds 20% of it, or $7.96."
-us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It measured dependent1's ACA expansion eligibility on the parents' tax-unit MAGI (about $87,300 for 3 people) and also applied parental income and resources to the disability pathway. PolicyEngine puts dependent1 in the ADULT expansion category at 0.00×FPL, which is far under 138%, so dependent1 is eligible."
-us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It tested dependent1 against the 138% FPL adult limit using the whole tax unit's income. PolicyEngine measures dependent1's MAGI income level at 0.00×FPL in the ACA adult expansion category, so the parents' income does not disqualify dependent1."
-us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It treated the whole filing unit as dependent1's MAGI household and counted $98,102, which combines parents' wages, pension and dependent1's disability benefits, against 138% FPL. PolicyEngine puts dependent1's MAGI income level at 0.00×FPL: the parents' income is not attributed and the disability benefits are not MAGI income. Dependent1 qualifies under the ACA adult expansion."
-us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It counted parental income toward the adult disabled tax dependent's Medicaid test. PolicyEngine evaluates dependent1 in the ACA adult expansion category at a MAGI income level of 0.00×FPL, with no parental income attributed, so dependent1 is eligible."
-us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It compared total household income with Indiana's Medicaid limit. PolicyEngine's test for dependent1 is the ACA adult expansion category at dependent1's own MAGI income level of 0.00×FPL, which is well under 138%."
-us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It folded dependent1 into the parents' tax household and applied the combined income to the Medicaid limit. PolicyEngine puts dependent1 in the ADULT expansion category with a MAGI income level of 0.00×FPL, so the parents' income is irrelevant and dependent1 is eligible."
-us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It judged that dependent1's disability-benefit income puts a childless adult over Indiana's limit. Indiana's ACA expansion covers childless adults up to 138% FPL, and PolicyEngine counts dependent1's MAGI income level as 0.00×FPL because disability benefits are not MAGI income. Even the full $10,800 is under 138% FPL for one person."
-us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It applied the tax unit's $87,302 total to dependent1's Medicaid test. PolicyEngine puts dependent1's MAGI income level at 0.00×FPL in the ACA adult expansion category, so dependent1 is eligible."
-us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It built a 3-person Medicaid household that includes the joint-filing parents and put dependent1 at about 317% FPL. PolicyEngine puts dependent1 in the ADULT expansion category at 0.00×FPL, under the 138% limit."
-us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It added the parents' wages and pension to dependent1's disability benefits ($98,102) and tested the total against 138% FPL for 3 people. PolicyEngine counts neither the parents' income nor the disability benefits in dependent1's MAGI, which it puts at 0.00×FPL, so dependent1 qualifies under the ACA adult expansion."
-us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It checked only the SSI-linked disability pathway and never tested the ACA adult expansion category. PolicyEngine assigns dependent1 (age 23, under 65) to that category at a MAGI income level of 0.00×FPL, so dependent1 is eligible whether or not SSI criteria are met."
-us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,It declined to evaluate eligibility and defaulted to 0 because no SSI or Medicaid qualification was listed. Applying Indiana's ACA adult expansion to a 23-year-old whose MAGI income level is 0.00×FPL gives eligibility.
-us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It tested dependent1 against the adult expansion limit using the 3-person household's counted income, then found no SSI or other categorical pathway. PolicyEngine puts dependent1 in the ACA adult expansion category at 0.00×FPL, so the expansion pathway alone makes dependent1 eligible."
-us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It used household income for dependent1's Indiana Medicaid test. PolicyEngine gives dependent1 a MAGI income level of 0.00×FPL in the ACA adult expansion category, which is well under 138%."
-us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It applied household income and listed resources to dependent1's Medicaid pathways. The ACA adult expansion category has no resource test, and PolicyEngine measures dependent1's MAGI income level at 0.00×FPL, so dependent1 is eligible."
-us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It placed dependent1's income above the limit by measuring the household's income. PolicyEngine puts dependent1 in the ADULT expansion category at a MAGI income level of 0.00×FPL, under 138%."
-us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It counted dependent1's disability benefits as income and applied a household resource test. The ACA adult expansion category has no asset test, and PolicyEngine puts dependent1's MAGI income level at 0.00×FPL, so dependent1 is eligible."
-us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It chose the right program, Indiana HIP for adults up to 138% FPL, but tested dependent1 against the household's roughly $87K MAGI. PolicyEngine puts dependent1's own MAGI income level at 0.00×FPL, so dependent1 qualifies."
-us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It wrongly treated Indiana as limited on expansion-type pathways and tested dependent1 against 3-person household MAGI of about $87,302. Indiana has adopted the ACA expansion, and PolicyEngine puts dependent1 in the ADULT category at 0.00×FPL, so dependent1 is eligible."
-us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It claimed dependent1's $10,800 in disability benefits exceed Indiana's adult Medicaid limit. The benefits are not MAGI income, so PolicyEngine puts dependent1 at 0.00×FPL, and $10,800 alone is still under 138% FPL for a single adult."
-us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicare_eligible,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model treated being disabled and receiving disability benefits as enough for Medicare. Under-65 Medicare requires 24 months of SSDI receipt or ESRD. The listed benefit is not SSDI, and SSDI months and ESRD are unlisted, so they default to 0 and false."
-us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicare_eligible,claude-opus-5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model claimed a PolicyEngine disability rule that is triggered by disability status plus disability benefits. The actual rule requires at least 24 months of Social Security disability receipt (or ESRD). Neither is listed for Dependent 1, so both default to 0/false and the dependent fails the test at age 23."
-us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicare_eligible,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model correctly named the 24-month SSDI waiting period but assumed it was satisfied because disability status is constant for the year. It also relabeled the generic $10,800 disability benefit as SSDI. Months of SSDI receipt are unlisted and default to 0, so the 24-month test fails."
-us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicare_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model cited the 24-month SSDI waiting period but then counted Dependent 1 as eligible without any months of SSDI receipt being given. It also assumed the generic disability benefits were SSDI. Unlisted SSDI months default to 0, so the 24-month requirement fails and the dependent is not eligible."
-us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicare_eligible,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model went straight from ""disabled"" to Medicare eligibility. Disability status alone does not qualify anyone under 65. Medicare requires at least 24 months of SSDI receipt or ESRD, and neither is present here."
-us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model treated disability status plus annual disability benefits as support for under-65 Medicare. The disability pathway requires at least 24 months of Social Security disability receipt, not generic disability-benefit income. With SSDI months and ESRD defaulting to 0/false, Dependent 1 fails every pathway."
-us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model said PolicyEngine treats a disabled person with disability benefits as Medicare-eligible. PolicyEngine's rule actually requires age 65 or older, ESRD, or 24+ months of SSDI receipt. The generic `disability_benefits` input satisfies none of these, and SSDI months default to 0."
-us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicare_eligible,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model applied a disability-based Medicare pathway on the strength of the disabled flag and the reported disability benefits. That pathway is keyed to at least 24 months of Social Security disability receipt, which is unlisted and therefore 0. Dependent 1 does not qualify."
-us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicare_eligible,kimi-k3,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model asserted that PolicyEngine treats disability benefits as qualifying for Medicare under age 65. Only 24 or more months of SSDI receipt, or ESRD, qualifies someone under 65. Generic disability-benefit income meets neither, and both default to 0/false here."
-us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicare_eligible,muse-wonder,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model applied the disability Medicare pathway using only the disabled flag and generic disability benefits. That pathway requires at least 24 months of SSDI receipt. SSDI months are unlisted and default to 0, so the 23-year-old is not eligible."
-us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicare_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model found Medicare eligibility ""under disability rules"" from disability status and disability benefits alone. Those rules require at least 24 months of SSDI receipt or ESRD, and both default to 0/false for this dependent."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its own working reached $5,347, but it submitted $3,391, a number its reasoning never supports. The $5,347 was also wrong for two reasons. It subtracted the $1,845 auto-loan-interest deduction, which does not apply because no qualifying new US-assembled vehicle loan is given. It also used a $32,600 standard deduction instead of $32,200."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $1,845 OBBBA auto-loan-interest deduction, but the household facts never establish a qualifying new, US-assembled vehicle loan, so that deduction is $0. This lowered taxable income to $53,257 instead of $55,102 and the tax by exactly $221.40 (12% × $1,845)."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $28,500 standard deduction instead of $32,200 and miscomputed the tax on $58,802 as $7,080. It then subtracted about $1,266 of nonrefundable credits it made up, rather than the single $500 credit for other dependents."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It explicitly assumed no nonrefundable credits, missing the $500 credit for other dependents for the permanently disabled 23-year-old. Its $6,900 is also about $780 above the correct pre-credit tax of $6,116.24, which means it understated the $32,200 MFJ standard deduction."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,other,False,"Its own steps produced about $5,620 after the $500 credit for other dependents. It then raised the answer to $6,280 under an unexplained 'precise brackets' adjustment that used stale 2025 bracket limits ($23,850) instead of the 2026 $24,800 limit for the 10% bracket."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It made up about $6,500 of mortgage interest from the $100,000 balance, but unlisted interest is $0. On that basis it wrongly chose to itemize instead of taking the $32,200 standard deduction. It then submitted $5,594, which does not match its own $6,722 computation."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly reached taxable income of $55,102, tax of $6,116, and about $5,616 after the $500 credit for other dependents. It then threw that result away and submitted $6,104 with no supporting arithmetic."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the $1,845 auto-loan-interest deduction although no qualifying new, US-assembled vehicle loan is established, so the deduction is $0. This cut taxable income to $53,257 instead of $55,102 and understated the tax by $221.40."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It inflated the pre-OBBBA 2025 standard deduction to $30,000 instead of using the 2026 OBBBA amount of $32,200. It also guessed a $24,500 limit for the 10% bracket instead of $24,800. Together these overstated taxable income at $57,302 instead of $55,102."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its own arithmetic gave $6,068 minus the $500 credit for other dependents, or $5,568, which was already off because it used a $32,600 standard deduction instead of $32,200. It then submitted $10,500, citing made-up 'self-employment-like adjustments' that do not exist for a wage-and-pension household."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the dependent's $10,800 disability benefits to the joint return's AGI ($98,102 instead of $87,302) and used a $30,600 standard deduction instead of $32,200. It also denied the $500 credit for other dependents, although a permanently disabled 23-year-old qualifies as a dependent."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the TCJA sunset, using a $16,500 standard deduction, three personal exemptions, and a 15% bracket. OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent, so 2026 has a $32,200 MFJ standard deduction, no exemptions, a 12% bracket, and the $500 credit for other dependents."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used pre-TCJA 2026 law: itemized medical expenses and state tax, three $5,300 personal exemptions, and the 15% bracket. Under OBBBA, the $32,200 standard deduction, 10%/12% brackets, and $500 credit for other dependents apply. That leaves $55,102 of taxable income and a $500 credit, which it omitted."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $1,845 auto-loan-interest deduction, which does not apply without a qualifying new, US-assembled vehicle loan. That pushed taxable income below the correct $55,102 and produced $5,486.84 instead of $5,616.24."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the TCJA sunset (personal exemptions, lower standard deduction, 15% bracket) even though OBBBA kept the $32,200 MFJ standard deduction and the 10%/12% brackets. It also added 85% of the dependent's $10,800 disability benefits to the joint AGI as taxable Social Security, although those benefits are excluded."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $31,200 standard deduction instead of $32,200 and miscomputed taxable income as $60,400; the correct figure is $55,102. It also stated there were no nonrefundable credits, missing the $500 credit for other dependents for the disabled 23-year-old."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired in 2026 and applied personal exemptions, itemized deductions, and the 15% bracket. OBBBA made the $32,200 MFJ standard deduction, 10%/12% brackets, and the $500 credit for other dependents permanent."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied pre-TCJA rules (personal exemptions and the 15% bracket) instead of the OBBBA-permanent 2026 structure. It also made up $4,500 of mortgage interest from the balance and so itemized instead of taking the $32,200 standard deduction."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The correct derivation gives taxable income of $55,102, tax of $6,116.24, and $5,616.24 after the $500 credit for other dependents. Its $7,534 is $1,918 too high, which matches dropping the $500 credit and either using a much smaller standard deduction or adding the dependent's disability benefits to taxable income."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $30,800 standard deduction instead of the 2026 OBBBA $32,200 and the 2025 limit of $23,850 for the 10% bracket instead of $24,800. This overstated taxable income at $56,502 and the pre-credit tax at $6,303.24."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got AGI and the $500 credit for other dependents right, but its pre-credit tax of $6,412.24 matches a stale standard deduction of about $30,000 and an outdated 10% bracket limit. The correct 2026 figures are a $32,200 deduction and a $24,800 limit, giving tax of $6,116.24."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the pre-OBBBA $30,000 standard deduction and the 2025 limit of $23,850 for the 10% bracket. The 2026 values are $32,200 and $24,800, so it overstated taxable income at $57,302 instead of $55,102."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $30,000 standard deduction instead of the 2026 OBBBA $32,200, and a limit of $23,600 for the 10% bracket instead of $24,800. This inflated taxable income to $57,302 and the pre-credit tax to $6,404.24."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It denied the $500 credit for other dependents by applying the qualifying-relative gross income test. A permanently and totally disabled child is a qualifying child with no age limit and no gross income test, and the disability benefits are not countable taxable income anyway. It also used a $25,200 limit for the 10% bracket instead of $24,800."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The correct computation is $87,302 AGI minus the $32,200 standard deduction, giving $55,102 taxable, $6,116.24 of tax, and $5,616.24 after the $500 credit for other dependents. Its $4,567 is $1,049 too low, which matches about $8,700 of extra deductions at 12%, or an equivalent over-credit, beyond what the facts support."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It cited itemized deductions based on the mortgage and medical items, but unlisted mortgage interest is $0 and medical expenses above the 7.5% floor ($16,621) fall short of the $32,200 standard deduction. Its $4,940 is $676 below the correct $5,616.24, which matches about $5,600 of deductions it should not have taken."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated $9,180 (85%) of the dependent's $10,800 disability benefits as taxable Social Security on the joint return, raising taxable income to $64,282. Those benefits are excluded, so taxable income is $55,102 and tax after the $500 credit for other dependents is $5,616.24."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $8,500 is about $2,880 above the correct $5,616.24. That matches skipping the $500 credit for other dependents and either using a far smaller deduction than the 2026 $32,200 MFJ standard deduction or taxing the dependent's disability benefits. It gave no computation of the $55,102 taxable income."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied 'post-TCJA' 2026 rules (personal exemptions, itemizing medical expenses and state tax, 15% bracket) and claimed no nonrefundable credits. OBBBA kept the $32,200 MFJ standard deduction, the 10%/12% brackets, and the $500 credit for other dependents."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA sunset, using a $16,600 standard deduction, three $5,300 exemptions, and the 15% bracket, and it applied no dependent credit. Under OBBBA, the $32,200 standard deduction and 10%/12% brackets give $6,116.24 of tax, reduced by the $500 credit for other dependents."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset rules (personal exemptions, itemizing, 15% bracket) and said the credit for other dependents had expired. OBBBA made the $32,200 standard deduction and the $500 credit for other dependents permanent, so the disabled 23-year-old earns a $500 credit."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a reverted pre-TCJA standard deduction of $17,291 and the 15% bracket. It also left out the personal exemptions its own sunset model would require and denied the $500 credit for other dependents. The 2026 OBBBA law uses a $32,200 deduction, 10%/12% brackets, and the $500 credit."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It claimed no dependents and so omitted the $500 credit for other dependents for the permanently disabled 23-year-old. It also used the 2025 $31,500 standard deduction instead of the 2026 $32,200."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an estimated $30,800 standard deduction and a $24,400 limit for the 10% bracket instead of the 2026 OBBBA values of $32,200 and $24,800. This overstated taxable income at $56,502 instead of $55,102."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added $9,180 of the dependent's disability benefits to the joint AGI as taxable Social Security, although those benefits are excluded. It also subtracted a $1,845 auto-loan-interest deduction that does not apply without a qualifying new, US-assembled vehicle loan."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It gave a $2,000 child tax credit for a 23-year-old, but the CTC requires the child to be under 17; a disabled adult child gets only the $500 credit for other dependents. It also included the dependent's $10,800 disability benefits in AGI and used a $30,000 standard deduction instead of $32,200."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,other,False,"It followed the right path ($55,100 taxable, 10%/12% brackets, $500 credit for other dependents) but rounded the pre-credit tax to $6,124. The exact figure is $6,116.24 on $55,102 (2,480 + 12% × 30,302), so its answer is $7.76 too high."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It computed the pre-credit tax of $6,116.24 correctly but applied no nonrefundable credits because the dependent is 23. A permanently and totally disabled child is a qualifying dependent at any age, so the $500 nonrefundable credit for other dependents applies, giving $5,616.24."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the dependent's $10,800 disability benefits as taxable income on the joint return, giving $98,102 instead of $87,302. It also used a $31,200 standard deduction and a $24,150 limit for the 10% bracket instead of $32,200 and $24,800."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied a made-up $10,000 child tax credit that wiped out all the tax. The household has no child under 17, so the only dependent credit is the $500 nonrefundable credit for other dependents for the disabled 23-year-old, which leaves $5,616.24."
+us,scenario_066,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model denied SNAP because the $14,000 bank balance is over the $2,500 asset limit. It missed that Virginia's broad-based categorical eligibility, through a TANF non-cash benefit, removes the asset test for this low-income household. With net income at $0 after the standard deduction, the household gets the full $298 a month, or $3,576 a year."
+us,scenario_066,snap,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the federal SNAP resource limit to the $14,000 in bank assets and stopped there. Virginia's broad-based categorical eligibility waives that limit, so the household qualifies for the full $298 a month, or $3,576 a year."
+us,scenario_066,snap,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly applied Virginia's broad-based categorical eligibility and found net income of $0. It then used an outdated one-person maximum allotment of $275 a month instead of the FY2026 figure of $298, which gave $3,300 instead of $3,576."
+us,scenario_066,snap,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model found the correct $298 maximum allotment and near-zero net income, which gives $3,576. It then subtracted an unexplained $1,080 'income offset'. With the $43.33 monthly earnings fully absorbed by the standard deduction, net income is $0, so the 30%-of-net-income contribution is $0 and nothing should be subtracted."
+us,scenario_066,snap,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's logic of zero net income and the maximum allotment was correct, but it used $283 a month for one person instead of the FY2026 contiguous-US maximum of $298. That gave $3,396 instead of $3,576."
+us,scenario_066,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model wrongly stated that Virginia limits broad-based categorical eligibility to TANF or SSI recipients. As a result, it applied a $2,750 asset limit to the $14,000 balance. Virginia confers categorical eligibility through a TANF-funded non-cash benefit with no asset test, so this household gets the full $298 a month, or $3,576 a year."
+us,scenario_066,snap,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model read the $520 wage as weekly, giving about $2,253 a month, which fails the gross income test. The prompt says wages are annual totals, so monthly gross income is $43.33. That falls to $0 net, and the household gets the $298 maximum each month."
+us,scenario_066,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly found net income of $0 but used a one-person maximum allotment of $294 instead of the FY2026 contiguous-US figure of $298. That gave $3,528 instead of $3,576."
+us,scenario_066,snap,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model limited benefits to 3 months under the ABAWD time limit. The head usually works 40 hours a week, which meets the 20-hour ABAWD work requirement, so all 12 months are eligible. The model also used $292 instead of the $298 maximum."
+us,scenario_066,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly applied broad-based categorical eligibility and found net income of $0. It then used the FY2025 maximum allotment of $292 instead of the FY2026 figure of $298, giving $3,504 instead of $3,576."
+us,scenario_066,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's eligibility and net-income steps were correct, but it used the FY2024 one-person maximum of $291 instead of the FY2026 figure of $298. That gave $3,492 instead of $3,576."
+us,scenario_066,snap,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model returned $0 with only a vague reference to assets and circumstances. Under Virginia's broad-based categorical eligibility, the $14,000 balance doesn't count against the household. The $43.33 monthly income nets to $0, so the household gets the $298 maximum each month, or $3,576 a year."
+us,scenario_066,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly applied broad-based categorical eligibility and the maximum allotment, but it used the FY2024 value of $291 a month instead of the FY2026 figure of $298. That gave $3,492 instead of $3,576."
+us,scenario_066,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly recognized that broad-based categorical eligibility waives the asset test and that the maximum benefit applies. It used a stale $291 monthly maximum instead of $298, giving $3,492 instead of $3,576."
+us,scenario_066,snap,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's $3,504 equals 12 × $292, the FY2025 one-person maximum. The FY2026 contiguous-US maximum of $298 applies, which gives $3,576."
+us,scenario_066,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly waived the asset test under broad-based categorical eligibility and found net income of $0. Its $3,504 total reflects the FY2025 $292 monthly maximum instead of the FY2026 figure of $298."
+us,scenario_066,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly found net income of $0 and the maximum allotment, but it used $292 a month (FY2025) instead of the FY2026 figure of $298. That gave $3,504 instead of $3,576."
+us,scenario_066,snap,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's standard-deduction step correctly brought net income to $0, but it applied the FY2025 $292 maximum instead of the FY2026 figure of $298. That gave $3,504 instead of $3,576."
+us,scenario_066,snap,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly applied the 20% earned-income deduction and the standard deduction to reach net income of $0. It then used a $292 monthly maximum instead of the FY2026 figure of $298, giving $3,504 instead of $3,576."
+us,scenario_066,snap,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly applied broad-based categorical eligibility and found net income of $0. It rounded the FY2026 one-person maximum to about $300 instead of the actual $298, giving $3,600 instead of $3,576."
+us,scenario_066,snap,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's eligibility and deduction steps were correct, but it used a $297 monthly maximum instead of the FY2026 contiguous-US figure of $298. That gave $3,564 instead of $3,576."
+us,scenario_066,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the standard SNAP resource limit to the $14,000 bank balance. It missed that Virginia's broad-based categorical eligibility removes the asset test, so the household gets the full $298 a month, or $3,576 a year."
+us,scenario_066,snap,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model admitted that SNAP was possible but returned $0 without applying any rule. Under Virginia's broad-based categorical eligibility, the $43.33 monthly income nets to $0, which yields the $298 maximum each month, or $3,576 a year."
+us,scenario_066,snap,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model denied SNAP on the federal resource limit for a nonelderly, nondisabled household. Virginia's broad-based categorical eligibility, through a TANF non-cash benefit, waives that limit, so the $14,000 balance doesn't count."
+us,scenario_066,snap,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model treated the $14,000 in assets and the other health coverage as disqualifying. Virginia's broad-based categorical eligibility eliminates the asset test, and health coverage has no bearing on SNAP, so the household gets $298 a month."
+us,scenario_066,snap,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly applied broad-based categorical eligibility and the shelter deduction to reach net income of $0. It then multiplied by a $292 estimated maximum instead of the FY2026 figure of $298, giving $3,504 instead of $3,576."
+us,scenario_066,snap,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's broad-based categorical eligibility and zero-net-income logic were correct, but it used the FY2025 $292 maximum instead of the FY2026 figure of $298. That gave $3,504 instead of $3,576."
+us,scenario_066,snap,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly reached net income of $0 under broad-based categorical eligibility. It then applied the FY2025 $292 monthly maximum instead of the FY2026 figure of $298, giving $3,504 instead of $3,576."
+us,scenario_066,snap,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly treated the household as getting the maximum allotment, but it approximated that maximum as $300 a month instead of the FY2026 one-person figure of $298. That gave $3,600 instead of $3,576."
+us,scenario_066,snap,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model assumed that no categorical-eligibility waiver applied because none was listed. Virginia's broad-based categorical eligibility applies automatically through a TANF non-cash benefit to households under 200% of the poverty line, which removes the asset test. The household therefore gets $298 a month."
+us,scenario_066,snap,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly found income far below the limits but then denied SNAP on the asset limit. Virginia's broad-based categorical eligibility waives the asset test, so the $14,000 balance doesn't count and the household gets the $298 maximum each month."
+us,scenario_066,snap,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model subtracted a $872 annual 'income contribution' without applying the standard deduction. The deduction brings net income from $43.33 a month to $0, so the 30% contribution is $0. The model also used $292 instead of the $298 FY2026 maximum."
+us,scenario_066,snap,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a fabricated $213 maximum allotment and subtracted 30% of the annual income from a monthly allotment, skipping the standard deduction. It also invented a $149 minimum benefit. In fact, net income is $0, the one-person maximum is $298, and the minimum allotment is $24."
+us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model found the Virginia refundable EITC and the ~$40 federal childless EITC but used the outdated 15% rate. The refundable percentage is 20%, so the credit is 0.20 × $39.78 = $7.96, not $6."
+us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said Virginia has no refundable individual credits and that the EIC is federal-only. Virginia offers a refundable EITC equal to 20% of the federal EITC, which here is 0.20 × $39.78 = $7.96."
+us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said no refundable Virginia credits apply and left out the Virginia refundable EITC. That credit is 20% of the $39.78 federal childless EITC (7.65% × $520), or $7.96."
+us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model treated the federal EITC as essentially zero at $520 of wages. The childless EITC phases in from the first dollar at 7.65%, giving $39.78. The model also used 15% instead of Virginia's 20% refundable rate, which yields $7.96."
+us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model correctly named the Virginia refundable EITC but rounded a 'minimal' federal EITC down to zero. The federal credit is 7.65% × $520 = $39.78, and the 20% refundable Virginia credit on that is $7.96, which is payable regardless of zero liability."
+us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated the Virginia EITC as limited by tax liability and so worth nothing against $0 tax. The Virginia refundable EITC pays 20% of the federal EITC regardless of liability, giving $7.96."
+us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model claimed the childless federal EITC needs earned income above ~$600 before any credit is generated. The credit actually phases in from the first dollar at 7.65%, giving $39.78. Virginia's 20% refundable EITC on that is $7.96."
+us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated the refundable EITC as an unelected option and set it to zero. The prompt tells models to assume take-up, so the household claims the Virginia refundable EITC of 20% × $39.78 = $7.96."
+us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model stated that Virginia's earned income credit is nonrefundable. Virginia has a refundable EITC at 20% of the federal EITC, worth $7.96 on the $39.78 federal credit."
+us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the correct federal EITC of $39.78 but the old 15% Virginia refundable rate. The current rate is 20%, which gives $7.96 instead of $5.97."
+us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said no state refundable credits apply and left out the Virginia refundable EITC. That credit is 20% of the $39.78 federal childless EITC, or $7.96."
+us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied 15% to a rounded $40 federal EITC. Virginia's refundable EITC rate is 20%, and applied to the exact $39.78 it gives $7.96."
+us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model used the correct $39.78 federal EITC but the outdated 15% Virginia refundable percentage. At the current 20% rate the credit is $7.96.
+us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said Virginia has no refundable credits for this profile. Virginia's refundable EITC equals 20% of the $39.78 federal childless EITC, or $7.96."
+us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model computed 15% × $39.78 = $5.97 using the superseded rate. Virginia's refundable EITC rate is 20%, which gives $7.96."
+us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model applied the old 15% refundable rate to the correct $39.78 federal EITC. Virginia's 20% rate yields $7.96.
+us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated claiming the refundable EITC as an unlisted boolean election and defaulted it to false. The prompt says to assume program take-up, so the Virginia refundable EITC of 20% × $39.78 = $7.96 is claimed."
+us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model assumed zero tax liability rules out any refundable credit. The Virginia refundable EITC is paid regardless of liability and equals 20% of the $39.78 federal EITC, or $7.96."
+us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model called the Virginia EITC nonrefundable and therefore worthless against $0 tax. Virginia has a refundable EITC at 20% of the federal EITC, worth $7.96 here."
+us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model concluded that no Virginia refundable credits are triggered. The $520 of earnings produces a $39.78 federal EITC, which makes the head eligible for Virginia's 20% refundable EITC of $7.96."
+us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,The model assumed no state refundable credits at this income level. The Virginia refundable EITC applies to any federal EITC recipient and equals 20% × $39.78 = $7.96.
+us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly estimated the ~$40 federal EITC but used the outdated 15% Virginia refundable rate. The current rate is 20%, which gives $7.96."
+us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated a childless single adult with $520 of wages as ineligible for any Virginia refundable credit. The childless federal EITC is $39.78, and Virginia refunds 20% of it, or $7.96."
+us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model assumed childless filers get no Virginia refundable credit. Childless workers aged 25–64 get the federal EITC ($39.78 here), and Virginia's refundable EITC pays 20% of it, or $7.96."
+us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said no refundable credit applies to this childless filer. The 40-year-old head qualifies for the $39.78 childless federal EITC, so the Virginia refundable EITC is 20% of it, or $7.96."
+us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model tied refundable credits to having positive tax liability. Refundable credits are paid regardless of liability, and the Virginia refundable EITC here is 20% × $39.78 = $7.96."
+us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model left out the Virginia refundable EITC. That credit equals 20% of the $39.78 federal childless EITC generated by $520 of wages, or $7.96."
+us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the outdated 15% rate to a rounded $40 federal EITC. Virginia's refundable EITC is 20% of the exact $39.78, or $7.96."
+us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model claimed the Virginia refundable EITC expired before 2026. The refundable EITC continues for 2026 at 20% of the federal EITC, giving $7.96 on the $39.78 federal credit."
+us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model asserted that Virginia has no state EITC. Virginia has a refundable EITC equal to 20% of the federal EITC, worth $7.96 here."
+us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 15% rate on a rounded $40 federal EITC. Virginia's refundable EITC rate is 20%, which gives $7.96 on $39.78."
+us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,The model concluded that zero state liability and no dependents rule out any refundable credit. The childless federal EITC of $39.78 qualifies the head for Virginia's 20% refundable EITC of $7.96.
+us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model claimed the refundable EITC applied only to tax years 2022–2025. Virginia's refundable EITC is available in 2026 at 20% of the federal EITC, giving $7.96."
+us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model left out the Virginia refundable EITC. That credit equals 20% of the $39.78 federal childless EITC, or $7.96."
+us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly applied the credit at zero liability but used the outdated 15% rate. Virginia's refundable EITC is 20% of $39.78, or $7.96."
+us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model claimed Virginia has no refundable EITC that pays above liability for a childless filer in 2026. Virginia's refundable EITC pays 20% of the federal EITC regardless of liability, giving $7.96 on the $39.78 childless credit."
+us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,The model assumed a childless single filer gets no Virginia refundable credit. The $39.78 childless federal EITC qualifies the head for Virginia's 20% refundable EITC of $7.96.
+us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Measured dependent1 against a 3-person tax-unit MAGI of about $87,300 against 138% FPL (about $36,600) and ruled out the expansion group. PolicyEngine sets dependent1's own MAGI level at 0.00x FPL and makes them eligible in the ACA adult category."
+us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Applied the parents' tax-unit income to the 23-year-old and found it above the 138% FPL adult limit. PolicyEngine computes dependent1's MAGI income level as 0.00x FPL, which puts them in Indiana's expansion adult category."
+us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Treated the filing unit's $98,102 (which wrongly adds the $10,800 disability benefits to MAGI) as dependent1's MAGI household income. PolicyEngine rates dependent1 at 0.00x FPL and finds them eligible under the ACA adult expansion."
+us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,Counted the parents' income toward the adult disabled tax dependent and answered not eligible. PolicyEngine excludes that income from dependent1's MAGI level (0.00x FPL) and places them in the expansion adult group under 138% FPL.
+us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Tested household income against Indiana's Medicaid limit instead of dependent1's own MAGI. PolicyEngine rates that MAGI at 0.00x FPL, well under the 138% FPL expansion limit."
+us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,Placed dependent1 in the parents' tax household and used the combined income to deny eligibility. PolicyEngine sets dependent1's MAGI income level at 0.00x FPL and makes them eligible in the ACA adult expansion category.
+us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Concluded that dependent1's own income kept them out of the childless-adult category, but the $10,800 disability benefits are not countable MAGI. Even if counted, $10,800 is below 138% FPL for one person (about $21,600). PolicyEngine puts dependent1's MAGI level at 0.00x FPL and finds them eligible as an expansion adult."
+us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Used the tax unit's $87,302 total as dependent1's Medicaid income. PolicyEngine measures dependent1's MAGI at 0.00x FPL and finds them eligible under Indiana's 138% FPL expansion."
+us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,Built dependent1's Medicaid household from the joint-filing parents and got about 317% FPL. PolicyEngine computes dependent1's MAGI income level as 0.00x FPL and places them in the ACA adult expansion group.
+us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gemini-4-argon,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Applied the household's MAGI and resources to the tax dependent. PolicyEngine's expansion adult category has no resource test and uses dependent1's MAGI income level of 0.00x FPL, so dependent1 is eligible."
+us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Added wages, pension, and the $10,800 disability benefits into a $98,102 household total and compared it to 138% FPL for 3. PolicyEngine counts none of that toward dependent1's MAGI level (0.00x FPL) and finds them eligible as an expansion adult."
+us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Considered only the SSI-linked disability pathway and its income and asset limits, and never checked the ACA expansion adult group. PolicyEngine finds dependent1 eligible through that group: they are under 65, their MAGI income level is 0.00x FPL, and the group has no resource test."
+us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Did not evaluate any pathway and defaulted to 0. PolicyEngine places the 23-year-old in Indiana's ACA expansion adult category with a MAGI income level of 0.00x FPL, well below the 138% limit."
+us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Compared the household's counted income for three people to the adult expansion limit. PolicyEngine sets dependent1's MAGI income level at 0.00x FPL, so dependent1 qualifies in the ACA adult category without needing SSI or another categorical pathway."
+us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Used household income to deny eligibility for the 23-year-old. PolicyEngine measures dependent1's MAGI at 0.00x FPL, under Indiana's 138% FPL expansion limit."
+us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Applied household income and resources to every pathway. PolicyEngine's MAGI-based expansion adult category has no resource test and uses dependent1's MAGI level of 0.00x FPL, so dependent1 is eligible."
+us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,Treated the parents' income as dependent1's Medicaid household income. PolicyEngine sets dependent1's MAGI income level at 0.00x FPL and makes them eligible under the ACA adult expansion.
+us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Claimed that dependent1's disability-benefit income and the household's resources exceeded Medicaid thresholds. The expansion adult group has no asset test, and the $10,800 benefits are not counted in PolicyEngine's MAGI level for dependent1, which is 0.00x FPL, well below 138% FPL."
+us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,muse-spark-1.3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Used the parents' roughly $87,302 MAGI for dependent1 and turned to SSI-linked asset limits. PolicyEngine rates dependent1's MAGI at 0.00x FPL and finds them eligible in the asset-test-free ACA adult category."
+us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,Assigned the shared household MAGI of about $87K to the 23-year-old under HIP's 138% FPL limit. PolicyEngine computes dependent1's MAGI income level as 0.00x FPL and makes them eligible as an expansion adult.
+us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Counted the parents' wages and pension (about $87,302) against a 3-person Medicaid limit and also confused Indiana's expansion status. PolicyEngine treats Indiana as an expansion state and sets dependent1's MAGI level at 0.00x FPL, so dependent1 is eligible in the ACA adult category."
+us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Said that $10,800 in disability benefits is above Indiana's adult Medicaid limit. That amount is below 138% FPL for one person (about $21,600) and is not countable MAGI, so PolicyEngine puts dependent1 at 0.00x FPL and finds them eligible as an expansion adult."
+us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicare_eligible,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model counted being disabled and receiving generic disability benefits as Medicare eligibility. Under-65 Medicare requires 24 months of Social Security disability entitlement (or ESRD). Dependent 1's SSDI months are unlisted, so they count as 0, and the 23-year-old is not eligible."
+us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicare_eligible,claude-opus-5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model said PolicyEngine's disability rule is triggered by disabled status plus disability benefits. The actual rule requires at least 24 months of Social Security disability receipt, and that input defaults to 0 here. The listed 'disability benefits' are not SSDI, so Dependent 1 does not meet any Medicare pathway."
+us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicare_eligible,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model correctly named the 24-month SSDI waiting period. It then relabeled the generic $10,800 'disability benefits' as SSDI and treated the waiting period as met because the facts are 'constant.' Neither SSDI receipt nor any months of entitlement are listed, so months receiving Social Security disability is 0 and the requirement fails."
+us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicare_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model said Medicare requires a 24-month wait after SSDI begins. It then declared Dependent 1 eligible anyway by assuming the listed disability benefits are SSDI and that the wait is over. Months of Social Security disability receipt are unlisted and therefore 0, so the 23-year-old fails the disability pathway."
+us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicare_eligible,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model treated disabled status alone as Medicare eligibility. Under 65, Medicare requires 24 months of Social Security disability entitlement or ESRD, and neither is present. Dependent 1, age 23, is not eligible."
+us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model let disability status plus generic disability-benefit income override the under-65 age bar. The disability pathway requires at least 24 months of Social Security disability receipt, and that input is 0 here. Dependent 1 is therefore not Medicare eligible."
+us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model claimed PolicyEngine grants disability-based Medicare to anyone who is disabled and receives disability benefits. PolicyEngine actually tests months receiving Social Security disability against a 24-month minimum. That input is unlisted and therefore 0, so Dependent 1 fails."
+us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicare_eligible,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model took the reported disability and disability benefits as satisfying the modeled disability pathway. That pathway requires 24 or more months of Social Security disability receipt, which is 0 for Dependent 1, so the answer is not eligible."
+us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicare_eligible,kimi-k3,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model said PolicyEngine treats disabled people with disability benefits as Medicare eligible. The engine's non-age pathway requires at least 24 months of Social Security disability entitlement (or ESRD), and neither appears in the household facts. Dependent 1 is ineligible."
+us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicare_eligible,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model counted disability status and disability-benefit income as a qualifying disability pathway. That pathway requires 24 months of Social Security disability receipt, and the unlisted value is 0. Dependent 1, age 23, is not Medicare eligible."
+us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicare_eligible,muse-wonder,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model applied the disability Medicare pathway based on disability status and generic disability benefits. It skipped the 24-month Social Security disability entitlement requirement, which Dependent 1 does not meet because SSDI months default to 0."
+us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicare_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model treated being disabled with disability benefits as satisfying Medicare's disability rules. Those rules require at least 24 months of Social Security disability entitlement (or ESRD) for anyone under 65. No SSDI months are listed, so Dependent 1 is not eligible."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted the $1,845 auto loan interest as OBBBA vehicle-loan interest, but no fact shows a qualifying new vehicle loan. It also used a $32,600 standard deduction instead of $32,200, which led to $5,347. It then submitted $3,391, a number its own work does not support."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Everything matches the reference except that it subtracted the $1,845 household auto loan interest as a qualified vehicle-loan deduction. No fact shows a new, U.S.-assembled vehicle loan, so that deduction does not apply. This cut taxable income to $53,257 instead of $55,102 and understated tax by $221.40."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $28,500 MFJ standard deduction instead of the 2026 $32,200 and overstated tax on the resulting income at about $7,080. It then subtracted an invented $1,266 of credits instead of the single $500 Credit for Other Dependents."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It assumed no nonrefundable credits, so it never applied the $500 Credit for Other Dependents for the disabled 23-year-old qualifying child. Its $6,900 also overstates even the correct pre-credit tax of $6,116.24 on $55,102 of taxable income."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It reached about $5,620 using roughly correct figures, then 'adjusted' to $6,280 with a $32,300 standard deduction and 2025 bracket edges ($23,850). The correct 2026 figures are a $32,200 deduction and a 10% bracket ending at $24,800, which give $5,616.24 after the $500 ODC."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It made up about $6,500 of mortgage interest from the $100,000 balance, although no interest is listed. It then claimed the roughly $23,121 itemized total beat a $32,300 standard deduction, when it is smaller. After computing $6,722 it submitted an unrelated $5,594 instead of using the $32,200 standard deduction path."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its own work reached the correct $6,116 pre-credit tax and about $5,616 after the $500 ODC. It then dropped that result for an unexplained 'bracket estimate' of $6,104."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $1,845 auto loan interest as a deduction even though nothing shows a qualified new-vehicle loan. That lowered taxable income to $53,257 instead of $55,102 and understated tax by $221.40."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $30,000 MFJ standard deduction, the pre-OBBBA 2025 figure, instead of the 2026 $32,200. It also used estimated 10% bracket edges of $23,850 to $24,500 instead of $24,800. Taxable income came out at $57,302 instead of $55,102."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,other,False,"It computed about $5,568 with a $32,600 standard deduction and the $500 ODC, then submitted $10,500 citing 'self-employment-like adjustments' that do not exist here. There is no self-employment income, and the correct result is $6,116.24 minus $500."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the dependent's $10,800 of disability benefits to the joint AGI, but they are the dependent's own nontaxable benefits. It used a $30,600 standard deduction instead of $32,200. It also denied the $500 Credit for Other Dependents, which a permanently disabled adult qualifying child gets regardless of age."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed TCJA expired in 2026 and used a $16,500 standard deduction, three personal exemptions and a 15% bracket. OBBBA made TCJA permanent, so 2026 has a $32,200 standard deduction, no exemptions, 10%/12% brackets and the $500 ODC."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied pre-TCJA 2026 rules: itemized medical plus Indiana tax, three $5,300 exemptions, a 15% bracket and no credits. Under OBBBA, the $32,200 standard deduction is larger than its $19,108 itemized total, exemptions stay at zero, and the $500 ODC applies."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $5,486.84 matches a taxable income of $53,957: it took the 2025 $31,500 standard deduction and also deducted the $1,845 auto loan interest, then used a $24,400 10% bracket. The correct calculation uses the 2026 $32,200 deduction, no vehicle-interest deduction and a $24,800 10% bracket."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed TCJA sunset and used personal exemptions, a 15% bracket and itemizing against a $15,900 standard deduction. It also wrongly put 85% of the dependent's disability benefits on the parents' return as taxable Social Security. Finally, it skipped the $500 ODC that applies under permanent TCJA rules."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It said there were no dependents, so it skipped the $500 Credit for Other Dependents for the disabled adult qualifying child. It also used a $31,200 standard deduction and miscalculated taxable income as about $60,400 instead of $55,102."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed TCJA expired in 2026 and used itemized deductions plus $16,050 of personal exemptions and the 15% bracket. Under OBBBA, the $32,200 standard deduction, the 10%/12% brackets and the $500 ODC give $5,616.24."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used pre-TCJA 2026 rules: personal exemptions and the 15% bracket. It also made up $4,500 of mortgage interest even though only a loan balance is listed. Under current law the $32,200 standard deduction applies, and the $500 ODC reduces the $6,116.24 tax."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The correct path is $87,302 AGI less the $32,200 standard deduction, giving $55,102 taxable income, $6,116.24 tax and $5,616.24 after the $500 ODC. Its $7,534 is about $1,900 higher. That matches adding the dependent's $10,800 disability benefits to taxable income and skipping the $500 ODC."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $30,800 standard deduction instead of the 2026 MFJ $32,200. It also used the 2025 10% bracket edge of $23,850 instead of $24,800, which overstated taxable income and tax."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $6,412.24 pre-credit tax matches $57,302 of taxable income: it used the pre-OBBBA $30,000 standard deduction and the 2024 $23,200 10% bracket edge. The 2026 values are $32,200 and $24,800."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $30,000 standard deduction and a $23,850 10% bracket edge, both pre-2026 values, instead of the 2026 MFJ $32,200 and $24,800. That gave $57,302 of taxable income instead of $55,102."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $5,394.84 is exactly the reference minus 12% of $1,845. That means it deducted the household auto loan interest as qualified vehicle-loan interest, which the facts do not support."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $30,000 standard deduction and a $23,600 10% bracket edge instead of the 2026 MFJ $32,200 and $24,800. That overstated taxable income at $57,302 and pre-credit tax."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It denied the $500 Credit for Other Dependents by testing the 23-year-old under the qualifying-relative gross income limit. A permanently and totally disabled child is a qualifying child with no age limit and no gross income test. It also used a $25,200 10% bracket edge instead of $24,800."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The correct calculation is $55,102 of taxable income after the $32,200 standard deduction, $6,116.24 of tax and $5,616.24 after the $500 ODC. Its $4,567 is about $1,050 too low. That matches roughly $8,700 of extra deductions or credits that the facts do not support."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It cited mortgage and medical itemized deductions, but no mortgage interest is listed and net medical is only about $16,621. The $32,200 standard deduction therefore applies. Its $4,940 understates the $6,116.24 tax less the $500 ODC."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added $9,180 (85%) of the dependent's $10,800 disability benefits to the joint return as taxable Social Security. Those benefits belong to the dependent and are not in the parents' gross income, so taxable income is $55,102, not $64,282."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The correct calculation is $87,302 less the $32,200 standard deduction, giving $55,102, then $6,116.24 of tax and $5,616.24 after the $500 ODC. Its $8,500 exceeds even the pre-credit tax. That matches stale deduction or bracket values with no $500 Credit for Other Dependents."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed TCJA expired and used itemized deductions, $15,750 of personal exemptions and the 15% bracket with no credits. OBBBA kept the $32,200 standard deduction, the 10%/12% brackets and the $500 ODC."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a TCJA-sunset regime: a $16,600 standard deduction, three $5,300 exemptions and a 15% bracket. The permanent-TCJA 2026 rules have a $32,200 standard deduction, no exemptions, 10%/12% rates and the $500 ODC."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed TCJA sunset, so it used personal exemptions, the 15% bracket and said the other-dependent credit had expired. OBBBA made the $32,200 standard deduction and the $500 ODC permanent for 2026."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an inflation-adjusted pre-TCJA $17,291 standard deduction and a 15% bracket, and gave no ODC. Under 2026 current law the standard deduction is $32,200 and the rates are 10%/12%, with the $500 ODC for the disabled adult child."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It claimed no dependents, so it skipped the $500 Credit for Other Dependents for the permanently disabled 23-year-old qualifying child. It also used the 2025 $31,500 standard deduction instead of the 2026 $32,200."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $30,800 standard deduction and a $24,400 10% bracket edge instead of the 2026 MFJ $32,200 and $24,800. That overstated taxable income at $56,502 instead of $55,102."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It wrongly added $9,180 of the dependent's disability benefits to the joint AGI as taxable Social Security. It also deducted the $1,845 auto loan interest, though no qualifying vehicle loan is shown, so taxable income came out at $62,437 instead of $55,102."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied a $2,000 Child Tax Credit for the 23-year-old, but the CTC requires the child to be under 17. A disabled adult qualifying child gets only the $500 Credit for Other Dependents. It also added the dependent's disability benefits to AGI and used a $30,000 standard deduction."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,other,False,"Its method matches the reference, but it rounded pre-credit tax to $6,122. The exact figure is $2,480 + 12% × $30,302 = $6,116.24, which leaves $5,616.24 after the $500 ODC."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,other,False,"It rounded taxable income to $55,100 and miscalculated the tax as $6,124. The 10%/12% brackets on $55,102 give exactly $6,116.24, and $5,616.24 after the $500 ODC."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It computed the correct $6,116.24 tax but applied no nonrefundable credits, reasoning that a 23-year-old cannot get the CTC. It missed that a permanently disabled adult qualifying child qualifies for the $500 Credit for Other Dependents."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the dependent's $10,800 of disability benefits as taxable income on the joint return, raising AGI to $98,102 instead of $87,302. It also used a $31,200 standard deduction and a $24,150 10% bracket edge instead of $32,200 and $24,800."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied a made-up $10,000 Child Tax Credit and wiped out the whole liability. No child under 17 is present; the 23-year-old disabled dependent gets only the $500 Credit for Other Dependents against $6,116.24 of tax."
us,scenario_067,federal_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated the 23-year-old disabled dependent as a qualifying child for the refundable Additional Child Tax Credit. Disability can remove the age limit for the qualifying-child relationship test used for dependency and EITC purposes, but it does not override the CTC requirement that the child be under age 17, so the ACTC is $0."
us,scenario_067,federal_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model invented five qualifying children even though the household contains only one dependent, age 23, and then constructed a $10,000 CTC and $1,210 ACTC from that nonexistent child count. The sole dependent fails the CTC under-age-17 requirement, so there is no CTC remainder to refund and no ACTC."
us,scenario_067,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model incorrectly treated age 60 as above the Medicare eligibility threshold. The applicable age threshold is 65, and no disability-based Medicare pathway or other exception applies to the head, so the correct value is 0."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model took the four listed city taxes as the full scope of local_income_tax and left out Indiana county income tax, which PolicyEngine counts in this output. With the default Adams County rate of 1.6% on Indiana AGI of $84,302 ($87,302 minus $3,000 of exemptions), the answer is $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model read the NYC/Philadelphia/KC/St. Louis list as exhaustive and left out Indiana county income tax, which is part of PolicyEngine's local_income_tax. That tax is 1.6% (Adams County default) × $84,302 Indiana AGI = $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed that Indiana does not levy local income taxes. In fact, every Indiana county levies a county income tax on Indiana AGI. PolicyEngine includes that tax in local_income_tax and computes 1.6% (Adams County default) × $84,302 = $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly saw that Indiana county income tax applies, but its $1,800 implies a rate of about 2.1% on an unstated base. PolicyEngine applies the default Adams County rate of 1.6% to Indiana AGI of $84,302 ($87,302 federal AGI minus $3,000 of exemptions for three people), which gives $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated the four named city taxes as the only parts of local_income_tax and so left out Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine includes that tax and computes 1.6% × $84,302 Indiana AGI = $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model read the output as limited to NYC, Philadelphia, KC and St. Louis taxes, but PolicyEngine's local_income_tax also includes Indiana county income tax. Using the default Adams County rate of 1.6% on $84,302 of Indiana AGI, that tax is $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model knew about Indiana county income tax but left it out because the prompt's list names only four city taxes. PolicyEngine includes the county tax in local_income_tax: 1.6% (Adams County) × $84,302 = $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model checked only the four listed city taxes and never applied Indiana county income tax, which PolicyEngine counts in local_income_tax. That tax is 1.6% × ($87,302 − $3,000 exemptions) = $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated the four named jurisdictions as an exhaustive list and so left out Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine includes that tax in local_income_tax at the default Adams County rate of 1.6% on $84,302 of Indiana AGI, giving $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model read the prompt's list of city taxes as the whole definition and left out Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine includes that tax and computes 1.6% × $84,302 = $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model concluded that Indiana has no tax within the listed outputs, so it never applied the Indiana county income tax that PolicyEngine includes in local_income_tax. That tax is 1.6% (Adams County) on $84,302 of Indiana AGI, or $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model limited local_income_tax to the four named city taxes and left out Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine includes that tax and computes 1.6% × $84,302 Indiana AGI = $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model checked only the NYC/Philadelphia/KC/St. Louis taxes and never applied Indiana county income tax, which is part of PolicyEngine's local_income_tax. That tax is 1.6% × $84,302 = $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated the listed city taxes as exhaustive and left out Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine includes that tax at the default Adams County rate of 1.6% on Indiana AGI of $84,302, giving $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model found no applicable local tax because it followed the prompt's city-only list, but PolicyEngine's local_income_tax includes Indiana county income tax. That tax is 1.6% × ($87,302 − $3,000) = $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model read the output as covering only NYC, Philadelphia, KC and St. Louis, so it left out Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine includes that tax at 1.6% (Adams County) on $84,302, giving $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed that an Indiana residence triggers no local income tax. In fact, every Indiana county levies a county income tax, and PolicyEngine reports it in local_income_tax as 1.6% × $84,302 Indiana AGI = $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model recognized Indiana county tax but left it out of this output because of the prompt's city-only description. PolicyEngine's local_income_tax includes the county tax: 1.6% (Adams County) × $84,302 = $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated the four specified city taxes as the full scope of the output and left out Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine includes that tax and computes 1.6% × $84,302 = $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model concluded that Indiana's local taxes fall outside the modeled output, but PolicyEngine's local_income_tax includes Indiana county income tax. That tax is 1.6% on $84,302 of Indiana AGI, or $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model limited local_income_tax to the named city jurisdictions and left out Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine includes that tax at the default Adams County rate of 1.6% on Indiana AGI of $84,302, giving $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model found no recognized separate local tax because it followed the prompt's city list, but PolicyEngine's local_income_tax includes Indiana county income tax. That tax is 1.6% × $84,302 = $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed that PolicyEngine's local income tax covers only NYC, Philadelphia, KC and St. Louis. In fact the variable also includes Indiana county income tax, which is 1.6% (Adams County default) × $84,302 = $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model read the listed city taxes as exhaustive and left out Indiana county income tax, which PolicyEngine includes in local_income_tax. That tax is 1.6% on $84,302 of Indiana AGI, or $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated the four named taxes as the only components and so left out Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine includes that tax and computes 1.6% × ($87,302 − $3,000 exemptions) = $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied no local tax because no city jurisdiction was named, but PolicyEngine applies Indiana county income tax using the default Adams County rate of 1.6%. On Indiana AGI of $84,302, that gives $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model limited the output to NYC/Philadelphia/KC/St. Louis taxes and left out Indiana county income tax, which PolicyEngine includes in local_income_tax. That tax is 1.6% × $84,302 = $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated the four named city taxes as the full definition and left out Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine includes that tax at 1.6% (Adams County) on $84,302 of Indiana AGI, giving $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model checked only the listed city jurisdictions and never applied Indiana county income tax, which is part of PolicyEngine's local_income_tax. That tax is 1.6% × $84,302 = $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model read the output as limited to the four named city taxes and left out Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine includes that tax and computes 1.6% × ($87,302 − $3,000) = $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated Indiana as outside the specified jurisdictions, but PolicyEngine's local_income_tax includes Indiana county income tax. That tax is 1.6% (Adams County default) on $84,302 of Indiana AGI, or $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model concluded that Indiana is not covered by the output, but PolicyEngine's local_income_tax includes Indiana county income tax. That tax is 1.6% × $84,302 Indiana AGI = $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model followed the prompt's city-only categories and left out Indiana county income tax, which PolicyEngine includes in local_income_tax. That tax is 1.6% (Adams County default, since no county was given) × $84,302 = $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated Indiana as outside the output's jurisdictions and left out Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine includes that tax at 1.6% on Indiana AGI of $84,302, giving $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model limited the output to the specified city taxes and left out Indiana county income tax, which PolicyEngine counts in local_income_tax. That tax is 1.6% × $84,302 = $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed that no local income taxes apply in Indiana. In fact, all Indiana counties levy a county income tax, and PolicyEngine computes it as 1.6% (Adams County) × $84,302 Indiana AGI = $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated the four named city taxes as the only things that feed into local_income_tax and left out Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine includes that tax and computes 1.6% × $84,302 = $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model recognized Indiana county tax but placed it outside this output because of the prompt's city list. PolicyEngine includes it in local_income_tax at 1.6% on $84,302, giving $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model limited the output to NYC, Philadelphia, KC and St. Louis and left out Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine includes that tax at the default Adams County rate of 1.6% on Indiana AGI of $84,302, giving $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model acknowledged Indiana county taxes but left them out because the output description lists only city taxes. PolicyEngine's local_income_tax includes the county tax: 1.6% × ($87,302 − $3,000) = $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model read the listed city taxes as exhaustive and never applied Indiana county income tax, which PolicyEngine includes in local_income_tax. That tax is 1.6% × $84,302 = $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,kimi-k2.6,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated the four specific city taxes as the whole scope of the output and left out Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine includes that tax at 1.6% (Adams County) on $84,302 of Indiana AGI, giving $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model checked only the NYC/Philadelphia/KC/St. Louis taxes and left out Indiana county income tax, which is part of PolicyEngine's local_income_tax. That tax is 1.6% × $84,302 = $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model set the tax to $0 because no Indiana county was given. When no county is given, PolicyEngine defaults to Adams County and applies its 1.6% rate to Indiana AGI of $84,302 ($87,302 minus $3,000 of exemptions), giving $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model limited local_income_tax to the four named cities and left out Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine includes that tax and computes 1.6% × $84,302 = $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model explicitly placed Indiana county taxes outside this output because of the prompt's city list. PolicyEngine's local_income_tax includes them: 1.6% (Adams County default) × $84,302 Indiana AGI = $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated the four modeled city taxes as exhaustive and left out Indiana county income tax, which PolicyEngine includes in local_income_tax. That tax is 1.6% on $84,302 of Indiana AGI, or $1,348.83."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model read the listed jurisdictions as the only ones with local income tax and left out Indiana county income tax. PolicyEngine includes that tax and computes 1.6% × ($87,302 − $3,000) = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Read the four named cities as the complete scope of local_income_tax and returned 0. The engine's output also includes Indiana county income tax: 1.6% (Adams County default) × $84,302 Indiana AGI = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Treated NYC/Philadelphia/KC/St. Louis as the only taxes counted and returned 0. It never applied Indiana's county income tax, which the engine computes as 1.6% of $84,302 Indiana AGI ($87,302 AGI minus 3 × $1,000 exemptions) = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Claimed Indiana has no local income tax, which is false: every Indiana county levies a local income tax on Indiana AGI. The engine applies Adams County's 1.6% rate to $84,302 Indiana AGI, giving $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Correctly identified Indiana county income tax but gave an unsupported round figure of $1,800, which works out to about 2.14% of Indiana AGI. The engine applies the default Adams County rate of 1.6% to $84,302 Indiana AGI (federal AGI minus $1,000 per person in exemptions), giving $1,348.83. The prompt gave no county, so it gave no rate."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Read the city list as complete and returned 0. It left out the Indiana county income tax that the engine includes in local_income_tax: 1.6% × $84,302 Indiana AGI = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Said the output 'captures only those specific' city taxes and returned 0. The engine's local_income_tax also includes Indiana county tax, computed at Adams County's 1.6% on $84,302 Indiana AGI = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Recognized Indiana county income tax but decided it fell outside the listed outputs, so it returned 0. The engine counts county tax in local_income_tax: 1.6% × $84,302 Indiana AGI = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Checked only the four named city taxes and returned 0. It never applied Indiana's county income tax of 1.6% (Adams County default) on $84,302 Indiana AGI, which the engine reports as $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Treated the four listed jurisdictions as complete and concluded no local tax applies. The engine includes Indiana county income tax: $84,302 Indiana AGI × 1.6% = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Read the city list as complete and returned 0, leaving out Indiana county income tax. The engine computes that tax as 1.6% of Indiana AGI ($87,302 minus $3,000 in exemptions) = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Limited local_income_tax to the four listed cities and returned 0. The engine also counts Indiana county tax at 1.6% × $84,302 = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Treated the four covered city taxes as complete and returned 0. It never computed Indiana county income tax, which is 1.6% of $84,302 Indiana AGI = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Checked only NYC/Philadelphia/KC/St. Louis and returned 0. It left out the Indiana county income tax the engine includes: Adams County 1.6% × $84,302 Indiana AGI = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Read the listed city taxes as complete and returned 0. The engine includes Indiana county income tax, computed as 1.6% of $84,302 Indiana AGI = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Concluded without explanation that no local tax applies, which matches reading the city list as complete. The engine levies Indiana county income tax of 1.6% on $84,302 Indiana AGI = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Read the request as covering only NYC, Philadelphia, KC and St. Louis, and returned 0. The engine's local_income_tax includes Indiana county tax: 1.6% × $84,302 = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Claimed an Indiana residence triggers no local income tax, which is false because every Indiana county levies one. The engine applies 1.6% (Adams County) to $84,302 Indiana AGI, giving $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Recognized Indiana county tax but decided it was excluded from this output, and returned 0. The engine's local_income_tax includes county tax of 1.6% × $84,302 Indiana AGI = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Read the four specified city taxes as complete and returned 0. It never computed Indiana county income tax, which the engine sets at 1.6% of $84,302 Indiana AGI = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Said Indiana has no local tax 'of the type modeled here' and returned 0. The engine models Indiana county income tax in this output: 1.6% × $84,302 = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Limited the applicable jurisdictions to the listed cities and returned 0. The engine also applies Indiana county tax at 1.6% on $84,302 Indiana AGI = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Concluded the household has no recognized separate local income tax and returned 0. It skipped Indiana county income tax, which the engine computes as 1.6% × $84,302 Indiana AGI = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Said PolicyEngine's local income tax covers only NYC, Philadelphia, KC and St. Louis, but the engine also adds Indiana county income tax into local_income_tax. Here that is 1.6% × $84,302 = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,gemini-4-argon,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Looked only for city-level income or wage taxes and returned 0. It left out the Indiana county income tax that the engine computes at 1.6% of $84,302 Indiana AGI = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Read the four specified city taxes as complete and concluded Indiana levies none of them. It never applied Indiana's county income tax, which is 1.6% × $84,302 = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Treated the four named taxes as everything counted in the output and returned 0. The engine includes Indiana county tax of 1.6% on $84,302 Indiana AGI = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Returned 0 because no local jurisdiction was specified, rather than applying Indiana's county income tax. The engine uses a default county (Adams, 1.6%) on $84,302 Indiana AGI, giving $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Excluded all local tax because no NYC/Philadelphia/KC/St. Louis facts apply. The engine includes Indiana county income tax: 1.6% × $84,302 Indiana AGI = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Read the city list as complete and returned 0. It left out Indiana county income tax, which the engine computes at 1.6% of Indiana AGI ($87,302 minus $3,000 in exemptions) = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Checked only the four named jurisdictions and returned 0. The engine adds Indiana county income tax of 1.6% × $84,302 = $1,348.83 to local_income_tax."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Treated the separately requested city taxes as complete and returned 0. It skipped Indiana county income tax, which is 1.6% of $84,302 Indiana AGI = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Concluded Indiana is not a specified jurisdiction and returned 0. The engine's local_income_tax includes Indiana county tax: 1.6% × $84,302 = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Read the output as covering only the named cities and returned 0. It never applied Indiana's county income tax of 1.6% (Adams County default) on $84,302 Indiana AGI = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Said Indiana has no local tax in the requested categories and returned 0. The engine counts Indiana county income tax here: 1.6% × $84,302 = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Placed Indiana outside the output's jurisdictions and returned 0. The engine includes Indiana county income tax, computed as 1.6% of $84,302 Indiana AGI = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Read the output as covering only specified city taxes and returned 0. It left out Indiana county tax, which the engine computes at 1.6% × $84,302 Indiana AGI = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Claimed no local income taxes apply in Indiana, which is false because every Indiana county levies a local income tax. The engine applies Adams County's 1.6% to $84,302 Indiana AGI, giving $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Treated NYC, Philadelphia, KC and St. Louis as the only taxes behind the output and returned 0. The engine also includes Indiana county income tax: 1.6% × $84,302 = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Recognized Indiana county tax but decided it was outside the specified outputs, and returned 0. The engine counts it in local_income_tax at 1.6% × $84,302 Indiana AGI = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Checked only the four named cities and returned 0. It never applied Indiana's county income tax, which the engine computes as 1.6% of $84,302 Indiana AGI = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Noted that Indiana has county taxes but excluded them because the output listed only cities, and returned 0. The engine includes Indiana county tax: 1.6% × $84,302 = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Read the listed local taxes as complete and returned 0. The engine adds Indiana county income tax of 1.6% on $84,302 Indiana AGI = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,kimi-k2.6,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Treated the four city taxes as the only ones captured and returned 0. It left out Indiana county income tax, which the engine computes as 1.6% × $84,302 = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Looked only for NYC/Philadelphia/KC/St. Louis liability and returned 0. The engine includes Indiana county income tax at 1.6% of $84,302 Indiana AGI = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Recognized Indiana county income tax but returned 0 because no county was given. The engine instead applies a default county (Adams, 1.6%) to $84,302 Indiana AGI, giving $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,muse-spark-1.3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Counted only NYC/Philadelphia/KC/St. Louis and returned 0. It never computed Indiana county tax, which the engine sets at 1.6% × $84,302 = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Read the four listed cities as complete and returned 0. The engine's local_income_tax includes Indiana county tax of 1.6% on $84,302 Indiana AGI = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Explicitly put Indiana county taxes outside this output and returned 0. The engine includes them: Adams County 1.6% × $84,302 Indiana AGI = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Treated the four modeled city taxes as complete and returned 0. It left out Indiana county income tax, which the engine computes at 1.6% of $84,302 Indiana AGI = $1,348.83."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Said local income taxes apply only in the listed cities and returned 0. The engine also applies Indiana county income tax: 1.6% × $84,302 = $1,348.83."
us,scenario_067,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model first got the correct $6,300.54 from 7.65% of the head's $82,360. It then made up spouse wages by applying the head's $67 hourly rate to the spouse's 50 weekly hours, even though the prompt says unlisted numbers are 0. After trying several inconsistent versions of that guess, it submitted an unexplained $12,554.41 instead of the head-only figure."
us,scenario_067,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model assumed the spouse had wages that the prompt does not list, even though the spouse's wages are $0. At 7.65%, its $8,500 answer implies about $111,000 of taxed wages, roughly $28,700 more than the head's $82,360. Taxing only the head's wages gives $6,300.54."
us,scenario_067,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,other,False,"The model used the right base and rates but rounded each piece to whole dollars ($5,106 and $1,194). It then added them to $6,299 instead of $6,300 and blamed a wage limit that does not apply at $82,360. The unrounded total is $5,106.32 + $1,194.22 = $6,300.54."
@@ -5790,42 +5981,43 @@ us,scenario_067,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,ta
us,scenario_067,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model got the $84,302 base right but used 3.05% instead of 2.95%. It then subtracted an invented $100 dependent credit and $374 of made-up 'estimated nonrefundable credits'. No nonrefundable Indiana credits apply."
us,scenario_067,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model added the dependent's $10,800 disability benefits to the filers' AGI. The correct AGI is $87,302 (wages plus pension). It also used 3.05% instead of the 2026 rate of 2.95%."
us,scenario_067,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added $67,750 of educational assistance above the §127 cap to wages, which pushed taxable income to $85,734 and the computed tax to $13,573. It then submitted an unrelated $8,258. Educational assistance is not part of AGI, so taxable income is $17,983.53 and tax is $1,910.02."
-us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,other,False,"It offset the tax with the EITC and other speculative credits, but the EITC is refundable and is not subtracted from tax before refundable credits. It also used the outdated $14,600 standard deduction and included $5,250 of educational assistance in AGI. The correct figure is 10%/12% tax on $17,983.53 of taxable income, or $1,910.02."
-us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"It found taxable income of about $18,000 with no nonrefundable credits, but submitted $0 instead of the bracket tax. 10% of $12,400 plus 12% of $5,583.53 gives $1,910.02. It also understated that tax as about $1,000."
-us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted $67,750 of educational assistance above the §127 limit as wages, which raised AGI to $101,834 and moved income into the 22% bracket. Educational assistance is excluded from AGI, so AGI is just the $34,084 of wages, giving $17,983.53 of taxable income and $1,910.02 of tax."
-us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the correct 2026 deduction and brackets but added $67,750 of educational assistance to AGI, which produced $85,734 of taxable income. With educational assistance excluded, taxable income is $17,983.53 and tax is $1,910.02."
-us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly excluded educational assistance, used the $16,100 deduction and the $12,400 10% bracket, and reached about $1,910. It then submitted $2,372 with no supporting computation. The correct value is $1,240 + 12% × $5,583.53 = $1,910.02."
-us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added $67,750 of educational assistance to AGI, used a $15,750 standard deduction instead of the 2026 figure of $16,100, and used 12%/22% bracket breakpoints of $46,600. Excluding educational assistance gives $17,983.53 of taxable income, all of it in the 10% and 12% brackets."
-us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It eventually used wages-only taxable income of $17,984, but it applied a $12,150 10% bracket (getting $1,915) and then submitted an arbitrary $1,750. With the 2026 $12,400 10% bracket, tax is $1,240 + $670.02 = $1,910.02."
-us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the full $73,000 of educational assistance as taxable, which raised AGI to $107,084, and it used a $15,700 standard deduction. Educational assistance is excluded from AGI, and with the $16,100 deduction taxable income is $17,983.53, giving $1,910.02 of tax."
-us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $8,389 of ESI premiums from the stated gross wages and added $67,750 of educational assistance, which gave an AGI of $93,445. It also used a $15,400 deduction. AGI is simply the $34,083.53 of wages, which gives $17,983.53 of taxable income and $1,910.02 of tax."
-us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied pre-TCJA law, with a $7,900 standard deduction, a $5,050 personal exemption, and 15%/25% brackets, and it added $67,750 of educational assistance to AGI. For 2026 the deduction is $16,100 with no personal exemption under the 10%/12% brackets, and educational assistance is excluded, giving $1,910.02."
-us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired in 2026, using a $7,600 deduction, a $5,100 exemption and a 15% bracket. It also subtracted the $8,389 of ESI premiums from the stated gross wages. For 2026 the $16,100 deduction applies to full wages of $34,083.53, giving $17,983.53 of taxable income and $1,910.02 of tax."
-us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,other,False,"It subtracted a Child Tax Credit and other nonrefundable credits even though the filer has no children and qualifies for none. It also taxed all income at a flat 10% and used a $15,200 deduction. The correct value is 10%/12% bracket tax on $17,983.53 of taxable income, or $1,910.02, with no credits."
-us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied post-TCJA-sunset rules, with a combined deduction and exemption of $14,250, and it subtracted the $8,389 of ESI premiums from the stated gross wages. That gave $11,445 taxed at 10%. For 2026 the $16,100 deduction applies to wages of $34,083.53, giving $1,910.02."
-us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the full $73,000 of educational assistance to AGI, subtracted the ESI premiums, and applied pre-TCJA rules: an $8,300 deduction, a $5,050 exemption and 15%/25% brackets. Educational assistance is excluded and the 2026 OBBBA rules apply, giving $17,983.53 of taxable income and $1,910.02 of tax."
-us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,other,False,"It submitted $0 with no computation, which treats the filer as having no tax liability. Wages of $34,083.53 minus the $16,100 standard deduction leave $17,983.53 taxable, and the 10%/12% brackets produce $1,910.02 of tax."
-us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA sunset, using an $8,300 deduction, a $5,100 personal exemption and a 15% bracket. For 2026 the single standard deduction is $16,100 with no personal exemption under the 10%/12% brackets, so tax is $1,910.02."
-us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $11,116 answer is consistent with adding the educational assistance to taxable income and taxing it in the 22% bracket. Educational assistance is excluded from AGI, so taxable income is $34,083.53 − $16,100 = $17,983.53 and tax is $1,910.02."
-us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used 2025 parameters: a $15,000 standard deduction and a $11,925 10% bracket. The 2026 figures are a $16,100 deduction and a $12,400 10% bracket, which give $17,983.53 of taxable income and $1,910.02 of tax."
-us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added $67,750 of educational assistance to wages and used 2024 parameters: a $14,600 deduction and 2024 brackets. Educational assistance is excluded and the 2026 deduction is $16,100, giving $17,983.53 of taxable income and $1,910.02 of tax."
-us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It ended the 10% bracket at $12,200 instead of the 2026 single threshold of $12,400, which moved $200 from the 10% rate to 12%. The correct tax is $1,240 + 12% × $5,583.53 = $1,910.02."
-us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,other,False,"It claimed $34,084 of wages is too little to owe tax after the standard deduction. The $16,100 deduction still leaves $17,983.53 of taxable income, which owes $1,910.02 at the 10%/12% rates."
-us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"It wrongly concluded that tax after the standard deduction was zero or negative. Wages of $34,083.53 minus the $16,100 deduction leave $17,983.53 taxable, which owes $1,910.02 with no nonrefundable credits."
-us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied post-TCJA-sunset rules, with a combined deduction and exemption of $13,650 and a 15% second bracket. For 2026 the $16,100 standard deduction and the 10%/12% brackets apply, giving $1,910.02."
-us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It included $67,750 of educational assistance above the §127 cap in taxable income, which pushed income into the 22% bracket. Educational assistance is excluded from AGI, so taxable income is $17,983.53 and tax is $1,910.02."
-us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the full $73,000 of educational assistance to wages, which raised income to $107,084. Educational assistance is excluded, so AGI is just the $34,083.53 of wages and the tax after the $16,100 deduction is $1,910.02."
-us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its taxable income of about $19,000 reflects a 2025-level standard deduction of about $15,000 rather than the 2026 figure of $16,100. With $17,983.53 taxable and a $12,400 10% bracket, tax is $1,910.02."
-us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used 2025 parameters: a $15,000 standard deduction and an $11,925 10% bracket. The 2026 $16,100 deduction and $12,400 bracket give $17,983.53 of taxable income and $1,910.02 of tax."
-us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed post-TCJA-sunset law, with an $8,450 deduction, a $5,300 personal exemption and a 15% bracket. For 2026 the single standard deduction is $16,100 with no exemption under the 10%/12% brackets, so tax is $1,910.02."
-us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the right deduction and taxable income but ended the 10% bracket at $12,200 instead of the 2026 threshold of $12,400. That gave $1,914.08 instead of $1,240 + $670.02 = $1,910.02."
-us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $8,389 of ESI premiums from the stated gross wages and applied pre-TCJA rules: an $8,527 deduction and a 15% bracket. The full $34,083.53 of wages minus the 2026 $16,100 deduction, taxed at 10%/12%, gives $1,910.02."
-us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value or explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was no answer to score against the $1,910.02 reference."
-us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 $15,750 standard deduction and a $12,200 10% bracket instead of the 2026 figures of $16,100 and $12,400. That overstated taxable income at $18,334 and gave $1,956 instead of $1,910.02."
-us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the correct $16,100 deduction and $17,984 of taxable income, but its $1,915 matches a 10% bracket ending at $12,200 instead of the 2026 threshold of $12,400. The correct tax is $1,910.02."
-us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,750 standard deduction and a $12,150 10% bracket instead of the 2026 figures of $16,100 and $12,400. That gave $18,334 of taxable income and $1,957.08 of tax instead of $1,910.02."
-us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,other,False,"It subtracted the EITC to bring tax to $0, but the EITC is refundable and is excluded from tax before refundable credits. The $16,100 deduction leaves $17,983.53 of taxable income, which owes $1,910.02."
+us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the $73,000 as employer §127 assistance and added the $67,750 above the $5,250 cap to income. That raised AGI to $101,834, when the assistance is excluded and AGI is just the $34,084 of wages. It then submitted $8,258, which doesn't match its own $13,573 calculation either; the correct figure is $1,910 on $17,984 of taxable income."
+us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,other,False,"It used the old $14,600 standard deduction, wrongly cut AGI by treating the educational assistance as if $5,250 came out of wages, and then netted the EITC against tax to reach $0. The EITC is refundable and plays no part in tax before refundable credits. With wages-only AGI and the $16,100 deduction, tax is $1,910."
+us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got taxable income of about $18,000 right but mis-applied the brackets, estimating about $1,000. It then submitted $0, even though it found no nonrefundable credits to offset the tax. 10% of $12,400 plus 12% of $5,583.53 is $1,910."
+us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added $67,750 of educational assistance above the §127 cap to taxable wages, but the educational assistance is excluded from AGI here. It also used outdated 10%/12% bracket tops of $12,150 and $49,350 instead of $12,400 and $50,400. Together these produced $13,683 instead of $1,910."
+us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $16,100 deduction and 2026 brackets were right, but it added $67,750 of educational assistance to income, making AGI $101,834. Excluding the assistance leaves taxable income of $17,984 and tax of $1,910, not $13,573."
+us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its own reasoning reached the correct $17,984 taxable income and about $1,910 of tax under the $12,400 10% bracket. It then switched to an unsupported $2,372 that no stated bracket arithmetic produces."
+us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added $67,750 of educational assistance to AGI, but the assistance is excluded. It also used a $15,750 standard deduction and $12,200/$46,600 bracket tops instead of the 2026 values of $16,100, $12,400 and $50,400. The result was $14,034 instead of $1,910."
+us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"In its fallback calculation it correctly excluded the educational assistance and used the $16,100 deduction, but it ended the 10% bracket at $12,150 instead of $12,400 and got $1,915. It then submitted an arbitrary $1,750 that no stated calculation supports. The correct figure is $1,910."
+us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted the full $73,000 of educational assistance as taxable, making AGI $107,084, even though the assistance is excluded from income. It also used a $15,700 standard deduction instead of $16,100."
+us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $8,389 of ESI premiums from the listed gross wages and added $67,750 of educational assistance. Neither adjustment applies: AGI is the $34,084 of wages. It also used a $15,400 standard deduction instead of $16,100."
+us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added $67,750 of educational assistance to AGI. It also applied pre-TCJA law, with a $7,900 standard deduction, a $5,050 personal exemption, and 15%/25% brackets, but the TCJA structure is permanent for 2026: a $16,100 deduction, no exemption, and 10%/12% brackets."
+us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired in 2026 and used a $7,600 standard deduction plus a $5,100 personal exemption with a 15% bracket. The 2026 amounts are a $16,100 standard deduction with 10%/12% brackets. It also subtracted the $8,389 of ESI premiums from gross wages, though AGI is $34,084."
+us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,200 standard deduction and taxed all $18,884 of taxable income at 10%, ignoring the 12% bracket above $12,400. It then subtracted a Child Tax Credit that a filer with no children can't claim, reaching $139 instead of $1,910."
+us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset rules, using about $14,250 of standard deduction plus exemption, instead of the permanent 2026 $16,100 standard deduction. It also subtracted the $8,389 of ESI premiums from gross wages, which cut taxable income to $11,445 instead of $17,984."
+us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the full $73,000 of educational assistance to AGI and subtracted the ESI premiums, though AGI is just the $34,084 of wages. It also applied pre-TCJA law, with an $8,300 deduction, a $5,050 exemption, and 15%/25% brackets."
+us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,other,False,"It reported $0 without computing anything. Wages of $34,084 minus the $16,100 standard deduction leave $17,984 of taxable income, which produces $1,910 of tax with no nonrefundable credits to offset it."
+us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed TCJA provisions expire in 2026 and used an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,100 personal exemption and a 15% second bracket. Under the permanent 2026 rules the deduction is $16,100, the brackets are 10% to $12,400 and 12% above, and the tax is $1,910."
+us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $11,116 is far above what wages alone produce, which means it counted educational assistance as taxable income. The $73,000 of assistance is excluded, so taxable income is $17,984 and tax is $1,910."
+us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 parameters: a $15,000 standard deduction and a 10% bracket ending at $11,925. The 2026 values are a $16,100 deduction and a 10% bracket ending at $12,400, so it overstated taxable income by $1,100 and reached $2,052 instead of $1,910."
+us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added $67,750 of educational assistance to taxable wages, though the assistance is excluded from AGI. It also used 2024 parameters as a proxy: a $14,600 deduction and $11,600/$47,150 bracket tops instead of $16,100, $12,400 and $50,400."
+us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its AGI and $16,100 deduction were correct, but it ended the 10% bracket at $12,200 instead of the 2026 single threshold of $12,400. That taxed $200 extra at 12% and gave $1,914 instead of $1,910.02."
+us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It claimed $34,084 of wages is too low to owe tax after the standard deduction. In fact the $16,100 deduction leaves $17,984 taxable, which produces $1,910 of tax."
+us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It asserted that tax after the standard deduction is zero or negative, but $34,084 minus $16,100 leaves $17,984 of positive taxable income. There are no nonrefundable credits, so tax is $1,910."
+us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied projected TCJA-sunset rules: about $13,650 of standard deduction plus personal exemption, and a 15% second bracket. The permanent 2026 rules give a $16,100 standard deduction and a 12% second bracket, for tax of $1,910."
+us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted $67,750 of educational assistance above the $5,250 §127 cap as taxable income. The assistance is excluded, so AGI is just the $34,084 of wages and tax is $1,910, not $13,573.48."
+us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the full $73,000 of educational assistance to income, making AGI $107,084. Excluding the assistance leaves $17,984 of taxable income after the $16,100 deduction and $1,910 of tax."
+us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It put taxable income at about $19,000, which implies a roughly $15,000 standard deduction instead of $16,100. It also used outdated bracket edges, reaching $2,058 instead of $1,910 on $17,984."
+us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It explicitly used 2025 parameters: a $15,000 standard deduction and a 10% bracket ending at $11,925. The 2026 values are a $16,100 deduction and a 10% bracket ending at $12,400, which give $1,910 instead of $2,052."
+us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset rules: an $8,450 standard deduction, a $5,300 personal exemption and a 15% bracket. The 2026 rules give a $16,100 standard deduction and a 12% bracket above $12,400, so taxable income is $17,984 and tax is $1,910."
+us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its AGI and $16,100 deduction were correct, but it ended the 10% bracket at $12,200 instead of $12,400. That produced $1,914.08 instead of $1,910.02."
+us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It subtracted the $8,389 of ESI premiums from the listed gross wages and applied TCJA-sunset rules: an $8,527 deduction and a 15% bracket. The correct approach is AGI of $34,084 less the permanent 2026 $16,100 deduction, taxed at 10%/12%."
+us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value and no explanation for this output, so there is no answer to score."
+us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 OBBBA standard deduction of $15,750 instead of the 2026 amount of $16,100. It also ended the 10% bracket at $12,200 instead of $12,400, which overstated taxable income by $350 and gave $1,956 instead of $1,910."
+us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 parameters: a $15,750 standard deduction and a 10% bracket ending at $11,925. The 2026 values are a $16,100 deduction and a 10% bracket ending at $12,400, so it reached $1,961.58 instead of $1,910.02."
+us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $16,100 deduction and $17,984 taxable income were correct. Its $1,915 matches a 10% bracket ending around $12,150 rather than the 2026 single threshold of $12,400, which yields $1,910."
+us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,750 standard deduction instead of the 2026 $16,100 and ended the 10% bracket at $12,150 instead of $12,400. That inflated taxable income to $18,334 and tax to $1,957.08."
+us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,other,False,"It applied the EITC to drive taxable income and tax to $0. The EITC is a refundable credit, excluded from tax before refundable credits, and it never reduces taxable income. Taxable income is $17,984 and tax is $1,910."
us,scenario_068,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model incorrectly projected the temporary American Rescue Plan expansion of the childless EITC into 2026 and therefore used a phaseout endpoint near $33,000–$34,000. Under 2026 law, the temporary expansion is not in effect, and $34,084 exceeds the applicable childless EITC income limit, yielding zero EITC."
us,scenario_068,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model treated wages of $34,084 and a one-person household as qualifying for EITC without applying the childless single-filer phaseout endpoint. At that income the childless EITC is fully phased out, and no other refundable credit applies."
us,scenario_068,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model supplied no numeric output or explanation for federal_refundable_credits, violating the required output contract."
@@ -5845,90 +6037,93 @@ us,scenario_068,payroll_tax,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The
us,scenario_068,payroll_tax,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model got both FICA components right on the full $34,084 wage base and then added a 0.45% Maryland FAMLI employee contribution of $153.38. Maryland's FAMLI employee contributions are not in effect for 2026 and are not part of PolicyEngine's payroll_tax, which comprises only employee Social Security, Medicare, and Additional Medicare Tax."
us,scenario_068,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no value and no explanation for payroll_tax, so no substantive rule or computation was attempted. The required derivation is 6.2% plus 1.45% on the full $34,084 of wages, with no ESI offset, no educational assistance in the base, and no Maryland employee payroll contribution."
us,scenario_068,payroll_tax,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,other,False,"The model identified the correct base and rates but truncated each component to whole dollars ($2,113 Social Security and $494 Medicare) and then submitted $2,600 rather than the $2,607 those components sum to. The rule application was right; the reported total contradicts the model's own arithmetic by $7."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Added $67,750 of educational assistance above the $5,250 Sec. 127 limit to AGI, getting $101,834. Maryland AGI is just the wages ($34,083.53). The model also used the old 15%-capped $2,700 standard deduction instead of the flat $3,350, and wrongly cut the exemption to $1,600."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Subtracted the $8,389 ESI premiums from wages to get AGI of $25,695, then claimed taxable income would be near zero. In fact $34,083.53 − $3,350 − $3,200 leaves $27,533.53 taxable, and Maryland's brackets give $1,255.34."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Said the Maryland tax on $34,084 of wages is not positive. The $3,350 standard deduction and $3,200 exemption leave $27,533.53 of taxable income, which produces $1,255.34 of tax."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,other,False,"Its own reasoning computed $4,554 (with the educational assistance included) and $1,336 (with it excluded), but it submitted $1,029, which matches neither. The model's exclusion branch also used the old $2,700 capped deduction instead of the flat $3,350."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used the old 15%-of-AGI standard deduction capped at about $2,700 instead of Maryland's flat $3,350, which put taxable income at $28,184 and tax at $1,286. The model then added an unexplained 'personal exemption credit adjustment' to reach $1,308."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used the old capped standard deduction of about $2,700 instead of the flat $3,350, giving taxable income of $28,184. The model then reported $1,301, more than the $1,286 that its own figures produce."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Put $67,750 of educational assistance into Maryland income, getting AGI of $101,834. Maryland AGI is just the wages ($34,083.53). The model also used a $2,500 capped standard deduction instead of the flat $3,350."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used a $2,550 capped standard deduction instead of the flat $3,350, giving taxable income of $28,334. The model then got the bracket math wrong: tax on $28,334 is about $1,293, not the $1,050 it reported."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Added the full $73,000 of educational assistance to AGI, getting $107,084, which pushed income into the exemption phase-out and the 5% bracket. Maryland AGI is just the wages ($34,083.53), with the flat $3,350 deduction and full $3,200 exemption."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $93,445 AGI equals $34,084 + $67,750 of educational assistance − $8,389 of ESI premiums. Maryland AGI excludes the educational assistance entirely and does not subtract the premiums from the listed wages, leaving AGI of $34,083.53."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Added $67,750 of educational assistance to get AGI of $101,834, used a $2,400 capped deduction instead of $3,350, and left out the $3,200 personal exemption entirely."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The structure was right, but it used a $2,800 standard deduction instead of Maryland's flat $3,350 single deduction. That overstates taxable income by $550 and the tax by about $26."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Subtracted the $8,389 ESI premiums from wages, getting AGI of $25,695 instead of $34,083.53. The model also used a $2,550 capped deduction instead of the flat $3,350."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Gave no computation. Its $1,133 implies taxable income of about $24,960, so about $9,100 of deductions came off $34,084. The correct reductions are the $3,350 standard deduction plus the $3,200 exemption, which leave $27,533.53 taxable and $1,255.34 of tax."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Subtracted the ESI premiums to get AGI of $25,695 and used a $2,750 deduction instead of $3,350. The model then added about $592 of county income tax, which this state-tax output does not include."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $98,695 AGI equals wages plus the full $73,000 of educational assistance minus the $8,389 ESI premiums. Maryland AGI is just the wages ($34,083.53). The model also used a $2,550 deduction instead of $3,350, and the wrong $60 base for the first $3,000."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Gave no computation. Its $997 implies taxable income of about $22,100, far below the correct $27,533.53 (wages of $34,083.53 less the $3,350 deduction and $3,200 exemption), which yields $1,255.34."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used a $2,550 maximum standard deduction from the old 15%-of-AGI rule instead of the flat $3,350, which overstated taxable income ($28,334 instead of $27,533.53)."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Gave no computation. Its $4,786 implies taxable income of about $101,800, so it put the $73,000 of educational assistance into Maryland income. Maryland AGI is just the wages ($34,083.53)."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used the old capped standard deduction of $2,700 instead of Maryland's flat $3,350, so taxable income came out at $28,184 instead of $27,533.53."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used a $2,750 deduction and a $3,300 exemption instead of $3,350 and $3,200. The model also misapplied the brackets: its stated $28,034 of taxable income produces about $1,279, not $1,453.28."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used a $3,200 standard deduction instead of Maryland's flat $3,350 single deduction. That overstates taxable income by $150 ($27,684 instead of $27,533.53) and the tax by about $7."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Claimed deductions and exemptions fully offset the wages. Maryland allows only the $3,350 standard deduction and $3,200 exemption, which leaves $27,533.53 taxable and $1,255.34 of tax."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Floored the tax at zero without computing it. Wages of $34,083.53 less the $3,350 deduction and $3,200 exemption leave $27,533.53 taxable, which Maryland taxes at $1,255.34."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used an estimated $2,900 standard deduction instead of Maryland's flat $3,350 single amount, so taxable income came out at $27,984 instead of $27,533.53."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used AGI of $101,834, which adds $67,750 of educational assistance to wages. Maryland AGI is just the wages ($34,083.53). The model also used the old maximum standard deduction instead of the flat $3,350."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used a projected indexed cap of $2,850 under the old 15%-of-AGI rule instead of Maryland's flat $3,350 single deduction, which overstated taxable income by $500."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $101,334 of taxable income adds the full $73,000 of educational assistance to wages. Maryland AGI is just the wages ($34,083.53). The model also used a $2,550 deduction instead of $3,350."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used a $2,900 standard deduction instead of Maryland's flat $3,350 single deduction, so taxable income came out at $27,984 instead of $27,533.53."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used a $3,450 standard deduction instead of the flat $3,350 that Maryland published for 2025. That understates taxable income by $100 and the tax by about $4.72."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Gave a rounded guess of $1,400 with no deduction or exemption amounts. Applying the $3,350 deduction and $3,200 exemption to $34,083.53 gives $27,533.53 taxable and $1,255.34 of tax."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used a $2,350 maximum standard deduction from the old 15%-of-AGI rule instead of the flat $3,350, which overstated taxable income by $1,000."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used a capped standard deduction of about $2,600 instead of Maryland's flat $3,350 single deduction, so taxable income came out at about $28,284 instead of $27,533.53."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied the old 15%-of-AGI rule with an indexed $2,850 cap. Maryland now uses a flat $3,350 single deduction, so taxable income was overstated by $500."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Subtracted the $8,389 ESI premiums from wages to get AGI of $25,695 instead of $34,083.53. The model also used a $2,400 deduction instead of the flat $3,350."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used about $2,650 for the deduction and $3,400 for the exemption instead of $3,350 and $3,200. That understates total reductions by $500 and puts taxable income at $28,034."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Treated the full $73,000 of educational assistance as taxable, getting AGI of $107,084, and applied a made-up 2%–6% rate schedule. Maryland AGI is just the wages ($34,083.53), taxed at 4.75% above $3,000."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used an indexed $2,850 cap under the old 15% rule instead of Maryland's flat $3,350 single deduction, which overstated taxable income by $500."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Left out the $3,200 personal exemption entirely and used a $2,000 standard deduction instead of $3,350. That gives taxable income of $32,084 instead of $27,533.53."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $28,084 of taxable income reflects about $6,000 of combined deduction and exemption. The flat $3,350 deduction plus the $3,200 exemption total $6,550, leaving $27,533.53 taxable."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used a $2,350 maximum standard deduction under the old 15%-of-AGI rule instead of Maryland's flat $3,350, which overstated taxable income by $1,000."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Correctly subtracted a deduction (wrong amount, $3,100) and the exemption from income, then subtracted both again as made-up nonrefundable credits ($240 'personal exemption credit' plus a 'standard deduction credit'). Maryland has no such credits, so these double-count the deduction and exemption."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Claimed taxable income is zero after the standard deduction and EITC. The EITC is a credit, not a deduction from taxable income. The $3,350 deduction and $3,200 exemption leave $27,533.53 taxable, and the tax on that is $1,255.34."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model added $67,750 of educational assistance above the $5,250 exclusion, which pushed AGI to $101,834 and cut the personal exemption to $1,600. Educational assistance does not enter Maryland AGI, so AGI is $34,084. The model also used a $2,700 capped standard deduction instead of the flat $3,350."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $8,389 of employer insurance premiums from the listed gross wages. It then claimed a $3,900 standard deduction wipes out tax, even though about $18,600 of taxable income remained by its own numbers. Correctly, $34,084 minus the $3,350 deduction and $3,200 exemption leaves $27,534 taxable and $1,255 of tax."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model said taxable income is not positive, but $34,084 of wages minus the $3,350 standard deduction and $3,200 exemption leaves $27,534 taxable. At 4.75% above $3,000 plus the $90 lower-bracket amount, that is $1,255, not $0."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,other,False,"The model calculated $4,554 (with taxable educational assistance) and $1,336 (with a $2,700 deduction), then submitted an unrelated $1,029. The correct method excludes educational assistance and uses the flat $3,350 standard deduction, which gives $1,255."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used the old 15%-of-AGI deduction capped at $2,700 instead of Maryland's flat $3,350 single deduction. It reached $1,286, then added an invented 'personal exemption credit adjustment' to get $1,308."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used the old capped standard deduction of about $2,700 instead of the flat $3,350, leaving $28,184 taxable. It then stated $1,301, which does not match the schedule on its own base ($1,286)."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model added $67,750 of employer educational assistance above $5,250 to income, raising Maryland AGI to $101,834. It also used a $2,500 capped standard deduction. Educational assistance stays out of Maryland AGI, and the single deduction is a flat $3,350."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used a $2,550 capped standard deduction instead of the flat $3,350, giving $28,334 taxable. It then miscalculated the tax on that base as $1,050; the schedule actually gives $1,293."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model counted the full $73,000 of educational assistance, raising AGI to $107,084 and triggering the exemption phase-out and the 5% bracket. It also used a $2,400 capped deduction and a $3,300 exemption instead of $34,084 AGI, the flat $3,350 deduction, and the $3,200 exemption."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's $93,445 Maryland AGI equals wages minus the $8,389 of insurance premiums plus $67,750 of educational assistance. Neither adjustment applies: Maryland AGI is the $34,084 of wages, and the deductions are $3,350 plus a $3,200 exemption."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model included $67,750 of educational assistance, raising AGI to $101,834. It used a $2,400 capped deduction and dropped the $3,200 personal exemption. The correct base is $34,084 minus $3,350 minus $3,200."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used a $2,800 standard deduction instead of Maryland's flat $3,350 single deduction. That overstated taxable income by $550 ($28,084 instead of $27,534) and tax by about $26."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $8,389 of employer insurance premiums from the listed gross wages to get $25,695 AGI, but the wages are the AGI. It also used a $2,550 capped deduction instead of the flat $3,350."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model gave no calculation. Its $1,133 implies about $24,960 of taxable income, roughly $2,575 below the correct $27,534 ($34,084 − $3,350 − $3,200). That means it applied deductions larger than Maryland's $3,350 standard deduction and $3,200 exemption."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model subtracted the $8,389 of insurance premiums to get $25,695 AGI and used a $2,750 deduction instead of the flat $3,350. It also added $592 of county income tax, which is excluded from the state income tax output."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's $98,695 AGI includes the full $73,000 of educational assistance and subtracts the $8,389 of insurance premiums. Neither belongs in Maryland AGI. It also used a $2,550 deduction and a wrong $60 tax on the first $3,000 (the correct amount is $90)."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model gave no calculation. Its $997 implies about $22,100 of taxable income, well below the correct $27,534 from $34,084 wages minus the $3,350 deduction and $3,200 exemption. That points to an inflated deduction or an improper subtraction from wages."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used the old $2,550 maximum standard deduction instead of Maryland's flat $3,350 single deduction. That left $28,334 taxable instead of $27,534."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model gave no calculation. Its $4,786 implies about $101,900 of taxable income, which only happens if the educational assistance is added to the $34,084 of wages. Educational assistance is excluded from Maryland AGI, so the result should be about $1,255."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used a $2,700 capped standard deduction instead of Maryland's flat $3,350 single deduction. That left $28,184 taxable instead of $27,534."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model included Maryland county income tax in its $1,920 figure. The requested output is state tax only, so county tax is excluded. State tax alone on $27,534 taxable is $1,255."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used a $2,750 deduction and a $3,300 exemption instead of the flat $3,350 and the $3,200 exemption. It then miscalculated: tax on its own $28,034 base is $1,279, not $1,453."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used a $3,200 standard deduction instead of Maryland's flat $3,350 single deduction. That overstated taxable income by $150 and tax by about $7."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model claimed the $34,084 of wages is fully offset by deductions, but Maryland allows only the $3,350 deduction and $3,200 exemption. That leaves $27,534 taxable and $1,255 of tax."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model set tax to $0 without applying the rate schedule. $34,084 minus the $3,350 deduction and $3,200 exemption leaves $27,534 taxable, which produces $1,255 of tax."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used an estimated $2,900 deduction instead of Maryland's flat $3,350 single deduction. That left $27,984 taxable instead of $27,534."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used $101,834 AGI by adding $67,750 of educational assistance to wages. Educational assistance is excluded from Maryland AGI, so the base is $34,084 minus the $3,350 deduction and $3,200 exemption."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used a projected $2,850 capped deduction instead of Maryland's flat $3,350 single deduction. That left $28,034 taxable instead of $27,534."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's $101,334 taxable income adds the full $73,000 of educational assistance to wages and uses a $2,550 deduction. Educational assistance is excluded, and the single deduction is a flat $3,350."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used a $2,900 standard deduction instead of Maryland's flat $3,350 single deduction. That left $27,984 taxable instead of $27,534."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model inflation-indexed the standard deduction to $3,450. PolicyEngine applies the flat $3,350 from 2025, so the model understated taxable income by $100 and tax by about $5."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model gave a rounded guess of $1,400 without applying the actual deduction or rate schedule. $34,084 minus the flat $3,350 deduction and $3,200 exemption leaves $27,534 taxable, which gives $1,255."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used the old $2,350 maximum standard deduction instead of Maryland's flat $3,350 single deduction. That overstated taxable income by $1,000 ($28,534)."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used a $2,600 capped standard deduction instead of Maryland's flat $3,350 single deduction. That left $28,284 taxable instead of $27,534."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied the old 15%-of-AGI deduction capped at $2,850 instead of Maryland's flat $3,350 single deduction. That left $28,034 taxable instead of $27,534."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $8,389 of insurance premiums from the listed gross wages to get $25,695 AGI, but Maryland AGI is the $34,084 of wages. It also used a $2,400 deduction instead of the flat $3,350."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used a $2,650 deduction and a $3,400 exemption instead of the flat $3,350 deduction and $3,200 exemption. That left $28,034 taxable instead of $27,534."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model treated all $73,000 of educational assistance as taxable, used a $2,700 deduction, and applied brackets up to 6%. Maryland AGI is the $34,084 of wages; with the $3,350 deduction and $3,200 exemption, tax is $1,255."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used an indexed $2,850 capped deduction instead of Maryland's flat $3,350 single deduction. That left $28,034 taxable instead of $27,534."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used a $2,000 standard deduction instead of $3,350 and left out the $3,200 personal exemption. That produced $32,084 taxable instead of $27,534."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used a $2,250 standard deduction instead of Maryland's flat $3,350 single deduction. That overstated taxable income by $1,100 ($28,634)."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model's $28,084 taxable income implies a $2,800 capped deduction instead of Maryland's flat $3,350 single deduction. That overstated taxable income by $550."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated $2,350 as the single standard deduction maximum, but Maryland's 2025 law set a flat $3,350. That left $28,534 taxable instead of $27,534."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model correctly subtracted the $3,200 exemption, then subtracted an invented $240 'personal exemption credit' and a 'standard deduction credit' from the tax. Maryland has no such credits, so this counts the deductions twice. It also used a $3,100 deduction instead of $3,350."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model treated the EITC as a deduction that zeroes out taxable income. The EITC is a credit, and a childless 31-year-old earning $34,084 is above the EITC phase-out anyway. Taxable income is $27,534 after the $3,350 deduction and $3,200 exemption."
us,scenario_068,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model correctly recognized that the childless federal EITC phases out to zero at this income but then invented a $245 residual Maryland refundable credit. Applying Maryland’s percentage to a federal EITC of zero yields $0, not a minimal positive amount."
us,scenario_068,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model treated $34,084 as qualifying low income without applying the federal childless EITC phaseout ceiling, then assigned a Maryland EITC amount exceeding the credit pathway it cited. With no qualifying children, federal EITC is zero at this income, so the percentage-based Maryland refundable EITC and the total state refundable credits are both $0."
-us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its own reasoning gets the full chain right: taxable income $20,170, tax $2,172, a 10% Saver's Credit of $192, and a result of about $1,980. It then submitted 1,697, which none of its stated steps support, so this is a transcription/output error."
-us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It used the stale $14,600 standard deduction instead of 2026's $16,100, and its tax arithmetic was muddled. It never applied the nonrefundable Saver's Credit (10% × $1,924 = $192.40) that brings the $2,172 tax down to $1,980."
-us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It put taxable income near $18,000; the correct figure is $20,170 (AGI $36,270 minus $16,100). It also never subtracted the $192.40 Saver's Credit that applies at the 10% rate for AGI of $36,270."
-us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It correctly reached $2,172 of tax on $20,170 of taxable income, then inflated it without basis to $2,398. It also missed the 10% Saver's Credit on $1,924 of qualifying 401(k)/IRA contributions ($192.40)."
-us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It added $1,240 + $932 and reported $2,549 instead of $2,172, an arithmetic error. It also said no nonrefundable credits apply, missing the $192.40 Saver's Credit (10% of $1,924 at AGI $36,270)."
-us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $16,900 standard deduction instead of 2026's $16,100, and its submitted $2,544 does not match its own ~$2,076 computation. It also left out the $192.40 Saver's Credit."
-us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It used a projected $15,700 standard deduction instead of 2026's $16,100, which overstated taxable income by $400. It also said no nonrefundable credits apply, missing the 10% Saver's Credit of $192.40 on $1,924 of 401(k)/IRA contributions."
-us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It correctly computed $2,172 of tax, then subtracted about $843 as a Saver's Credit. At AGI $36,270 a single filer gets only the 10% rate, so the credit is $192.40 (10% of $1,924) and the result is $1,979.96."
-us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the $192.40 Saver's Credit correctly, but used a $15,600 standard deduction and a $12,300 top for the 10% bracket instead of 2026's $16,100 and $12,400. That inflated tax before credits to $2,234.40 instead of $2,172.36."
-us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted $600 of health insurance premiums from wages, though they are not a pre-tax exclusion here, and it used a $15,360 standard deduction instead of $16,100. It also limited the Saver's Credit to the $1,554 of traditional contributions; the qualifying base is $1,924 including the Roth 401(k) and Roth IRA."
-us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,450 standard deduction instead of 2026's $16,100, which put taxable income at $20,820 instead of $20,170 and tax at $2,252.90 instead of $2,172.36. It then applied the correct $192.40 Saver's Credit."
-us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $12,200 top for the 10% bracket instead of 2026's $12,400. That taxed $200 at 12% instead of 10% and gave $2,176.40 of tax instead of $2,172.36, before the correct $192.40 Saver's Credit."
-us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed TCJA expired in 2026 and used a $7,600 standard deduction, a $5,150 personal exemption and a 15% bracket. The OBBBA made TCJA rates permanent: 2026 has a $16,100 standard deduction, no personal exemption, and a 12% bracket above $12,400."
-us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left the $276 student loan interest deduction out of AGI and used a $15,500 standard deduction instead of $16,100. Its $1,494 does not follow from applying the 10%/12% brackets to its own taxable income. The correct path is $20,170 taxable, $2,172.36 tax, less the $192.40 Saver's Credit."
-us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a personal exemption and reverted pre-TCJA rules for 2026. Under the OBBBA, 2026 has no personal exemption, a $16,100 single standard deduction, and 10%/12% brackets, giving $2,172.36 of tax before the $192.40 Saver's Credit."
-us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the 2026 TCJA sunset (reverted standard deduction plus personal exemption, 15% bracket) and also subtracted health insurance premiums from AGI. The correct 2026 law uses a $16,100 standard deduction and 10%/12% brackets on $20,170 of taxable income."
-us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left the $69 traditional IRA and $276 student loan interest deductions out of AGI and used a stale $15,000 standard deduction with the 2024 $11,600 bracket. It also never applied the $192.40 Saver's Credit."
-us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,700 standard deduction and the 2025 $11,925 top for the 10% bracket instead of 2026's $16,100 and $12,400, which produced $2,229.90 of tax instead of $2,172.36. Its $192.40 Saver's Credit was correct."
-us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a personal exemption under an assumed TCJA sunset. Under 2026 law there is no personal exemption, the standard deduction is $16,100 and the brackets are 10%/12%, which gives $2,172.36 before the $192.40 Saver's Credit."
-us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,300 personal exemption and a 15% bracket on the assumption that TCJA expired. The OBBBA made TCJA permanent, so 2026 uses a $16,100 standard deduction and 12% above $12,400, putting taxable income at $20,170, not $22,670."
-us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It estimated a $15,420 standard deduction and a $12,259 top for the 10% bracket instead of 2026's published $16,100 and $12,400, which overstated tax at $2,256.82. Its $192.40 Saver's Credit was correct."
-us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It correctly computed $2,172 of tax but said no nonrefundable credits apply. It missed the Saver's Credit: 10% of $1,924 in 401(k)/IRA contributions (Roth included) at AGI $36,270, which is $192.40."
-us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It claimed nonrefundable credits wipe out the whole liability, yet the household has no dependents, so no CDCC or CTC applies. The only nonrefundable credit is the $192.40 Saver's Credit against $2,172.36 of tax on $20,170 of taxable income."
-us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It assumed nonrefundable credits reduce tax to zero. With no dependents, the only nonrefundable credit is the 10% Saver's Credit ($192.40), which leaves $1,979.96 of the $2,172.36 tax."
-us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a projected post-TCJA-sunset standard deduction, a personal exemption and a 15% bracket. 2026 law keeps the $16,100 standard deduction and 10%/12% brackets. It also said no nonrefundable credits apply, missing the $192.40 Saver's Credit."
-us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It correctly computed $2,172.40 of tax but said no nonrefundable credits are available. It omitted the Saver's Credit of 10% × $1,924 = $192.40, which applies because AGI of $36,270 is within the single 10%-rate tier."
-us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It stopped at the $2,172.40 tax figure and applied no credits. It missed the nonrefundable Saver's Credit of $192.40 on $1,924 of traditional and Roth 401(k)/IRA contributions at the 10% AGI tier."
-us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It correctly computed $2,172.40 of tax but said no nonrefundable credits are used. AGI of $36,270 qualifies for the 10% Saver's Credit on $1,924 of contributions, which is $192.40."
-us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,other,False,"It gave no computation. The correct path is $20,170 of taxable income, $2,172.36 of tax and a $192.40 Saver's Credit, giving $1,979.96. Its $1,623 implies about $549 of credits or deductions that do not exist."
-us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied 'current-law sunset' rules ($8,300 standard deduction, $5,300 personal exemption, 15% bracket). The OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent, so 2026 uses a $16,100 standard deduction and 10%/12% brackets. Its $192 Saver's Credit was correct."
-us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It computed tax on $22,670 of taxable income using the post-TCJA-sunset standard deduction, a personal exemption and the 15% bracket. 2026 law gives $20,170 of taxable income under the $16,100 standard deduction and 10%/12% brackets. Its $192 Saver's Credit was correct."
-us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $2,176 ordinary tax reflects a $12,200 top for the 10% bracket instead of 2026's $12,400; the correct tax is $2,172.36. Its standard deduction and $192 Saver's Credit were right."
-us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It subtracted health insurance premiums from AGI, used a $15,400 standard deduction instead of $16,100, and computed the Saver's Credit on traditional contributions only ($155). The qualifying base is $1,924, which includes the $262 Roth 401(k) and $108 Roth IRA, so the credit is $192.40."
-us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It filed as head of household with a $21,900 standard deduction and HoH brackets. A lone adult with no qualifying person must file single, with a $16,100 deduction and the 10% bracket ending at $12,400. It also left Roth contributions out of the Saver's Credit base."
-us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It computed about $2,108 of tax and a Saver's Credit, then claimed unnamed 'other nonrefundable credits' reduce the liability to zero. No other nonrefundable credits apply, so the result is $2,172.36 minus $192.40."
-us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It correctly computed $2,172.40 of tax on $20,170 of taxable income but said no nonrefundable credits apply. It missed the 10% Saver's Credit ($192.40) on $1,924 of retirement contributions."
-us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It applied the 50% Saver's Credit rate, claiming AGI was below the lowest single threshold. AGI of $36,270 is above both the 50% and 20% tier limits for single filers, so only the 10% rate applies, for a credit of $192.40, not $962."
-us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It applied a 50% Saver's Credit rate to traditional contributions only ($777). The correct credit is 10% of $1,924, including the Roth contributions, at AGI $36,270. It also left the student loan interest deduction out of AGI, used a $15,750 standard deduction, and submitted 1,213.5 against its own $1,475.52."
-us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the Credit for Other Dependents to eliminate the tax, but this single filer has no dependents. It also overstated tax before credits at $3,537; the correct figure is $2,172.36, reduced only by the $192.40 Saver's Credit."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its reasoning works the full chain correctly and reaches about $1,980: $2,172 tax minus a 10% Saver's Credit of $192 on $1,924. But it submitted 1697, a number its own derivation does not support. The error is entirely in moving the computed result into the submitted value."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2024 single standard deduction of $14,600 instead of the 2026 figure of $16,100. It also applied student loan interest as a taxable-income adjustment after AGI, and its $2,180 does not follow from its own taxable income. It never applied the $192.40 Saver's Credit (10% of $1,924) that brings the $2,172.36 tax down to $1,979.96."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It excluded the health insurance premiums from income even though they are not pre-tax payroll deductions here, which understated AGI (correct AGI is $36,270). That gave a taxable income of about $18,000 instead of $20,170. It also never subtracted the $192.40 Saver's Credit, which is the step that takes $2,172.36 to $1,979.96."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It correctly computed $2,172 on $20,170 of taxable income, then raised it to $2,398 with no basis. It never applied the Saver's Credit, which is 10% of $1,924 in qualifying contributions ($192.40) because AGI of $36,270 falls in the single 10% tier."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It added $1,240 + $932 and wrote the total as about $2,549 instead of $2,172. It also stated that no nonrefundable credits apply, missing the $192.40 Saver's Credit (10% of $1,924) that leaves $1,979.96."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $16,900 standard deduction instead of the 2026 single amount of $16,100, then jumped from its computed $2,076 to $2,544 with no reason given. It also stated that no nonrefundable credits apply, omitting the $192.40 Saver's Credit."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It projected a $15,700 standard deduction instead of the enacted 2026 single amount of $16,100, which overstated taxable income ($20,570 vs. $20,170). It also declared that no nonrefundable credits apply, missing the 10% Saver's Credit of $192.40 on $1,924 of contributions."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It correctly reached $2,172 before credits, then said the Saver's Credit was likely phased out yet submitted $1,329, which implies a credit of about $843. At AGI $36,270 the credit rate is 10%, so the credit is $192.40 on $1,924 of contributions, leaving $1,979.96."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It handled AGI and the $192.40 Saver's Credit correctly but used outdated 2026 parameters: a $15,600 standard deduction instead of $16,100, and a 10% bracket ending at $12,300 instead of $12,400. That inflated tax before credits to $2,234.40 instead of $2,172.36."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $600 of health premiums from wages even though they are not pre-tax deductions here. It also used estimated parameters (a $15,360 standard deduction and a $12,211 bracket edge) instead of $16,100 and $12,400. And it computed the Saver's Credit on traditional contributions only ($1,554 → $155.40), omitting the $370 of Roth 401(k)/IRA contributions that bring the base to $1,924 and the credit to $192.40."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,450 standard deduction instead of the 2026 single amount of $16,100, giving taxable income of $20,820 instead of $20,170 and tax of $2,252.90 instead of $2,172.36. Its $192.40 Saver's Credit was correct."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It ended the 2026 single 10% bracket at $12,200 instead of $12,400, so tax came out at $2,176.40 instead of $2,172.36. Everything else was right, including AGI, the $16,100 deduction and the $192.40 Saver's Credit."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired in 2026 and applied a $7,600 standard deduction, a personal exemption and a 15% bracket. OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent: a $16,100 standard deduction, no personal exemption, and 10%/12% brackets. Its Saver's Credit of $192.40 was correct."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $276 student loan interest deduction (AGI $36,546 instead of $36,270) and used a $15,500 standard deduction instead of $16,100. It applied no Saver's Credit. Its $1,494 also does not follow from its own roughly $21,046 of taxable income, which would produce about $2,280."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got AGI right at $36,270 but subtracted a personal exemption, which is zero under 2026 law. Its $2,576 is consistent with TCJA-sunset brackets (15% second bracket) rather than the $16,100 standard deduction and 10%/12% brackets that produce $2,172.36 before the $192.40 Saver's Credit."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It cut AGI to $35,970 by subtracting health premiums that are not pre-tax deductions. It also applied the TCJA-sunset standard deduction plus a personal exemption and a 15% bracket instead of the permanent $16,100 standard deduction and 10%/12% rates. Its $192.40 Saver's Credit was correct."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It stopped AGI at $36,615 and never subtracted the $69 traditional IRA and $276 student loan interest deductions. It used the 2025-level $15,000 standard deduction and the 2024 $11,600 bracket edge. It never applied the $192.40 Saver's Credit."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,700 standard deduction and the 2025 10% bracket edge of $11,925 instead of the 2026 values of $16,100 and $12,400, which overstated tax as $2,229.90 instead of $2,172.36. Its $192.40 Saver's Credit was correct."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a personal exemption and TCJA-sunset rates for 2026, even though OBBBA kept the $16,100 single standard deduction, no exemption, and 10%/12% brackets. That inflated tax before credits to about $2,780 instead of $2,172.36. Its $192.40 Saver's Credit was correct."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired and used an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,300 personal exemption and a 15% bracket, which produced $2,785.50 before credits. Under 2026 law the $16,100 deduction and 10%/12% brackets give $2,172.36. Its $192.40 Saver's Credit was correct."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It estimated a $15,420 standard deduction and a $12,259 bracket edge instead of the 2026 values of $16,100 and $12,400, which overstated tax as $2,256.82 instead of $2,172.36. Its $192.40 Saver's Credit was correct."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It computed $2,172 correctly, then declared that no nonrefundable credits apply. It missed the Saver's Credit: 10% of $1,924 in qualifying 401(k)/IRA contributions at AGI $36,270, or $192.40, leaving $1,979.96."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It claimed nonrefundable credits wipe out the whole liability even though the household has no children, dependents or care expenses. The only nonrefundable credit is the $192.40 Saver's Credit, which against $2,172.36 of tax leaves $1,979.96, not $0."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It assumed unnamed nonrefundable credits reduce tax to zero. The household's only nonrefundable credit is the $192.40 Saver's Credit, which reduces $2,172.36 of tax on $20,170 of taxable income to $1,979.96."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a projected TCJA-sunset standard deduction, a personal exemption and a 15% bracket. OBBBA made the $16,100 standard deduction and 10%/12% brackets permanent. It also said no nonrefundable credits apply, omitting the $192.40 Saver's Credit."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It computed $2,172.40 before credits correctly but stated that no nonrefundable credits are available. It missed the 10% Saver's Credit of $192.40 on $1,924 of traditional and Roth retirement contributions at AGI $36,270."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It correctly reached $2,172.40 but stopped there and never applied the Saver's Credit. That credit is 10% × $1,924 = $192.40, because AGI of $36,270 sits in the single 10% tier, leaving $1,979.96."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It computed $2,172.40 correctly but said no nonrefundable credits were used. It overlooked the $192.40 Saver's Credit on $1,924 of qualifying 401(k) and IRA contributions."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,other,False,"It showed no computation. The correct chain gives taxable income of $20,170, tax of $2,172.36, and a $192.40 Saver's Credit, for $1,979.96. Its $1,623 is about $357 too low, which matches overstating deductions or credits beyond the single 10% Saver's Credit tier."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset rules (an $8,300 standard deduction plus a $5,300 personal exemption and a 15% bracket) instead of OBBBA's permanent $16,100 standard deduction and 10%/12% brackets. That inflated tax before credits to $2,806 instead of $2,172.36. Its $192 Saver's Credit was correct."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used post-TCJA-sunset law, with a personal exemption and the 15% bracket, giving taxable income of $22,670 and about $2,810 of tax. 2026 law gives taxable income of $20,170 and $2,172.36 of tax after the $16,100 standard deduction. Its $192 Saver's Credit was correct."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its ordinary tax of $2,176 implies a 10% bracket ending at $12,200 instead of the 2026 single edge of $12,400 (which gives $2,172.36). It also rounded the Saver's Credit to $192 instead of $192.40. Everything else was right."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the health premiums from wages (AGI $35,970 instead of $36,270) and used a $15,400 standard deduction instead of $16,100. It computed the Saver's Credit on traditional contributions only ($155), leaving out the $370 of Roth contributions that bring the base to $1,924 and the credit to $192.40."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It filed as head of household with a $21,900 standard deduction and HoH brackets, even though a lone adult with no qualifying person files single, with a $16,100 deduction and a 10% bracket ending at $12,400. It also limited the Saver's Credit base to traditional contributions ($1,554) instead of all $1,924, Roth included."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It computed about $2,108 of tax and a $159 Saver's Credit, then submitted $0 by invoking nonexistent other nonrefundable credits. The only credit available is the $192.40 Saver's Credit, which leaves $1,979.96 of liability."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 OBBBA single standard deduction of $15,750 instead of the 2026 amount of $16,100. It also said no nonrefundable credits apply, omitting the $192.40 Saver's Credit on $1,924 of contributions."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It computed $2,172.40 correctly but stated there were no nonrefundable credits. It missed the Saver's Credit: at AGI $36,270 a single filer gets 10% of $1,924 in 401(k)/IRA contributions, or $192.40, leaving $1,979.96."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It applied the 50% Saver's Credit rate, claiming AGI was below the lowest single threshold. The 50% tier ends near $24,000, and AGI of $36,270 falls in the 10% tier, so the credit is $192.40, not $962."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It applied the 50% Saver's Credit rate to traditional contributions only ($777), but AGI of $36,270 falls in the 10% tier and Roth contributions count, giving $192.40. It also omitted the student loan interest deduction, used a $15,750 standard deduction, and submitted $1,213.50, which contradicts its own $1,475.52."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the Credit for Other Dependents even though the household is a single adult with no dependents, and it overstated tax before credits at $3,537. The only nonrefundable credit is the $192.40 Saver's Credit against $2,172.36 of tax."
us,scenario_070,federal_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model applied the Additional Child Tax Credit earned-income formula despite the household having no qualifying child, so there was no Child Tax Credit balance available to refund. Its separate EITC rationale also misstates the rule: $100 of investment income does not exceed the limit; the childless EITC is zero because $38,000 of earnings exceeds its phaseout ceiling."
us,scenario_070,head_medicaid_eligible,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model called eligibility borderline without calculating the stated household’s MAGI-to-FPL ratio. At 2.27 times FPL, the head exceeds Illinois’s 138% FPL ACA expansion limit, and age 57, low assets, and employer-sponsored insurance do not establish another Medicaid category."
us,scenario_070,payroll_tax,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model treated the listed $300 health insurance premium as a pre-tax FICA exclusion even though no pre-tax treatment was specified. FICA applies to the full $38,000, yielding $2,356 of Social Security tax and $551 of Medicare tax."
@@ -5936,43 +6131,44 @@ us,scenario_070,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"T
us,scenario_070,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model conflated regular Medicare tax with the Additional Medicare Tax and set all Medicare tax to zero because wages were below the additional-tax threshold. The ordinary 1.45% Medicare tax applies from the first dollar of covered wages, adding $551 to the correctly computed $2,356 Social Security tax."
us,scenario_070,payroll_tax,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model improperly reduced FICA wages from $38,000 to $37,700 by assigning unlisted pre-tax treatment to the $300 health premium. Applying 6.2% Social Security and 1.45% Medicare rates to the full wages produces $2,907."
us,scenario_070,payroll_tax,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"The model correctly derived $2,356 of Social Security tax plus $551 of Medicare tax, then replaced the exact $2,907 total with $2,970 under an invalid claim of rounding. Rounding $2,907 does not produce $2,970, and the requested annual amount is the exact derived total."
-us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly started from federal AGI of $36,270 but subtracted the 2025 Illinois exemption of $2,850 instead of the 2026 indexed exemption of $2,925. That overstated taxable income by $75 and tax by about $3.70."
-us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left the $1,485 traditional 401(k) deferral in the base, which it called 'federal taxable income' of $37,755, and applied the outdated $2,425 exemption as a $120 credit instead of a $2,925 income subtraction. Its own arithmetic also breaks down: $1,869 minus $120 is $1,749, not $1,154. The correct calculation is ($36,270 − $2,925) × 4.95% ≈ $1,650.56."
-us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model invented a 'retirement subtraction' that cut the Illinois base to about $20,000. Illinois has no such subtraction for wage earners' retirement contributions beyond what is already excluded from federal AGI. The correct base is AGI of $36,270 minus the $2,925 exemption, or $33,345."
-us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 2025 exemption of $2,850 instead of the 2026 amount of $2,925 to get $1,654.29. It then raised that to $1,659.83 with no basis, which moved further from the correct ($36,270 − $2,925) × 4.95%."
-us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model computed AGI of $36,270 correctly but used the outdated $2,775 exemption, which gave $1,658. It then switched to an unexplained taxable income of $34,870 and answered $1,726, instead of applying the 2026 exemption of $2,925 for a base of $33,345."
-us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 2025 exemption of $2,850 instead of the 2026 amount of $2,925, which gave about $1,655. It then added an arbitrary 'rounding' adjustment to reach $1,699."
-us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $300 health premium from wages as if it were a pre-tax payroll deduction, and it wrongly added back the IRA deduction and student loan interest. Illinois base income follows federal AGI, and those items stay deducted. It also used the outdated $2,425 exemption instead of $2,925, which overstated taxable income by about $545."
-us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left the $276 student loan interest deduction out of AGI, but Illinois starts from federal AGI, which already reflects that deduction. It also used the 2025 exemption of $2,850 instead of $2,925, then applied an invented 'phase-in' adjustment to reach $1,690."
-us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 2025 Illinois exemption of $2,850 instead of the 2026 indexed amount of $2,925. That produced $33,420 of taxable income and $1,654 of tax, instead of $33,345 and $1,650.56."
-us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted a $2,450 'Illinois standard deduction' that does not exist, plus an outdated $2,450 exemption. Illinois allows only the personal exemption, which is $2,925 in 2026, against federal AGI of $36,270."
-us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model lowered AGI to $35,670 by also subtracting the $600 in listed health premiums, which are not AGI adjustments here. It also used a $2,842 exemption instead of the 2026 amount of $2,925."
-us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the 2025 exemption of $2,850 to AGI of $36,270 instead of the 2026 indexed exemption of $2,925. That overstated tax by about $3.70."
-us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used the outdated $2,775 exemption and subtracted a $135 'renter's credit' that does not exist. The Illinois 5% property tax credit applies only to real property taxes paid on a residence, not to a share of rent. No nonrefundable credit applies, and the exemption should have been $2,925."
-us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's $1,716 implies about $34,667 of taxable income, roughly $1,320 above the correct $33,345. That is consistent with using the outdated $2,775 exemption on a base that did not fully remove the 401(k), IRA, and student loan adjustments from the $36,270 AGI."
-us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model subtracted a 'roughly $2,500' exemption from AGI of $36,270 instead of the 2026 Illinois exemption of $2,925. That overstated taxable income by about $425."
-us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model lowered AGI to $35,970 by treating the $300 health premium as an above-the-line deduction, which it is not here. It also used the outdated $2,775 exemption instead of $2,925."
-us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's $1,683 implies $34,000 of taxable income, about $655 above the correct $36,270 − $2,925 = $33,345. That is consistent with using an outdated, smaller exemption and not fully applying the AGI adjustments."
-us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 2025 exemption of $2,850 instead of the 2026 indexed exemption of $2,925, which overstated taxable income by $75."
-us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model subtracted the 2024 exemption of $2,775 instead of the 2026 amount of $2,925. That overstated taxable income by $150 and tax by about $7.40."
-us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 2024 exemption of $2,775 instead of the 2026 indexed exemption of $2,925, which gave $1,658 instead of $1,650.56."
-us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left the $276 student loan interest deduction out of AGI, which it put at $36,546, and used the outdated $2,425 exemption. That gave $1,689, and the model then submitted an inconsistent $1,626. The correct calculation is ($36,270 − $2,925) × 4.95%."
-us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 2025 exemption of $2,850 instead of the 2026 amount of $2,925 and rounded the result to $1,654."
-us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model asserted that the exemption and retirement deductions reduce Illinois tax to zero. In fact, AGI of $36,270 far exceeds the single $2,925 exemption, which leaves $33,345 taxed at 4.95%."
-us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model returned zero without computing anything, but Illinois taxes $36,270 of AGI minus the $2,925 exemption at a flat 4.95%. No nonrefundable credit offsets that tax."
-us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model left the $276 student loan interest deduction out of AGI, which it put at $36,546, and used an invented $1,824 exemption instead of the 2026 Illinois exemption of $2,925. Together these overstated taxable income by about $1,380."
-us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the 2025 exemption of $2,850 instead of the 2026 indexed exemption of $2,925, which gave $1,654.29 instead of $1,650.56."
-us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's $1,777 implies about $35,900 of taxable income, which roughly equals $38,100 of gross income minus an exemption of about $2,200. That means it did not subtract the 401(k), IRA, and student loan adjustments to reach the $36,270 AGI, and it understated the $2,925 exemption."
-us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model subtracted the 2024 exemption of $2,775 from AGI of $36,270 instead of the 2026 exemption of $2,925, which overstated tax by about $7.40."
-us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model lowered AGI to $35,970 by wrongly subtracting the $300 health premium, and it used the outdated $2,425 exemption instead of $2,925. The net effect overstated taxable income by about $200."
-us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 2024 exemption of $2,775 instead of the 2026 indexed exemption of $2,925, which gave $1,658 instead of $1,650.56."
-us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model stated that Illinois has no personal exemption and taxed the full $36,270 AGI. Illinois allows a personal exemption of $2,925 for 2026, which reduces taxable income to $33,345."
-us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly used AGI of $36,270 and found no credits, but subtracted the 2024 exemption of $2,775 instead of the 2026 amount of $2,925."
-us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied a 'standard deduction' that brought taxable income to about $20,696, but Illinois has no standard deduction. The correct base is federal AGI of $36,270 minus only the $2,925 personal exemption."
-us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used an outdated $2,450 exemption instead of the 2026 indexed amount of $2,925. That overstated taxable income by $475 and tax by about $23.50."
-us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model estimated the 2026 exemption at about $2,900 instead of the actual $2,925. That overstated taxable income by about $25 and gave $1,651.82."
-us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the exemption from income and then also subtracted $2,800 as a dollar-for-dollar 'personal exemption credit' against the $1,670 of tax, which drove the result to zero. The Illinois exemption is only an income subtraction of $2,925 in 2026, and the model also omitted the student loan interest deduction from AGI."
-us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's $1,658.66 implies about $33,508 of taxable income, which is consistent with subtracting an outdated exemption of roughly $2,775 from AGI. The 2026 indexed exemption is $2,925."
+us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The AGI of $36,270 was correct, but the model subtracted the 2025 Illinois personal exemption of $2,850 instead of the 2026 indexed amount of $2,925. That leaves taxable income $75 too high: 33,420 × 4.95% = $1,654.29, not $1,650.56."
+us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left the $1,485 pre-tax traditional 401(k) contribution in the base ($37,755 instead of about $36,270). It then treated a $2,425 exemption as a $120 tax credit instead of subtracting $2,925 from income. Even its own numbers don't add up: $1,869 − $120 is not $1,154."
+us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used an Illinois base of about $20,000 that has no support in the facts. Illinois has no retirement-contribution subtraction beyond what federal AGI already excludes. The correct base is federal AGI of $36,270 minus the $2,925 exemption, which is $33,345 and gives $1,650.56, not $1,000."
+us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly derived AGI of $36,270 but used the 2025 exemption of $2,850 instead of the 2026 amount of $2,925. It computed $1,654.29 and then reported $1,659.83 with no supporting calculation, moving further from the correct $1,650.56."
+us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly derived AGI of $36,270 but cycled through old exemption amounts ($2,775, then $2,425) instead of the 2026 amount of $2,925. It then dropped both of those results and submitted $1,726 based on an unexplained taxable income of $34,870."
+us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 2025 exemption of $2,850 instead of the 2026 amount of $2,925, which gave about $1,655. It then raised this to $1,699 by 'rounding' with no basis, instead of computing (36,270 − 2,925) × 4.95% = $1,650.56."
+us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model wrongly added the IRA and student loan interest deductions back to the Illinois base; Illinois starts from federal AGI with no addback for either. It also subtracted the $300 health premium as pre-tax wages, which the reference AGI does not do. On top of that it used the outdated $2,425 exemption instead of $2,925."
+us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model claimed Illinois disallows the $276 student loan interest deduction, but Illinois base income starts from federal AGI, which already includes that deduction. It also used the $2,850 exemption instead of $2,925, then raised its own $1,668 result to $1,690 with a made-up 'exemption phase-in' adjustment."
+us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The AGI of $36,270 was correct, but the model applied the 2025 exemption of $2,850 instead of the 2026 indexed exemption of $2,925. The result was about $1,654 instead of $1,650.56."
+us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model invented an Illinois standard deduction of $2,450 and stacked it on a $2,450 personal exemption. Illinois has no standard deduction, only one indexed exemption of $2,925 for 2026, so it subtracted $4,900 instead of $2,925."
+us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used an AGI of $35,670, which is $600 too low, consistent with wrongly treating both $300 health premiums as excluded from income. It also used a $2,842 exemption instead of the 2026 amount of $2,925."
+us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the 2025 exemption of $2,850 to the correct $36,270 AGI instead of the 2026 indexed exemption of $2,925. The result, $1,654.29, is $3.73 too high."
+us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model used the 2024 exemption of $2,775 instead of $2,925. It then subtracted a $135 'renter's credit' that Illinois does not offer: the Illinois property tax credit requires property tax actually paid on a principal residence, and rent does not qualify."
+us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model cited the outdated $2,775 exemption instead of $2,925 for 2026. Its $1,716 answer implies taxable income of about $34,667, which matches neither $36,270 − $2,775 nor the correct $33,345."
+us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model subtracted a rough $2,500 exemption from the $36,270 AGI instead of the 2026 indexed exemption of $2,925. That overstates taxable income by about $425 and gives $1,671 instead of $1,650.56."
+us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's AGI of $35,970 wrongly excludes the $300 health premium as a pre-tax payroll reduction; the reference AGI is about $36,270. It also subtracted the 2024 exemption of $2,775 instead of the 2026 amount of $2,925."
+us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model gave no derivation. Its $1,683 answer implies Illinois taxable income of about $34,000, which matches applying an exemption of only about $2,270 to the $36,270 AGI instead of the 2026 exemption of $2,925 (taxable $33,345)."
+us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the 2025 exemption of $2,850 to the correct $36,270 AGI instead of the 2026 indexed exemption of $2,925. The result was $1,654.29 instead of $1,650.56."
+us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 2024 Illinois exemption of $2,775 instead of the 2026 amount of $2,925. That leaves taxable income $150 too high and gives $1,658 instead of $1,650.56."
+us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model subtracted the 2024 exemption of $2,775 instead of the 2026 indexed exemption of $2,925 from the $36,270 AGI. The result was $1,658 instead of $1,650.56."
+us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left the $276 student loan interest deduction out of federal AGI ($36,546 instead of $36,270) and used the outdated $2,425 exemption instead of $2,925. It computed $1,689 and then submitted an inconsistent $1,626."
+us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The AGI of $36,270 was correct, but the model used the 2025 exemption of $2,850 instead of the 2026 amount of $2,925. The result was about $1,654 instead of $1,650.56."
+us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model claimed the exemption and retirement deductions reduce the tax to zero. The only Illinois exemption is $2,925, so about $33,345 remains taxable at 4.95%, and the tax is $1,650.56."
+us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model assumed the retirement and student loan adjustments eliminate the Illinois tax. Those adjustments reduce AGI by only about $1,830, to $36,270, and after the $2,925 exemption the flat 4.95% rate still produces $1,650.56."
+us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left the $276 student loan interest deduction out of federal AGI ($36,546 instead of $36,270). It also used a made-up $1,824 exemption instead of the 2026 Illinois exemption of $2,925."
+us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 2025 exemption of $2,850 instead of the 2026 indexed exemption of $2,925 on the correct $36,270 AGI. The result was $1,654.29 instead of $1,650.56."
+us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model gave no derivation. Its $1,777 answer implies Illinois taxable income of about $35,900, which matches subtracting almost no exemption from the base. The correct calculation subtracts the full $2,925 exemption from $36,270 AGI, leaving $33,345."
+us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model subtracted the 2024 exemption of $2,775 instead of the 2026 indexed amount of $2,925. The result was $1,658 instead of $1,650.56."
+us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's AGI of $35,970 wrongly excludes the $300 health premium from income; the reference AGI is about $36,270. It also used the outdated $2,425 exemption instead of $2,925, and the two errors partly cancel to give $1,660."
+us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 2024 exemption of about $2,775 instead of the 2026 indexed exemption of $2,925. That overstates taxable income by $150 and gives $1,658."
+us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model claimed Illinois has no personal exemption and taxed the full $36,270 AGI. Illinois allows a $2,925 personal exemption for 2026, which cuts taxable income to $33,344.67 and the tax to $1,650.56."
+us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The base income of $36,270 was correct, but the model subtracted the 2024 exemption of $2,775 instead of the 2026 amount of $2,925. The result was $1,658 instead of $1,650.56."
+us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied a federal-style standard deduction to get taxable income of about $20,696, but Illinois has no standard deduction. Illinois taxes federal AGI of $36,270 minus only the $2,925 exemption."
+us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 2025 exemption of $2,850 instead of the 2026 indexed exemption of $2,925 on the correct $36,270 base. The result was about $1,654 instead of $1,650.56."
+us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model subtracted an outdated $2,450 exemption from the $36,270 AGI instead of the 2026 amount of $2,925. That overstates taxable income by $475 and gives $1,674.09."
+us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model estimated the 2026 exemption at about $2,900 instead of the actual indexed $2,925. That leaves taxable income $25 too high: $33,370 × 4.95% = $1,651.82, not $1,650.56."
+us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the exemption twice: once from income, then again as a $2,800 nonrefundable credit against the tax itself, which zeroed it out. The Illinois exemption only reduces taxable income. The model also left out the student loan interest deduction from AGI."
+us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model described the right method (AGI minus exemption, times 4.95%). But its $1,658.66 answer implies taxable income of about $33,508, which matches subtracting an exemption of about $2,762 instead of the 2026 indexed amount of $2,925."
us,scenario_070,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model correctly found that the childless federal EITC was fully phased out but then invented a $102 Illinois EITC despite Illinois calculating its credit as a percentage of the federal amount. The age expansion changes categorical eligibility only; it does not override the federal income phaseout, so 20% of a zero federal EITC yields $0."
us,scenario_071,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"The model declared $36,542 of income below New York’s aged Medicaid limits and simultaneously treated $62,291 as below a resource limit it described as $15,900, reversing both comparisons. It therefore invented an aged Medicaid pathway even though the person’s engine category is NONE."
us,scenario_071,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model invoked unspecified senior disregards to reduce $36,542 below an aged Medicaid limit of roughly $20,000 without calculating any applicable disregard. No aged pathway is established, and the engine assigns medicaid_category = NONE."
@@ -5991,23 +6187,24 @@ us,scenario_072,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"The model correc
us,scenario_072,payroll_tax,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"The model's stated components correctly total $1,530, but it submitted $1,550. This is an arithmetic/output inconsistency: $1,240 plus $290 equals $1,530, with no Additional Medicare Tax or Michigan employee payroll tax to supply the extra $20."
us,scenario_072,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated the elderly household as exempt from any income screen and never compared its $73,974 gross income with Michigan's two-person gross income limit, which the household far exceeds, so SNAP is $0. It also reached its net-income step by counting both premium fields for each spouse, giving a $66,200 medical total and a $65,780 deduction. It then subtracted the $210 monthly standard deduction from annual income, which produced the spurious $332/month net income and the $446.40 monthly allotment."
us,scenario_072,spouse_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model treated the absence of an explicit Medicare-status input as disqualifying and ignored the age-based eligibility rule. At age 77, the spouse exceeds the standard Medicare eligibility age of 65, so spouse_medicare_eligible equals Yes."
-us,scenario_072,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It placed both spouses in the born-before-1946 tier, but ages 80 and 77 in 2026 mean births in 1946 and 1949, which is Tier 2. It then subtracted only the $166 of interest and dividends plus $11,600 of exemptions and concluded wages are not subtractible. Tier 2 filers past 67 get a $40,000 joint Michigan standard deduction against all income, wages included, which reduces the $20,166 base to $0."
-us,scenario_072,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It subtracted only about $11,600 of personal exemptions and the interest/dividend subtraction, leaving $8,400 taxed at 4.25%. It never applied the $40,000 joint Michigan standard deduction for filers born 1946-1952 who are past 67. That deduction covers wages and takes the $20,166 base to zero."
-us,scenario_072,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It correctly reached $20,166 of Michigan income after excluding Social Security, but then subtracted only two $5,700 personal exemptions and taxed $8,766. Both spouses were born in 1946-1952 and are past 67, so the $40,000 joint Michigan standard deduction applies against all income and eliminates the base, giving $0."
-us,scenario_072,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It reduced $20,166 by $18,400 of regular plus senior exemptions and taxed the remaining $1,766 at 4.05%. It missed the $40,000 joint Michigan standard deduction for Tier 2 filers (born 1946-1952, past 67), which applies against wages and zeroes the tax."
-us,scenario_072,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It subtracted $17,800 of personal-plus-senior exemptions from $20,166 and taxed the leftover $2,366. It never applied the $40,000 joint Michigan standard deduction available to the 1946 and 1949 birth cohort after age 67. That deduction exceeds the couple's taxable wages, interest, and dividends, so the tax is $0."
-us,scenario_072,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"$850 is exactly 4.25% of $20,000, so it taxed the full wages with no effective exemption or deduction. It missed the $40,000 joint Michigan standard deduction for filers born 1946-1952 who are past 67, which applies against wages and brings tax to $0."
-us,scenario_072,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"$1,638 at the 4.25% rate implies about $38,500 of Michigan taxable income. That exceeds the couple's $20,166 of wages, interest, and dividends, so it could only come from adding Social Security or veterans benefits, which Michigan excludes. It also never applied the $40,000 joint Michigan standard deduction for the 1946-1952 cohort, which zeroes the tax."
-us,scenario_072,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It correctly identified the $40,000 joint Michigan standard deduction for filers born 1946-1952. It then wrongly cut that deduction by the $34,608 of Social Security benefits, leaving $5,392, and fell back to $12,000 of personal exemptions. Social Security is a separate Michigan subtraction and does not offset the standard deduction, so the full $40,000 covers the $20,166 base and the tax is $0."
-us,scenario_072,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It subtracted about $14,700 of personal and $1,500 senior exemptions from $20,166 and taxed the leftover $5,466 at 4.25%. It never applied the $40,000 joint Michigan standard deduction for Tier 2 filers past 67, which applies against all income and eliminates the tax."
-us,scenario_072,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It subtracted only two $5,900 personal exemptions from $20,166 and taxed the rest at 4.05%. It missed the $40,000 joint Michigan standard deduction for filers born 1946-1952 who are past 67, which applies against wages and takes Michigan taxable income to $0."
-us,scenario_072,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It correctly excluded Social Security and veterans benefits, but it offset the remaining $20,166 with only two personal exemptions, about $11,800, and taxed the rest at 4.25%. It omitted the $40,000 joint Michigan standard deduction for the 1946-1952 birth cohort past 67, which zeroes the base."
-us,scenario_072,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It treated the couple's age benefit as two senior personal exemptions, about $6,300 each, leaving $7,566 taxed at 4.25%. The age-based rule it missed is the $40,000 joint Michigan standard deduction for filers born 1946-1952 after age 67. That deduction applies against all income and reduces the tax to $0."
-us,scenario_072,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It subtracted two $5,600 personal exemptions from $20,166 and taxed $8,966 at 4.25%. It never applied the $40,000 joint Michigan standard deduction for Tier 2 seniors (born 1946 and 1949, both past 67), which exceeds the couple's wages, interest, and dividends and makes the tax $0."
-us,scenario_072,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It subtracted only $10,000 of personal exemptions from $20,166 and taxed $10,166 at 4.05%. It missed the $40,000 joint Michigan standard deduction for filers born 1946-1952 who are past 67, which applies against wages and eliminates the tax."
-us,scenario_072,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It subtracted two roughly $6,000 personal exemptions and taxed $8,166 at 4.25%. It omitted the $40,000 joint Michigan standard deduction for the 1946-1952 birth cohort past age 67, which applies against all income and brings Michigan taxable income to $0."
-us,scenario_072,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It subtracted two $6,100 personal exemptions from $20,166 and taxed $7,966 at 4.25%. It never applied the $40,000 joint Michigan standard deduction for Tier 2 filers (born 1946-1952, past 67), which fully offsets the wages, interest, and dividends and produces $0 tax."
-us,scenario_072,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It cycled through invented senior personal-exemption amounts ($6,500 and $7,900 each), subtracted interest and dividends, and settled on $7,000 taxed at 4.25%. It never identified the $40,000 joint Michigan standard deduction for filers born 1946-1952 who are past 67, which applies against wages and zeroes the tax."
+us,scenario_072,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied only $11,600 of personal exemptions against the $20,000 of wages. It never applied the Tier 2 Michigan standard deduction ($40,000 joint for filers born 1946–1952 who are 67 or older), which covers all of the $20,166 and brings tax to $0. It also wrongly placed the head, born in 1946, in the born-before-1946 Tier 1 cohort to justify the interest and dividend subtraction."
+us,scenario_072,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Subtracted Social Security, interest and dividends, and about $11,600 of personal exemptions, then taxed the remaining $8,400. It left out the Tier 2 Michigan standard deduction ($40,000 joint against all income for filers born 1946–1952 who are 67 or older), which brings Michigan taxable income to $0."
+us,scenario_072,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Correctly reached Michigan income of $20,166 but subtracted only two $5,700 personal exemptions. It missed that both spouses (born 1946 and 1949, age 67 or older) get the $40,000 joint Tier 2 Michigan standard deduction against all income, which leaves no taxable income."
+us,scenario_072,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Subtracted personal exemptions plus special senior exemptions totaling $18,400 and taxed the $1,766 left over at 4.05%. It missed the $40,000 joint Tier 2 Michigan standard deduction for filers born 1946–1952 who are 67 or older, which covers the whole $20,166 and zeroes the tax. It also used the 4.05% rate, which applied only for 2023, instead of 4.25%."
+us,scenario_072,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Subtracted $17,800 of personal and special exemptions from $20,166 and taxed the remaining $2,366. It did not apply the Tier 2 Michigan standard deduction of $40,000 for a joint return, which both spouses (born 1946 and 1949) qualify for and which offsets all of their wage and investment income."
+us,scenario_072,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"$850 is 4.25% of $20,000, so the model taxed the full wage amount with essentially no deduction. The Tier 2 Michigan standard deduction ($40,000 joint for filers born 1946–1952 who are 67 or older) exceeds all of the household's taxable Michigan income, so tax is $0."
+us,scenario_072,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"$1,638 at 4.25% implies about $38,500 of taxable income, which is more than the $20,166 of wages, interest and dividends. So the model taxed some exempt Social Security or veterans benefits. It also ignored the $40,000 joint Tier 2 Michigan standard deduction, which brings taxable income to $0."
+us,scenario_072,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Subtracted only two personal exemptions totaling $11,800 from $20,166. It missed the Tier 2 Michigan standard deduction ($40,000 joint against all income for filers born 1946–1952 who are 67 or older), which brings Michigan taxable income and tax to $0."
+us,scenario_072,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Correctly recognized that the spouses qualify for the $40,000 joint Tier 2 Michigan standard deduction but wrongly cut it by their $34,608 of Social Security benefits. Social Security is subtracted separately and does not reduce this deduction. The full $40,000 exceeds the $20,166 of income, so tax is $0."
+us,scenario_072,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Subtracted personal exemptions plus a senior exemption totaling about $14,700 and taxed the remaining $5,466. It never applied the $40,000 joint Tier 2 Michigan standard deduction for filers born 1946–1952 who are 67 or older, which covers all $20,166 of wage, interest and dividend income."
+us,scenario_072,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Subtracted only two $5,900 personal exemptions and applied a 4.05% rate. It missed the Tier 2 Michigan standard deduction of $40,000 joint against all income, which leaves no taxable income for this couple born in 1946 and 1949. The 2026 rate is also 4.25%, not 4.05%."
+us,scenario_072,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied only two personal exemptions to the $20,166 of non-Social Security income. It never used the $40,000 joint Tier 2 Michigan standard deduction that both spouses qualify for by birth year and age, which reduces Michigan taxable income to $0."
+us,scenario_072,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Used personal exemptions with a senior add-on to reach about $7,566 of taxable income. It did not apply the Tier 2 Michigan standard deduction ($40,000 joint for filers born 1946–1952 who are 67 or older), which offsets all wage, interest and dividend income and yields $0 tax."
+us,scenario_072,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Subtracted two $5,600 personal exemptions from $20,166 and taxed $8,966 at 4.25%. It missed the $40,000 joint Tier 2 Michigan standard deduction for the 1946 and 1949 birth cohorts, which exceeds all their taxable Michigan income."
+us,scenario_072,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Subtracted only $10,000 of personal exemptions and taxed $10,166 at 4.05%. It ignored the Tier 2 Michigan standard deduction ($40,000 joint against all income for filers born 1946–1952 who are 67 or older), which zeroes taxable income. It also used the outdated 4.05% rate instead of 4.25%."
+us,scenario_072,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Subtracted taxable Social Security and about $12,000 of personal exemptions, then taxed the remaining $8,166. It missed the $40,000 joint Tier 2 Michigan standard deduction available to both spouses (born 1946 and 1949, age 67 or older), which covers the whole $20,166."
+us,scenario_072,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Subtracted two $6,100 personal exemptions and taxed $7,966 at 4.25%. It never applied the Tier 2 Michigan standard deduction of $40,000 for joint filers born 1946–1952 who are 67 or older, which brings Michigan taxable income to $0."
+us,scenario_072,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied the senior interest and dividend subtraction, which is limited to Tier 1 filers born before 1946, and inconsistently subtracted it twice. It then used about $6,500 per-person exemptions to reach $7,000 of taxable income. It missed the Tier 2 Michigan standard deduction ($40,000 joint against all income for filers born 1946–1952 who are 67 or older), which makes tax $0."
us,scenario_073,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model correctly found MAGI of about $25,754, above the 138% FPL expansion limit. It then made up a disability route based on SSDI receipt and $3,600 of assets. PolicyEngine's disability route requires actual SSI receipt (SSI is $0 here) or a disability flag with income within Michigan's aged/disabled limit of 100% FPL. The head has no disability flag and income at 160% FPL, so no category applies."
us,scenario_073,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $5,557 traditional 401(k) contribution from MAGI. The head has no wages, and elective deferrals can only come out of wages, so nothing is deducted and MAGI stays at $25,754. It also used the outdated $15,060 FPL and suggested SSDI could be excluded, but Medicaid MAGI adds untaxed Social Security back. Income is 1.60 times FPL, above the 138% expansion limit."
us,scenario_073,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model called the income 'low' without running the MAGI test. Medicaid MAGI counts the full $22,646 of SSDI plus the $3,108 pension, which is 1.60 times FPL and above Michigan's 138% FPL adult expansion limit. With no SSI receipt and no dependent children, the head fits no other category."
@@ -6016,71 +6213,74 @@ us,scenario_073,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_d
us,scenario_073,head_medicaid_eligible,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model said only taxable income counts for Medicaid MAGI and dropped the $22,646 of SSDI. Medicaid MAGI is AGI plus untaxed Social Security, tax-exempt interest and excluded foreign income, so the full SSDI counts. Total MAGI is $25,754, or 1.60 times FPL, above the 138% expansion limit."
us,scenario_073,head_medicaid_eligible,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied the tax-law rule that Social Security counts only to the extent it is taxable. Medicaid MAGI instead adds all untaxed Social Security benefits back. MAGI is therefore $25,754, or 1.60 times FPL, not $3,108, which is above the 138% FPL expansion limit it cited."
us,scenario_073,head_medicaid_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model treated the lack of wages as settling eligibility and never ran an income test. The $22,646 of SSDI and $3,108 pension give a Medicaid MAGI of 1.60 times FPL, above Michigan's 138% expansion limit. The head receives no SSI and has no dependent children, so no other category applies."
-us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model correctly noted that the 24-month SSDI waiting period applies, but then treated it as met because of the full-year constant-status assumption. That assumption covers only 12 months of receipt. The months-of-SSDI-receipt input is unlisted and therefore 0, so the 24-month disability pathway fails and a 57-year-old is not eligible."
-us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated any Social Security disability income as automatic Medicare eligibility. Medicare's disability pathway requires 24 months of SSDI receipt, and the months-of-receipt input is unlisted and therefore 0. With the head at 57 and no ESRD listed, they are not eligible."
-us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model named the 24-month SSDI requirement but simply assumed the disability status was established. The prompt says to treat unlisted numeric inputs as 0, so months of SSDI receipt are 0 and the head does not meet the 24-month test. At 57, they also miss the age-65 test."
-us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model cited the 24-month SSDI rule but treated the head as having met it with no listed duration of receipt. Months of SSDI receipt are an unlisted input and therefore 0, so the disability pathway fails. At 57, the age pathway fails too."
-us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model said SSDI receipt alone confers Medicare eligibility under 65 and left out the 24-month waiting period. Months of SSDI receipt are unlisted and therefore 0, so the 57-year-old head is not eligible."
-us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated a full-year, ongoing SSDI benefit as proof that the 24-month waiting period was met. A constant status within one tax year shows at most 12 months of receipt. The months-of-receipt input is unlisted and therefore 0, so the head misses the 24-month threshold and is not eligible."
-us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model asserted that the head had completed the SSDI waiting period, but no household fact supports that. Months of SSDI receipt are unlisted and therefore 0, below the 24-month requirement. At 57, the head is not Medicare eligible."
-us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated being an SSDI recipient as enough for Medicare. People under 65 also need 24 months of SSDI receipt, and that input is unlisted and therefore 0. The 57-year-old head fails both the age and disability tests."
-us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated SSDI income as automatically qualifying the head for Medicare and never applied the 24-month SSDI receipt requirement. Months of receipt are unlisted and therefore 0, so the 57-year-old head is not eligible."
-us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model equated SSDI receipt with Medicare eligibility and skipped the 24-month waiting period. Months of SSDI receipt default to 0 because they are unlisted, so the 57-year-old head fails the disability pathway and is not eligible."
-us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model said under-65 eligibility requires meeting Medicare's disability rules, then accepted the SSDI income line as evidence that those rules were met. The rule that matters is 24 months of SSDI receipt. That input is unlisted and therefore 0, so the head is not eligible."
-us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model concluded that full-year SSDI income alone met the disability pathway. That pathway requires 24 months of SSDI receipt, and one full year shows only 12; the listed months of receipt are 0. The 57-year-old head is not eligible."
-us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model said SSDI income establishes disability-based Medicare eligibility without checking the 24-month receipt requirement. Months of SSDI receipt are unlisted and therefore 0, so the head, at 57 and without ESRD, is not eligible."
-us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated receipt of SSDI income as enough for the Medicare disability pathway and ignored the 24-month waiting period. Months of receipt are an unlisted input and therefore 0, so the 57-year-old head is not eligible."
-us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model applied the disability-benefit pathway based only on SSDI income being present. That pathway requires at least 24 months of SSDI receipt, and here months of receipt are unlisted and therefore 0. The head is not eligible."
-us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated SSDI income as qualifying the head for disability-based Medicare without the 24-month receipt requirement. Months of SSDI receipt default to 0, so the 57-year-old head fails that test and is not eligible."
-us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model assumed the 24-month SSDI waiting period was met for an ongoing disability, even though months of receipt are unlisted and therefore 0. It also misread the 'premiums excluding Medicare Part B' field as a sign of Medicare enrollment, when that field explicitly excludes Part B. The head is not eligible."
-us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,kimi-k2.6,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model said PolicyEngine grants Medicare eligibility for any SSDI receipt under 65. PolicyEngine's disability pathway requires at least 24 months of SSDI receipt, and that input is unlisted and therefore 0, so the 57-year-old head is not eligible."
-us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated SSDI income as enough to make an under-65 head Medicare eligible and never applied the 24-month SSDI receipt requirement. With months of receipt at 0, the age-65 test failed, and no ESRD, the head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model correctly named the 24-month SSDI waiting period but assumed it was met because status is constant for the year. The facts cover only one tax year, and months of SSDI receipt are unlisted, so they default to 0 and the under-65 disability pathway fails. The head is 57, so the age-65 test also fails."
+us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated receiving Social Security disability income as enough for Medicare under PolicyEngine rules. PolicyEngine also requires 24 months of SSDI receipt, and that input is unlisted, so it defaults to 0 and the 57-year-old head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model cited the 24-month SSDI rule and then simply assumed the head's disability status was established. Months of SSDI receipt are an unlisted numeric input that defaults to 0, so the waiting period is not met and the age-57 head fails both the age-65 and disability tests."
+us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model named the 24-month SSDI requirement but treated the head as having met it without any supporting fact. Under the prompt's rule that unlisted numbers are 0, months of SSDI receipt are 0, so the disability pathway fails and the 57-year-old is not Medicare eligible."
+us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model claimed that receiving SSDI gives Medicare eligibility regardless of age, skipping the 24-month entitlement requirement. Months of SSDI receipt default to 0 here, so the 57-year-old head does not qualify."
+us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model read 'full-year, ongoing' SSDI as meeting the 24-month waiting period, but a single tax year shows at most 12 months. The actual months-of-receipt input is unlisted and defaults to 0, so the head, at 57, is not eligible."
+us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model asserted that the head had completed the waiting period, but no fact supports that. Months of SSDI receipt are unlisted and default to 0, so the 24-month test fails and the under-65 head is not Medicare eligible."
+us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated being an SSDI recipient as automatically meaning Medicare eligibility and ignored the 24-month entitlement requirement. With months of SSDI receipt defaulting to 0 and the head aged 57, neither the disability test nor the age-65 test is met."
+us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model equated receiving SSDI income with Medicare eligibility and skipped the rule that disability-based Medicare starts only after 24 months of SSDI. That months count defaults to 0 here, so the 57-year-old head is ineligible."
+us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model concluded that SSDI receipt alone qualifies the head for Medicare, without applying the 24-month SSDI requirement. Months of receipt are unlisted, so they are 0, and the under-65 head fails the disability pathway."
+us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model accepted that a 57-year-old needs qualifying disability status, then treated the SSDI dollar amount as evidence of it. PolicyEngine checks months of SSDI receipt against 24, that input defaults to 0, and no disability flag is set, so the head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated full-year SSDI income as meeting the Medicare disability pathway. That pathway needs 24 months of SSDI receipt, which defaults to 0 here, so the 57-year-old head does not qualify."
+us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model claimed that SSDI receipt by itself establishes disability-based Medicare eligibility, leaving out the 24-month entitlement requirement. Months of SSDI receipt are unlisted and therefore 0, so the under-65 head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated SSDI income as automatically giving Medicare eligibility through the disability pathway, ignoring the 24-month SSDI duration test. That duration defaults to 0 months, so the 57-year-old head is ineligible."
+us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model granted disability-pathway eligibility based only on SSDI income, without checking the required 24 months of SSDI receipt. That input is unlisted and therefore 0, so the head, at 57, fails both the disability test and the age-65 test."
+us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model concluded that SSDI receipt qualifies the head for disability-based Medicare but never applied the 24-month waiting period. Months of SSDI receipt default to 0, so the under-65 head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model assumed the 24-month SSDI waiting period was met and wrongly read the label 'premiums excluding Medicare Part B' as evidence of Medicare coverage. Months of SSDI receipt are unlisted and default to 0, so the 57-year-old head fails the disability pathway and is not eligible."
+us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,kimi-k2.6,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model claimed that under PolicyEngine rules SSDI receipt alone gives Medicare eligibility below 65. PolicyEngine actually requires at least 24 months of SSDI receipt, and that input defaults to 0, so the head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,muse-spark-1.3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated the head as disabled and Medicare-eligible only because SSDI income is listed. No disability flag is set, and months of SSDI receipt default to 0, so the 24-month disability pathway is not met for this 57-year-old."
+us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model concluded that SSDI income makes the under-65 head Medicare eligible, leaving out the 24-month SSDI entitlement requirement. That months count is unlisted and therefore 0, so the head is not eligible."
us,scenario_073,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model correctly identified that the household has no payroll-taxable wages and explicitly derived payroll tax of $0, but then submitted $2,846. Its numeric output contradicts its own payroll-tax-base reasoning and final stated derivation."
-us,scenario_073,snap,claude-fable-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It correctly found net income of about $1,757 a month, then disqualified the household under the 100% FPL net income test. Michigan BBCE categorical eligibility waives that test. The model also never applied the one-person minimum allotment of $24 a month, which is $288 a year."
-us,scenario_073,snap,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It computed net income of about $1,747 and called the household ineligible under the roughly $1,305 net income limit. Michigan BBCE categorical eligibility exempts the household from the net test. The $24 monthly minimum for a one-person household therefore applies, giving $288 a year."
-us,scenario_073,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied a 130% FPL gross limit and a $2,750 asset limit. Michigan BBCE uses a 200% FPL gross test, which $2,146 a month passes, and a categorically eligible household is not denied over $3,600 in assets. The household gets the $24 monthly minimum, or $288 a year."
-us,scenario_073,snap,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It returned $0 because 30% of net income wipes out the maximum allotment. It missed that a categorically eligible one-person household receives the $24 monthly minimum allotment, which is $288 a year."
-us,scenario_073,snap,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,period_annualization,False,"It subtracted about $5,165 of annual medical expenses from monthly income as though it were a monthly deduction. That drove net income to zero and produced the full $298 allotment. The correct monthly medical deduction leaves net income at $1,755, a $527 contribution, and only the $24 minimum ($288 a year)."
-us,scenario_073,snap,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the 130% gross limit and the 100% FPL net income limit, then concluded the household was ineligible. Michigan BBCE categorical eligibility (200% FPL gross) removes the net test. That guarantees the $24 monthly minimum for a one-person household, or $288 a year."
-us,scenario_073,snap,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a maximum allotment of about $587. The one-person maximum is $298. It also inflated the medical deduction to about $700 a month by counting the $5,789 employer-sponsored premiums and double-counting the $2,600 premium. With net income of $1,755, the benefit falls to the $24 minimum, or $288 a year."
-us,scenario_073,snap,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It found net income of about $1,747 and denied the household under the 100% FPL net limit. Michigan BBCE makes the household categorically eligible, so the net test does not apply. The benefit is the $24 monthly minimum, or $288 a year."
-us,scenario_073,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the federal 130% gross and 100% net income tests and denied benefits. Michigan BBCE confers categorical eligibility at 200% FPL gross, so the net test is waived. The one-person minimum allotment of $24 a month, or $288 a year, applies."
-us,scenario_073,snap,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It correctly saw that 30% of net income exceeds the maximum allotment but set the benefit to $0. Categorically eligible one- and two-person households receive the minimum allotment of $24 a month, which is $288 a year."
-us,scenario_073,snap,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It computed net income of about $1,750 and denied the household under the 100% FPL net limit. Michigan BBCE categorical eligibility bypasses that test. The benefit therefore floors at the $24 monthly minimum, or $288 a year."
-us,scenario_073,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly ended at the minimum allotment but used $25 a month. The minimum for a one-person household is $24 a month, which gives $288 rather than $300. It also overstated the medical deduction by including employer-sponsored premiums."
-us,scenario_073,snap,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It failed the household on a 130% FPL gross test. That ignores Michigan's 200% FPL BBCE gross limit, which $25,754 a year passes. Categorical eligibility then yields the $24 monthly minimum, or $288 a year."
-us,scenario_073,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It denied benefits because net income exceeds the one-person net income limit. Under Michigan BBCE the household is categorically eligible and exempt from the net test. It receives the $24 monthly minimum, or $288 a year."
-us,scenario_073,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated income above the SNAP limits as producing no benefit. Michigan BBCE makes the household categorically eligible, and a one-person household then receives the $24 monthly minimum, or $288 a year."
-us,scenario_073,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly applied BBCE categorical eligibility and the minimum-benefit floor, but used the outdated $23 monthly minimum. The 2026 minimum is $24 a month, which gives $288 a year rather than $276."
-us,scenario_073,snap,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It said countable income exceeds the one-person threshold. Michigan's 200% FPL BBCE gross limit is passed and the net test is waived. The household receives the $24 monthly minimum, or $288 a year."
-us,scenario_073,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It correctly found that 30% of net income exceeds the maximum allotment but stopped at $0. A categorically eligible one-person household gets the $24 monthly minimum allotment, or $288 a year."
-us,scenario_073,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It computed a contribution of $462 that exceeds the maximum and returned $0, without applying the minimum allotment for categorically eligible one-person households ($24 a month, or $288 a year). Its net income of $1,541.50 also overstated the medical deduction; the correct figure is $1,755."
-us,scenario_073,snap,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It claimed assets and income exceed SNAP limits. Under Michigan BBCE the household passes the 200% FPL gross test, $3,600 in assets does not disqualify it, and it receives the $24 monthly minimum, or $288 a year."
-us,scenario_073,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly identified BBCE eligibility with the minimum benefit but used the stale $23 monthly minimum. The 2026 minimum is $24 a month, so the annual amount is $288, not $276."
-us,scenario_073,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated net income above the benefit-producing level as yielding $0. A categorically eligible one-person household under Michigan BBCE receives the $24 monthly minimum allotment, or $288 a year."
-us,scenario_073,snap,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied a net income eligibility threshold and zeroed the benefit. Michigan BBCE waives the net test, and the one-person minimum allotment of $24 a month, or $288 a year, applies."
-us,scenario_073,snap,glm-5.2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It found the household eligible and the computed allotment negative, then paid $0 instead of the $24 monthly minimum that one- and two-person households receive ($288 a year). It also inflated medical expenses to $11,089 by counting employer-sponsored premiums and double-counting the $2,600 premium."
-us,scenario_073,snap,glm-5.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It compared gross annual income to the 100% FPL net income limit and denied benefits. Michigan BBCE categorical eligibility (200% FPL gross, no net test) applies, and the household gets the $24 monthly minimum, or $288 a year."
-us,scenario_073,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It declared income above the SNAP eligibility limits. At $2,146 a month the household passes Michigan's 200% FPL BBCE gross limit, is categorically eligible, and receives the $24 monthly minimum, or $288 a year."
-us,scenario_073,snap,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly said eligibility could not be established and returned 0. The facts establish Michigan BBCE categorical eligibility, with gross income below 200% FPL, so the $24 monthly minimum applies, giving $288 a year."
-us,scenario_073,snap,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated the household as having no disabled member, even though the head receives SSDI, and then failed it on a gross income test. Michigan BBCE uses a 200% FPL gross limit, which the household passes, so it receives the $24 monthly minimum, or $288 a year."
-us,scenario_073,snap,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It concluded income is too high to produce a positive allotment and returned $0. Categorically eligible one-person households receive the $24 monthly minimum allotment, or $288 a year."
-us,scenario_073,snap,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It returned $0 because counted income after deductions exceeds the amount that yields a benefit. It omitted the $24 monthly minimum for a categorically eligible one-person household, which is $288 a year."
-us,scenario_073,snap,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It returned $0 because no positive allotment remains after deductions. It never applied the $24 monthly minimum that categorically eligible one-person households receive, or $288 a year."
-us,scenario_073,snap,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It computed zero support from $2,146 of monthly income with no shelter costs. It skipped the $24 monthly minimum allotment owed to a categorically eligible one-person household, or $288 a year."
-us,scenario_073,snap,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It denied benefits under the net income limit for a one-person household. Michigan BBCE categorical eligibility exempts the household from the net test and yields the $24 monthly minimum, or $288 a year."
-us,scenario_073,snap,grok-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It correctly found that the 30% reduction fully offsets the maximum allotment but returned $0. Categorically eligible one-person households receive the $24 monthly minimum, or $288 a year."
-us,scenario_073,snap,grok-4.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It returned $0 because 30% of net income exceeds the one-person maximum. It missed the $24 monthly minimum allotment for categorically eligible one- and two-person households, which is $288 a year."
-us,scenario_073,snap,grok-4.7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the 100% of poverty net income test and denied benefits. Michigan BBCE categorical eligibility waives the net test, so the household receives the $24 monthly minimum, or $288 a year."
-us,scenario_073,snap,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It found that 30% of net income exceeds the maximum allotment and returned $0, omitting the $24 monthly minimum for a categorically eligible one-person household ($288 a year). It also overstated medical expenses by including employer-sponsored premiums."
-us,scenario_073,snap,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly applied the minimum allotment for one- and two-person households but used the outdated $23 a month. The 2026 minimum is $24 a month, which gives $288 rather than $276."
-us,scenario_073,snap,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It returned $0 because 30% of net income exceeds the one-person maximum. It missed the $24 monthly minimum allotment that categorically eligible one-person households receive, or $288 a year."
-us,scenario_073,snap,kimi-k3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the 100% FPL net income limit and zeroed the benefit, ignoring Michigan BBCE categorical eligibility and the $24 monthly minimum for one person ($288 a year). It also omitted the excess medical deduction, leaving net income at $1,942 instead of $1,755."
-us,scenario_073,snap,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It claimed income exceeds both the gross and net limits. Michigan's BBCE gross limit is 200% FPL, which the household passes, and categorical eligibility removes the net test. The benefit is the $24 monthly minimum, or $288 a year."
-us,scenario_073,snap,muse-wonder,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It denied benefits because net income exceeds the one-person net income limit. Under Michigan BBCE the household is categorically eligible without a net test and receives the $24 monthly minimum, or $288 a year."
-us,scenario_073,snap,ox-alpha,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly stated that Michigan BBCE still imposes a 100% FPL net income test, and it also dropped the excess medical deduction. Categorical eligibility waives the net test, so the household receives the $24 monthly minimum, or $288 a year."
-us,scenario_073,snap,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It refused to treat the SSDI recipient as disabled and applied a 130% FPL gross limit. Michigan BBCE uses a 200% FPL gross test, which $2,146 a month passes. The household gets the $24 monthly minimum, or $288 a year."
-us,scenario_073,snap,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"It disqualified the household on $3,600 of resources. The household passes the asset test: $3,600 is below the $4,500 limit for households with an elderly or disabled member, and BBCE categorical eligibility also covers it. The $24 monthly minimum applies, or $288 a year."
+us,scenario_073,snap,claude-fable-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the 100% FPL net income test (~$1,304) to a household that is categorically eligible through Michigan's BBCE, which waives that test. It also never applied the $24 minimum allotment, which is what a categorically eligible one-person household with a $1,757 net income receives."
+us,scenario_073,snap,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It ruled the household ineligible because net income of $1,747 exceeded the 100% FPL net limit. Michigan BBCE categorical eligibility waives the net income test, so the household gets the $24/month minimum allotment for one-person households, or $288 a year."
+us,scenario_073,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied a 130% FPL gross limit and a $2,750 asset limit. It ignored that Michigan BBCE uses a 200% FPL gross test that $2,146/month passes, and that $3,600 in assets is under the elderly/disabled limit. The categorically eligible household gets the $24/month minimum."
+us,scenario_073,snap,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Its $0 answer shows it treated a computed benefit at or below zero as no benefit. It missed that a categorically eligible (Michigan BBCE) one-person household receives the $24/month minimum allotment, which comes to $288 a year."
+us,scenario_073,snap,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the annual premiums, including the $5,789 employer-sponsored premiums, as a ~$5,165 monthly medical deduction, which drove net income to zero and produced the full $298 maximum. The countable medical deduction is only about $182/month. That leaves net income of $1,755 and a $527 contribution, so only the $24 minimum is paid."
+us,scenario_073,snap,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It ruled the household out on the 100% FPL net income limit, but Michigan BBCE categorical eligibility removes that test. With 30% of net income above the $298 maximum, the household receives the $24 minimum allotment rather than $0."
+us,scenario_073,snap,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a ~$587 one-person maximum allotment when the FY2026 figure is $298, and it counted the $5,789 employer-sponsored premiums in the medical deduction. Even at its own $1,242 net income, the $373 contribution exceeds the $298 maximum, so the benefit is the $24 minimum."
+us,scenario_073,snap,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It denied benefits because net income of ~$1,747 exceeded the 100% FPL net limit. Michigan BBCE makes the household categorically eligible without a net income test, so it receives the $24/month minimum for one-person households."
+us,scenario_073,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the 130% gross and 100% net income tests and denied benefits on the net test. It ignored that Michigan BBCE confers categorical eligibility, which waives both tests. The one-person household then receives the $24/month minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_073,snap,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It set the benefit to $0 because 30% of net income wiped out the maximum allotment. An eligible one-person household gets the $24/month minimum allotment instead, or $288 a year."
+us,scenario_073,snap,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It denied benefits because net income of ~$1,750 exceeded the 100% FPL net limit for elderly/disabled households. Michigan BBCE categorical eligibility waives the net income test, so the household gets the $24/month minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_073,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly took the minimum-benefit path but used ~$25/month. The FY2026 minimum is 8% of the $298 one-person maximum, which rounds to $24/month, or $288 a year."
+us,scenario_073,snap,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It failed the household on a 130% FPL gross income test. Michigan BBCE uses a 200% FPL gross limit (about $2,608/month), which $2,146/month passes, and the disabled member is exempt from the standard gross test anyway. The categorically eligible household receives the $24/month minimum."
+us,scenario_073,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It denied benefits on the net income limit. Michigan BBCE categorical eligibility waives that test, and a categorically eligible one-person household gets the $24/month minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_073,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated the household as over the SNAP income limits. Michigan BBCE categorical eligibility (200% FPL gross test, no net test) applies, so the household receives the $24/month minimum allotment, or $288 a year."
+us,scenario_073,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly applied BBCE and the minimum benefit but used the FY2025 $23 minimum. The 2026 minimum is 8% of the $298 one-person maximum, which is $24/month and gives $288 a year."
+us,scenario_073,snap,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It declared income over the SNAP threshold. Under Michigan BBCE the household passes the 200% FPL gross test and the net test is waived, so it receives the $24/month minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_073,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,It correctly found that 30% of net income exceeds the maximum allotment but then set the benefit to $0. An eligible one-person household gets the $24/month minimum allotment in that situation.
+us,scenario_073,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It found that 30% of net income ($462) exceeds the maximum allotment and stopped at $0. It missed that an eligible one-person household receives the $24/month minimum allotment, or $288 a year."
+us,scenario_073,snap,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It claimed assets and income exceed the SNAP limits. The $3,600 in assets passes, Michigan BBCE confers categorical eligibility, and the household receives the $24/month minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_073,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly identified BBCE categorical eligibility and the minimum benefit but used the FY2025 $23/month figure. The 2026 minimum is $24/month (8% of the $298 maximum), which gives $288."
+us,scenario_073,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated the household as over the net income limit. Michigan BBCE categorical eligibility waives the net income test, and the one-person household gets the $24/month minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_073,snap,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the net income eligibility limit and zeroed the benefit when 30% of net income exceeded the maximum. Michigan BBCE waives the net test, and eligible one-person households receive the $24/month minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_073,snap,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It returned $0 because 30% of net income exceeds the one-person maximum. It ignored the minimum allotment, which gives an eligible one-person household $24/month, or $288 a year."
+us,scenario_073,snap,glm-5.2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It concluded the household passes the net income test but zeroed the benefit when the computed allotment went negative. It missed the $24/month minimum for eligible one-person households. It also wrongly counted the $5,789 employer-sponsored premiums in the medical deduction."
+us,scenario_073,snap,glm-5.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It compared gross income of $25,754 against the 100% FPL net income limit without taking any deductions. It ignored that Michigan BBCE categorical eligibility waives the net income test, which yields the $24/month minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_073,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated $25,754 of income as above SNAP limits. Michigan BBCE uses a 200% FPL gross test, which the household passes, and waives the net test, so the household receives the $24/month minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_073,snap,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It refused to establish eligibility for lack of take-up and housing details, but the prompt directs assuming take-up. The household is categorically eligible under Michigan BBCE and receives the $24/month minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_073,snap,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It treated the head as not elderly or disabled even though receiving Social Security disability income confers SNAP disabled status, and then failed the household on a gross income test. Under Michigan BBCE the household passes the 200% FPL gross test and receives the $24/month minimum."
+us,scenario_073,snap,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It concluded no positive allotment remains after the 30% benefit reduction. It missed that eligible one-person households receive the $24/month minimum allotment, or $288 a year."
+us,scenario_073,snap,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,It stopped at $0 once 30% of counted income exceeded the one-person maximum. A categorically eligible one-person household receives the $24/month minimum allotment.
+us,scenario_073,snap,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It reported no positive allotment because there are no shelter costs, but it never applied the minimum benefit. An eligible one-person household gets $24/month even when the computed allotment is zero."
+us,scenario_073,snap,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It computed zero SNAP because no shelter costs were listed and income was high. It missed that the categorically eligible one-person household receives the $24/month minimum allotment, or $288 a year."
+us,scenario_073,snap,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It denied benefits on the net income limit. Michigan BBCE categorical eligibility waives the net income test, so the household receives the $24/month minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_073,snap,grok-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,It correctly found that the 30% reduction fully offsets the maximum allotment but then returned $0. An eligible one-person household instead receives the $24/month minimum allotment.
+us,scenario_073,snap,grok-4.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,It zeroed the benefit because 30% of net income exceeds the one-person maximum. It omitted the $24/month minimum allotment that eligible one- and two-person households receive.
+us,scenario_073,snap,grok-4.7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It denied benefits because net income stays above 100% of poverty. Michigan BBCE categorical eligibility waives the net income test, which leaves the household at the $24/month minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_073,snap,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It returned $0 once 30% of net income exceeded the maximum allotment, ignoring the $24/month minimum for eligible one-person households. It also wrongly included the $5,789 employer-sponsored premiums in the excess medical deduction."
+us,scenario_073,snap,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly applied the one-to-two-person minimum benefit but used $23/month. The 2026 minimum is 8% of the $298 one-person maximum, which rounds to $24/month and gives $288."
+us,scenario_073,snap,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It concluded no benefit because 30% of net income exceeds the one-person maximum. An eligible one-person household receives the $24/month minimum allotment, or $288 a year."
+us,scenario_073,snap,kimi-k3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the 100% FPL net limit, which Michigan BBCE categorical eligibility waives, and set the benefit to $0 instead of the $24/month minimum allotment. It also omitted the excess medical deduction for the disabled member."
+us,scenario_073,snap,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It claimed the household exceeds both the gross and net limits. Under Michigan BBCE the gross limit is 200% FPL, which $2,146/month passes, and the net test is waived, so the household receives the $24/month minimum."
+us,scenario_073,snap,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"It ruled the household ineligible on assets and net income. $3,600 is under the elderly/disabled resource limit, and Michigan BBCE categorical eligibility waives the net income test, so the household receives the $24/month minimum."
+us,scenario_073,snap,muse-wonder,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It denied benefits because net income exceeds the one-person net limit. Michigan BBCE categorical eligibility removes the net income test, so the household gets the $24/month minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_073,snap,ox-alpha,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly asserted that a net income test applies under Michigan BBCE. BBCE categorical eligibility waives that test, giving the $24/month minimum allotment. It also skipped the excess medical deduction for the disabled SSDI recipient."
+us,scenario_073,snap,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It treated the SSDI recipient as not disabled for SNAP and applied a 130% FPL gross test with a wrong ~$1,311 limit. SSDI receipt confers disabled status, Michigan BBCE uses a 200% FPL gross test, and the household receives the $24/month minimum."
+us,scenario_073,snap,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"It treated $3,600 in assets as over the SNAP resource limit. That is below the $4,500 limit for households with a disabled member, and Michigan BBCE categorical eligibility applies, so the household receives the $24/month minimum allotment."
us,scenario_074,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_074,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_074,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model stated that tax-exempt SSDI counts in MAGI and then computed the opposite, summing only the $384 taxable IRA distribution plus a ""taxable portion"" of Social Security — applying the §86 provisional-income taxability test instead of the §36B(d)(2)(B) MAGI definition, which adds back the entire Social Security benefit excluded from gross income. Counting the full $33,640 SSDI plus the $384 IRA distribution puts the head at 2.13 x FPL, roughly 213% of poverty and far above Louisiana's 138% FPL expansion-adult limit."
@@ -6089,35 +6289,36 @@ us,scenario_074,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,categorical_eli
us,scenario_074,head_medicaid_eligible,glm-5.3,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model excluded SSDI from MAGI on the reasoning that it is untaxable, reaching a MAGI of $3,410; Medicaid MAGI explicitly adds back Social Security benefits not included in gross income, so the $33,640 SSDI counts dollar-for-dollar. The correct MAGI of roughly $34,000 equals 2.13 x FPL, about ten times the model's figure and well above the ~$22,000 expansion-adult threshold it cited."
us,scenario_074,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model asserted ""very low countable income"" with no derivation, a conclusion consistent only with dropping the entire $33,640 SSDI from countable income as non-taxable. Medicaid MAGI adds back untaxed Social Security benefits in full, yielding 2.13 x FPL — above Louisiana's 138% FPL expansion limit — and with age 54, zero SSI, and no dependents there is no non-MAGI category, so medicaid_category is NONE."
us,scenario_074,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model restricted the MAGI base to ""the listed taxable income,"" which omits the untaxed SSDI that §36B(d)(2)(B) requires to be added back to AGI for Medicaid MAGI. Including the $33,640 SSDI with the $384 taxable IRA distribution gives 2.13 x FPL, so the head exceeds the 138% FPL expansion-adult limit and qualifies under no MAGI category."
-us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model correctly named the 24-month SSDI waiting period but treated the year-long constancy instruction as proof it was met. Months of SSDI receipt is an unlisted input, which defaults to 0. The head, at 54, therefore meets neither the age-65 test nor the 24-month disability test."
-us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model claimed that SSDI income by itself confers Medicare eligibility under PolicyEngine. PolicyEngine actually requires at least 24 months of SSDI receipt, and that unlisted input defaults to 0. At 54, the head is not eligible."
-us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model reasoned that because the head is already receiving SSDI, the 24-month entitlement period must be satisfied. Current SSDI income says nothing about how long benefits have been paid, and the unlisted months-of-receipt input is 0. The disability pathway therefore fails, and the age-54 head is ineligible."
-us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model cited the 24-month rule but never checked whether it was met. With no SSDI duration given, months of receipt defaults to 0, so the 24-month test fails and the 54-year-old head is not Medicare-eligible."
-us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model read the 'constant year-long status' instruction as satisfying the 24-month waiting period. A constant status covers only the 12 months of the tax year, and the unlisted prior-receipt months default to 0. The 24-month test fails, and at 54 the head is ineligible."
-us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model acknowledged the 24-month SSDI requirement but treated constant SSDI income as meeting it. The months-of-receipt input is unlisted and therefore 0, so the head meets neither the age-65 nor the 24-month test."
-us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model asserted that PolicyEngine's disability rule makes any SSDI recipient eligible. That rule actually turns on at least 24 months of SSDI receipt, not on a positive benefit amount, and the unlisted months input defaults to 0. The head, at 54, is ineligible."
-us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model assumed ongoing SSDI with no start date means the 24-month waiting period is met. This contradicts the instruction to treat unlisted numeric inputs as 0: months of SSDI receipt is 0, so the disability pathway fails for the 54-year-old head."
-us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model explicitly assumed the 24-month SSDI waiting period was met, which infers an unlisted fact. With months of SSDI receipt at the default 0, the head is under 65 without qualifying disability duration and is not Medicare-eligible."
-us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model said the head qualifies 'after the disability waiting period' without checking that the period had passed. The unlisted months-of-receipt input is 0, short of the required 24, so the age-54 head is ineligible."
-us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated SSDI income as satisfying the disability pathway. That pathway requires at least 24 months of SSDI receipt, which defaults to 0 here because it is not listed. Since the head is also under 65, the answer is No."
-us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model equated positive SSDI income with Medicare eligibility. PolicyEngine requires at least 24 months of SSDI receipt, and that unlisted input is 0, so the 54-year-old head is ineligible."
-us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated receiving SSDI as sufficient for Medicare and ignored the 24-month receipt requirement. With months of receipt at the default 0 and the head aged 54, no eligibility pathway is met."
-us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model granted eligibility based on SSDI receipt alone. The disability pathway requires at least 24 months of SSDI receipt, which is unlisted and therefore 0, so the under-65 head is ineligible."
-us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated SSDI income itself as qualifying for Medicare and skipped the 24-month receipt test. That input defaults to 0, so the age-54 head fails both the age and disability-duration criteria."
-us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model concluded that receiving SSDI makes the head Medicare-eligible but never applied the 24-month receipt requirement. Months of receipt is an unlisted input that defaults to 0, so the 54-year-old head is ineligible."
-us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model equated SSDI receipt with Medicare eligibility and omitted the 24-month duration test. With that unlisted input at 0 and the head under 65, eligibility is No."
-us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model claimed PolicyEngine treats any SSDI recipient as Medicare-eligible regardless of age. PolicyEngine actually requires at least 24 months of SSDI receipt, which defaults to 0 here, so the 54-year-old head is ineligible."
-us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model correctly found that age 54 fails the age test, then treated positive SSDI income as automatically qualifying. The disability pathway requires at least 24 months of SSDI receipt, and that unlisted input is 0, so the head is ineligible."
-us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated SSDI receipt during the year as satisfying the disability pathway. That pathway requires at least 24 months of SSDI receipt, and the unlisted months input is 0, so the under-65 head is not Medicare-eligible."
-us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model asserted that PolicyEngine bases Medicare eligibility on positive SSDI income. PolicyEngine's disability test actually uses months of SSDI receipt (at least 24), which defaults to 0 here, so the 54-year-old head is ineligible."
-us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model said PolicyEngine's disability pathway is triggered by positive SSDI income. It is triggered by at least 24 months of SSDI receipt, a separate input that defaults to 0 here, so the head fails the test and, at 54, also fails the age test."
-us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model claimed that full-year SSDI receipt meets the 24-month waiting period. One year of receipt is at most 12 months, and the unlisted prior-receipt months default to 0, so the 24-month threshold is not met and the age-54 head is ineligible."
-us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model held that SSDI receipt establishes eligibility 'after the statutory waiting period' but never checked that the period had elapsed. Months of SSDI receipt is unlisted and therefore 0, below the 24 required, so the head is ineligible."
-us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated full-year SSDI receipt as conferring Medicare eligibility and ignored the 24-month receipt requirement. With the months-of-receipt input at its default of 0 and the head aged 54, eligibility is No."
-us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model explicitly assumed the 24-month waiting period was met because benefits are ongoing, inferring an unlisted fact. Months of SSDI receipt defaults to 0, so the disability pathway fails for the 54-year-old head."
-us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated SSDI income as qualifying for disability-based Medicare without applying the 24-month receipt requirement. That input is unlisted and defaults to 0, so the under-65 head is ineligible."
-us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated SSDI income as opening the disability pathway despite the head being 54. The pathway requires at least 24 months of SSDI receipt, and that unlisted input is 0, so the head is not Medicare-eligible."
-us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model cited the waiting period, then assumed it was satisfied because facts are constant for the year. Year-long constancy gives at most 12 months, and the unlisted prior months of SSDI receipt default to 0, so the 24-month test fails and the age-54 head is ineligible."
+us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model correctly noted the head is under 65, then assumed the 24-month SSDI waiting period was already met because disability status is constant for the year. 'Constant within the year' does not establish 24 prior months of SSDI. The prompt gives no SSDI duration, so it counts as 0 months and the disability pathway fails."
+us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated receiving Social Security disability income as automatically giving Medicare eligibility. Under-65 Medicare requires 24 months of SSDI entitlement, and the prompt lists no SSDI duration, so that duration counts as 0. With the head at age 54, they are not eligible."
+us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model cited the 24-month SSDI rule correctly, then asserted the head had already met it simply because they currently receive SSDI. Current SSDI receipt does not show 24 prior months of entitlement. The prompt lists no duration, so it is 0 months and a 54-year-old is ineligible."
+us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model named the 24-month benefit requirement but simply assumed it was satisfied. The prompt gives no months of SSDI receipt, so that input is 0 and the disability pathway is not met. The head is 54, under the age-65 threshold."
+us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated 'constant year-long status' as if it meant the 24-month SSDI waiting period was complete. A status held for one year says nothing about the prior 24 months. The prompt lists no SSDI duration, which is therefore 0, so the head at 54 is not Medicare eligible."
+us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model cited the 24-month SSDI rule and then concluded the head qualifies only because SSDI income is constant during the year. That inferred an unlisted duration fact. With SSDI months at 0 and age 54, neither the disability test nor the age test is met."
+us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model described the disability rule as granting Medicare to anyone receiving Social Security disability benefits. The actual rule requires 24 months of SSDI entitlement, and the prompt gives no duration, so it counts as 0. At age 54, the head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model saw that no SSDI start date was given and assumed receipt was long enough to satisfy the 24-month wait. That reverses the instruction to treat unlisted numeric inputs as 0. With 0 months of SSDI receipt and age 54, the head is ineligible."
+us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model stated outright that it assumed the 24-month SSDI waiting period was met, even though the prompt forbids inferring unlisted facts. With the duration counted as 0 months and the head at 54, the Medicare eligibility test fails."
+us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,The model mentioned the disability waiting period but treated it as satisfied without any listed duration. The 24-month SSDI requirement is unmet when months of receipt are 0. The head's age of 54 also fails the age-65 test.
+us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated SSDI receipt alone as meeting the Medicare disability pathway and ignored the 24-month entitlement requirement. The prompt lists no duration, so it is 0, and the 54-year-old head is ineligible."
+us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model concluded that any Social Security disability income makes the head Medicare eligible. That skips the 24-month SSDI entitlement requirement, which fails with 0 listed months. With age 54 below 65, no pathway applies."
+us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model equated being an SSDI recipient with being Medicare eligible and left out the 24-month waiting period. Unlisted SSDI duration counts as 0, so the disability pathway fails. At age 54, the head also does not meet the age-65 test."
+us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model granted Medicare eligibility solely because the head receives Social Security disability income. Under-65 eligibility requires 24 months of SSDI entitlement, and the prompt gives 0 months, so the 54-year-old head is ineligible."
+us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated SSDI receipt as automatically qualifying for Medicare and never applied the 24-month entitlement requirement. Unlisted SSDI duration counts as 0, so a 54-year-old head is not Medicare eligible."
+us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model concluded that receiving SSDI makes the head Medicare eligible, which drops the 24-month waiting period. With 0 months of SSDI receipt listed and the head at age 54, neither the disability test nor the age test is met."
+us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated SSDI receipt as enough for Medicare without the 24-month entitlement requirement. The prompt lists no SSDI duration, so it counts as 0, and the 54-year-old head is under the age-65 threshold."
+us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model claimed PolicyEngine treats any SSDI recipient as Medicare eligible regardless of age. Under-65 eligibility actually turns on 24 months of SSDI receipt, which counts as 0 here because it is unlisted, so the head is ineligible."
+us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model correctly noted that age 54 fails the age test, then let disability income alone qualify the head and ignored the 24-month SSDI entitlement requirement. That requirement fails with 0 listed months, so the head is not Medicare eligible."
+us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated one year of SSDI receipt as meeting the under-65 disability pathway. That pathway requires 24 months of SSDI entitlement, which is unlisted and therefore 0, so the head at 54 is ineligible."
+us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model asserted that PolicyEngine grants Medicare eligibility whenever Social Security disability income is positive. The disability test actually requires at least 24 months of SSDI receipt, an input that is 0 here, so with age 54 the head is ineligible."
+us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model keyed the disability pathway on SSDI income being positive rather than on 24 months of SSDI receipt. That duration is unlisted and therefore 0, so the 54-year-old head does not qualify."
+us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model claimed that full-year SSDI receipt meets the 24-month waiting period. Twelve months of receipt cannot satisfy a 24-month requirement, and the prompt lists no prior months, so the head at 54 is ineligible."
+us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model assumed the statutory waiting period had passed without any listed SSDI duration. Unlisted numeric inputs are 0, so the 24-month SSDI requirement is unmet. At age 54, the head also fails the age-65 test."
+us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated full-year SSDI receipt as making the head a Medicare-entitled disabled beneficiary and ignored the 24-month entitlement requirement. That requirement fails with 0 listed months, so the 54-year-old head is ineligible."
+us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model stated that the 24-month waiting period is 'assumed met since receiving ongoing disability benefits.' That inference contradicts the instruction to treat unlisted inputs as 0. With 0 months of SSDI receipt and age 54, the head is ineligible."
+us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated Social Security disability income as qualifying the head for disability-based Medicare without applying the 24-month SSDI entitlement requirement. The prompt lists no duration, so it is 0, and the head is under 65."
+us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,muse-spark-1.3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model equated SSDI entitlement with Medicare entitlement. Medicare for disabled people under 65 starts only after 24 months of SSDI, and that duration is unlisted and therefore 0, so the 54-year-old head is ineligible."
+us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,The model treated SSDI receipt as sufficient for the disability-based Medicare pathway at age 54 and left out the 24-month entitlement requirement. That requirement fails with 0 listed months of receipt.
+us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model acknowledged the SSDI waiting period but treated the 'constant for the full year' instruction as if it satisfied that period. A constant status within one year does not establish 24 months of SSDI receipt, which is unlisted and therefore 0. The head at 54 is ineligible."
us,scenario_074,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,The model applied employee payroll-tax rates to non-wage income despite acknowledging that the household's income came from Social Security disability. It failed to set unlisted wages to zero and therefore invented a covered-earnings base that the household facts do not contain.
us,scenario_074,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model supplied no payroll_tax output or explanation, violating the required output contract."
us,scenario_075,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its reasoning gets it right: $16,100 standard deduction, $13,843 ordinary tax plus $934 at 15%, totaling $14,777. It then submitted $12,523, a number with no derivation that contradicts its own calculation."
@@ -6172,48 +6373,50 @@ us,scenario_075,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"The model used t
us,scenario_075,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no value and no explanation for payroll_tax. The correct derivation is 7.65% of $12,656 in wages, which is about $968."
us,scenario_075,payroll_tax,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"The model correctly computed $784.67 of Social Security tax plus $183.51 of Medicare tax, for a total of $968.18. It then reported $989, citing 'rounding', which contradicts its own correct total."
us,scenario_076,child2_wic_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model falsely extended Idaho WIC eligibility through age 8 even though WIC child eligibility ends at the fifth birthday. It also divided or expressed the income ratio incorrectly: using its own $23,030 poverty guideline, $173,820 is about 755% of poverty and exceeds the 185% limit by a wide margin; medical expenses do not establish WIC eligibility or cure either failure."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"The model correctly found AGI of $164,220, the $800 QBI deduction and roughly $24,321 of bracket tax. It then swapped in an unexplained 'tentative tax of $29,226', adding about $4,700, and subtracted credits from that. The correct path is $24,211.80 minus $4,600 in nonrefundable credits."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model had the right taxable income ($139,270) and the right credits ($4,600). However, it applied the 2025 HoH bracket thresholds ($17,000/$64,850/$103,350) instead of the 2026 thresholds ($17,700/$67,450/$105,700). That overstated pre-credit tax by $321 ($24,532.80 vs $24,211.80)."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model counted the nontaxable $9,600 of child support as income and subtracted the $6,480 ESI premium. It also used a made-up $26,050 standard deduction and incorrect brackets, applied a $2,000-per-child CTC instead of $2,200, and left out the $200 CDCC and the $800 QBI deduction."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"The model gave a rough $30,500 without doing any bracket math. The correct calculation is $139,270 of taxable income, $24,211.80 of tax at 2026 HoH rates, then minus the $4,400 CTC and $200 CDCC. The model's figure is about $10,900 too high, so it did not net the credits or use HoH parameters correctly."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model invented about $29,400 of mortgage interest from the loan balance alone, although no interest paid was listed. It also imputed state income tax, then itemized instead of taking the $24,150 HoH standard deduction. It used a $2,000 CTC per child instead of $2,200, and its submitted $21,889 contradicts its own computed $17,033."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model imputed $25,200 of mortgage interest from the $420,000 balance (no interest paid was listed) and itemized instead of taking the $24,150 standard deduction. It used a $2,000 CTC per child instead of $2,200. It then submitted $21,625, which does not match its own computed $14,306."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"The model claimed only about $1,000 of the $4,400 CTC was nonrefundable, treating the $1,700-per-child refundable cap as carved out of the credit. In fact the whole CTC is nonrefundable when tax exceeds it, and the refundable ACTC only covers any unused remainder. It also used approximate 2025-style brackets and a $24,500 standard deduction."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left out the $800 Section 199A QBI deduction on the $4,000 of rental income, so taxable income came out at $140,070 instead of $139,270. At the 24% marginal rate, that overstated tax by exactly $192."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model filed the unmarried parent of two dependent children as single instead of head of household, and used the single brackets. It also imputed $27,300 of mortgage interest and $10,000 of SALT to itemize, instead of taking the $24,150 HoH standard deduction. It used a $2,000-per-child CTC instead of $2,200."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model used the single standard deduction and single brackets instead of head of household. It also subtracted the $6,480 ESI premium from the listed gross wages, which cut AGI to $157,740 instead of $164,220. It used a $2,000-per-child CTC instead of $2,200."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left out the $800 QBI deduction on the rental income, giving taxable income of $140,070 instead of $139,270. It then applied 2025 HoH bracket thresholds, producing $24,724.80 of tax instead of $24,211.80."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,other,False,"The model wrongly declared the CTC fully refundable in 2026 and set the nonrefundable CTC to $0. In fact the $4,400 CTC is nonrefundable up to tax liability. It also used a $23,000 standard deduction, left out the $800 QBI deduction and overstated bracket tax at $27,259."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $6,480 ESI premium from the stated gross wages, putting AGI at $157,740 instead of $164,220. It used a $23,200 standard deduction instead of the 2026 HoH $24,150 and left out the $800 QBI deduction. It applied a $2,000-per-child CTC instead of $2,200."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model assumed the TCJA had expired, bringing back personal exemptions, a $12,155 standard deduction and pre-TCJA brackets, and treated the CTC as fully phased out. Under the OBBBA, the 2026 law keeps the $24,150 HoH standard deduction and a $2,200 CTC. It also subtracted the ESI premium, and its submitted $26,346.25 contradicts its own computed $24,775.75."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied a TCJA sunset: an $11,687 standard deduction, three personal exemptions, pre-TCJA brackets and a $1,000-per-child CTC. The correct 2026 parameters are the $24,150 standard deduction, the 10/12/22/24 brackets and a $2,200 CTC. It also subtracted the $6,480 ESI premium from gross wages."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied a $2,000-per-child CTC ($4,000) instead of $2,200 ($4,400) and did not subtract the $200 CDCC. Its implied pre-credit tax of about $22,985 is below the $24,211.80 that the 2026 HoH brackets give on $139,270 of taxable income."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model assumed the TCJA had expired, using a roughly $12,090 standard deduction, personal exemptions and pre-TCJA brackets, and allowed no CTC at all. The 2026 law gives a $24,150 HoH standard deduction and a $4,400 nonrefundable CTC. It also subtracted the ESI premium from gross wages."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used 'sunset' 2026 law (personal exemptions, pre-TCJA brackets) and treated the CTC as phased out by high income. Under the 2026 law the $2,200-per-child CTC starts phasing out at $200,000, so the full $4,400 applies. It also subtracted the ESI premium from AGI."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model gave no derivation. The correct path is $24,211.80 of tax on $139,270 at 2026 HoH rates, minus $4,600 of credits, which gives $19,611.80. Its $19,535 is $76.80 lower, so it used pre-credit tax of about $24,135 from bracket or deduction parameters that are not the exact 2026 HoH ones."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model said it computed income 'after pre-tax health insurance deductions', subtracting the $6,480 ESI premium from wages that were stated as gross. AGI is $164,220, not $157,740. Its $21,743 also does not reflect the full $4,400 CTC plus $200 CDCC taken off $24,211.80."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model treated the CTC as phased out. Under 2026 law the $2,200-per-child CTC only phases out above $200,000, so the full $4,400 applies at $164,220 AGI. It also subtracted the ESI premium from gross wages, getting AGI of $157,740."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 2025 pre-OBBBA $22,500 HoH standard deduction and 2025 bracket thresholds instead of the 2026 $24,150 deduction and brackets. It left out the $800 QBI deduction and applied a $2,000-per-child CTC instead of $2,200."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $6,480 ESI premium from the listed gross wages, putting AGI at $157,740 instead of $164,220. It used a $23,100 standard deduction instead of $24,150 and applied a $2,000-per-child CTC instead of the 2026 $2,200."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a $23,625 HoH standard deduction instead of the 2026 $24,150 and inflated bracket tax to $24,965, against $24,211.80 on the correct taxable income. It applied a $2,250-per-child CTC instead of $2,200."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,other,False,"The model gave no computation. The correct derivation yields $19,611.80 ($24,211.80 at 2026 HoH rates on $139,270, less $4,600 in credits). Its $14,143 is about $5,470 too low, which matches using a much larger deduction or the wider joint brackets instead of the HoH standard deduction and HoH brackets."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model treated the $9,600 of child support as taxable income, but child support is excluded from gross income. It also did not net the full $4,400 CTC and $200 CDCC against tax, which left the answer about $9,300 too high."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $6,480 ESI premium from wages that were given as gross, getting AGI of $157,740 instead of $164,220. It applied a $2,000-per-child CTC ($4,000) instead of the 2026 $2,200 per child ($4,400)."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model filed as married filing jointly with a $32,200 standard deduction and joint brackets, even though the head is unmarried and qualifies for head of household ($24,150 deduction, HoH brackets). It also left out the $800 QBI deduction."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model gave $19,606, which is $5.80 below the exact result. Correctly, $24,211.80 of tax at 2026 HoH rates on $139,270, minus $4,600 of credits, is $19,611.80, so the model rounded or slightly misapplied the bracket computation instead of carrying the exact cents."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's 'deductions and exemptions' wording shows it brought back personal exemptions under an assumed TCJA sunset. The 2026 law has no exemptions, a $24,150 HoH standard deduction, the 10/12/22/24 brackets and a $4,400 nonrefundable CTC. This left the result about $3,600 too high."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a $23,063 standard deduction instead of the 2026 HoH $24,150 and overstated bracket tax at $24,570 instead of $24,211.80. It applied a $2,000-per-child CTC instead of $2,200."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model assumed the TCJA had expired: a $12,450 standard deduction, $5,300 exemptions, 10/15/25 brackets, and a $1,000 CTC phased out above $75,000. Under the OBBBA, 2026 keeps the $24,150 HoH deduction and a $2,200 CTC with a $200,000 phase-out, so the full $4,400 is allowed."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied post-TCJA-expiration law: personal exemptions, a $12,250 standard deduction, 10/15/25 brackets, and a $1,000 CTC phased out above $75,000. The 2026 law gives a $24,150 deduction, the 10/12/22/24 brackets and a full $4,400 CTC at this income."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model assumed the TCJA had expired, using a $12,585 standard deduction, personal exemptions, inflation-adjusted 2017 brackets and no CTC, instead of the 2026 $24,150 deduction and the $4,400 nonrefundable CTC. It also subtracted the $6,480 ESI premium from gross wages."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,other,False,"The model counted only about $1,000 of the CTC as nonrefundable. The whole $4,400 CTC is nonrefundable when tax liability ($24,211.80) exceeds it, and ACTC only applies to any unused excess. Leaving out the remaining $3,400 put the answer about $3,700 too high."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no value or explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so the answer is missing and cannot be scored."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model had the right taxable income ($139,270) and credits ($4,600), but its bracket tax of $24,332.80 does not match the 2026 HoH schedule (10% to $17,700, 12% to $67,450, 22% to $105,700, 24% above). That schedule gives $24,211.80, so the answer is $121 too high."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model invented $1,815 of depreciation from the unadjusted property basis and cut rental income to $2,185, but rental income is taken as the $4,000 given, which yields an $800 QBI deduction. It also used a $23,200 standard deduction instead of $24,150 and a $2,000-per-child CTC instead of $2,200."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model had the right taxable income ($139,270) and credits ($4,600), but it computed tentative tax of $24,329 instead of the $24,211.80 that the 2026 HoH brackets give. It used bracket thresholds that are not the 2026 HoH ones."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,other,False,"The model split the $4,400 CTC into $3,400 refundable and $1,000 nonrefundable before comparing it with tax liability. In fact the whole CTC is nonrefundable up to the $24,211.80 tax, and the refundable cap only applies to any unused remainder. It also left out the $800 QBI deduction."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model used married-filing-jointly brackets and an invented $16,600 standard deduction for an unmarried head of household. The correct parameters are the HoH $24,150 deduction and HoH brackets. It also left out the $800 QBI deduction and used a $2,000-per-child CTC instead of $2,200."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,other,False,"The model counted nontaxable child support in AGI and subtracted made-up $1,700 dependent amounts. It claimed the CTC was phased out above $400,000 even though AGI is about $170,000, which is wrong. It then submitted $18,779.30, which does not match its own computed $14,152.40 and skips the correct path of $24,211.80 minus $4,600."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"It found the right AGI ($164,220) and QBI deduction ($800), but used a $24,300 standard deduction instead of $24,150 and older bracket thresholds (17,350/66,100/105,500). It then dropped its own ~$24,321 bracket result for an unexplained 'tentative tax of $29,226', which overstated pre-credit tax by about $5,000."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Taxable income ($139,270) and credits ($4,600) were correct, but it applied 2025 HoH bracket thresholds (10% to $17,000, 12% to $64,850, 22% to $103,350). The 2026 thresholds are $17,700/$67,450/$105,700, so its bracket tax was $24,532.80 instead of $24,211.80, $321 too high."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted the $9,600 child support as taxable income and subtracted the $6,480 ESI premiums from the gross wages. It also used a made-up $26,050 standard deduction and married-joint-style brackets (20,550/78,100), and it left out the $800 QBI deduction. On credits, it used $2,000 per child instead of $2,200 and dropped the $200 CDCC."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"It gave a rough $30,500 with no bracket math. The correct path is $139,270 taxable income, $24,211.80 tax at 2026 HoH brackets, minus $4,600 of nonrefundable credits. Its figure is above even the pre-credit tax, so it effectively applied no CTC or CDCC and overstated the bracket tax."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It made up about $29,400 of mortgage interest from the $420,000 balance and an $8,500 Idaho SALT deduction, then itemized. No interest paid was listed, so it counts as zero, and the $24,150 standard deduction applies. It also used $2,000 per child for the CTC instead of $2,200, and its final $21,889 contradicts its own $17,033 computation."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It made up about $25,200 of mortgage interest and $8,000 of SALT to itemize, even though no interest was given; the $24,150 HoH standard deduction applies. It used a $2,000-per-child CTC instead of $2,200, and its final $21,625 was an arbitrary 'adjustment' that does not match its own $14,306 arithmetic."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It treated $1,700 per child as refundable and applied only about $1,000 of CTC against tax. With $24k+ of liability, the full $4,400 CTC is nonrefundable and offsets tax. It also used a $24,500 standard deduction instead of $24,150 and 2025 bracket thresholds."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $800 Section 199A QBI deduction on the $4,000 of rental income, so taxable income was $140,070 instead of $139,270. That added $192 at the 24% rate ($24,403.80 vs $24,211.80); its brackets and credits were otherwise correct."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It filed as single instead of head of household, even though the unmarried head has two qualifying children, so it used single brackets. It also itemized with $27,300 of mortgage interest made up from the balance and a $10,000 SALT amount that were never given, and it used a $2,000-per-child CTC instead of $2,200."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It used single filing status, the single standard deduction and single brackets instead of head of household. It also subtracted the $6,480 ESI premiums from wages, cutting AGI to $157,740 when the $160,000 gross wages are employment income in full, and it used a $2,000-per-child CTC instead of $2,200."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $800 QBI deduction on the rental income, so taxable income was $140,070 instead of $139,270. Its bracket tax of about $24,725 also overstates what the 2026 HoH brackets give on that income ($24,403.80), meaning it used stale thresholds."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It wrongly treated the 2026 CTC as fully refundable and applied $0 against tax. The full $4,400 ($2,200 × 2) is nonrefundable up to liability. It also used a $23,000 standard deduction instead of $24,150, left out the $800 QBI deduction, and its brackets overstated tax at $27,259."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $6,480 ESI premiums from the gross wages, but the reference counts the full $160,000, so AGI should be $164,220. It also used the outdated $23,200 HoH standard deduction instead of $24,150, left out the $800 QBI deduction, and used a $2,000-per-child CTC instead of $2,200."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied TCJA-expired law: personal exemptions, a ~$12,155 standard deduction, and a CTC 'fully phased out'. OBBBA made the $24,150 HoH standard deduction and $2,200 CTC permanent for 2026. It also subtracted ESI premiums from wages, and its submitted $26,346.25 does not match its own $24,775.75."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed TCJA expired in 2026 and used pre-TCJA rules: an $11,687 standard deduction, three $5,062 personal exemptions and a $1,000-per-child CTC. OBBBA set 2026 at a $24,150 HoH standard deduction, no exemptions and a $2,200 CTC. It also wrongly took the $6,480 ESI premiums off the gross wages."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It had the right AGI ($164,220) but applied only a $4,000 CTC ($2,000 per child, not $2,200) and no $200 CDCC. Its implied pre-credit tax of about $22,985 falls short of the $24,211.80 that exact 2026 HoH brackets give on $139,270."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA sunset and used personal exemptions, a ~$12,090 standard deduction and pre-TCJA brackets, with no CTC at all. 2026 law keeps the $24,150 HoH standard deduction, the TCJA brackets and a $2,200-per-child CTC that is fully usable at $164,220 AGI. It also subtracted the ESI premiums from the gross wages."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used 2026 'sunset' law: personal exemptions, pre-TCJA brackets and a CTC phased out at high income. Under OBBBA, the $2,200-per-child CTC phases out only above $200,000, so the full $4,400 applies. It also removed the $6,480 ESI premiums from the gross wages."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave no derivation. The correct result is $24,211.80 of 2026 HoH bracket tax on $139,270 minus $4,600 of credits. Its answer is $76.80 lower, which matches taxing $320 less income at 24%, i.e. a slightly wrong deduction amount or bracket threshold."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started from wages reduced by the 'pre-tax health insurance deductions', but the reference counts the full $160,000 gross wages, giving $164,220 AGI. Despite the lower income, its $21,743 is $2,131 above the reference, so it also applied less than the $4,600 of CTC plus CDCC or used inflated brackets."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It treated the CTC as phased out, which is pre-TCJA sunset logic. Under OBBBA's $200,000 threshold the full $4,400 is nonrefundable and available, but it subtracted only the $200 CDCC. It also cut AGI to $157,740 by subtracting the ESI premiums from the gross wages."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an outdated $22,500 HoH standard deduction instead of $24,150, left out the $800 QBI deduction, and applied 2025-era brackets ($25,120.80 on $141,720). It also used a $2,000-per-child CTC instead of $2,200."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset law with personal exemptions and a CTC 'phased out at this income level', so it subtracted only the $200 CDCC. Under 2026 law, the $2,200-per-child CTC is fully available below the $200,000 threshold and offsets $4,400 of tax."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $6,480 ESI premiums from the gross wages (AGI $157,740 instead of $164,220) and used a $23,100 standard deduction instead of $24,150. It also used estimated rather than actual 2026 brackets and a $2,000-per-child CTC instead of $2,200."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 HoH standard deduction of $23,625 instead of the 2026 figure of $24,150, and a $2,250 per-child CTC instead of $2,200. Its bracket tax of $24,965 overstates what 2026 HoH brackets give on its own taxable income (about $24,338)."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave only a vague 'standard/itemized deduction' description, and its $14,143 is $5,469 below the correct $19,611.80. That gap equals about $22,800 of extra deductions at the 24% rate, consistent with itemizing made-up mortgage interest on the $420,000 balance. With no interest listed, the $24,150 standard deduction applies."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It explicitly treated the $9,600 of child support as taxable income, but child support is excluded from gross income. Its $28,930 is also above the pre-credit tax of $24,211.80, so it failed to subtract the $4,400 CTC and $200 CDCC."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $6,480 ESI premiums from the gross wages, giving AGI of $157,740 instead of $164,220, which lowered its tentative tax. It also used a $2,000-per-child CTC instead of the 2026 amount of $2,200."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It filed married filing jointly with the $32,200 MFJ standard deduction and MFJ brackets, but no spouse is listed. The unmarried head with two children files head of household, with a $24,150 standard deduction and narrower HoH brackets."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It followed the right path (HoH, standard deduction, $4,400 CTC and $200 CDCC), but its regular tax came out $5.80 below the $24,211.80 that exact 2026 HoH brackets give on $139,270. That points to rounding or a slightly misremembered bracket threshold rather than exact bracket math."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It cited 'deductions and exemptions', meaning it applied personal exemptions under TCJA-sunset law. 2026 law has no personal exemptions, a $24,150 HoH standard deduction and a fully usable $4,400 CTC, and its $23,250 matches claiming little or no CTC."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It guessed an inflation-indexed $23,063 standard deduction instead of the OBBBA 2026 HoH figure of $24,150 and used estimated brackets. It also applied a $2,000-per-child CTC ($4,000) instead of $2,200 per child ($4,400)."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA sunset: a $12,450 standard deduction, three $5,300 exemptions, reverted brackets and a CTC phased out above $75,000. OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent, so the $24,150 HoH deduction, current brackets and full $4,400 CTC apply."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied post-TCJA-expiration law: personal exemptions, a $12,250 standard deduction, 10/15/25% brackets and a $1,000 CTC phased out above $75,000. Actual 2026 law keeps the TCJA brackets, the $24,150 HoH standard deduction and the $2,200-per-child CTC with a $200,000 threshold."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired, using personal exemptions of $16,353, a $12,585 standard deduction and indexed 2017 brackets, and it gave no CTC. It also subtracted the $6,480 ESI premiums from the gross wages."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It applied only about $1,000 of nonrefundable CTC, treating most of the credit as refundable. With over $24,000 of liability, the full $4,400 CTC is used against tax. Its tax estimate of about $24,500 also runs high compared with $24,211.80."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no value and no explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was nothing to score."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its taxable income ($139,270) and credits ($4,600) were correct, but its bracket tax of $24,332.80 is $121 above the $24,211.80 from the 2026 HoH brackets (10% to $17,700, 12% to $67,450, 22% to $105,700). It misremembered the bracket thresholds."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It made up $1,815 of rental depreciation from the $49,921 unadjusted basis, cutting rental income to $2,185 and the QBI deduction to $437. The $4,000 rental income input is the net amount and the basis only feeds the QBI limit. It also used a $23,200 standard deduction instead of $24,150 and a $2,000-per-child CTC instead of $2,200."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 HoH standard deduction of $23,625 instead of $24,150, left out the $800 QBI deduction on the rental income, and its approximate brackets overstated tax (about $24,655)."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It reached the correct $139,270 taxable income and $4,600 of credits, but its tentative tax of $24,329 is $117 above the $24,211.80 that exact 2026 HoH bracket thresholds produce. It misremembered or approximated the thresholds."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It treated $3,400 of the CTC as refundable and subtracted only $1,000 as nonrefundable. With $24,000+ of liability, the full $4,400 is nonrefundable. It also left out the $800 QBI deduction, which put taxable income at $140,070."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It filed married filing jointly with no spouse in the household, and paired MFJ brackets with an invalid $16,600 standard deduction. The head files as head of household with a $24,150 standard deduction. It also left out the $800 QBI deduction and used a $2,000-per-child CTC instead of $2,200."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It put the $9,600 of nontaxable child support into AGI and made up a 'dependents other than CTC' deduction. It declared the CTC phased out by citing a $400,000 threshold that AGI of about $170,000 does not reach. Its final $18,779.30 also does not match its own $14,152.40 computation."
us,scenario_076,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It applied the married-filing-jointly $400,000 phase-out threshold and a $2,000-per-child CTC instead of the head-of-household $200,000 threshold and 2026's $2,200 per child, then — after correctly stating that ACTC equals the CTC in excess of tax liability — ignored that offset even though pre-credit tax above $25,000 absorbs the entire $4,400 CTC nonrefundably. Its $2,400 is not the output of any rule it named; it is an unexplained reduction of the $3,400 ACTC ceiling, while the excess-over-liability computation yields $0."
us,scenario_076,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It stated the governing rule — the refundable ACTC is 'claimed to the extent CTC exceeds tax used' — and then contradicted it by reporting the $1,700-per-child cap of $3,400 as the refundable amount. With taxable income near $140,000 and pre-credit federal tax over $25,000, the full $4,400 CTC is consumed as a nonrefundable credit, leaving zero excess to convert into refundable_ctc."
us,scenario_076,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It treated the entire Child Tax Credit as refundable, calling it a 'refundable child tax credit of 2,000 per child,' which errs twice: the 2026 per-child credit is $2,200, and only the portion unused against tax liability is refundable, capped at $1,700 per child. Because this filer's federal tax before credits exceeds $25,000, all $4,400 of CTC is applied nonrefundably and the refundable component is $0, not $4,000."
@@ -6234,125 +6437,130 @@ us,scenario_076,payroll_tax,gpt-5.5,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model
us,scenario_076,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model supplied no payroll-tax value or explanation, so it failed the required structured-output contract."
us,scenario_076,self_employment_tax,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model incorrectly treated the $4,000 of rental income as earnings from self-employment and invented a 30% expense deduction that the prompt did not provide. Rental income is not subject to self-employment tax here, leaving a zero tax base and $0 liability."
us,scenario_076,self_employment_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model provided no self_employment_tax output or explanation, violating the required structured-output contract."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model left out the $1,000 Idaho dependent-care subtraction, which gave $139,270 of taxable income instead of $138,270. It applied 5.3% from the first dollar instead of above the $9,622 HoH (joint-schedule) zero-rate amount, subtracted a $410 child credit that does not apply, skipped the $10 permanent building fund tax, and then nudged the result up to $7,099 for no stated reason."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model left out the $800 QBI deduction on the rental income, so taxable income came out $139,070 instead of $138,270. It taxed the full amount at 5.3% with no $9,622 HoH zero-rate amount, subtracted a $410 child credit that does not apply, and skipped the $10 permanent building fund tax."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted $9,600 of non-taxable child support as income and subtracted ESI premiums from AGI. It used a $15,000 single standard deduction instead of the $24,150 HoH amount and added a made-up $9,380 adjustment. On top of that it applied graduated brackets instead of Idaho's 5.3% flat rate above the $9,622 HoH zero-rate amount."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model gave a rough 5.3% approximation and subtracted dependent credits that do not apply in this computation. The correct steps are $138,270 of taxable income (after the standard deduction, the $1,000 dependent-care subtraction and the $800 QBI deduction), 5.3% on the amount above $9,622 ($6,818.34), plus the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used the superseded 5.695% rate instead of 2026's 5.3%, and a $23,625 standard deduction instead of $24,150. It left out the $1,000 dependent-care subtraction and the $800 QBI deduction, and it raised its own pre-credit figure to $8,204 even after describing a grocery credit reduction."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied the old 5.695% rate above a made-up $3,420 threshold instead of 5.3% above the $9,622 HoH zero-rate amount. It used a $22,500 standard deduction instead of $24,150 and left out the dependent-care and QBI subtractions. It then raised its own $7,876 figure to $9,112 with no basis."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used a $24,500 standard deduction, left out the $1,000 dependent-care and $800 QBI subtractions, and applied 5.3% from the first dollar with no $9,622 HoH zero-rate amount. Its final $7,480 is higher than its own pre-credit estimate even though it said a credit reduced the tax."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used $140,070 of taxable income, leaving out the $1,000 Idaho dependent-care subtraction and the $800 QBI deduction. It used a $9,346 zero-rate amount instead of the 2026 HoH $9,622. It then subtracted a $410 child credit that does not apply and left out the $10 permanent building fund tax."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model filed as single with a $15,000 deduction instead of HoH at $24,150, and subtracted $4,714 personal exemptions that Idaho no longer allows. It applied the old 5.695% rate instead of 5.3% above the $9,622 HoH zero-rate amount and subtracted a $100 child care credit."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used a $16,000 standard deduction instead of the $24,150 HoH amount and the old 5.695% rate instead of 5.3% above $9,622. It then raised its own $8,443 figure to $9,400 for no stated reason, and it never took the dependent-care or QBI subtractions."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model taxed $140,070 at 5.3% from the first dollar, leaving out the $1,000 dependent-care subtraction, the $800 QBI deduction and the $9,622 HoH zero-rate amount. It subtracted a $410 child credit that does not apply and left out the $10 permanent building fund tax."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used the outdated 5.8% rate and a $19,900 standard deduction instead of 5.3% and $24,150. It also left out the dependent-care and QBI subtractions, the $9,622 HoH zero-rate amount and the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model subtracted the $6,480 ESI premiums from AGI, giving $157,740 instead of $164,220, and used a $23,200 standard deduction. It applied the outdated 5.8% rate from the first dollar instead of 5.3% above the $9,622 HoH zero-rate amount, and it left out the dependent-care and QBI subtractions."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model subtracted ESI premiums from AGI, giving $157,740, and used a $12,155 HoH deduction instead of $24,150. It applied the old 5.695% rate instead of 5.3% above $9,622, and its submitted $8,247.54 doesn't match its own computed $8,291.07."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied a 5.0% rate instead of Idaho's 5.3% above the $9,622 HoH zero-rate amount. It left out the $1,000 dependent-care and $800 QBI subtractions, subtracted $450 of child and CDCC credits that do not apply, and skipped the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used a made-up $130,867 taxable income instead of $138,270 and the outdated 5.8% rate instead of 5.3% above $9,622. It also subtracted a $410 child credit that does not apply."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model gave no derivation. Its $8,100 matches an old-rate (5.695%–5.8%) flat tax on AGI less the standard deduction. The correct figure is 5.3% on $138,270 above the $9,622 HoH zero-rate amount, plus $10."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied the superseded 5.695% rate instead of 5.3%, and used an understated $129,750 taxable income instead of $138,270. It also never applied the $9,622 HoH zero-rate amount or added the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used the outdated 5.8% rate instead of 2026's 5.3% applied above the $9,622 HoH zero-rate amount. It also subtracted child credits that do not apply in this computation."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model gave no derivation. Its $7,322 is about 5.3% of the full $138,270 taxable income ($7,328), so it left out the $9,622 HoH zero-rate amount, which cuts the tax to $6,818.34 before the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model gave no derivation. Its $6,985 matches 5.3% of roughly $139k–$140k from the first dollar minus a $410 child credit. That shortcut leaves out the $9,622 HoH zero-rate amount and the $1,800 of dependent-care and QBI subtractions, and wrongly takes a credit that does not apply here."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model gave no derivation. Its $7,665 matches the old 5.695% rate on roughly $134.6k, or 5.3% from the first dollar on an overstated base. Neither applies 5.3% only above the $9,622 HoH zero-rate amount on $138,270."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed PolicyEngine does not model Idaho income tax and submitted $0, but PolicyEngine does compute Idaho tax. The correct steps are $138,270 of taxable income, 5.3% on the amount above $9,622, and the $10 building fund tax, for $6,828.34."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied the old 5.695% rate from the first dollar instead of 5.3% above the $9,622 HoH zero-rate amount. It used a $22,500 deduction instead of $24,150 and left out the $1,000 dependent-care and $800 QBI subtractions."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model started from federal taxable income, which already reflects the standard deduction, and then subtracted a second $23,625 Idaho standard deduction, cutting taxable income to $116,170. It also subtracted a $410 child credit that does not apply and never applied the $9,622 zero-rate amount."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model gave no derivation. Its $6,494 is below the correct figure: $138,270 of taxable income taxed at 5.3% above the $9,622 HoH zero-rate amount gives $6,818.34, plus the $10 building fund tax. That points to an extra credit or deduction that does not apply."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model mixed itemized medical assumptions into a rough estimate instead of following Idaho's steps. Those steps are the $24,150 HoH standard deduction, the $1,000 dependent-care and $800 QBI subtractions, 5.3% above $9,622, and the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used a $23,350 deduction instead of $24,150, left out the dependent-care and QBI subtractions, and taxed from the first dollar with no $9,622 HoH zero-rate amount. It also subtracted two $173 child credits that do not apply and skipped the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied 5.3% from the first dollar to an understated $132,020 instead of to the $138,270 amount above the $9,622 HoH zero-rate amount. It also subtracted a $440 child credit that does not apply and left out the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used the single-filer zero-rate threshold (about $4,930) instead of the joint-schedule $9,622 that applies to head-of-household filers, and it left out the $1,000 dependent-care subtraction. It also subtracted $410 of child credits that do not apply and skipped the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied 5.3% to all of $139,270, leaving out the $1,000 dependent-care subtraction and the $9,622 HoH zero-rate amount. It also left out the $10 permanent building fund tax."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model subtracted the $6,480 ESI premiums a second time, cutting taxable income to $131,790 instead of $138,270. It used a $9,960 threshold instead of $9,622, subtracted $410 of child credits that do not apply, and left out the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model left out the $1,000 dependent-care subtraction and taxed $139,270 at 5.3% from the first dollar, skipping the $9,622 HoH zero-rate amount. It subtracted a $410 child credit that does not apply and left out the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model taxed $139,270 at 5.3% from the first dollar, leaving out the $1,000 dependent-care subtraction and the $9,622 HoH zero-rate amount. It subtracted $410 of child credits that do not apply and left out the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model got the $138,270 taxable income right but used a $4,980 single-filer zero-rate threshold instead of the joint-schedule $9,622 that head-of-household filers use. It also subtracted $410 of child credits that do not apply and left out the $10 permanent building fund tax."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied a guessed 4% effective rate to gross income instead of following Idaho's steps. Those steps are $138,270 of taxable income, taxed at 5.3% above the $9,622 HoH zero-rate amount, plus the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied the old 5.695% rate from the first dollar to $141,157, which wrongly denies Idaho's conformity to the $800 QBI deduction. It also left out the $1,000 dependent-care subtraction and the $9,622 HoH zero-rate amount."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used a $12,450 HoH standard deduction instead of the 2026 $24,150 and applied the old 5.695% rate instead of 5.3% above $9,622. It also left out the dependent-care and QBI subtractions."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied the superseded 5.695% rate from the first dollar to $136,070. The correct base is $138,270, taxed at 5.3% only above the $9,622 HoH zero-rate amount, plus the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model subtracted ESI premiums from AGI ($157,740), used a $12,585 deduction instead of $24,150, and applied the outdated 5.8% rate instead of 5.3% above $9,622. It also left out the dependent-care and QBI subtractions."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied roughly 5.3% to all of a $135k–$140k base. It never took out the $9,622 HoH zero-rate amount, which lowers the tax to $6,818.34 before the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no value or explanation for this output, so there was no answer to grade."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model left out the $1,000 Idaho dependent-care subtraction and the $800 QBI deduction (taxable $140,070 instead of $138,270). It used a $2,500 zero-rate amount instead of the HoH $9,622, subtracted $410 of child credits that do not apply, and left out the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used a wrong $162,405 AGI, a $3,500 HoH standard deduction instead of $24,150, and the old 5.695% rate. It then subtracted a made-up $2,000 child credit to land on its figure."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied about 5.69% instead of 5.3% above $9,622 to $140,070, leaving out the dependent-care and QBI subtractions. It subtracted $410 of child credits that do not apply and a $465 grocery credit that does not reduce this before-refundable-credits figure."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model subtracted made-up $1,500-per-dependent deductions instead of the actual $1,000 dependent-care subtraction and $800 QBI deduction. It applied a 5.305% rate from the first dollar instead of 5.3% above the $9,622 HoH zero-rate amount, and it left out the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated the filer as married filing jointly with a $30,000 deduction and then subtracted down to an arithmetically wrong $96,448 taxable income. It also applied the outdated 5.8% rate instead of 5.3% above $9,622 on $138,270."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied repealed graduated brackets (1%/3%/5.5%) instead of the 5.3% flat rate above $9,622. It started from an understated $121,620 federal taxable income and then subtracted a made-up $2,400 Idaho standard deduction on top of it."
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly picked the refundable grocery credit and counted 3 members. However, it used the outdated $120 per-person amount instead of the $155 that applies in 2026, so it got $360 instead of $465."
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said Idaho has no refundable state credits and missed the refundable grocery credit. That credit pays $155 per household member with no income test, which comes to $465 here."
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model left out Idaho's refundable grocery credit, which is $155 for each of the 3 household members regardless of income, so it gave $0 instead of $465."
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly applied the grocery credit to 3 people. However, it dropped its $120 figure and replaced it with an invented $170 per-person amount instead of the $155 that applies in 2026, giving $510 instead of $465."
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated Idaho's grocery credit as nonrefundable at this income level. In fact it is fully refundable with no income phase-out, paying $155 per member, so the household gets $465."
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said the grocery credit is nonrefundable or does not apply at this income. Idaho's grocery credit is refundable with no income limit and pays $155 for each of the 3 members, so the correct total is $465."
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model wrongly treated the Idaho grocery credit as nonrefundable. It is refundable at $155 per household member, which gives $465 for this household of 3."
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model admitted the grocery credit is refundable but still left it out, claiming it was 'already reflected elsewhere'. The grocery credit is exactly what this output is meant to capture: $155 × 3 = $465."
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the outdated $120 per-person grocery credit instead of $155, giving $360 instead of $465."
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model counted Idaho's $205 child tax credit as refundable, but that credit is nonrefundable and does not count here. It also left out the refundable grocery credit, which is $155 × 3 members = $465."
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model wrongly labeled Idaho's $205-per-child credit as refundable when it is nonrefundable. It also skipped the refundable grocery credit, which is $155 for each of the 3 members ($465)."
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly picked the refundable grocery credit for 3 members. However, it used the outdated $120 per-person amount instead of $155, giving $360 instead of $465."
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the outdated $120 per-person grocery credit instead of the $155 that applies in 2026, giving $360 instead of $465."
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the grocery credit to all 3 members, but at the outdated $120 per person instead of $155, so it got $360 instead of $465."
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model assumed income ruled out every Idaho refundable credit. The grocery credit has no income phase-out and pays $155 per member, so the household gets $465."
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,The model said no Idaho refundable credit applies at this income. The refundable grocery credit is available at any income level and is $155 × 3 = $465.
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the long-outdated $100 per-person grocery credit instead of $155, giving $300 instead of $465."
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model left out Idaho's refundable grocery credit, which pays $155 for each of the 3 household members, so it gave $0 instead of $465."
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model concluded the household qualifies for no refundable Idaho credit and missed the grocery credit. That credit has no income limit and pays $155 per member, totaling $465."
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the outdated $120 per-person grocery credit instead of $155, giving $360 instead of $465."
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model claimed PolicyEngine models no refundable credit for Idaho. PolicyEngine includes Idaho's refundable grocery credit at $155 per member, which gives $465 here."
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the outdated $100 per-person grocery credit instead of the $155 that applies in 2026, giving $300 instead of $465."
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly identified the refundable grocery credit for 3 members but used $100 per person instead of $155, giving $300 instead of $465."
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model left out Idaho's refundable grocery credit. Every resident member qualifies at $155, so the total is $465."
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,The model assumed income thresholds rule out Idaho refundable credits. The grocery credit has no income limit and pays $155 × 3 = $465.
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly applied the grocery credit to 3 members under 65 but used the outdated $120 per-person amount instead of $155, giving $360 instead of $465."
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model concluded no refundable Idaho credit applies and missed the grocery credit, which pays $155 for each of the 3 members ($465)."
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the outdated $120 per-person grocery credit instead of $155, giving $360 instead of $465."
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model left out Idaho's refundable grocery credit, which pays $155 per household member with no income test, so it gave $0 instead of $465."
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used an outdated $100 per-person grocery credit instead of $155, giving $300 instead of $465."
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model claimed $100 per resident is the permanent-law amount for 2026. In fact the grocery credit is $155 per non-senior member, so 3 members get $465, not $300."
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the outdated $120 per-person grocery credit instead of $155, giving $360 instead of $465."
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model assumed the grocery credit phases out at this income level. Idaho's grocery credit has no income phase-out and pays $155 for each of the 3 members, so the total is $465."
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used an outdated $100 per-person grocery credit instead of $155, giving $300 instead of $465."
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,The model gave no value for state_refundable_credits. The correct value is Idaho's grocery credit of $155 × 3 members = $465.
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly applied the grocery credit to 3 members under 65 but used the outdated $120 per-person amount instead of $155, giving $360 instead of $465."
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated the grocery credit as not triggered at this income level. It applies automatically at $155 per resident household member regardless of income, totaling $465."
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,The model treated all Idaho credits as nonrefundable at this income. The grocery credit is refundable and pays $155 × 3 = $465.
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly identified the refundable grocery credit for 3 members under 65 but used $100 per person instead of $155, giving $300 instead of $465."
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model looked only for an earned income credit and missed Idaho's refundable grocery credit, which pays $155 per household member, or $465 for this household."
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model left out Idaho's refundable grocery credit, which pays $155 for each of the 3 household members, so it gave $0 instead of $465."
-us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"The model's own reasoning reached the correct result: AGI $23,006, the $16,100 standard deduction, taxable income $6,906, and $691 of tax at 10%. It then submitted $951, which matches nothing in its derivation."
-us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the 2024 standard deduction of $14,600 instead of the 2026 OBBBA figure of $16,100. It also subtracted the $8,389 ESI premiums from wages that were stated as gross, and then submitted $1,402, a number that matches none of its intermediate calculations."
-us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $3,000 capital-loss deduction, so its taxable income was about $9,906 instead of $6,906. It then estimated about $1,000 of tax and still submitted $0, even though no nonrefundable credit applies."
-us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly computed AGI of $23,006, a $16,100 standard deduction, taxable income of $6,906, and about $691 of tax at 10%. It then submitted $1,080 for no stated reason, contradicting its own math."
-us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It took the pre-OBBBA 2025 standard deduction of $15,000 and inflated it to $15,350, missing the 2026 OBBBA figure of $16,100. That overstated taxable income by $750, giving $7,656 instead of $6,906."
-us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly derived about $691 of tax on $6,906 of taxable income. It then cited CDCC, QBI, and other adjustments that do not apply to a childless wage earner to cut the tax to $0."
-us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,400 single standard deduction instead of the 2026 OBBBA amount of $16,100. That overstated taxable income by $700, giving $7,606 instead of $6,906."
-us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the original 2025 standard deduction of $15,000 instead of the 2026 OBBBA amount of $16,100. As a result, it taxed $8,006 instead of $6,906."
-us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a pre-OBBBA inflation estimate of $15,350 for the 2026 single standard deduction instead of the enacted $16,100. That left $7,656 of taxable income instead of $6,906."
-us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $8,389 ESI premiums from wages that were stated as gross, which pushed AGI down to $14,617. It then applied TCJA-sunset rules ($8,300 standard deduction plus a $5,300 personal exemption) instead of OBBBA's permanent $16,100 standard deduction with no exemption."
-us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,000 standard deduction instead of $16,100 and reached $8,006 of taxable income. It then asserted that credits wiped out the tax, but no nonrefundable credit applies to this childless filer, so the 10% tax should have stood."
-us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the $8,389 ESI premiums as a reduction to stated gross wages, which dropped AGI to $14,617. It also assumed the TCJA sunset (about $13,500 of standard deduction plus exemption), although OBBBA made the $16,100 standard deduction permanent and kept the exemption at zero."
-us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the ESI premiums from gross wages, giving AGI of $14,617 instead of $23,006. It also applied TCJA-sunset parameters ($8,300 standard deduction plus a $5,200 exemption) instead of the 2026 OBBBA $16,100 standard deduction with no exemption."
-us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It claimed the standard deduction and capital-loss limit wipe out all tax. In fact, AGI of $23,006 is well above the $16,100 standard deduction, which leaves $6,906 of taxable income and $690.62 of tax at 10%."
-us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got AGI right at $23,006, but its $965.60 implies $9,656 of taxable income, so it subtracted only about $13,350. That deduction level matches the TCJA-sunset standard deduction plus exemption, not OBBBA's $16,100 standard deduction."
-us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $8,389 ESI premiums from wages that were stated as gross, which pushed AGI down to $14,617. It then applied a TCJA-sunset standard deduction plus personal exemption instead of the 2026 $16,100 standard deduction, and it submitted $67, which contradicts the $102 in its own explanation."
-us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the original 2025 standard deduction of $15,000 for 2026 instead of the OBBBA-indexed $16,100. As a result, it taxed $8,006 instead of $6,906."
-us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It estimated the 2026 single standard deduction at $15,450 instead of the enacted OBBBA amount of $16,100. That overstated taxable income by $650, giving $7,556 instead of $6,906."
-us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It claimed $26,006 in wages falls below the standard deduction. The 2026 single standard deduction is $16,100, so after the $3,000 capital-loss deduction, $6,906 remains taxable at 10%."
-us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said wage income is low relative to the standard deduction and set the tax to $0. In fact, AGI of $23,006 minus the $16,100 standard deduction leaves $6,906 of taxable income and $690.62 of tax, with no offsetting nonrefundable credits."
-us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an $8,150 standard deduction with no exemption instead of OBBBA's $16,100, which inflated taxable income to $14,856. It also pushed part of that income into the 12%/15% range instead of keeping all $6,906 in the 10% bracket."
-us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It asserted that taxable income is zero or negative. AGI of $23,006 minus the $16,100 standard deduction leaves $6,906 of positive taxable income, which is taxed at 10%."
-us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset parameters ($8,300 standard deduction plus a $5,300 personal exemption) for 2026. OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent with a $16,100 single standard deduction and a zero exemption, so it overstated taxable income by $2,500 ($9,406 instead of $6,906)."
-us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA sunset and used an $8,300 standard deduction plus a $5,300 exemption, giving $9,406 of taxable income. Under OBBBA, the 2026 single standard deduction is $16,100 with no exemption, so taxable income is $6,906."
-us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used post-TCJA-expiration rules ($8,300 standard deduction plus a $5,300 exemption) instead of OBBBA's permanent $16,100 standard deduction with no exemption. That produced $9,406 of taxable income instead of $6,906."
-us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $8,389 ESI premiums from wages that were stated as gross, giving AGI of $14,617 instead of $23,006. It then applied an $8,300 sunset-era standard deduction instead of the 2026 OBBBA amount of $16,100."
-us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no value and no explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was no answer to score."
-us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the full $7,968 of capital losses from wages, ignoring the $3,000 annual limit on deducting net capital losses against ordinary income. It then used $15,750 instead of the $16,100 standard deduction and cut the tax to $0 with nonexistent personal exemption credits."
-us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 OBBBA single standard deduction of $15,750 instead of the inflation-indexed 2026 amount of $16,100. That overstated taxable income by $350, giving $7,256 instead of $6,906."
-us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It asserted that no regular tax remains after the standard deduction and the $3,000 capital-loss deduction. In fact, $23,006 minus $16,100 leaves $6,906 taxable at 10%, and no nonrefundable credits apply."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Got to $139,270 but skipped the $1,000 Idaho dependent-care subtraction. It then applied 5.3% to all of it instead of only to income above the $9,622 head-of-household zero-rate amount. It also subtracted a $410 child credit, padded the result to $7,099 with no basis, and left out the $10 permanent building fund tax."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Took the $1,000 dependent-care subtraction but missed the $800 QBI deduction on rental income, giving $139,070 instead of $138,270. It applied 5.3% to the whole amount with no $9,622 zero-rate amount, subtracted $410 of child credits, and left out the $10 permanent building fund tax."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Counted nontaxable child support as income and took ESI premiums out of wages that were already reported gross. It used a $15,000 single deduction instead of the $24,150 head-of-household deduction, added an invented $9,380 adjustment, and used graduated brackets instead of Idaho's 5.3% rate above $9,622."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Gave a rough 5.3% guess with no derivation. The correct calculation is 5.3% × ($138,270 − $9,622) plus the $10 building fund tax, which is $6,828.34. The $5,800 answer matches over-subtracting credits that don't apply, on top of a loose approximation."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Used the repealed 5.695% rate instead of 5.3% and an outdated $23,625 head-of-household deduction. It skipped the $1,000 dependent-care and $800 QBI subtractions, used a single-filer $4,673 threshold, then raised its own figure to $8,204 with no basis."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Used the repealed 5.695% rate, a $22,500 head-of-household deduction instead of $24,150, and a $3,420 threshold instead of $9,622. It skipped the childcare and QBI subtractions, computed $7,876, then reported $9,112 with no basis."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Used a $24,500 deduction, skipped the $1,000 dependent-care and $800 QBI subtractions, and applied 5.3% to all taxable income with no $9,622 zero-rate amount. It then reported $7,480, which is higher than its own pre-credit figure of $7,405."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Started from $140,070, missing the $1,000 dependent-care and $800 QBI subtractions, and used the old $9,346 zero-rate amount instead of the 2026 head-of-household figure of $9,622. It also subtracted a $410 child credit and left out the $10 permanent building fund tax."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Filed as single with a $15,000 deduction instead of head of household at $24,150, and added personal exemptions of about $4,714 each, which Idaho no longer has. It used the repealed 5.695% rate with no $9,622 zero-rate amount and subtracted an invented Idaho child-care credit instead of the $1,000 dependent-care subtraction."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Used a $16,000 deduction instead of the $24,150 head-of-household deduction and the repealed 5.695% rate with no zero-rate amount. It skipped the childcare and QBI subtractions, then raised its own $8,443 figure to $9,400 with no basis."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied 5.3% to all of $140,070, missing the $1,000 dependent-care and $800 QBI subtractions and the $9,622 zero-rate amount. It also subtracted $410 of child credits and left out the $10 permanent building fund tax."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Used a $19,900 deduction instead of $24,150 and the 5.8% rate from 2023 instead of 5.3%. It applied the rate to all taxable income with no $9,622 zero-rate amount and skipped the childcare and QBI subtractions."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Lowered AGI to $157,740 by subtracting $6,480 of ESI premiums from wages that were already reported gross. It used a $23,200 deduction and the outdated 5.8% rate on all taxable income with no $9,622 zero-rate amount, and skipped the childcare and QBI subtractions."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Subtracted ESI premiums from already-gross wages, giving AGI of $157,740. It used a $12,155 head-of-household deduction, about half the correct $24,150, and the repealed 5.695% rate with no zero-rate amount. Its submitted value also doesn't match its own reasoning."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Used a 5.0% rate instead of 5.3% on all of $140,070, with no $9,622 zero-rate amount and without the $1,000 dependent-care and $800 QBI subtractions. It then subtracted a $410 child credit and an invented $40 Idaho CDCC."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Used an unexplained $130,867 taxable income instead of $138,270 and the outdated 5.8% rate with no $9,622 zero-rate amount. It also subtracted a $410 child credit."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Gave no derivation. $8,100 matches applying an outdated 5.7–5.8% rate to roughly $140,000 with no zero-rate amount. The correct calculation is 5.3% on $138,270 above $9,622, plus $10, which is $6,828.34."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied the repealed 5.695% rate to an understated $129,750 of taxable income instead of 5.3% on $138,270 above the $9,622 head-of-household zero-rate amount. It also left out the $10 permanent building fund tax."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Used the outdated 5.8% rate instead of the 5.3% enacted by 2025 HB 40, with no $9,622 zero-rate amount, and subtracted child credits. The correct result is $6,818.34 plus the $10 building fund tax."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Gave no derivation. $7,322 matches applying 5.3% to all of about $138,000 of taxable income with no $9,622 head-of-household zero-rate amount, which overstates tax by about $510."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Gave no derivation. $6,985 matches applying 5.3% to all of about $139,500 and subtracting a $410 child credit, instead of taxing only income above $9,622 and adding the $10 building fund tax."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Gave no derivation. $7,665 matches the repealed 5.695% rate applied to about $134,600 with no zero-rate amount, instead of 5.3% on $138,270 above $9,622."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Wrongly claimed PolicyEngine doesn't model Idaho income tax and answered $0. Idaho taxes $138,270 at 5.3% above $9,622 and adds the $10 permanent building fund tax."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Took the $1,000 childcare subtraction, but used an outdated $21,900 head-of-household deduction, missed the $800 QBI deduction, and applied the repealed 5.695% rate with no $9,622 zero-rate amount. It then subtracted a $410 child credit."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Used a $22,500 deduction instead of $24,150 and skipped the childcare and QBI subtractions. It applied the repealed 5.695% rate to all $141,720 with no $9,622 zero-rate amount."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Took the standard deduction twice: it started from federal taxable income of about $139,795 and subtracted a $23,625 Idaho deduction again, giving $116,170. It also skipped the $9,622 zero-rate amount and subtracted a $410 child credit."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Gave no derivation. $6,494 is $334 below the correct figure, which matches subtracting nonrefundable child credits that the computation doesn't apply and leaving out the $10 building fund tax. The correct calculation is 5.3% × ($138,270 − $9,622) + $10."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Invented itemized medical adjustments and gave a loose $7,450 estimate. That matches applying 5.3% to all of about $140,000 with no $9,622 head-of-household zero-rate amount."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Used a $23,350 deduction instead of $24,150, skipped the $1,000 childcare and $800 QBI subtractions, and applied 5.3% to all of $140,870 with no $9,622 zero-rate amount. It then subtracted two $173 child credits."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Understated taxable income at $132,020 instead of $138,270. It applied 5.3% to the full amount with no $9,622 zero-rate amount, subtracted a $440 child credit, and left out the $10 building fund tax."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Used the single-filer $4,930 zero-rate amount instead of the $9,622 joint/head-of-household amount, on $139,270 of taxable income, missing the $1,000 dependent-care subtraction. It also subtracted $410 of child credits and left out the $10 building fund tax."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied 5.3% to all of $139,270, missing the $1,000 Idaho dependent-care subtraction and the $9,622 head-of-household zero-rate amount. It also left out the $10 permanent building fund tax."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Subtracted $6,480 of ESI premiums from wages that were already reported gross, giving $131,790 instead of $138,270. It used a $9,960 threshold instead of $9,622, subtracted a $410 child credit, and left out the $10 building fund tax."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied 5.3% to all of $139,270, missing the $1,000 dependent-care subtraction and the $9,622 zero-rate amount. It subtracted $410 of child credits and left out the $10 building fund tax."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied 5.3% to all of $139,270 with no $9,622 head-of-household zero-rate amount and without the $1,000 dependent-care subtraction. It then subtracted $410 of child credits and left out the $10 building fund tax."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Got taxable income right at $138,270 but used the single-filer $4,980 zero-rate amount instead of the $9,622 amount for head-of-household filers. It then subtracted $410 of child credits that the computation doesn't apply and left out the $10 permanent building fund tax."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Assumed an arbitrary 4% effective rate instead of computing anything. The correct calculation is 5.3% × ($138,270 − $9,622) + $10, which is $6,828.34."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied the repealed 5.695% rate to all $141,157, with no $9,622 zero-rate amount and an understated deduction. It also wrongly denied Idaho's conformity to the federal QBI deduction and skipped the $1,000 dependent-care subtraction."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Used a $12,450 head-of-household deduction instead of the 2026 figure of $24,150, and skipped the childcare and QBI subtractions. It then applied the repealed 5.695% rate to all $151,770 with no zero-rate amount."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied the repealed 5.695% rate to all of $136,070 instead of 5.3% on $138,270 above the $9,622 zero-rate amount. It also left out the $10 permanent building fund tax."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Subtracted ESI premiums from already-gross wages, giving AGI of $157,740, and used a $12,585 deduction instead of $24,150. It applied the outdated 5.8% rate to all taxable income with no $9,622 zero-rate amount."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied about 5.3% to all of roughly $135,000–$140,000 with no $9,622 head-of-household zero-rate amount. That overstates tax by about $500 and leaves out the $10 building fund tax."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Gave no answer or explanation for this variable, so there was nothing to parse."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Used a $2,500 zero-rate amount instead of the $9,622 head-of-household amount and explicitly rejected the QBI deduction. It also skipped the $1,000 dependent-care subtraction, giving $140,070, then subtracted $410 of child credits and left out the $10 building fund tax."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Used an unexplained AGI of $162,405, a $3,500 head-of-household deduction instead of $24,150, and the repealed 5.695% rate. It then subtracted a nonexistent $1,000-per-child Idaho credit."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied the repealed 5.695% rate to all of $140,595 with an outdated deduction. It skipped the childcare and QBI subtractions and had no $9,622 zero-rate amount."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied the repealed 5.69% rate to all of $140,070 with no $9,622 zero-rate amount and without the childcare and QBI subtractions. It also subtracted $410 of child credits and $465 of grocery credit, but the grocery credit is refundable and doesn't belong in a before-refundable figure."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Used an incorrect 5.305% rate and invented $1,500 per-dependent deductions, which Idaho doesn't have. It skipped the $1,000 dependent-care and $800 QBI subtractions and had no $9,622 zero-rate amount."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Treated a single parent as married filing jointly with a $30,000 deduction and reported $96,448 of taxable income, which doesn't follow from its own $164,220 AGI. It also used the outdated 5.8% rate."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Used Idaho's repealed graduated brackets (1%/3%/5.5%) instead of the flat 5.3% above $9,622. It also subtracted an invented $2,400 Idaho deduction from an understated $121,620 federal taxable income."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Correctly identified the refundable grocery credit and the 3 eligible members, but used the old $120 per-person rate. HB 231 raised it to $155 for 2026, so the answer is 3 × $155 = $465, not $360."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Said Idaho has no refundable state credits, which ignores the refundable grocery credit. That credit has no income test and pays $155 for each of the 3 household members, totaling $465."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Said no Idaho refundable credits applied and missed the grocery credit. It is refundable regardless of income and pays $155 per member for 2026, so 3 members get $465."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Correctly applied a per-person grocery credit to 3 members, but used a made-up $170 rate. The 2026 rate under HB 231 is $155, so the credit is $465, not $510."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Wrongly called the Idaho grocery credit nonrefundable and said it is refundable only in limited low-income cases. It is fully refundable with no income limit, at $155 per member, so 3 members get $465."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Wrongly treated the grocery credit as nonrefundable or unavailable at this income. Idaho's grocery credit is refundable with no income phase-out and pays $155 for each of the 3 members, totaling $465."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Explicitly called the grocery credit nonrefundable, which is wrong; Idaho's grocery credit is refundable. At $155 per member for 2026, the 3-person household gets $465."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Acknowledged that the grocery credit is refundable but then left it out as 'already reflected elsewhere.' It is exactly what state_refundable_credits measures, and with no income test it equals 3 × $155 = $465."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied the grocery credit to 3 people at the old $120 rate. The 2026 rate under HB 231 is $155, so the credit is $465, not $360."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Counted Idaho's $205-per-child child tax credit as refundable, but that credit is nonrefundable. It also left out the actual refundable credit, the grocery credit of $155 for each of 3 members, which totals $465."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Treated Idaho's nonrefundable $205-per-child tax credit as the refundable credit and ignored the grocery credit. The grocery credit is the refundable one and pays $155 for each of the 3 members, totaling $465."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Correctly identified the refundable grocery credit for 3 members but used the outdated $120 rate. The 2026 rate is $155 per person, so the credit is $465, not $360."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used the old $120 per-person grocery credit. HB 231 set it at $155 for 2026, so 3 people get $465, not $360."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,Correctly applied the refundable grocery credit to 3 members but used the old $120 rate. At the current $155 rate the credit is $465.
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Assumed income makes the household ineligible for Idaho refundable credits. The grocery credit has no income limit and pays $155 for each of the 3 members, totaling $465."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Said no Idaho refundable credits apply at this income and missed the grocery credit. It is refundable with no income phase-out, at $155 per member, so 3 members get $465."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used the outdated $100 per-person grocery credit. The 2026 amount is $155 per member, so 3 members get $465, not $300."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Reported $0 and left out Idaho's refundable grocery credit. That credit pays every resident household member $155 regardless of income, totaling $465 here."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Concluded the household gets no Idaho refundable credits, missing the grocery credit. It has no income test and gives each of the 3 members $155, totaling $465."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Correctly identified the grocery credit for 3 members but used the outdated $120 rate. The 2026 rate is $155, so the total is $465, not $360."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Wrongly claimed PolicyEngine models no Idaho refundable credits. PolicyEngine includes the refundable grocery credit (id_refundable_credits) at $155 per member, which gives $465 for this household."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Correctly applied the grocery credit to 3 members at the old $120 rate. The 2026 rate is $155 per person, so the credit is $465, not $360."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used the pre-2023 $100 per-person grocery credit. The 2026 amount is $155 per member, so 3 members get $465, not $300."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Correctly identified the refundable grocery credit but used the outdated $100 rate. At $155 per member, 3 members get $465."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Found no Idaho refundable credit because it did not apply the grocery credit. Every resident member qualifies for it automatically, at $155 each, totaling $465."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Assumed an income threshold rules out Idaho refundable credits, but the grocery credit has no income phase-out. It pays $155 for each of the 3 members, totaling $465."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Correctly applied the refundable grocery credit to 3 non-senior members but used the old $120 rate. HB 231 set the 2026 rate at $155, so the total is $465, not $360."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Said no Idaho refundable credit applies and left out the grocery credit. It is refundable regardless of income and pays $155 for each of the 3 members, totaling $465."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Correctly applied the grocery credit to 3 members at the old $120 rate. The 2026 rate is $155, so the credit is $465, not $360."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Reported no state refundable credits and missed Idaho's refundable grocery credit. It pays $155 for each of the 3 household members, totaling $465."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied the grocery credit at the outdated $100 per-person rate. The 2026 rate is $155, so the head and two dependents get $465, not $300."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Wrongly took $100 per resident as the permanent 2026 rate. Idaho raised the grocery credit to $120 and then to $155 under HB 231, so 3 members get $465."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Correctly identified the grocery credit as the only refundable credit but used the old $120 rate. At $155 per member, 3 members get $465, not $360."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Wrongly claimed the grocery credit phases out at this income. Idaho's grocery credit has no income phase-out and pays $155 for each of the 3 members, totaling $465."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Correctly treated the grocery credit as refundable but used the outdated $100 per-person amount. The 2026 amount is $155, so 3 people get $465."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,Gave no parseable value or explanation for state_refundable_credits. The correct answer is Idaho's refundable grocery credit of 3 × $155 = $465.
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Correctly applied the grocery credit to the head and two non-senior children but used the old $120 rate. The 2026 rate is $155, so the total is $465, not $360."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Called the grocery credit minimal at this income and not triggered, but the credit has no income test and applies to every resident member. That gives 3 × $155 = $465."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Correctly identified the refundable grocery credit for 3 members but used the outdated $120 rate. At $155 per member the total is $465, not $360."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Wrongly assumed Idaho's credits are used only against tax liability. The grocery credit is refundable and pays $155 for each of the 3 members regardless of income, totaling $465."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Correctly applied the grocery credit to 3 non-senior members but used the outdated $100 base. The 2026 base is $155 per person, so the total is $465, not $300."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Looked only for an earned-income-type refundable credit and missed Idaho's grocery credit. That credit is refundable, has no income limit, and pays $155 for each of the 3 members, totaling $465."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Said no Idaho refundable credits apply and missed the grocery credit. Every resident member qualifies for it at $155, so the 3-person household gets $465."
+us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"It worked out AGI $23,006, the $16,100 standard deduction, $6,906 of taxable income and $691 of tax, then submitted 951. That number has no basis in its own reasoning."
+us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $8,389 ESI premiums from the reported wages and used the outdated 2024 standard deduction of $14,600 instead of the 2026 figure of $16,100. Its own figure was $1.70, but it submitted an unexplained $1,402. The correct path is $23,006 AGI minus $16,100, giving $6,906 × 10% = $690.62."
+us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"It left out the $3,000 capital loss deduction and estimated about $1,000 of tax, then submitted 0 even though no nonrefundable credit applies. With the capital loss, taxable income is $6,906 and the 10% tax is $690.62."
+us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly found AGI $23,006, the $16,100 standard deduction and about $691 of tax, then submitted 1,080 based on a made-up 'inflation-adjusted' change that its own steps contradict."
+us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It projected the 2026 single standard deduction as $15,350 by inflating the pre-OBBBA 2025 figure of $15,000. The actual 2026 amount is $16,100, so it overstated taxable income at $7,656 instead of $6,906."
+us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly worked out about $691 of tax on $6,906 of taxable income, then cut it to 0 by citing CDCC, QBI and other offsets that don't apply to a childless wage earner with no business income."
+us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,400 single standard deduction instead of the 2026 amount of $16,100, which gave $7,606 of taxable income instead of $6,906 and tax of $760.60 instead of $690.62."
+us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the pre-OBBBA 2025 standard deduction of $15,000 instead of the 2026 amount of $16,100, which overstated taxable income at $8,006 instead of $6,906."
+us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed a 2026 single standard deduction of $15,350 instead of the OBBBA-indexed $16,100, which gave $7,656 of taxable income and $765.60 of tax instead of $690.62."
+us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It wrongly subtracted the $8,389 ESI premiums from the reported wages. It also applied TCJA-sunset rules, an $8,300 standard deduction plus a $5,300 personal exemption, instead of the 2026 standard deduction of $16,100 with no exemption. The correct path is $23,006 minus $16,100, giving $6,906 × 10%."
+us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,other,False,"It reached $8,006 of positive taxable income and then said the standard deduction and credits fully offset it, which is not true. No nonrefundable credit applies, and the correct $16,100 deduction leaves $6,906 taxed at 10%."
+us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the $8,389 ESI premiums as a further reduction of the reported wages and assumed the TCJA sunset, using about $13,500 of standard deduction plus personal exemption. The correct figures are AGI $23,006 and the $16,100 2026 standard deduction."
+us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It cut AGI to $14,617 by subtracting the $8,389 ESI premiums from wages. It also applied a sunset-era $8,300 standard deduction plus a $5,200 exemption instead of the 2026 standard deduction of $16,100 against $23,006 of AGI."
+us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the standard deduction and capital loss limit wipe out all taxable income. In fact $23,006 of AGI minus the $16,100 standard deduction leaves $6,906 taxed at 10%, which is $690.62."
+us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got AGI right at $23,006, but $965.60 implies taxable income of $9,656, meaning it used only $13,350 of deductions instead of the 2026 single standard deduction of $16,100."
+us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $8,389 ESI premiums from wages to get AGI of $14,617 and applied sunset-era deductions plus a personal exemption. It then submitted 67, which contradicts its own stated $102. The correct path is $23,006 minus the $16,100 standard deduction, taxed at 10%."
+us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 pre-OBBBA standard deduction of $15,000 instead of the 2026 amount of $16,100, which overstated taxable income at $8,006 instead of $6,906."
+us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It estimated the 2026 single standard deduction at about $15,450 instead of $16,100, which gave $7,556 of taxable income instead of $6,906."
+us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It wrongly said the $26,006 of wages falls below the standard deduction. In fact $23,006 of AGI exceeds the $16,100 standard deduction by $6,906, which is taxed at 10%."
+us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the wages fall below the standard deduction and returned 0. AGI of $23,006 minus the $16,100 standard deduction leaves $6,906 of taxable income, which is $690.62 at 10%."
+us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a TCJA-sunset standard deduction of $8,150 with no exemption and sunset-era 10% and 15% brackets instead of the 2026 $16,100 standard deduction. That overstated taxable income at $14,856 instead of $6,906."
+us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed taxable income is zero or negative. In fact $23,006 of AGI (after the $3,000 capital loss cap) minus the $16,100 standard deduction leaves $6,906 of positive taxable income."
+us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset rules, an $8,300 standard deduction plus a $5,300 personal exemption, instead of the 2026 single standard deduction of $16,100 with no exemption. That gave $9,406 of taxable income instead of $6,906."
+us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA sunset and used $8,300 plus a $5,300 exemption ($13,600 in total) instead of the 2026 $16,100 standard deduction. That overstated taxable income by $2,500 and tax by $250."
+us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used post-TCJA-expiration rules, an $8,300 standard deduction plus a $5,300 personal exemption, instead of the 2026 single standard deduction of $16,100. That gave $9,406 of taxable income instead of $6,906."
+us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $8,389 ESI premiums from the reported wages, cutting AGI to $14,617. It then used a sunset-era $8,300 standard deduction instead of applying the $16,100 2026 deduction to $23,006 of AGI."
+us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value or explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there is no answer to score."
+us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the full $7,968 capital loss from wages, ignoring the $3,000 annual limit, and used the 2025 $15,750 standard deduction. It then cut the tax to 0 using 'personal exemption credits', which don't exist. AGI is $23,006 and the 2026 standard deduction is $16,100."
+us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 OBBBA standard deduction of $15,750 instead of the inflation-indexed 2026 amount of $16,100, which gave $7,256 of taxable income instead of $6,906."
+us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the 2025 single standard deduction of $15,750 instead of the 2026 amount of $16,100, which overstated taxable income by $350 and tax by $35."
+us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It said no regular tax remains after the standard deduction and capital loss. In fact $23,006 of AGI minus the $16,100 standard deduction leaves $6,906 taxed at 10%, and no nonrefundable credit offsets it."
us,scenario_077,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,other,False,"The model correctly determined that the greater-of-earned-income-or-AGI rule uses $26,006 and fully phases out the childless EITC, then submitted $56 despite its own zero-credit computation. No other refundable credit supplies the submitted amount."
us,scenario_077,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model incorrectly left $9 of childless EITC after acknowledging $26,006 of wages. EITC phaseout uses the greater of earned income or AGI, so the capital-loss deduction does not prevent the credit from being fully phased out."
us,scenario_077,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model reduced $26,006 of wages by the $8,389 employer-sponsored insurance premium and treated $17,617 as EITC earned income. Employer premiums do not reduce EITC earned income here, so the phaseout must use $26,006 and eliminates the childless credit."
@@ -6392,107 +6600,111 @@ us,scenario_077,snap,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,Fals
us,scenario_077,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,other,False,"The model’s explanation correctly states that the one-person household exceeds the SNAP net-income limit and explicitly concludes “value = 0,” but it submitted 276. The numeric output contradicts its own eligibility conclusion and should have been 0."
us,scenario_077,snap,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model labeled the household low-income without applying the one-person SNAP net-income and benefit calculations to its $26,006 of wages. After the allowable earned-income and standard deductions, the household does not generate an eligible allotment, so the asserted $2,400 benefit has no valid computation."
us,scenario_077,snap,grok-4.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,The model incorrectly awarded the $23 minimum allotment after determining that the regular formula produced zero. Broad-based categorical eligibility does not entitle a household failing the applicable net-income or benefit test to the minimum allotment; the minimum applies only to an otherwise eligible one- or two-person household.
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model computed $315.18 using the $12,500 deduction, then raised it to $496 based on an unspecified 'deduction structure' adjustment. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the $12,500 deduction and flat 3% rate to obtain $315.18. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model claimed Louisiana has no state individual income tax, although Louisiana levies a flat 3% tax. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model asserted that a large personal exemption plus the standard deduction wipes out the taxable base. For this household, the frozen computation applies no separate exemption and leaves $10,171.18 taxable at 3%. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied the flat 3% rate to AGI minus the $12,500 deduction and submitted $315. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted $12,500 from $23,006 and submitted $315. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model reached about $315 using the $12,500 deduction, then raised it to $446, citing capital-loss treatment. The $3,000 capital-loss cap is already reflected in its $23,006 AGI. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the $12,500 deduction and submitted $315.18. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted a $4,500 personal exemption and an $801 federal-income-tax deduction from $23,006 AGI, leaving $17,705 taxable at 3% and about $531 of tax. Louisiana ended the federal income tax deduction after 2021; the 2025 reform replaced the personal exemption with a standard deduction. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model computed about $315 using the $12,500 deduction, then added unspecified 'federal-based adjustments' to reach $448. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the $12,500 deduction and submitted $315.18. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"A taxable base of $7,606 means the model subtracted $15,400 from its $23,006 AGI, calling it the standard deduction without stating the amount. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the $12,500 deduction and submitted $315.18. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used a federal-income-tax deduction that Louisiana ended after 2021, a $4,500 deduction plus a $1,000 exemption, and graduated 1.85%/3.5% brackets. Louisiana has applied a flat 3% rate since 2025. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $12,500 deduction and submitted $315.18. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $8,389 ESI premiums from wages, giving $14,617 AGI rather than the reference's $23,006.18, then used a repealed $4,500 exemption and 1.85% bracket. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model gave no derivation for $158, which is below the frozen reference and consistent with outdated rates or excess deductions. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used $14,617 AGI after subtracting ESI premiums, then stacked a $4,500 standard deduction and $4,500 personal exemption and applied the repealed 1.85% bracket. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used $14,617 AGI after subtracting ESI premiums and applied a repealed $4,500 exemption and 1.85% rate. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model claimed deductions and exemptions eliminate the tax. The frozen computation leaves $10,171.18 taxable at 3%. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The $315.18 answer reflects $23,006 AGI minus the $12,500 deduction at 3%. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model submitted $152 while its explanation stated $130, with no derivation for either figure. Both are below the frozen reference. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model wrongly asserted that PolicyEngine does not model Louisiana income tax. PolicyEngine computes the flat 3% tax on AGI minus the $12,835 standard deduction, which is $305.14."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the $12,500 deduction and submitted $315.18. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied the repealed 1.85% rate to AGI minus the $12,500 deduction. Louisiana has applied a flat 3% rate since 2025. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model claimed taxable income falls below the lowest-bracket threshold. Louisiana has a flat 3% rate with no zero bracket, and the frozen computation leaves $10,171.18 taxable. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model assumed low wage income produces zero tax without computing it. AGI of $23,006.18 less the $12,835 standard deduction leaves $10,171.18 taxed at 3%, which is $305.14."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the $12,500 deduction and submitted $315.18. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied the $12,500 deduction and submitted $315.18. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted $12,500 and submitted $315.18. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model stacked a $4,500 personal exemption on top of a $12,500 deduction. The 2025 reform folded the exemption into a standard deduction; the frozen computation leaves $10,171.18 taxable at 3%. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model correctly recognized that the deduction is inflation-indexed but used $12,875 instead of PolicyEngine's 2026 value of $12,835. The $12,875 is the Department's provisional withholding and estimated-tax amount; its $40 difference from the frozen deduction explains $1.20 of the $1.21 tax gap, while the prompt's omitted $0.18 of wages and cent rounding explain the remainder. This output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the $12,500 deduction and submitted $315.18. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied the $12,500 deduction and submitted $315.18. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the $12,500 deduction and submitted $315.18. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model claimed taxable income is zero or negative. AGI of $23,006.18 exceeds the $12,835 standard deduction, leaving $10,171.18 taxed at 3% for $305.14."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the repealed $4,500 exemption and 1.85%/3.5% graduated brackets. Louisiana's 2025 reform replaced these with a flat 3% rate and a standard deduction. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the $12,500 deduction and submitted $315. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model got the flat 3% rate and federal-tax-deduction repeal right but used the $12,500 deduction and submitted $315.18. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted ESI premiums to obtain $14,617 AGI, then applied a repealed $4,500 deduction and 1.85% bracket. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the $12,500 deduction and submitted $315. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no value or explanation for this output, so no answer could be parsed. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied the $12,500 deduction and submitted $315.18. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model falsely stated that Louisiana has no state income tax; Louisiana imposes a flat 3% tax. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $12,500 deduction and submitted $315.18. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $16,100 federal standard deduction plus a repealed $4,500 personal exemption. The frozen Louisiana computation applies its own standard deduction and no separate exemption. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model netted the full $7,968 capital loss against wages instead of applying the $3,000 cap, giving $18,038 AGI, then applied a repealed $4,500 exemption and 1.85%/3.5% brackets. Louisiana has applied a flat 3% rate since 2025. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model gave no derivation; $347.24 at 3% implies about $11,575 taxable income and a deduction of roughly $11,431 from $23,006 AGI. The frozen reference uses a $12,835 deduction and gives $305.14; this output is excluded from scoring under d994."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model correctly reached 3% × ($23,006 − $12,500) = $315.18, then raised it to $496 with no stated basis. It also used the un-indexed $12,500 deduction instead of the 2026 inflation-adjusted $12,835, which gives $305.14."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the base-year $12,500 standard deduction. Louisiana indexes the deduction for inflation starting in 2026, making it $12,835, so tax is 3% × $10,171.18 = $305.14, not $315.18."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model claimed Louisiana has no state individual income tax. Louisiana levies a flat 3% tax on AGI above the $12,835 standard deduction, which gives $305.14 here."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model asserted that a large exemption plus the standard deduction wipes out the taxable base. Louisiana's only deduction is the single $12,835 standard deduction (the personal exemption was folded into it), which leaves $10,171.18 taxable at 3% = $305.14."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied the flat 3% rate correctly but subtracted the base-year $12,500 standard deduction. It should have used the 2026 inflation-indexed $12,835, giving $305.14 rather than $315."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used $12,500 as the single deduction and never applied Louisiana's 2026 inflation indexing, which raises it to $12,835. 3% of $10,171.18 is $305.14, not $315."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model computed roughly $315 using the un-indexed $12,500 deduction, then raised it to $446 citing capital-loss treatment and rounding that have no basis. The capital loss is already capped at $3,000 in AGI. With the 2026 indexed deduction of $12,835, the tax is $305.14."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the $12,500 standard deduction instead of the 2026 inflation-adjusted $12,835, which overstates taxable income by $335 and tax by about $10 ($315.18 instead of $305.14)."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used repealed pre-reform deductions: a $4,500 personal exemption and a deduction for federal income tax paid. Under the 2025 reform the single $12,835 standard deduction replaces both, so taxable income is $10,171.18, not $17,705, and tax is $305.14."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model reached about $315 using the un-indexed $12,500 deduction, then raised it to $448 by citing federal-based adjustments and personal exemption credits that no longer exist under Louisiana's flat tax. The correct result is 3% × ($23,006.18 − $12,835) = $305.14."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model assumed a $12,500 standard deduction and missed the 2026 inflation adjustment to $12,835, giving $315.18 instead of $305.14."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's taxable base of $7,606 implies it subtracted $15,400 from AGI, which is not Louisiana's single standard deduction. The correct 2026 deduction is $12,835, leaving $10,171.18 taxed at 3% = $305.14."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the base-year $12,500 standard deduction instead of the 2026 inflation-indexed $12,835, so it got $315.18 instead of $305.14."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used repealed pre-2025 Louisiana law: a deduction for federal income tax, a $4,500 deduction, a $1,000 exemption, and graduated 1.85%/3.5% brackets. Current law applies a flat 3% to AGI minus the $12,835 standard deduction, giving $305.14."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the un-indexed $12,500 deduction. For 2026 the inflation-adjusted amount is $12,835, so the tax is $305.14, not $315.18."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $8,389 employer health premiums from listed gross wages, getting a $14,617 AGI instead of $23,006.18. It then used the repealed $4,500 exemption and the old 1.85% bottom bracket instead of the flat 3% rate on AGI above $12,835."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model gave no computation. Its $158 implies only about $5,267 taxable at 3%, far below the correct $23,006.18 − $12,835 = $10,171.18, which yields $305.14."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model deducted employer health premiums from listed wages (AGI $14,617 instead of $23,006.18). It also stacked a repealed $4,500 personal exemption on a $4,500 standard deduction and applied the old 1.85% bracket instead of the flat 3% rate on AGI above $12,835."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model cut AGI to $14,617 by subtracting the $8,389 employer health premiums from listed gross wages. It then applied the pre-reform $4,500 exemption and 1.85% bracket rather than the flat 3% on AGI ($23,006.18) above the $12,835 standard deduction."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model claimed deductions and exemptions eliminate tax. Louisiana's only deduction is the $12,835 single standard deduction, which leaves $10,171.18 taxable at 3% = $305.14."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's $315.18 equals 3% × ($23,006 − $12,500), so it used the un-indexed deduction instead of the 2026 inflation-adjusted $12,835, which gives $305.14."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model cited a standard deduction plus a personal exemption and gave inconsistent figures ($130 in its explanation, $152 submitted). Both imply oversized deductions; the personal exemption is repealed and the single $12,835 deduction leaves $10,171.18 taxable at 3% = $305.14."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model wrongly asserted that PolicyEngine does not model Louisiana income tax. Louisiana's flat 3% tax on AGI above the $12,835 standard deduction yields $305.14."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied the base-year $12,500 single standard deduction and did not index it to the 2026 amount of $12,835. That produced $315.18 instead of $305.14."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model correctly built AGI of $23,006 with the $3,000 loss cap but used the un-indexed $12,500 deduction. The 2026 inflation-adjusted $12,835 gives $305.14, not $315.18."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied the repealed 1.85% bottom-bracket rate instead of Louisiana's flat 3% rate. It also used the un-indexed $12,500 deduction instead of $12,835; the correct tax is 3% × $10,171.18 = $305.14."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model claimed taxable income falls below a lowest-bracket threshold. Louisiana has no zero bracket beyond the $12,835 standard deduction, so $10,171.18 is taxable at 3% = $305.14."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model assumed low wage income produces zero tax without computing anything. AGI of $23,006.18 exceeds the $12,835 standard deduction by $10,171.18, which is taxed at 3% = $305.14."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used a $12,500 single standard deduction. Louisiana indexes it for inflation starting in 2026, to $12,835, so the tax is $305.14 rather than $315.18."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the un-indexed $12,500 deduction instead of the 2026 inflation-adjusted $12,835, which overstates the tax at $315.18 versus $305.14."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the base-year $12,500 Louisiana standard deduction rather than the 2026 indexed $12,835, giving 3% × $10,506 instead of 3% × $10,171.18 = $305.14."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model stacked a $4,500 personal exemption on top of the standard deduction. The 2025 reform repealed that exemption and folded it into the single standard deduction, which is $12,835 for 2026, so taxable income is $10,171.18 and tax is $305.14."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model correctly recognized that the deduction is inflation-indexed for 2026 but used $12,875 instead of $12,835. That understated taxable income by $40 and gave $303.93 instead of $305.14."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the $12,500 standard deduction without the 2026 inflation adjustment to $12,835, producing $315.18 instead of $305.14."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted $12,500 rather than the 2026 inflation-indexed single deduction of $12,835, so it overstated tax at $315.18 versus $305.14."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied the un-indexed $12,500 standard deduction. The 2026 amount is $12,835, which leaves $10,171.18 taxable at 3% = $305.14."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model claimed taxable income is zero or negative after deductions. AGI of $23,006.18 minus the $12,835 standard deduction leaves $10,171.18, taxed at 3% = $305.14."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used pre-reform law: a $4,500 exemption with graduated 1.85%/3.5% brackets. Louisiana now applies a flat 3% to AGI minus the $12,835 standard deduction, giving $305.14."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the base-year $12,500 standard deduction instead of the 2026 inflation-adjusted $12,835, yielding $315 instead of $305.14."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model correctly noted the flat 3% rate and the repeal of the federal-tax deduction, but subtracted the un-indexed $12,500 instead of the 2026 indexed $12,835. That gave $315.18 instead of $305.14."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted employer health premiums from listed gross wages, getting a $14,617 AGI instead of $23,006.18. It then used the old $4,500 deduction and 1.85% bracket instead of the flat 3% on AGI above $12,835."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used a $12,500 single standard deduction and missed the 2026 inflation indexing to $12,835. That gave $315 instead of $305.14."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no value or explanation for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so nothing could be scored against the $305.14 reference."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the un-indexed $12,500 deduction rather than the 2026 inflation-adjusted $12,835, overstating tax at $315.18 versus $305.14."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model claimed Louisiana has no state income tax. Louisiana levies a flat 3% individual income tax on AGI above the $12,835 standard deduction, which gives $305.14 here."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used $12,500 as the standard deduction instead of the 2026 indexed $12,835, computing 3% × $10,506 = $315.18 rather than 3% × $10,171.18 = $305.14."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied the base-year $12,500 single standard deduction without the 2026 inflation adjustment to $12,835, so its $315.18 exceeds the correct $305.14."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the federal $16,100 standard deduction plus a repealed $4,500 Louisiana exemption. Louisiana uses its own single standard deduction of $12,835, so taxable income is $10,171.18, not $2,406, and tax is $305.14."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model skipped the $3,000 capital-loss limit, getting a $18,038 AGI instead of $23,006.18. It then applied the pre-reform $4,500 exemption and graduated 1.85%/3.5% brackets instead of the flat 3% on AGI above the $12,835 standard deduction."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's $347.24 implies about $11,575 of taxable income at 3%, which means it deducted only about $11,431 from AGI. The 2026 Louisiana standard deduction is $12,835, leaving $10,171.18 taxable and $305.14 of tax."
us,scenario_077,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied Louisiana’s former 5% refundable EITC in tax year 2026. That state credit is unavailable for 2026, so multiplying an estimated federal EITC by 5% incorrectly produced $10.53 instead of zero."
us,scenario_077,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied Louisiana’s former refundable EITC rate of 5% to a purported $108 federal EITC. Louisiana provides no refundable EITC for tax year 2026, so the state refundable credit is zero."
us,scenario_077,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model incorrectly carried Louisiana’s former 5% refundable EITC into 2026 and also assigned a $625 federal EITC to a childless filer with $26,006 of earnings, above the childless-credit phaseout range. The unavailable state credit cannot produce the claimed $31.25."
us,scenario_077,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model supplied no state_refundable_credits value or explanation, violating the required structured-output contract."
us,scenario_077,tanf,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted only the $26,460 real estate tax as SALT and left out Maryland state and county income taxes, which push SALT to the $40,400 cap. That produced a $145,467 taxable income instead of $131,526.91. It then mis-added its own bracket sum ($27,510) and reported $33,499."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added Maryland state income tax (~$6,905) to SALT but left out Maryland county (local) income tax. That put SALT at $33,365, below the cap, when the full amount exceeds $40,400 and is capped there. As a result, itemized deductions came out at $61,575 instead of $68,610."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted $2,606 of unreimbursed employee business expenses above the line, which is not allowed. It also limited SALT to the real estate tax, leaving out Maryland state and local income taxes that bring SALT to the $40,400 cap. Its final $25,779 does not even match the tax on its own $142,861 taxable income."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It never calculated the tax and submitted 0 as a placeholder. The correct calculation (taxable income $131,526.91 after $68,610 of itemized deductions) gives $24,164.46."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the old $10,000 TCJA SALT cap instead of the 2026 OBBBA cap of $40,400. That understated itemized deductions by $30,400 (to $38,210) and taxed $161,927 instead of $131,526.91."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It capped SALT at the obsolete $10,000 instead of $40,400, which led it to $31,424. It then dropped even that figure for an unsupported $36,757, which is close to the tax under the standard deduction rather than under the correct $68,610 of itemized deductions."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the $10,000 SALT cap instead of the 2026 cap of $40,400, which gave $38,210 of itemized deductions instead of $68,610 and $161,927 of taxable income instead of $131,526.91."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted Maryland state income tax ($6,936) in SALT but left out Maryland county local income tax. With that included, SALT exceeds the $40,400 cap, so the deduction is $40,400, not $33,396, and taxable income is $131,526.91, not $138,531."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It capped SALT at $10,000 instead of the 2026 OBBBA limit of $40,400. It also used invented brackets instead of the published 2026 single brackets (12,400/50,400/105,700), and it taxed $161,927 instead of $131,526.91."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the $10,000 SALT cap instead of $40,400 and left the $1,632 refund out of income. It then raised its own $31,069 figure to $42,800 by adding Medicare surtax effects, which do not belong in income tax before refundable credits."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It included only about $7,000 of Maryland state income tax in SALT and left out county local income tax. The full SALT amount exceeds the $40,400 cap, so itemized deductions are $68,610, not about $61,700."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It capped SALT at the old $10,000 instead of the 2026 cap of $40,400. That gave $38,210 of itemized deductions and $161,927 of taxable income instead of $68,610 and $131,526.91."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed TCJA had expired for 2026, adding a $5,063 personal exemption and using pre-TCJA 10/15/25/28% brackets. In fact OBBBA made the TCJA rates permanent, eliminated the exemption, and capped SALT at $40,400, so its uncapped $36,170 of SALT is also wrong."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $5,300 personal exemption and pre-TCJA brackets, which OBBBA permanently replaced. It also counted only Maryland state income tax in SALT and left out county tax. The correct calculation caps SALT at $40,400 and applies the 10/12/22/24% brackets."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its itemized deductions included only mortgage interest and real estate tax and left out Maryland state and county income taxes, which raise SALT to the $40,400 cap. As a result it taxed $145,467 instead of $131,526.91."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated 2026 as a TCJA-sunset year, with uncapped SALT, a $5,150 personal exemption, and 10/15/25/28% brackets, even though OBBBA made the TCJA rates permanent and capped SALT at $40,400. It also left the $1,632 taxable refund out of income."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took a $15,000 standard deduction instead of itemizing, even though $40,400 of capped SALT plus $28,210 of mortgage interest ($68,610) far exceeds the $16,100 standard deduction. It also left out the $1,632 taxable refund."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed TCJA had expired, bringing back personal exemptions and uncapped SALT and triggering AMT. Under OBBBA, SALT is capped at $40,400 and the AMT exemption is $90,100. The resulting tentative minimum tax (~$21,275) is below the regular tax, so no AMT applies."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset law, with a $5,150 personal exemption and pre-2018 brackets, instead of the permanent OBBBA 10/12/22/24% schedule. It also counted only about $6,886 of state income tax in SALT and left out Maryland county tax, which brings SALT to the $40,400 cap."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the standard deduction instead of itemizing $68,610 ($40,400 of capped SALT plus $28,210 of mortgage interest). It also left out the $1,632 taxable refund, so taxable income was far too high."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed TCJA had sunset, adding a $5,050 personal exemption, treating SALT as uncapped, and using pre-TCJA brackets. OBBBA kept the 10/12/22/24% structure, eliminated the exemption, and caps SALT at $40,400."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $31,316 is consistent with about $38,210 of itemized deductions, which reflects the obsolete $10,000 SALT cap. The correct itemized total is $68,610 ($40,400 of SALT plus $28,210 of interest), giving taxable income of $131,526.91 and tax of $24,164.46."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied 'TCJA expiration rules', meaning pre-2018 brackets and personal exemptions, even though OBBBA made the TCJA rates permanent. The correct calculation uses the 10/12/22/24% brackets on $131,526.91 after a $40,400 SALT deduction."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took a $15,000 standard deduction instead of itemizing $68,610. It also subtracted a made-up $12,000 child and dependent care credit for a single 19-year-old with no children and no care expenses."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It capped SALT at the old $10,000 instead of the 2026 OBBBA cap of $40,400, so it itemized only $38,210 and taxed $161,927 instead of $131,526.91."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the $10,000 SALT cap and mixed up the standard and itemized deductions. Its $42,034 is higher than even the $36,766.86 tax under the standard deduction, which shows a bracket error on top of its failure to deduct $68,610 of itemized deductions."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its itemized deductions included only mortgage interest and real estate tax and left out Maryland state and county income taxes, which bring SALT to the $40,400 cap. Its $28,347 also does not match the bracket tax on its own $145,467 base."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted only the $26,460 real estate tax as SALT and left out Maryland state and local income taxes, which push SALT to the $40,400 cap, so it taxed $145,467 instead of $131,526.91. It also miscalculated the bracket tax on its own base."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $25,947.40 corresponds to about $61,200 of itemized deductions. That means it added only Maryland state income tax to the real estate tax and left out county local income tax, which brings SALT to the full $40,400 cap."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized only mortgage interest and real estate tax ($54,670) and left out the Maryland state and county income taxes paid on $198,505 of wages. Those taxes are deductible and raise SALT to the $40,400 cap, for $68,610 in total itemized deductions."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted only $26,460 of real estate tax as SALT and left out Maryland state and county income taxes. With those included, SALT reaches the $40,400 cap and taxable income falls to $131,526.91."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reasoned that 'no other deductible tax payments are reported' and left out Maryland state and county income taxes, which the engine computes and includes in SALT. With them, SALT reaches the $40,400 cap and itemized deductions total $68,610, not $54,670."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It limited SALT to the $26,460 real estate tax and left out Maryland state and local income taxes, which bring SALT to the $40,400 cap. As a result it taxed $145,467 instead of $131,526.91."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added $6,936 of Maryland state income tax to SALT but left out Maryland county local income tax. The combined total exceeds the $40,400 cap, so SALT is $40,400, not $33,396."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It included only Maryland state income tax in SALT and left out county local income tax. With both included, SALT is capped at $40,400 and itemized deductions are $68,610, giving taxable income of $131,526.91."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation. Its $41,500 is higher than even the $36,766.86 tax under the standard deduction, so it reflects neither itemizing the $68,610 nor the 2026 brackets correctly."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied post-TCJA-sunset law, with a $5,427 personal exemption and inflated pre-2018 brackets, instead of the permanent OBBBA schedule. It also left Maryland state and county income taxes out of SALT, which should be capped at $40,400."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It brought back the 10/15/25/28% brackets and a $5,300 personal exemption, both replaced by OBBBA. It also counted only $6,936 of Maryland state tax and left out county income tax, which takes SALT to the $40,400 cap."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It said the SALT cap does not bind, but it counted only the real estate tax and left out Maryland state and county income taxes. With those included, SALT exceeds $40,400 and is capped there. It also used incorrect lower-bracket thresholds."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used pre-TCJA brackets and a $5,434 personal exemption with uncapped SALT. Under OBBBA, the 2026 law keeps the 10/12/22/24% brackets, has no exemption, and caps SALT at $40,400."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It limited SALT to the $26,460 real estate tax and left out Maryland state and county income taxes, which push SALT to the $40,400 cap. As a result it taxed $145,467 instead of $131,526.91."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,It submitted no value for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits.
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly applied the $40,400 cap but counted only the $26,460 real estate tax as SALT. It left out Maryland state and county income taxes, which push SALT up to the cap, and so it understated itemized deductions by $13,940."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reported 0 with no calculation, even though AGI is $200,136.91. After $68,610 of itemized deductions, the 2026 single brackets give $24,164.46."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its SALT deduction included only the real estate tax and left out Maryland state and local income taxes, which bring SALT to the $40,400 cap. That understated itemized deductions by $13,940."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the $26,460 real estate tax as the whole SALT amount and left out Maryland state and county income taxes. With those included, SALT exceeds the cap and is limited to $40,400, which lowers taxable income to $131,526.91."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It capped SALT at $10,000 instead of the 2026 OBBBA limit of $40,400, and it then used 2024 brackets instead of the published 2026 single brackets."
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It made up an AMT liability using a nonexistent 'foreign-tax-equivalent offset' and no AMT exemption. With the 2026 $90,100 AMT exemption, tentative minimum tax (~$21,275 on ~$171,927 of AMTI) is below the $24,164.46 regular tax. It also left Maryland income taxes out of SALT and misapplied the brackets."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Limited SALT to the $26,460 property tax and left out Maryland state and county income tax, which pushes SALT to the $40,400 cap. That gave taxable income of $145,467 instead of $131,527. It then misadded its own bracket pieces: $1,240 + $4,560 + $12,166 + $9,544 is $27,510, but it reported $33,499."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Put SALT at $33,365 (property tax plus about $6,905 of Maryland income tax), which undercounts the Maryland state and county income tax. The full amount takes SALT to the $40,400 cap. Itemized deductions came out $7,035 too low, so taxable income was $138,562 instead of $131,527."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Subtracted the $2,606 of unreimbursed employee business expenses above the line, which is not allowed. It also capped SALT at the $26,460 property tax and left out Maryland state and local income tax, missing the $40,400 SALT deduction. On top of that, its bracket math on $142,861 of taxable income does not match the 2026 single schedule."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Said itemized deductions beat the standard deduction, then never computed the tax and submitted 0. Taxable income of $131,526.91 under the 2026 single brackets gives $24,164.46."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied the old $10,000 SALT cap. OBBBA raised the 2026 cap to $40,400, so SALT should be the full $40,400 rather than $10,000, which understated itemized deductions by $30,400 (taxable income $161,927 instead of $131,527). It also put the top of the 22% bracket at $107,450 instead of $105,700."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Capped SALT at the old $10,000 instead of the 2026 OBBBA cap of $40,400, which overstated taxable income at $161,927. It then threw out its own $31,424 result and replaced it with an unsupported $36,757."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used the expired $10,000 SALT cap instead of the 2026 cap of $40,400. Property tax plus Maryland income tax fills that cap, so itemized deductions are $68,610, not $38,210. Taxable income came out about $30,400 too high."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Included only $6,936 of Maryland income tax in SALT, for $33,396. Counting both the state and the county income tax takes SALT to the $40,400 cap. Itemized deductions were understated by $7,004, giving taxable income of $138,531 instead of $131,527."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Capped SALT at the old $10,000 instead of the 2026 cap of $40,400, which left taxable income at $161,927 instead of $131,527. It also used guessed 2026 bracket thresholds ($106,150 for the top of the 22% bracket) instead of the actual $105,700."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied the old $10,000 SALT cap instead of the $40,400 cap and left the $1,632 state refund out of AGI. It then added an unsupported adjustment for Medicare surtax interactions, raising its own $31,069 to $42,800, even though Additional Medicare Tax is not part of income tax."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Estimated Maryland income tax at only about $7,000, for SALT of about $33,460. The state plus county income tax actually takes SALT to the full $40,400 cap. Itemized deductions were about $6,900 too low, so taxable income was $138,445 instead of $131,527."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Capped SALT at the expired $10,000 instead of the 2026 cap of $40,400, which overstated taxable income at $161,927. The correct figure is $131,527."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Assumed the TCJA expired in 2026, so it applied a personal exemption and the pre-TCJA 10/15/25/28% brackets. OBBBA made the TCJA brackets permanent, with no personal exemption, and kept a SALT cap of $40,400."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied a $5,300 personal exemption and the pre-TCJA brackets on the assumption that the TCJA sunset in 2026. OBBBA kept the 10/12/22/24% brackets, set the personal exemption at zero, and capped SALT at $40,400."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Counted only the $26,460 property tax as SALT and left out Maryland state and county income tax, which brings SALT up to the $40,400 cap. That left taxable income at $145,467 instead of $131,527."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Assumed the TCJA expired in 2026: uncapped SALT, a $5,150 personal exemption, and 10/15/25/28% brackets. OBBBA kept the TCJA brackets, set no personal exemption, and capped SALT at $40,400. It also left the $1,632 refund out of income."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Took a $15,000 standard deduction instead of itemizing. Itemized deductions of $68,610 ($40,400 SALT plus $28,210 mortgage interest) are far larger. It also left the taxable $1,632 state refund out of income."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Assumed the TCJA sunset, with personal exemptions restored and no SALT cap, and added AMT on top. OBBBA kept the TCJA rate schedule, capped SALT at $40,400, and set a high AMT exemption, so no AMT applies at $131,527 of taxable income."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied TCJA-sunset rules: a $5,150 personal exemption and pre-TCJA brackets. 2026 law under OBBBA has no personal exemption and uses the 10/12/22/24% schedule, with SALT capped at $40,400."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used the standard deduction instead of itemizing $68,610 ($40,400 capped SALT plus $28,210 mortgage interest). Its $33,020 does not even match the $36,766.86 that the standard deduction produces under the 2026 brackets."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Treated SALT as uncapped and applied a $5,050 personal exemption on the assumption that the TCJA sunset. OBBBA caps 2026 SALT at $40,400, removes the personal exemption, and keeps the TCJA brackets."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $31,316 is consistent with SALT capped at the old $10,000, which puts taxable income near $161,500. The 2026 cap of $40,400 is filled by property tax plus Maryland income tax, and that brings taxable income down to $131,527."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Explicitly used TCJA-expiration rules for 2026. OBBBA made the TCJA brackets and the zero personal exemption permanent and set the SALT cap at $40,400. It also counted only mortgage interest and property tax, leaving out Maryland income tax."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Itemized only $54,670, counting property tax and leaving out Maryland state and county income tax, which brings SALT to $40,400. Its tax of $32,145 on $145,467 is also wrong: the 2026 brackets give $27,510.08 on that amount."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Took a $15,000 standard deduction instead of itemizing $68,610 and used made-up bracket thresholds. It also subtracted a $12,000 child and dependent care credit for a single filer with no children or care expenses, which is invented."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Capped SALT at the old $10,000 instead of the 2026 OBBBA cap of $40,400, so itemized deductions were $38,210 instead of $68,610. Taxable income came out at $161,927 instead of $131,527."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Contradicts itself by saying it applied the standard deduction and also a $10,000 SALT cap, when SALT should be the full $40,400 under the 2026 cap. Its $42,034 is higher than even the $36,766.86 the standard deduction produces, so its bracket math is wrong as well."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Itemized only mortgage interest and property tax, leaving out Maryland state and county income tax, which brings SALT to the $40,400 cap. Even on its own $145,467 base, the 2026 brackets give $27,510.08, not $28,347."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Counted only the $26,460 property tax in SALT, leaving out Maryland income tax, which pushes SALT to the $40,400 cap. It then misapplied the brackets, getting $29,576.96 instead of $27,510.08 even on its own $145,467."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $25,947.40 implies taxable income of about $138,990, meaning SALT of about $32,940. That undercounts the Maryland state and county income tax, which brings SALT to the full $40,400 cap."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Limited SALT to the $26,460 property tax and left out Maryland state and county income tax. Those taxes raise SALT to the $40,400 cap and cut taxable income from $145,467 to $131,527."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Itemized only mortgage interest and property tax, leaving out the Maryland state and county income tax that brings SALT to the $40,400 cap. Taxable income was overstated by $13,940."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Stated that no other deductible tax payments were reported, missing that the SALT deduction includes Maryland state and county income tax liability. That tax raises SALT from $26,460 to the $40,400 cap."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Counted only real estate tax as SALT and left out Maryland state and county income tax, which brings SALT to the $40,400 cap. Taxable income came out $13,940 too high."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Added only $6,936.34 of Maryland income tax to SALT, for $33,396. Counting both the state and county income tax brings SALT to the full $40,400 cap. Taxable income was $138,531 instead of $131,527."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Included a Maryland state income tax estimate of about $6,936 in SALT but undercounted the combined state and county income tax. The full amount brings SALT to the $40,400 cap, so itemized deductions were about $7,000 too low."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Gave no reasoning, and $41,500 is higher than even the $36,766.86 the standard deduction produces. The model did not itemize the $68,610 ($40,400 SALT plus $28,210 interest) and also overstated the 2026 bracket tax."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied a $5,427 personal exemption and TCJA-sunset brackets indexed from 2017. OBBBA made the TCJA schedule permanent with no personal exemption. It also counted only property tax in SALT."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Assumed the TCJA sunset: a $5,300 personal exemption and restored 10/15/25/28% brackets. 2026 law under OBBBA keeps the 10/12/22/24% schedule with no exemption and caps SALT at $40,400."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Said the SALT cap does not bind but counted only the $26,460 property tax. Adding the Maryland state and county income tax brings SALT to the $40,400 cap. It also used 2025 bracket thresholds instead of the 2026 ones."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used an uncapped SALT deduction, a $5,434 personal exemption, and pre-TCJA brackets on the assumption that the TCJA sunset. OBBBA caps SALT at $40,400, removes the exemption, and keeps the TCJA rates."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Limited SALT to the $26,460 property tax and left out Maryland state and county income tax, which brings SALT to the raised $40,400 cap. Taxable income came out at $145,467 instead of $131,527."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,Gave no parseable value for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits.
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Correctly identified the $40,400 SALT cap, but filled SALT only with the $26,460 property tax. Maryland state and county income tax should also be counted, and it brings SALT to the full cap, so itemized deductions were $13,940 too low."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Submitted 0 with no calculation. Wages of $198,505 give taxable income of $131,526.91 after $68,610 of itemized deductions, and the 2026 single brackets yield $24,164.46."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Counted only property tax as SALT and left out Maryland state and county income tax, which brings SALT to $40,400. It also blended 2025 and 2026 brackets, giving $27,659 instead of $27,510 even on its own $145,467."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Itemized only $54,670, leaving out the Maryland state and county income tax that brings SALT to the $40,400 cap. Taxable income came out at $145,467 instead of $131,527."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Counted only the $26,460 property tax in SALT and left out Maryland state and county income tax. With those taxes SALT reaches the 2026 cap of $40,400; the model used $40,000, the 2025 figure. Taxable income was overstated by $13,940."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied the old $10,000 SALT cap instead of the 2026 OBBBA cap of $40,400 and ended up using 2024 bracket thresholds. That overstated taxable income at $161,927 and applied the wrong rate breakpoints."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Invented an AMT liability with a made-up offset. Under OBBBA's AMT exemption, tentative minimum tax is far below regular tax at this income. The model also counted only property tax in SALT, leaving out Maryland income tax, and misapplied the 2026 bracket widths."
us,scenario_078,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_078,local_income_tax,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model incorrectly treated Maryland county income tax as part of the requested local_income_tax variable and applied an assumed 3.03% average county rate to taxable income. This output excludes Maryland county tax and only captures the specifically listed modeled city taxes, none of which applies to this household."
us,scenario_078,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its reasoning gets the correct total of $14,317.32 ($11,439 SS on the $184,500 base plus $2,878.32 Medicare), but it submitted $12,240.44. Nothing in its derivation supports that figure, so the submitted value contradicts its own correct computation."
@@ -6522,201 +6734,208 @@ us,scenario_078,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,Fals
us,scenario_078,payroll_tax,minimax-m3,llm_error,missing_output,False,"It entered 0 even though the household has $198,505 in wages, which leaves out all employee FICA. The correct answer is 6.2% Social Security on $184,500 ($11,439) plus 1.45% Medicare on all wages ($2,878.32)."
us,scenario_078,payroll_tax,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It projected the 2026 wage base as $174,900 by inflating the 2024 figure, instead of using the actual 2026 base of $184,500. That understates SS tax by $595.20 ($10,843.80 vs $11,439)."
us,scenario_078,payroll_tax,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It capped Social Security at the 2024 base of $168,600 ($10,453.20) instead of the 2026 base of $184,500. It then submitted $15,622.81, which does not match its own components ($10,453.20 + $2,878.32 = $13,331.52)."
-us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a capped MD standard deduction of about $2,700 and an $800 exemption, giving taxable income near $195,005. It should have itemized $54,670 of mortgage interest and real estate taxes, less the $10.27 phase-out, which leaves $143,845.27 of taxable income. The exemption is $0 above $150,000 AGI for a single filer."
-us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It kept a $600 personal exemption, but a single filer with AGI above $150,000 gets no Maryland exemption. It also skipped the 7.5% reduction of itemized deductions on federal AGI over $200,000 ($10.27). Together these understate taxable income by $610.27, which leaves the tax $32.04 short."
-us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied a $3,200 MD standard deduction for taxable income of about $195,305 instead of itemizing the uncapped $54,670 of mortgage interest and property taxes. Its $7,558 also doesn't match the brackets applied to its own $195,305 base, which would give about $9,800."
-us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,missing_output,False,"It said it did not compute Maryland income tax and entered $0. Itemizing gives $143,845.27 of taxable income, which produces $6,936.88 under the 2%–5.25% brackets."
-us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its own reasoning reached $6,936.59 on taxable income of $143,835, which matches the reference except for the $10.27 itemized phase-out. It then dropped that figure without justification and submitted $9,755. That number fits a standard-deduction calculation that throws away the $54,670 of itemized deductions."
-us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It limited itemized deductions to about $30,000 by applying a $10,000 SALT cap. In 2026 the OBBBA cap is far above the $26,460 of property taxes, so the full amount is deductible. It also submitted $9,876, which doesn't match its own bracket result of $8,277.78."
-us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It capped real estate taxes at $10,000, for $38,210 of itemized deductions instead of $54,670 less the $10.27 phase-out. It also started from federal AGI of $200,137 without the Maryland subtraction for the $1,632 state tax refund, and it used a wrong 5.0% marginal rate for $150k–$175k."
-us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $2,400 standard deduction and a $3,200 exemption on $200,137. It should have itemized $54,659.73 against MD AGI of $198,505, after subtracting the state refund. The exemption is $0 for a single filer above $150,000 AGI."
-us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly reached about $143,835 of taxable income after itemizing $54,670. It then reported $9,200 instead of running the brackets: $90 + $4,607.50 at 4.75% up to $100k + $1,250 at 5% + 5.25% on the excess over $125k, which comes to about $6,936."
-us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started from $200,137 and didn't apply the Maryland subtraction for the $1,632 state tax refund already in federal AGI, so taxable income came out to $145,467 instead of $143,845.27. It also skipped the $10.27 itemized phase-out."
-us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It capped property taxes at $10,000 for $38,210 of itemized deductions, but in 2026 the full $26,460 is deductible. It also kept a $3,200 exemption that is fully phased out above $150,000 AGI, and it didn't subtract the $1,632 state refund from AGI."
-us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $2,400 standard deduction and a $3,200 exemption on $200,137, for $194,537 of taxable income. It should have itemized $54,659.73 against MD AGI of $198,505 with no exemption."
-us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly started at $198,505 with a $0 exemption, but cut itemized deductions by about $10,027, down to $44,642.60. Maryland's phase-out is only 7.5% of federal AGI over $200,000, which is $10.27, so itemized deductions are $54,659.73."
-us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used 3% instead of 7.5% for the itemized phase-out and kept a $1,600 exemption, but the exemption is $0 above $150,000. It also didn't subtract the $1,632 state refund from AGI. These errors partly cancel, which is why its $6,938.23 lands close but still misses."
-us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no specific steps. Its $9,070 matches taxing roughly $185k–$190k under the brackets, which means it didn't itemize the $54,670 of mortgage interest and property taxes that brings taxable income down to $143,845.27."
-us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It added county/local income tax to the state figure, even though the requested output excludes local income tax. The state-only tax on $143,845.27 is $6,936.88."
-us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It reached $143,835 of taxable income but got about $50 too little from the brackets. Tax on that base is $90 + $4,607.50 + $1,250 + 5.25% × $18,835 = $6,936.34. It also skipped the $10.27 itemized phase-out."
-us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied a standard deduction instead of itemizing the $54,670 of mortgage interest and real estate taxes, which taxed income near $197k at 5.5% instead of $143,845.27."
-us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It correctly computed $6,936.34 of state tax, then added a 3.2% county tax ($4,602.72). The output excludes local income tax."
-us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It itemized correctly with a $0 exemption but got about $48 too little from the brackets. Tax on $143,845.27 is $90 + $4,607.50 + $1,250 + 5.25% × $18,845.27 = $6,936.88."
-us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It didn't subtract the $1,632 state refund, so its taxable income was $145,467. It then got $7,300.69 from the brackets even though that base gives $7,022.02. It also wrongly claimed the SALT cap expires in 2026."
-us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used $38,210 of itemized deductions by applying a $10,000 SALT cap to property taxes, but all $26,460 is deductible for Maryland in 2026. It also made up a circular tax-on-tax calculation at a flat 4.75%."
-us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied only a standard allowance to wages, which taxes roughly $195k. It should have itemized $54,659.73 of mortgage interest and property taxes against MD AGI of $198,505."
-us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $10,120 is above the tax on the full $198,505 with no deductions at all. It didn't apply the $54,659.73 of itemized deductions that leave $143,845.27 of taxable income."
-us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $6,511.18 matches about $135,700 of taxable income, roughly $8,100 below the correct base. It claimed a personal exemption, which is $0 above $150,000 AGI, and allowed more than the $54,659.73 of itemized deductions."
-us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $7,025 matches taxing $145,467, which is federal AGI of $200,137 minus $54,670. It didn't subtract the $1,632 state refund from AGI and skipped the $10.27 itemized phase-out."
-us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It taxed $145,467 by starting from federal AGI that still included the $1,632 state tax refund, which Maryland subtracts. It also skipped the 7.5% phase-out ($10.27) on AGI over $200,000."
-us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no reasoning. Its $9,200 matches a standard-deduction calculation on roughly $189k of income instead of itemizing the $54,670 of mortgage interest and property taxes down to $143,845.27 of taxable income."
-us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $2,400 standard deduction on $200,137, for $197,737 of taxable income. It should have itemized $54,659.73 against MD AGI of $198,505, net of the refund."
-us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a made-up itemized limitation of 3% of AGI over $100,000 ($3,004); Maryland's rule is 7.5% of federal AGI over $200,000 ($10.27). It also kept a $576 exemption that should be $0 and didn't subtract the $1,632 refund."
-us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,No value was returned for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits.
-us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,missing_output,False,"It reported $0 with no calculation. Maryland taxes $143,845.27 after itemizing, which gives $6,936.88."
-us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It kept an $800 exemption, but the exemption is $0 above $150,000 AGI. It also taxed income above $100,000 mainly at 4.75%, ignoring the 5% bracket ($100k–$125k) and the 5.25% bracket ($125k–$150k)."
-us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a flat 4.75% to all income above $3,000, ignoring the 5% and 5.25% brackets above $100,000 and $125,000. It also didn't subtract the $1,632 state refund from AGI."
-us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used only a standard deduction and ignored $54,670 of itemized mortgage interest and property taxes. Its $10,933 is also higher than the $9,927.78 it computed on the full $198,505 with no deduction."
-us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started from federal taxable income instead of MD AGI minus Maryland itemized deductions. It used a made-up 5% bracket from $5k–$100k with 5.25% on everything above, and subtracted a nonrefundable credit this filer doesn't qualify for."
+us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a roughly $2,700 standard deduction and an $800 exemption, which put taxable income near $195,005. It never itemized the $54,670 of mortgage interest and uncapped property tax. The exemption is $0 above $150,000, and the correct taxable income is $143,845.27."
+us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It got Maryland AGI ($198,505) and the itemized deductions right. It then subtracted a $600 personal exemption, but the single-filer exemption is fully phased out to $0 above $150,000 AGI. That understated taxable income by about $600. It also skipped the $10.27 reduction for 7.5% of AGI over $200,000."
+us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took a $3,200 standard deduction and taxed about $195,305. It never itemized the $28,210 of mortgage interest and $26,460 of property tax, which Maryland allows without the federal SALT cap. Correct taxable income is $143,845.27."
+us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,missing_output,False,"It said outright that it had not computed Maryland income tax and submitted $0. The correct calculation taxes $143,845.27 of Maryland taxable income, which gives $6,936.88."
+us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,other,False,"Its own working reached taxable income of about $143,835 and tax of $6,936.59, which matches the correct method. It then dropped that result and submitted $9,755 with no supporting calculation. That figure matches taxing about $194,000, as if the itemized deductions had never been taken."
+us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It wrongly applied the federal $10,000 SALT cap to the Maryland itemized deduction, which cut the deduction to about $30,000 and gave $8,277.78. Maryland allows the full $26,460 of property tax. It then submitted $9,876, which matches the standard-deduction path on about $197,500 of taxable income and contradicts its own working."
+us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It capped property tax at $10,000, giving an itemized total of $38,210 instead of $54,670. It also started from $200,137 of federal AGI without subtracting the $1,632 refund, which produced taxable income of about $161,900 instead of $143,845.27. Its stated rate structure (5.0% for $150k–$175k) is also wrong."
+us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the standard deduction instead of itemizing $54,670 of mortgage interest and property tax. It kept the $1,632 refund in Maryland AGI and claimed a $3,200 exemption that is $0 above $150,000. Together these gave taxable income of $194,537 instead of $143,845.27."
+us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It reached taxable income of about $143,835. It then applied a vague 'effective near 5.0%' rate and got $9,200. Applying the actual brackets ($90 on the first $3,000, 4.75% to $100k, 5% to $125k, 5.25% above) gives about $6,937."
+us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used $200,137 as Maryland AGI and missed that Maryland subtracts the $1,632 state tax refund, which brings AGI to $198,505. Taxable income came out at $145,467 instead of $143,845.27, so the tax was about $85 too high."
+us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It capped property tax at the federal $10,000 SALT limit, but Maryland allows the full $26,460. It also claimed a $3,200 exemption that is $0 above $150,000 AGI and left the $1,632 refund in AGI. That gave taxable income of $158,727 instead of $143,845.27."
+us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took a $2,400 standard deduction and a $3,200 exemption on $200,137 of AGI. It skipped $54,670 of itemized deductions, kept the refund in AGI, and claimed an exemption that has phased out at this income. That gave taxable income of $194,537 instead of $143,845.27."
+us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly subtracted the refund to reach $198,505. It then cut itemized deductions by about $10,027, down to $44,642.60. The actual limitation is 7.5% of federal AGI above $200,000, which is only $10.27 here and leaves $54,659.73 of deductions."
+us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It made three errors. It kept the $1,632 refund in Maryland AGI ($200,137 instead of $198,505). It used a 3% limitation ($4.11) instead of 7.5% of AGI over $200,000 ($10.27). It also claimed a $1,600 exemption that is $0 above $150,000. These partly cancelled, leaving taxable income $25.84 too high at $143,871.11."
+us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no working. Under Maryland's brackets, $9,070 matches taxable income of about $183,000, roughly wages minus a federal-sized standard deduction. It never subtracted the $54,670 of uncapped mortgage interest and property tax that bring taxable income down to $143,845.27."
+us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It added county/local income tax into the figure, but this output is state income tax only. State tax on $143,845.27 of taxable income is $6,936.88, and the county piece accounts for the extra $4,400 or so."
+us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got taxable income right at about $143,835 with a $0 exemption. It then misapplied the brackets and came out about $50 low. The correct sum is $90 + $4,607.50 (4.75% to $100k) + $1,250 (5% to $125k) + 5.25% on the remainder, about $6,936."
+us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It explicitly used the standard deduction. $9,876 matches taxing about $197,500 at the 5.5% top bracket. It never took the $54,670 of itemized mortgage interest and uncapped property tax that bring taxable income down to $143,845.27."
+us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It computed the state tax correctly at $6,936.34. It then added a 3.2% county income tax ($4,602.72), even though this output excludes local income tax."
+us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the right deductions (mortgage interest plus property tax, $0 exemption). Its bracket arithmetic came out about $48 short of the $6,936.88 that the 2/3/4/4.75/5/5.25% schedule gives on $143,845.27."
+us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It got taxable income right at about $143,835. It then included county tax as part of state tax, adding about $3,236 (2.25% of taxable income). State income tax alone is $6,936.88."
+us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left the $1,632 state refund in Maryland AGI, giving taxable income of $145,467 instead of $143,845.27. It also misapplied the brackets: correct rates on $145,467 give about $7,022, not $7,300.69."
+us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started from the SALT-capped federal itemized total ($38,210) and added back state income tax in a circular calculation at a flat 4.75%. Maryland allows the full $26,460 of property tax, no state income tax was deducted, and the correct deduction is $54,659.73 against $198,505 of Maryland AGI."
+us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the 'standard allowance' instead of itemizing $54,670 of mortgage interest and property tax. $9,720 matches taxing about $195,000 rather than the correct $143,845.27."
+us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Under Maryland's brackets, $10,120 matches taxable income of about $202,000. That is essentially all income taxed with no deductions. It never applied the $54,659.73 of itemized deductions or the refund subtraction that bring taxable income to $143,845.27."
+us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its answer implies taxable income of about $135,700, roughly $8,100 below the correct $143,845.27. It claimed a personal exemption that is $0 above $150,000 AGI and deducted more than the mortgage interest and property tax allow."
+us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"$7,025 matches taxable income of about $145,500. That means it left the $1,632 state refund in Maryland AGI instead of subtracting it to reach $198,505 and taxable income of $143,845.27."
+us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used taxable income of $145,467, which leaves the $1,632 refund in Maryland AGI. Maryland subtracts the refund, giving AGI of $198,505 and taxable income of $143,845.27."
+us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no working. Under Maryland's brackets, $9,200 matches taxable income of about $185,000. That means it never deducted the $54,670 of uncapped mortgage interest and property tax that bring taxable income down to $143,845.27."
+us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the $2,400 standard deduction on $200,137 of AGI and taxed $197,737. It missed $54,670 of itemized mortgage interest and property tax and did not subtract the $1,632 refund."
+us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reduced itemized deductions by 3% of AGI over $100,000 ($3,004); the actual limitation is 7.5% of AGI over $200,000 ($10.27). It also kept a $576 exemption that is fully phased out above $150,000 and left the refund in AGI. That gave taxable income of $147,895 instead of $143,845.27."
+us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no parseable value for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there is no substantive answer to evaluate. The correct value comes from taxing $143,845.27 of Maryland taxable income."
+us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,missing_output,False,"It submitted $0 with no calculation. A filer with $198,505 of Maryland AGI and $143,845.27 of taxable income owes $6,936.88 under the state brackets."
+us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted only the $28,210 of mortgage interest and left out the $26,460 of real estate tax, which Maryland allows uncapped. It also claimed a $3,200 exemption that is $0 above $150,000 and kept the refund in AGI, giving taxable income of $168,727."
+us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted a reduced personal exemption of about $800, putting taxable income at $143,035, but the exemption is $0 above $150,000 AGI. It also taxed income 'mainly at 4.75%' and underused the 5% and 5.25% brackets above $100k and $125k, which made the tax too low."
+us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a flat 4.75% to everything above $3,000. It ignored the 5% bracket from $100k to $125k and the 5.25% bracket above $125k. It also left the $1,632 refund in Maryland AGI, which gave taxable income of $145,467 instead of $143,845.27."
+us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It ignored the $54,670 of itemized mortgage interest and property tax and taxed about $196,000 after a standard deduction. It then reported $10,933, which is higher than its own no-deduction figure of $9,927.78."
+us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started from federal taxable income ($184,037) instead of Maryland AGI ($198,505) minus Maryland itemized deductions ($54,659.73). It used a made-up bracket schedule and subtracted a nonrefundable credit that no listed fact supports."
us,scenario_078,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_079,head_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model tested only Arizona's income-based adult (MAGI) Medicaid rule and declared the head failed it, never applying the SSI-recipient category: the head's blindness, disability, and $7,560 of SSDI produce $5,286 of SSI, and Arizona is a 1634 state where SSI approval automatically confers AHCCCS/Medicaid with no separate income or resource test. Its own stated route also cannot yield 'No' — countable income at 0.35 x FPL sits far below Arizona's 138% FPL expansion limit — so the model both skipped the operative categorical pathway and misapplied the fallback one it invoked."
us,scenario_079,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated Medicaid eligibility as requiring an explicitly listed pathway or coverage input and returned 0 for lack of one, but SSI receipt is computed from the facts given (age 58, blind, disabled, $7,560 SSDI, $1,045 in resources, no other income), and that SSI receipt is itself the categorical Medicaid pathway in Arizona, which auto-enrolls SSI recipients. It compounded this by reading Indian Health Service coverage at interview as the head's coverage source; IHS is not minimum essential coverage and never displaces or disqualifies Medicaid eligibility."
-us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model said SSDI recipients qualify 'after the waiting period' and then treated that period as satisfied, citing the constant-status instruction. That instruction covers only the tax-benefit year. Months of SSDI receipt are unlisted and count as 0, so the 24-month requirement is not met and Head, at 58, is not eligible."
-us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated receiving Social Security disability benefits as automatically giving Medicare eligibility under 65. It never applied the 24-month SSDI entitlement requirement. With no months of receipt listed (so 0), Head is ineligible at 58."
-us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model named the 24-month SSDI requirement but assumed Head had already met it. The household facts give no SSDI duration, which counts as 0 months, so the requirement fails and Head, at 58, is not eligible."
-us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model said SSDI recipients qualify 'typically after the waiting period' but did not check that period. It concluded Head was eligible even though the unlisted months of SSDI receipt are 0, which is short of the required 24 months."
-us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated current SSDI receipt as enough for disability-based Medicare. It skipped the 24-month entitlement requirement, which Head does not meet because the unlisted duration of receipt is 0. At 58, Head also fails the age-65 test."
-us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model cited the at-least-24-months-of-SSDI rule but assumed without support that Head met it. The household facts give no months of receipt, which counts as 0, so Head, at 58, is not Medicare eligible."
-us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,The model gave disability-based Medicare eligibility because Head is disabled and receives SSDI. It never applied the 24-month SSDI waiting period. That period is unmet because months of receipt are unlisted and therefore 0.
-us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model assumed a disabled SSDI recipient is automatically Medicare eligible. It ignored the 24-month entitlement period, which Head fails with 0 months of receipt. Head is also under 65."
-us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model explicitly assumed Head had met the 24-month waiting period. That contradicts the instruction not to infer unlisted facts: the duration of SSDI receipt counts as 0, so Head, at 58, is not eligible."
-us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated SSDI receipt alone as qualifying for Medicare. It omitted the 24-month SSDI entitlement requirement, which Head fails because months of receipt count as 0. At 58, Head is also below the age-65 threshold."
-us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model equated receiving SSDI with being Medicare eligible. It never checked the 24-month waiting period, which is unmet with 0 months of receipt. Head is 58, so the age route also fails."
-us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model concluded that disability plus SSDI receipt makes Head eligible. It skipped the requirement of 24 months of SSDI entitlement before disability-based Medicare begins, and the unlisted duration of receipt counts as 0."
-us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model claimed SSDI receipt qualifies a disabled person under 65 for Medicare. It did not apply the 24-month SSDI duration test, which Head fails because the unlisted months of receipt count as 0."
-us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated being age 58 and disabled as enough for Medicare. Disability-based Medicare requires 24 months of SSDI entitlement, and Head has 0 months listed, so Head is not eligible."
-us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model reasoned that receiving SSDI 'for the year' gives Medicare eligibility. Twelve months at most still falls short of the required 24 months of entitlement, and the unlisted duration of receipt counts as 0, so Head is ineligible."
-us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated SSDI receipt as automatically conferring disability-based Medicare. It ignored the 24-month entitlement waiting period, which Head does not satisfy with 0 months of receipt at age 58."
-us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model invoked a disability-based Medicare rule but never checked its 24-month SSDI duration requirement. Head has 0 months of receipt and is under 65, so Head is not eligible."
-us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model took disability plus SSDI receipt as supporting Medicare eligibility. It omitted the 24-month SSDI entitlement requirement, which fails because the unlisted months of receipt count as 0."
-us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model asserted eligibility under disability-based Medicare rules without applying the 24-month SSDI waiting period. Head, at 58 with 0 months of SSDI receipt, meets neither the age route nor the disability route."
-us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model cited the 24-month waiting period but treated it as already satisfied. No SSDI duration is listed, so it counts as 0 months, and Head is not Medicare eligible at 58."
-us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,kimi-k2.6,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model claimed SSDI receipt alone makes a disabled person under 65 Medicare eligible. It ignored the 24-month entitlement requirement, which Head fails with 0 months of receipt."
-us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model named the 24-month entitlement period but assumed Head had completed it. The unlisted duration of SSDI receipt counts as 0, so the period is unmet and Head, at 58, is ineligible."
-us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model explicitly assumed at least 24 months of SSDI receipt. That violates the instruction to treat unlisted numeric inputs as 0: with 0 months of receipt and age 58, Head is not Medicare eligible."
-us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated disability plus SSDI receipt as meeting the disability-based Medicare test. It skipped the required 24 months of SSDI entitlement, and Head's unlisted months of receipt count as 0."
-us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model cited the rule that SSDI recipients become eligible after 24 months of benefits, then used the constant-status instruction to assume those months had passed. That instruction covers only the current year; months of receipt count as 0, so Head, at 58, is ineligible."
+us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model correctly said SSDI-based Medicare applies only after the waiting period, then assumed the period was met by treating SSDI as 'constant for the full year'. One year of receipt does not satisfy the 24-month entitlement requirement, and an unlisted SSDI history defaults to 0 months. The Head is 58, so they fail both the age-65 test and the disability pathway."
+us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated current SSDI receipt as automatically giving Medicare eligibility under 65. It ignored the 24-month entitlement requirement, which is unmet because no prior months of SSDI receipt are given and unlisted inputs default to 0. At age 58 the Head is not Medicare eligible."
+us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model named the 24-month SSDI requirement but then assumed it was satisfied. Nothing in the household facts establishes 24 months of prior receipt, and the prompt sets unlisted numeric inputs to 0. With 0 qualifying months and age 58, the Head is not Medicare eligible."
+us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model acknowledged the waiting period and then concluded the Head was eligible anyway. The disability pathway requires 24 months of SSDI entitlement, and this household has 0 recorded months because unlisted inputs default to 0. The Head is 58, below the age-65 threshold, so they are not eligible."
+us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated SSDI receipt as enough for Medicare via disability and skipped the 24-month entitlement requirement. That requirement is unmet because the number of SSDI months is unlisted and defaults to 0. At 58, the Head fails the age-65 test as well."
+us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model stated that 24 months of SSDI receipt is required, then took that as met based only on current-year SSDI income and the disabled flag. Neither fact establishes 24 months of prior entitlement, and the unlisted months-of-receipt input is 0. The 58-year-old Head is therefore not Medicare eligible."
+us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated disability status plus current SSDI income as qualifying for Medicare under 65. It missed the 24-month entitlement requirement, which is unmet because prior months of receipt default to 0. At age 58 the Head is not Medicare eligible."
+us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model assumed Medicare eligibility from disability and SSDI receipt without applying the 24-month entitlement rule. The months of SSDI receipt are unlisted, so they are 0 and the rule fails. Age 58 does not meet the age-65 test."
+us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model explicitly assumed the 24-month waiting period had been met. That contradicts the prompt's rule that unlisted inputs default to 0, which gives 0 months of prior SSDI entitlement. With no qualifying months and age 58, the Head is not Medicare eligible."
+us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,The model equated SSDI receipt with Medicare eligibility and ignored the 24-month entitlement requirement for beneficiaries under 65. That requirement is unmet because the months of receipt default to 0. The 58-year-old Head is not eligible.
+us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,The model treated current SSDI income as conferring Medicare and never applied the 24-month entitlement requirement. That requirement fails because months of SSDI receipt are unlisted and default to 0. At age 58 the Head also fails the age-65 test.
+us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated the disabled flag plus SSDI income as enough for Medicare. It skipped the requirement of 24 months of SSDI entitlement, which is 0 here because no history is given. Being under 65 at age 58, the Head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-4-argon,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model concluded that SSDI receipt plus disability status makes the Head Medicare eligible. It missed that the disability pathway requires 24 months of SSDI entitlement, and the unlisted months input defaults to 0. With age 58 below 65, the Head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model claimed that disability plus SSDI qualifies the Head for Medicare under PolicyEngine. The disability pathway requires 24 months of SSDI receipt, and the household has 0 such months because unlisted inputs default to 0. The 58-year-old Head fails both the age and disability tests."
+us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated being disabled at age 58 as enough for Medicare. Disability-based Medicare requires 24 months of SSDI entitlement, and that count is 0 here because it is unlisted. The Head is under 65 and not eligible."
+us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model read 'receives Social Security disability income for the year' as satisfying the disability pathway. That pathway requires 24 months of SSDI entitlement, which is 0 here because prior months are unlisted. At 58, the Head is not Medicare eligible."
+us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated SSDI receipt as directly qualifying the Head for disability-based Medicare. It skipped the 24-month entitlement requirement, which fails because months of receipt default to 0. Age 58 does not meet the age-65 test."
+us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model applied a disability-based Medicare rule without the 24-month SSDI entitlement condition that rule requires. With 0 recorded months of receipt (unlisted inputs default to 0) and age 58, the Head is not Medicare eligible."
+us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model concluded that a disabled Head receiving SSDI is Medicare eligible. It skipped the requirement of at least 24 months of SSDI entitlement, which is unmet because the months input defaults to 0. Under age 65, the Head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model invoked PolicyEngine's disability-based Medicare rule but never checked its condition of 24 months of SSDI receipt. That count is 0 here because it is unlisted, so a 58-year-old Head is not Medicare eligible."
+us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model assumed the Head had already completed the 24-month waiting period, even though no SSDI history is provided. Unlisted numeric inputs default to 0, so the Head has 0 qualifying months. Age 58 fails the age-65 test as well."
+us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,kimi-k2.6,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model claimed that SSDI receipt alone makes a disabled person under 65 eligible for Medicare. Eligibility requires 24 months of SSDI entitlement, and that count is 0 here because it is unlisted. The 58-year-old Head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model stated the 24-month entitlement rule but treated it as satisfied with no supporting fact. Under the prompt's default-to-0 rule, the Head has 0 months of prior SSDI entitlement. Age 58 is below 65, so the Head is not Medicare eligible."
+us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model explicitly assumed at least 24 months of SSDI receipt. That contradicts the prompt's instruction to treat unlisted numeric inputs as 0, which gives 0 qualifying months. Without the disability pathway and at age 58, the Head is not Medicare eligible."
+us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated disability status plus SSDI income as satisfying disability-based Medicare under 65. It omitted the 24-month SSDI entitlement requirement, which is unmet because months of receipt default to 0. The Head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model cited the 24-month SSDI rule, then treated the prompt's 'constant throughout the year' instruction as proof of 24 months of receipt. That instruction covers only the current tax year and does not establish prior history, and the unlisted months input defaults to 0. The 58-year-old Head is therefore not Medicare eligible."
us,scenario_079,local_income_tax,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_079,local_income_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_079,snap,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model counted only the $630/month SSDI and left out the $881/month SSI the blind/disabled couple qualifies for, which sets gross income at $1,511. It also used the actual $26 medical excess instead of Arizona's $145 Standard Medical Deduction. Its final $4,560 doesn't match even its own $417.50/month calculation."
-us,scenario_079,snap,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly counted $1,511 of SSDI plus SSI, the $209 standard deduction, and the $546 maximum allotment. For medical costs, though, it deducted only the actual $26 excess ($61 − $35) instead of Arizona's $145 Standard Medical Deduction. That left net income at $1,276 instead of $1,157 and the benefit at about $163/month instead of $198."
-us,scenario_079,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"The model ruled the household out by counting home equity and vehicle equity as resources. In fact the home is fully excluded, and PolicyEngine's asset test counts only the $1,045 bank balance, which passes. The model also never computed the $881/month SSI that brings gross income to $1,511."
-us,scenario_079,snap,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model said $630/month of SSDI is above the income limit. Disabled households skip the gross income test, and even with SSI included, net income of $1,157 is well under the 100% FPL net limit. The household is eligible and receives $198/month."
-us,scenario_079,snap,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model counted only the $630 SSDI and left out the couple's $881/month SSI. It used an inflated $219 standard deduction and the actual $26 medical excess instead of Arizona's $145 SMD, then applied an unexplained 'adjustment' to reach $351.50/month."
-us,scenario_079,snap,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left out the $881/month SSI and treated $630 of SSDI as the household's only income. It then assumed an arbitrary net income of about $300 instead of applying the $209 standard deduction and Arizona's $145 Standard Medical Deduction to the correct $1,511 gross."
-us,scenario_079,snap,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left out the couple's $881/month SSI and counted only the $630 SSDI. It also misapplied the medical deduction, subtracting $35 from annual expenses, instead of using Arizona's flat $145 Standard Medical Deduction."
-us,scenario_079,snap,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly used $1,511 of gross income, the $209 standard deduction, and the $546 maximum. For medical costs, it deducted the actual $26 excess instead of Arizona's $145 Standard Medical Deduction, which overstated net income by $119 and gave $163/month instead of $198."
-us,scenario_079,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model said both members receive SSI/SSDI but put only $630 of SSDI into the calculation, dropping the $881/month SSI. It also used outdated $204 and $535 parameters and the actual $26 medical excess instead of Arizona's $145 SMD."
-us,scenario_079,snap,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model invented large shelter costs from the mortgage balance, but no mortgage payment or interest was listed, so the shelter deduction is $0. It also left out the $881/month SSI and used a wrong $374 maximum allotment."
-us,scenario_079,snap,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model counted only the $630/month SSDI and left out the $881/month SSI the couple qualifies for. It also used the actual $26 medical excess instead of Arizona's $145 Standard Medical Deduction, which made net income $395 instead of $1,157."
-us,scenario_079,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model included SSI, but at $876 instead of $881. It used a $228 standard deduction instead of $209, a $549 maximum instead of $546, and the actual $26 medical excess instead of Arizona's $145 Standard Medical Deduction."
-us,scenario_079,snap,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"The model counted $5,050 of vehicle equity above a $4,650 exclusion and denied eligibility on resources. PolicyEngine's SNAP asset test counts only the $1,045 bank balance, which passes. The model also never computed the $881/month SSI."
-us,scenario_079,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model included SSI, slightly understated at $872/month. It used a $202 standard deduction and a $548 maximum, and deducted only the actual $26 medical excess instead of Arizona's $145 Standard Medical Deduction."
-us,scenario_079,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,The model counted only the $630 SSDI and left out the couple's $881/month SSI. It also used a $204 standard deduction and the actual $26 medical excess instead of $209 and Arizona's $145 SMD.
-us,scenario_079,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model understated SSI at $805 instead of $881/month. It used outdated $198 standard deduction and $535 maximum figures, and the actual $26 medical excess instead of Arizona's $145 Standard Medical Deduction."
-us,scenario_079,snap,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model treated the lack of rent or utility costs as making the benefit $0. A shelter deduction is not required for eligibility: $1,511 gross minus the $209 standard and $145 medical deductions leaves $1,157 net, which yields $198/month."
-us,scenario_079,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model claimed 30% of net income exceeds the maximum allotment, but 30% of $1,157 is $348, well below $546, so the benefit is $198/month. Its $276/year ($23/month) is also below the $24 monthly minimum."
-us,scenario_079,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model included SSI, but at $876 instead of $881/month. It used a $200 standard deduction instead of $209 and a $560 maximum instead of $546. It also deducted only $26/month of actual medical excess instead of Arizona's $145 Standard Medical Deduction."
-us,scenario_079,snap,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model declared the household ineligible on assets and income. The household passes the asset test with $1,045 and the net income test with $1,157 net income, giving $198/month."
-us,scenario_079,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model included SSI ($18,096 total gross) but applied only the actual excess medical deduction instead of Arizona's $145 Standard Medical Deduction. That left the benefit at $178/month instead of $198."
-us,scenario_079,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's $470/month matches counting only the $630 SSDI and leaving out the couple's $881/month SSI. The correct calculation on $1,511 gross with the $209 standard and $145 AZ medical deductions yields $198/month."
-us,scenario_079,snap,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used 2025-level SSI ($840 instead of $881/month) and a $536 maximum. It counted only the head's $432 other medical expense, dropping the OTC costs, and so missed that the $61/month total triggers Arizona's $145 Standard Medical Deduction."
-us,scenario_079,snap,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no SNAP value and no explanation, so there was nothing to score."
-us,scenario_079,snap,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model counted only the $7,560 SSDI and left out the couple's $10,572/year in SSI. It also used the actual $312/year medical excess instead of Arizona's $145/month Standard Medical Deduction."
-us,scenario_079,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model treated the absence of dependents and shelter costs as making SNAP $0. With $1,511 gross income and the $209 standard and $145 medical deductions, net income of $1,157 yields $546 − $348 = $198/month."
-us,scenario_079,snap,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model claimed there was not enough data to compute SNAP and returned $0. The listed SSDI, the SSI the couple qualifies for, and the listed medical expenses fully determine a $198/month benefit."
-us,scenario_079,snap,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly counted $1,511 of SSDI plus SSI but used a $204 standard deduction instead of $209. It also deducted only the actual $26 medical excess instead of Arizona's $145 Standard Medical Deduction, which gave $161/month instead of $198."
-us,scenario_079,snap,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model awarded the full $546 maximum, which treats net income as zero. The household has $1,511/month of SSDI plus SSI, and after the $354 in deductions its $348 expected contribution must be subtracted."
-us,scenario_079,snap,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model's $163/month matches $1,511 gross minus $209 and the actual $26 medical excess. It missed that Arizona substitutes a $145 Standard Medical Deduction, which lowers net income to $1,157 and raises the benefit to $198."
-us,scenario_079,snap,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model included SSDI and SSI but used the actual excess medical deduction (about $26) instead of Arizona's $145 Standard Medical Deduction. That gave $165/month instead of $198.
-us,scenario_079,snap,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly used $1,511 gross, the $209 standard deduction, and the $546 maximum, but applied the actual $26 medical excess instead of Arizona's $145 Standard Medical Deduction. It also skipped rounding the contribution up to whole dollars."
-us,scenario_079,snap,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's $395 net income comes from $630 SSDI alone, leaving out the couple's $881/month SSI. It also used the actual $26 medical excess instead of Arizona's $145 SMD."
-us,scenario_079,snap,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly counted $1,511 of income and used $209 and $546. It deducted only the actual $26 medical excess instead of Arizona's $145 Standard Medical Deduction, which left the benefit at $163/month instead of $198."
-us,scenario_079,snap,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used $1,511 gross and the $209 standard deduction but only a $26 actual medical excess. Arizona's $145 Standard Medical Deduction lowers net income from $1,276 to $1,157 and gives $198/month."
-us,scenario_079,snap,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model asserted that SSDI income exceeds SNAP limits. A disabled household is exempt from the gross test, and net income of $1,157 passes the net test, which produces a $198/month allotment."
-us,scenario_079,snap,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model counted only the $7,560 SSDI and left out the couple's SSI ($881/month). It also used an inflated $2,520 standard deduction and the actual $312/year medical excess instead of Arizona's $145/month SMD."
-us,scenario_079,snap,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model included SSI at $876 instead of $881 and used a $549 maximum instead of $546. It deducted only the actual $26 medical excess instead of Arizona's $145 Standard Medical Deduction.
-us,scenario_079,snap,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly computed $1,511 of income and used the $209 standard deduction and $546 maximum, but applied only $26 of actual excess medical costs. Arizona's $145 Standard Medical Deduction makes net income $1,157 and the benefit $198/month."
-us,scenario_079,snap,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used 2025 parameters: an $840 SSI figure from the $1,450 couple FBR, a $204 standard deduction, and a $536 maximum, instead of 2026 values ($881, $209, $546). It also deducted the actual $26 medical excess instead of Arizona's $145 SMD."
-us,scenario_079,snap,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,The model counted only the $630/month SSDI and left out the $881/month SSI the blind/disabled couple qualifies for. It also used the actual $26 medical excess instead of Arizona's $145 Standard Medical Deduction.
-us,scenario_079,snap,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no SNAP value and no explanation, so there was nothing to score."
-us,scenario_079,snap,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's net income of $395 comes from $630 SSDI alone, leaving out the couple's $881/month SSI. It also deducted the actual $26 medical excess instead of Arizona's $145 SMD."
-us,scenario_079,snap,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model returned $0 because it refused to infer SNAP receipt, but the prompt explicitly assumes program take-up. On the listed facts, the eligible household receives $198/month."
-us,scenario_079,snap,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model counted only the $630 monthly SSDI and left out the $881/month SSI. It also used the actual $26 medical excess instead of Arizona's $145 Standard Medical Deduction, which understated net income by $762."
-us,scenario_079,snap,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,The model treated $630 of SSDI as the household's only income and left out the $881/month SSI. It also used the actual $26 medical excess instead of Arizona's $145 SMD.
-us,scenario_079,snap,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left out the $881/month SSI and used a wrong $598 maximum allotment. It also applied the $35 medical threshold annually instead of monthly, and never used Arizona's $145 Standard Medical Deduction."
-us,scenario_079,snap,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model applied an SSI cash-out exclusion (California's former rule) that Arizona does not have. SSI recipients in Arizona are eligible for SNAP, and their SSI counts as unearned income, giving $198/month."
+us,scenario_079,snap,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Counted only the $630/month SSDI and left out the $881/month SSI the blind/disabled couple qualifies for. It also used a $26 actual medical excess instead of Arizona's $145 standard medical deduction. Its final $4,560 doesn't follow from its own $417.50/month calculation."
+us,scenario_079,snap,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Got the $1,511 gross income and $209 standard deduction right, but deducted only the $26 actual medical excess. Arizona's $145 standard medical deduction applies once an elderly/disabled member's expenses pass $35, which gives net income of $1,157 and $198/month, not $1,276 and $163."
+us,scenario_079,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"Disqualified the household on assets by counting home equity and vehicle equity. The home is fully excluded and vehicles aren't counted here, so the only countable asset is the $1,045 bank balance, which passes. It also left out the $881/month SSI income."
+us,scenario_079,snap,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Claimed $630/month of SSDI is above the two-person gross income limit. That income is far below every SNAP limit, and a household with disabled members is exempt from the gross test anyway. With SSI included, the correct benefit is $198/month."
+us,scenario_079,snap,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Left out the $881/month SSI income, used a $219 standard deduction instead of $209, and used a $26 medical excess instead of Arizona's $145 standard medical deduction. It then cut its own $420.50/month result to an arbitrary $351.50."
+us,scenario_079,snap,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Counted only the $630 SSDI, leaving out the $881/month SSI that brings gross income to $1,511. It then guessed net income near $300 rather than applying the $209 standard deduction and Arizona's $145 standard medical deduction."
+us,scenario_079,snap,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,Left out the $881/month SSI income and used the FY2025 $204 standard deduction instead of $209. It also treated the medical deduction as roughly all $632 of the head's expenses instead of Arizona's $145 standard medical deduction.
+us,scenario_079,snap,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Counted SSI correctly ($1,511 gross) but deducted only $26 of actual medical expenses above $35. Under Arizona's $145 standard medical deduction, net income is $1,157 and the benefit is $198/month, not $163."
+us,scenario_079,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Set the spouse's income to zero and never computed the couple's $881/month SSI. It also used FY2025 figures ($204 standard deduction, $535 maximum) and the $26 actual medical excess instead of Arizona's $145 standard medical deduction."
+us,scenario_079,snap,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Assumed large shelter costs from the mortgage balance even though no mortgage payment or interest was given, and left out the $881/month SSI income. Its $374/month figure isn't the actual $546 maximum allotment either."
+us,scenario_079,snap,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Counted only $630/month SSDI and left out the $881/month SSI the couple receives, which understated net income. It also used the $26 actual medical excess instead of Arizona's $145 standard medical deduction."
+us,scenario_079,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Included SSI but used the $26 actual medical excess instead of Arizona's $145 standard medical deduction. It also used a $228 standard deduction instead of $209, a $549 maximum instead of $546, and $876 of SSI instead of $881."
+us,scenario_079,snap,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"Counted $5,050 of vehicle equity and failed the household on assets. The vehicle isn't a countable resource here, so countable assets are just the $1,045 bank balance and the household passes."
+us,scenario_079,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Included SSI but deducted only the $26 actual medical excess instead of Arizona's $145 standard medical deduction. It also understated SSI ($10,464 a year vs $881/month) and used a $202 standard deduction and $548 maximum instead of $209 and $546."
+us,scenario_079,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Counted only the $630 SSDI, leaving out the $881/month SSI the blind/disabled couple receives. It also used the $26 actual medical excess instead of Arizona's $145 standard medical deduction."
+us,scenario_079,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Deducted only the $26 actual medical excess instead of Arizona's $145 standard medical deduction. It also used out-of-date parameters: $805 SSI instead of $881, a $198 standard deduction instead of $209, and a $535 maximum instead of $546."
+us,scenario_079,snap,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,other,False,"Concluded SNAP is zero because no rent or utilities were listed. SNAP doesn't require shelter costs; with $1,511 income, a $209 standard deduction, and Arizona's $145 standard medical deduction, the benefit is $198/month."
+us,scenario_079,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Claimed 30% of net income exceeds the maximum allotment and fell back to the minimum benefit. Even before any medical deduction, the contribution on its own income is about $368, well under the $546 maximum. It also understated SSI and skipped Arizona's $145 standard medical deduction."
+us,scenario_079,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,Deducted $312 a year of actual medical excess instead of Arizona's $145/month standard medical deduction. It also used a $200 standard deduction instead of $209 and a $560 maximum instead of $546.
+us,scenario_079,snap,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Asserted the household fails on assets and income with no calculation. Countable assets are only $1,045, and $1,511/month of income leaves net income of $1,157 under the limit, so the household gets $198/month."
+us,scenario_079,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Included SSI (about $18,096 a year) but applied only the $26/month actual medical excess. Arizona's $145 standard medical deduction lowers net income to $1,157, which gives $198/month instead of about $178."
+us,scenario_079,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $470/month benefit only works if countable income is just the $630 SSDI, so it left out the $881/month SSI. Counting full $1,511 gross income, the $209 standard deduction, and Arizona's $145 standard medical deduction gives $198/month."
+us,scenario_079,snap,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Counted only the head's $432 of other medical expenses, leaving out the OTC costs, and deducted the $12 a year left after the $420 annual floor. It should have applied Arizona's $145/month standard medical deduction. It also used 2025-level SSI ($840 vs $881), a $204 standard deduction, and a $536 maximum."
+us,scenario_079,snap,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its roughly $157/month benefit fits SSI-inclusive income with only the actual medical excess above $35 deducted. Applying Arizona's $145 standard medical deduction instead gives net income of $1,157 and $198/month."
+us,scenario_079,snap,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No SNAP value or reasoning was returned, so nothing could be scored. The correct answer is $198/month × 12 = $2,376."
+us,scenario_079,snap,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Treated $7,560 of SSDI as the household's only income, leaving out the $881/month SSI the couple qualifies for. It also used the $312 a year of actual medical excess instead of Arizona's $145/month standard medical deduction."
+us,scenario_079,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,other,False,"Concluded SNAP is zero because there are no dependents or shelter costs, but neither is needed. The disabled couple's $1,511 income nets to $1,157 after deductions, which gives $198/month."
+us,scenario_079,snap,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"Gave up on the calculation and returned zero, even though the facts are enough. SSDI plus imputed SSI ($1,511/month), the $209 standard deduction, and Arizona's $145 standard medical deduction give $198/month."
+us,scenario_079,snap,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Counted SSI correctly ($1,511) but used only the $26 actual medical excess instead of Arizona's $145 standard medical deduction. It also used the FY2025 $204 standard deduction instead of $209, which brought the benefit down to $161/month instead of $198."
+us,scenario_079,snap,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,other,False,"Awarded the full $546 maximum allotment without subtracting the 30% net income contribution. With $1,157 of net income, that contribution is $348, leaving $198/month."
+us,scenario_079,snap,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its $163/month equals $546 − 30% × ($1,511 − $209 − $26), so it used the $26 actual medical excess. Arizona's $145 standard medical deduction gives $198/month."
+us,scenario_079,snap,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its $165/month implies only the $26 actual medical excess above $35 was deducted. Arizona's $145 standard medical deduction cuts net income to $1,157 and gives $198/month."
+us,scenario_079,snap,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Used the formula 546 − 0.30 × (1511 − 209 − 26), which deducts only the $26 actual medical excess. Arizona's $145 standard medical deduction should replace it, giving 546 − 348 = $198/month."
+us,scenario_079,snap,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $395 net income comes from the $630 SSDI alone, so it left out the $881/month SSI that brings gross income to $1,511. It also used the $26 actual medical excess instead of Arizona's $145 standard medical deduction."
+us,scenario_079,snap,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Counted SSI ($1,511) and the $209 standard deduction but deducted only $26 of actual medical excess. Arizona's $145 standard medical deduction gives $1,157 net income and $198/month, not $163."
+us,scenario_079,snap,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Deducted the $26 actual medical excess instead of Arizona's $145 standard medical deduction, leaving net income at $1,276 instead of $1,157. It also didn't round the 30% contribution up to a whole dollar ($348)."
+us,scenario_079,snap,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Claimed $630/month of SSDI exceeds SNAP limits, but it's far below them. Even with SSI included, net income of $1,157 passes the net test and gives $198/month."
+us,scenario_079,snap,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Counted only $7,560 of SSDI and left out the $881/month SSI. It also used the $312 a year of actual medical excess instead of Arizona's $145/month standard medical deduction."
+us,scenario_079,snap,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,Included SSI but deducted only the $26 actual medical excess instead of Arizona's $145 standard medical deduction. It also understated SSI ($876 vs $881) and overstated the maximum ($549 vs $546).
+us,scenario_079,snap,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Got the $1,511 income, $209 standard deduction, and $546 maximum right, but deducted only $26 of actual medical excess. Arizona's $145 standard medical deduction gives $1,157 net income and $198/month."
+us,scenario_079,snap,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Used the 2025 SSI couple rate of $1,450 instead of $1,491, which understated SSI at $840 instead of $881. It also used FY2025 values ($204 standard deduction, $536 maximum) and the $26 actual medical excess instead of Arizona's $145 standard medical deduction."
+us,scenario_079,snap,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,Treated $630/month SSDI as the only income and left out the $881/month SSI the couple receives. It also used the $26 actual medical excess instead of Arizona's $145 standard medical deduction.
+us,scenario_079,snap,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No SNAP value or reasoning was returned, so nothing could be scored. The correct answer is $198/month × 12 = $2,376."
+us,scenario_079,snap,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Computed net income from the $630 SSDI alone and never added the $881/month SSI, which understated gross income by more than half. It also used the $26 actual medical excess instead of Arizona's $145 standard medical deduction."
+us,scenario_079,snap,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"Returned zero because it read the instruction not to infer benefit receipt as ruling out SNAP. The prompt says to assume program take-up, and the eligible household gets $198/month."
+us,scenario_079,snap,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,Counted SSI but deducted only $26 of actual medical excess instead of Arizona's $145 standard medical deduction. It also used FY2025 values (a $204 standard deduction and $536 maximum) instead of $209 and $546.
+us,scenario_079,snap,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,Counted only $630/month SSDI and left out the $881/month SSI. It also deducted the $26 actual medical excess instead of Arizona's $145 standard medical deduction.
+us,scenario_079,snap,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Treated SSDI as the household's only income, so the $881/month SSI never entered the calculation. It also used the $26 actual medical excess instead of Arizona's $145 standard medical deduction."
+us,scenario_079,snap,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,Left out the $881/month SSI income and applied the $35 medical threshold annually instead of monthly. It also used an inflated $598 maximum allotment instead of $546.
+us,scenario_079,snap,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Assumed SSI recipients get no SNAP, which applies a California-style SSI cash-out rule that doesn't exist in Arizona. Here SSI receipt makes the household categorically eligible, and SNAP pays $198/month."
us,scenario_079,spouse_medicaid_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model asserted that the spouse's ""income and circumstances"" fail Arizona's adult Medicaid rules, inverting the test: the household's MAGI is 0.35 × FPL, far below Arizona's 138% FPL expansion-adult limit, so low income qualifies rather than disqualifies. It also skipped the pathway the engine used — the SSI-recipient category, which grants automatic Medicaid in Arizona (a 1634 state) to the blind/disabled spouse whose $0 countable income and $1,045 in resources (under the $2,000 individual limit) produce $5,286 of SSI — and treated an income screen as the sole route to adult coverage."
us,scenario_079,spouse_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model defaulted to 0 on the ground that ""no additional Medicaid-eligibility inputs"" beyond disability and IHS coverage were supplied, treating Medicaid eligibility as requiring an explicit enrollment or income input rather than deriving it from the facts given. Blindness plus disability plus $0 earned and unearned income and $1,045 in countable resources produce SSI of $5,286, and SSI receipt in Arizona triggers the SSI-recipient category's automatic Medicaid; separately, 0.35 × FPL MAGI clears the 138% FPL expansion-adult test, and IHS coverage at interview is not minimum essential coverage that blocks eligibility."
us,scenario_079,spouse_medicare_eligible,claude-fable-5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model treated the spouse's disabled flag as enough for Medicare under 65, citing 'SSDI-linked disability eligibility'. However, the spouse gets no Social Security disability income; the $7,560 SSDI is the head's. No months of SSDI receipt are listed, so the 24-month SSDI entitlement requirement is not met and the spouse is not Medicare eligible."
us,scenario_079,spouse_medicare_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model correctly stated that disability-based Medicare requires 24 months of SSDI receipt, then set that requirement aside and marked the spouse eligible for being disabled. It also wrongly gave the spouse 'SSDI-equivalent status' when only the head has Social Security disability income. With zero SSDI and zero months of receipt, the spouse fails the 24-month test and, at 55, the age-65 test."
us,scenario_079,spouse_medicare_eligible,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model cited a 'disability-based Medicare eligibility rule' but applied it to the disabled flag alone. The disability pathway requires 24 months of SSDI entitlement (or ESRD/ALS). The spouse has no SSDI income, no months of receipt, and no ESRD, and at 55 is under 65, so the correct answer is not eligible."
us,scenario_079,spouse_medicare_eligible,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model claimed the spouse qualifies under disability-based Medicare rules, which equates being disabled with Medicare entitlement. Those rules require at least 24 months of SSDI receipt or ESRD/ALS. The spouse receives no Social Security disability benefits (the SSDI belongs to the head) and is 55, so the spouse is not eligible."
-us,scenario_079,ssi,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a couple federal benefit rate of about $1,450.60/month, which is effectively the 2025 couple rate, instead of the 2026 couple rate of $1,491/month. With the same $610 countable income, that gives $840.60/month instead of $881/month, so it understated SSI by about $484/year."
-us,scenario_079,ssi,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It wrongly said $7,560/year of SSDI exceeds a $11,316/year individual limit, even though $7,560 is less than $11,316. It also never applied the couple test, where $610/month of countable income (after the $20 exclusion) is well below the $1,491/month couple rate, leaving $881/month payable."
-us,scenario_079,ssi,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said the head's SSDI exceeds the couple income limit, but $630/month minus the $20 general exclusion is $610/month. That is far below the 2026 couple rate of $1,491/month, so the couple is owed $881/month ($10,572/year), not zero."
-us,scenario_079,ssi,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It first used $1,450/month and then switched to an inflated couple rate of $1,940/month. The correct 2026 couple rate is $1,491/month, so $1,491 − $610 = $881/month ($10,572/year); its $23,280 − $7,320 = $15,960 overstates the benefit."
-us,scenario_079,ssi,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a couple rate of $1,538/month instead of the 2026 rate of $1,491/month, which produced $11,136. It then submitted $7,212, which matches none of its own calculations. The correct result is $881/month × 12 = $10,572."
-us,scenario_079,ssi,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"It made a subtraction error: $17,868 − $7,320 is $10,548, not the $6,072 it submitted. Its couple rate of $1,489/month is also $2 below the 2026 rate of $1,491/month, which would have given $10,572."
-us,scenario_079,ssi,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It started from $1,415 as the 2025 couple rate (that is the 2024 rate) and projected forward to $1,450/month, which is actually the 2025 rate. The 2026 couple rate is $1,491/month, so the benefit is $881/month, not $840/month."
-us,scenario_079,ssi,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an inflated couple rate of $1,927/month and calculated $15,804/year. It then submitted 0, which contradicts its own conclusion that the couple is eligible. The correct calculation is $1,491 − $610 = $881/month ($10,572/year)."
-us,scenario_079,ssi,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a couple rate of $1,486/month instead of the 2026 rate of $1,491/month. That gives $876/month instead of $881/month, so it was $60/year low."
-us,scenario_079,ssi,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a couple rate of $1,485/month instead of the 2026 rate of $1,491/month. That gives $875/month instead of $881/month, so it was $72/year low."
-us,scenario_079,ssi,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a couple rate of $1,482/month instead of the 2026 rate of $1,491/month. That gives $872/month instead of $881/month, so it was $108/year low."
-us,scenario_079,ssi,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a couple rate of $1,486.25/month instead of the 2026 rate of $1,491/month. That gives $876.25/month instead of $881/month, so it got $10,515 instead of $10,572."
-us,scenario_079,ssi,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2024 couple rate of $1,415/month instead of the 2026 rate of $1,491/month. That gives $805/month instead of $881/month, so it understated SSI by $912/year."
-us,scenario_079,ssi,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said the SSDI exceeds the couple rate, but countable income is $610/month ($630 minus the $20 exclusion). That is well below the 2026 couple rate of $1,491/month, leaving $881/month payable."
-us,scenario_079,ssi,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a maximum couple benefit of $16,980/year ($1,415/month, the 2024 rate) instead of the 2026 rate of $17,892/year ($1,491/month). That gave $9,660 instead of $10,572."
-us,scenario_079,ssi,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It projected the 2026 couple rate as $17,832/year ($1,486/month) instead of the actual $17,892/year ($1,491/month). Subtracting $7,320 of countable income therefore gave $10,512 instead of $10,572."
-us,scenario_079,ssi,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It returned zero with no derivation, which implies it treated this blind and disabled couple as ineligible. The couple passes the resource test ($1,045 against a $3,000 limit) and has only $610/month of countable income against the $1,491/month couple rate, so the benefit is $881/month."
-us,scenario_079,ssi,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $10,536 implies a couple rate of $1,488/month instead of the 2026 rate of $1,491/month. With the same $610/month countable income, that understates the annual benefit by $36."
-us,scenario_079,ssi,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $10,488 implies a couple rate of $1,484/month instead of the 2026 rate of $1,491/month. That gives $874/month instead of $881/month."
-us,scenario_079,ssi,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 couple rate of $17,400/year ($1,450/month) instead of the 2026 rate of $17,892/year ($1,491/month). That gave $10,080 instead of $10,572."
-us,scenario_079,ssi,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value or explanation for SSI, so there was no answer to score against the $10,572 benefit."
-us,scenario_079,ssi,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a couple rate of about $1,490/month instead of the 2026 rate of $1,491/month. That gives $880/month instead of $881/month, so it was $12/year low."
-us,scenario_079,ssi,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"It counted the vehicle and the bank account against the resource limit, but SSI excludes one vehicle regardless of value. The only countable resource is the $1,045 bank account, which is under the $3,000 couple limit, so the couple qualifies for $881/month."
-us,scenario_079,ssi,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated SSI as an amount that had to be listed as received rather than computing eligibility, even though the prompt says to assume take-up. Both spouses are blind and disabled, which makes them categorically eligible, and the benefit is $1,491 − $610 = $881/month."
-us,scenario_079,ssi,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It projected the 2026 couple rate as $1,487/month instead of $1,491/month. That gives $877/month instead of $881/month, so it got $10,524 instead of $10,572."
-us,scenario_079,ssi,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a couple rate of $1,486/month instead of the 2026 rate of $1,491/month. That gives $876/month instead of $881/month."
-us,scenario_079,ssi,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the SSDI pushes the couple over the income limit without checking it. The $610/month of countable income (after the $20 exclusion) is far below the 2026 couple rate of $1,491/month, leaving an $881/month benefit."
-us,scenario_079,ssi,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a couple rate of about $1,486/month instead of the 2026 rate of $1,491/month. That gives $876/month instead of $881/month, so it was $60/year low."
-us,scenario_079,ssi,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a couple rate of about $1,486/month instead of the 2026 rate of $1,491/month. Its eligibility, resource, and income steps were correct, but the rate error gave $876/month instead of $881/month."
-us,scenario_079,ssi,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It explicitly used the 2025 couple rate of $1,450/month for a 2026 tax year instead of the 2026 rate of $1,491/month. That gave $840/month instead of $881/month."
-us,scenario_079,ssi,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value or explanation for SSI, so there was no answer to score against the $10,572 benefit."
-us,scenario_079,ssi,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It misread the instruction not to infer benefit receipt as a reason to skip SSI, even though the prompt says to assume program take-up. Computing eligibility gives the blind and disabled couple $1,491 − $610 = $881/month."
-us,scenario_079,ssi,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used $1,450/month ($17,400/year) as the 2026 couple rate, but $1,450 is the 2025 rate. The 2026 rate is $1,491/month ($17,892/year), so the benefit is $17,892 − $7,320 = $10,572, not $10,080."
-us,scenario_079,ssi,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It combined two individual rates (about $947.65/month each) instead of using the single 2026 couple rate of $1,491/month. It also counted only $3,780 of the $7,560 SSDI and skipped the $20 exclusion, when the couple's countable income is $7,320/year. Together these errors inflated SSI to $18,963.60."
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly claimed the Increased Excise Tax Credit requires filing with income. The credit is refundable and goes to joint filers with federal AGI of $25,000 or less, with no earned-income requirement. The couple's $7,560 SSDI income qualifies them for 2 × $25 = $50."
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly stated that Arizona has no refundable individual income tax credit. The refundable Increased Excise Tax Credit pays $25 per filer to joint filers with AGI of $25,000 or less, even when Arizona taxable income is zero. The correct total is $50."
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It missed Arizona's refundable Increased Excise Tax Credit. That credit gives $25 each to the head and spouse because joint AGI is below the $25,000 limit, for a total of $50."
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,other,False,It correctly worked out the Increased Excise Tax Credit as $25 × 2 = $50 for a joint couple with no dependents. It then dropped that result and submitted an unsupported $200. The correct value is the $50 it had already derived.
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly treated the Increased Excise Tax Credit as needing income above a filing threshold. The credit is refundable and only requires joint federal AGI of $25,000 or less. The zero-taxable-income couple therefore receives $25 × 2 = $50."
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It assumed refundable Arizona credits require earnings or qualifying dependents. The Increased Excise Tax Credit pays $25 for each spouse to low-AGI joint filers, so the couple gets $50."
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It missed the refundable Arizona Increased Excise Tax Credit of $25 per filer, which applies because joint AGI is under $25,000. The correct total is $50."
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly called the Increased Excise Tax Credit nonrefundable and tied it to taxable income. The credit is refundable and is paid to joint filers with AGI of $25,000 or less, so the couple gets $25 × 2 = $50."
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It ruled out only the Property Tax Credit and missed the refundable Increased Excise Tax Credit. That credit has no age or SSI requirement and pays $25 for each spouse, for a total of $50."
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It assumed that zero tax liability rules out refundable credits. Arizona's Increased Excise Tax Credit is paid regardless of liability to joint filers with AGI of $25,000 or less, giving $50."
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It assumed refundable credits need qualifying children. Arizona's Increased Excise Tax Credit counts the taxpayer and spouse at $25 each, so the low-AGI couple receives $50."
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It looked only at dependent-based and property tax credits and missed the Increased Excise Tax Credit. That credit pays $25 for each spouse to joint filers with AGI of $25,000 or less, for a total of $50."
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It missed Arizona's refundable Increased Excise Tax Credit, which pays $25 for each spouse because joint AGI ($7,560 or less) is under $25,000. The correct total is $50."
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,It made the credit depend on having Arizona tax liability. The Increased Excise Tax Credit is fully refundable and pays $50 to this low-AGI joint couple even though their liability is zero.
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It missed the Increased Excise Tax Credit, which Arizona pays to any joint filer with AGI of $25,000 or less at $25 per person. Here that is $50."
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It said the household qualifies for no refundable credit. In fact the couple meets the $25,000 joint AGI limit for Arizona's Increased Excise Tax Credit, which pays $25 × 2 = $50."
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It missed the refundable Arizona Increased Excise Tax Credit, which pays $25 for the head and $25 for the spouse to a low-AGI joint return. The correct total is $50."
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It required tax liability or earnings for a refundable credit. Arizona's Increased Excise Tax Credit requires neither and pays $50 to this couple because their AGI is under $25,000."
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It missed Arizona's Increased Excise Tax Credit, a refundable $25 per taxpayer and spouse for joint filers with AGI of $25,000 or less, which comes to $50 here."
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It missed the refundable Increased Excise Tax Credit, which the couple qualifies for because their joint AGI is far below $25,000. The credit gives $25 per spouse, for $50."
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly claimed that childless couples with no wages get no Arizona refundable credit. PolicyEngine's az_increased_excise_tax_credit pays $25 for each spouse under the $25,000 AGI limit, for $50."
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It made refundable credits depend on taxable income. Arizona's Increased Excise Tax Credit is paid at zero taxable income to joint filers with AGI of $25,000 or less, giving $25 × 2 = $50."
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly said Arizona has no refundable credit other than one tied to the EITC. The refundable Increased Excise Tax Credit does not depend on the EITC and pays this couple $25 each, for $50."
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It missed the refundable Increased Excise Tax Credit. The credit is triggered just by joint federal AGI of $25,000 or less and pays $25 for each spouse, for $50."
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It assumed refundable credits need earned income or children. Arizona's Increased Excise Tax Credit counts the taxpayer and spouse at $25 each, so the low-AGI couple receives $50."
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It required tax liability, earned income or children. Arizona's Increased Excise Tax Credit needs none of these and pays $25 per filer to joint returns with AGI of $25,000 or less, for $50."
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It missed that the household's low AGI alone qualifies it for Arizona's refundable Increased Excise Tax Credit, which is $25 × 2 = $50."
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It assumed refundable credits need earnings or children. The Increased Excise Tax Credit applies to any joint filer with AGI of $25,000 or less, giving this couple $50."
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated zero taxable income and no dependents as ruling out a refundable credit. Arizona's Increased Excise Tax Credit pays $25 each to the taxpayer and spouse when AGI is under $25,000, for $50."
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It required earnings or dependent children. Arizona's refundable Increased Excise Tax Credit pays $25 for each spouse on a low-AGI joint return, for $50."
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It made the credit depend on tax liability and missed the refundable Increased Excise Tax Credit, which pays this couple $50 because their joint AGI is under $25,000."
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It required qualifying children and tax liability. Arizona's Increased Excise Tax Credit counts the taxpayer and spouse at $25 each and is refundable, so the couple receives $50."
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly gave Arizona a state EITC and then stopped. It missed the refundable Increased Excise Tax Credit, which pays $25 per spouse to joint filers with AGI of $25,000 or less, for $50."
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,It treated zero state tax liability as ruling out refundable credits. Arizona's Increased Excise Tax Credit is paid in full to this low-AGI joint couple at $25 × 2 = $50.
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It looked only at the property tax refund and earned-income credits. It missed the Increased Excise Tax Credit, which needs no rent, property tax or earnings and pays $25 per spouse under the $25,000 AGI limit, for $50."
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly said Arizona has no refundable credit for a childless couple with zero liability. The Increased Excise Tax Credit pays $25 for each spouse, for $50."
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It falsely stated that Arizona has no state income tax. Arizona does levy an individual income tax, and its refundable Increased Excise Tax Credit pays this low-AGI joint couple $25 × 2 = $50."
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It missed Arizona's refundable Increased Excise Tax Credit. The couple qualifies because their joint AGI is under $25,000, earning $25 per filer, or $50."
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It checked only the age-65 Property Tax Credit and said no other credit applies at $0 liability. The refundable Increased Excise Tax Credit has no age requirement and pays this couple $25 each, for $50."
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It made refundable credits depend on taxable income and dependents. Arizona's Increased Excise Tax Credit counts the taxpayer and spouse at $25 each when AGI is under $25,000, for $50."
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It missed the refundable Arizona Increased Excise Tax Credit, which pays $25 for each spouse on a joint return with AGI of $25,000 or less, for a total of $50."
+us,scenario_079,ssi,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly found $610/month of countable income but used a couple rate of $1,450.60/month, which is the 2025 level. The 2026 couple rate is $1,491/month, so the benefit is $881/month ($10,572/year), not $840.60/month."
+us,scenario_079,ssi,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model wrongly treated $7,560 of annual SSDI as above a monthly individual income limit and declared the head ineligible. SSDI is $630/month, or $610 countable after the $20 exclusion. That is far below the $1,491/month 2026 couple rate, so the couple receives $881/month."
+us,scenario_079,ssi,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model claimed SSDI exceeds the couple's SSI income limit. The $630/month SSDI leaves $610/month countable after the $20 general exclusion, well under the $1,491/month 2026 couple rate, so the couple is owed $881/month ($10,572/year)."
+us,scenario_079,ssi,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model first computed $10,080 with a $1,450 couple rate, then switched to an invented $1,940/month couple rate, giving $15,960. The 2026 couple rate is $1,491/month, which gives $881/month after $610 of countable income."
+us,scenario_079,ssi,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,other,False,"The model overstated the 2026 couple rate as $1,538/month and computed $11,136. It then submitted $7,212, which matches nothing in its own reasoning. The correct figure is $1,491 − $610 = $881/month, or $10,572/year."
+us,scenario_079,ssi,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"The model set up $17,868 − $7,320, which equals $10,548, but submitted $6,072, an arithmetic error. Its $1,489/month couple rate was also slightly below the $1,491 rate, which gives $10,572."
+us,scenario_079,ssi,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model took $1,415, the 2024 couple rate, as the 2025 rate and projected it to $1,450 for 2026. The real 2026 couple rate is $1,491/month, so the benefit is $881/month, not $840."
+us,scenario_079,ssi,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,other,False,"The model found the couple eligible and computed $15,804 using an invented $1,927/month couple rate, then submitted 0. Neither number is right: with the $1,491/month 2026 couple rate and $610 of countable income, the benefit is $10,572/year."
+us,scenario_079,ssi,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a $1,486/month couple rate instead of the 2026 rate of $1,491/month, so it was $5/month short ($876 instead of $881)."
+us,scenario_079,ssi,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a $1,485/month couple rate instead of the 2026 rate of $1,491/month, which gave $875/month instead of $881/month."
+us,scenario_079,ssi,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a $1,482/month couple rate instead of the 2026 rate of $1,491/month, which gave $872/month instead of $881/month."
+us,scenario_079,ssi,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used an unrounded $1,486.25/month couple rate instead of the published 2026 rate of $1,491/month, giving $10,515 instead of $10,572."
+us,scenario_079,ssi,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used $1,415/month, the 2024 couple rate, instead of the 2026 rate of $1,491/month. That gave $805/month instead of $881/month."
+us,scenario_079,ssi,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model wrongly said the SSDI exceeds the couple rate. Countable income is $610/month ($630 − $20), far below the $1,491/month 2026 couple rate, so the benefit is $881/month."
+us,scenario_079,ssi,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's $16,980 annual maximum equals $1,415/month, the 2024 couple rate. The 2026 rate is $1,491/month ($17,892/year), so subtracting $7,320 of countable income gives $10,572."
+us,scenario_079,ssi,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model projected the 2026 couple rate at $17,832/year ($1,486/month) instead of the published $1,491/month ($17,892/year). That left it $60/year short."
+us,scenario_079,ssi,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model gave 0 with no computation. It missed that the blind and disabled couple meets the resource test and has only $610/month of countable income against a $1,491/month couple rate, which yields $10,572/year."
+us,scenario_079,ssi,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's $10,536 implies a couple rate of $17,856/year ($1,488/month) instead of the 2026 rate of $1,491/month. The $7,320 countable-income subtraction was correct."
+us,scenario_079,ssi,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's $10,488 implies a couple rate of $1,484/month instead of the 2026 rate of $1,491/month. The $20 exclusion and $610 of countable income were handled correctly."
+us,scenario_079,ssi,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used $1,450/month ($17,400/year), the 2025 couple rate, instead of the 2026 rate of $1,491/month ($17,892/year). That cost $492/year."
+us,scenario_079,ssi,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a projected couple rate of $17,832/year ($1,486/month) instead of the 2026 rate of $1,491/month. It was $5/month short of the correct $881/month."
+us,scenario_079,ssi,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No SSI value or explanation was returned, so there is nothing to score. The correct computation is the $1,491/month couple rate minus $610 of countable SSDI, or $10,572/year."
+us,scenario_079,ssi,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used about $1,490/month for the 2026 couple rate instead of the published $1,491/month, which gave $880/month instead of $881/month."
+us,scenario_079,ssi,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"The model wrongly counted vehicle value toward the resource limit. One vehicle is excluded regardless of value, so countable resources are just the $1,045 bank balance, under the $3,000 couple limit. The couple therefore receives $881/month."
+us,scenario_079,ssi,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model refused to compute SSI because receipt was not listed. The prompt says to assume program take-up, and both spouses are blind and disabled with resources under the limit, so SSI comes to $1,491 − $610 = $881/month."
+us,scenario_079,ssi,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model projected a $1,487/month couple rate instead of the 2026 rate of $1,491/month, which gave $877/month instead of $881/month."
+us,scenario_079,ssi,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a $1,486/month couple rate instead of the 2026 rate of $1,491/month, which gave $876/month instead of $881/month."
+us,scenario_079,ssi,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model assumed SSDI exceeds the couple's limit without checking. The $630/month SSDI leaves $610/month countable after the $20 exclusion, well below the $1,491/month 2026 couple rate."
+us,scenario_079,ssi,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used about $1,486/month for the 2026 couple rate instead of the published $1,491/month, giving $876/month instead of $881/month."
+us,scenario_079,ssi,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used about $1,486/month for the 2026 couple rate instead of the published $1,491/month. Its resource and income-exclusion steps were correct, but the benefit came out $5/month short."
+us,scenario_079,ssi,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model knowingly used the 2025 couple rate of $1,450/month for a 2026 calculation. With the 2026 rate of $1,491/month, the benefit is $881/month ($10,572/year), not $840/month."
+us,scenario_079,ssi,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No SSI value or explanation was returned, so there is nothing to score. The correct computation is the $1,491/month couple rate minus $610 of countable SSDI, or $10,572/year."
+us,scenario_079,ssi,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated SSI as a benefit receipt it could not infer. The prompt says to assume take-up, so SSI must be computed from eligibility: a blind and disabled couple with $610/month of countable income against a $1,491/month couple rate receives $10,572/year."
+us,scenario_079,ssi,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the $20 exclusion correctly ($7,320/year countable) but used $1,450/month, the 2025 couple rate. With the 2026 rate of $1,491/month ($17,892/year), the answer is $10,572."
+us,scenario_079,ssi,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model treated each spouse as a separate individual instead of using the $1,491/month couple rate. It counted only $3,780 of income, which is half the SSDI, instead of the couple's full $7,320 of countable income ($610/month). That produced an inflated $18,963.60 instead of $10,572."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model wrongly said the Increased Excise Tax Credit needs taxable or earned income. The credit is refundable and is available to MFJ filers with federal AGI of $25,000 or less, even when AGI is zero. Two exemptions × $25 = $50, but the model answered $0."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model wrongly said Arizona has no refundable individual credit. It missed the refundable Increased Excise Tax Credit of $25 per exemption, which applies to MFJ filers with AGI of $25,000 or less whether or not they owe tax. That credit gives this couple $50."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model missed Arizona's refundable Increased Excise Tax Credit. It pays $25 for each of the two exemptions because the couple's AGI is under the $25,000 MFJ ceiling, so the answer is $50, not $0."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model worked out the Increased Excise Tax Credit correctly ($25 × 2 exemptions = $50 for MFJ with no dependents). It then submitted $200 with no support for that number, instead of the $50 its own calculation produced."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated the Increased Excise Tax Credit as if it required meeting the income-tax filing threshold. The credit has only a maximum AGI limit ($25,000 for MFJ), not a minimum income, so this low-income couple qualifies for $25 × 2 = $50."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model assumed AZ refundable credits require earnings or dependents. The Increased Excise Tax Credit counts the two personal exemptions at $25 each for MFJ filers with AGI of $25,000 or less, which gives $50."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model missed Arizona's refundable Increased Excise Tax Credit. This couple gets $25 for each of their two personal exemptions because their AGI is below the $25,000 MFJ limit, for a total of $50."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model wrongly called the Increased Excise Tax Credit nonrefundable or unavailable. It is refundable and requires only federal AGI of $25,000 or less for MFJ, so the couple receives $25 × 2 = $50 regardless of whether they have taxable income."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model checked only the Property Tax Credit and missed the refundable Increased Excise Tax Credit. That credit has no age or SSI requirement and pays $25 per exemption to low-AGI MFJ filers, which gives $50."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model assumed zero tax liability means no refundable credit. Arizona's Increased Excise Tax Credit is refundable regardless of liability and pays $25 for each of the couple's two exemptions, for $50."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model assumed AZ refundable credits require income or children. The Increased Excise Tax Credit counts personal exemptions, so the two spouses get $25 each for $50 because AGI is under the $25,000 MFJ ceiling."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model ruled out credits because there are no children and no property tax credit. It missed the Increased Excise Tax Credit, which pays $25 per personal exemption (two spouses = $50) to MFJ filers with AGI of $25,000 or less."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model missed Arizona's refundable Increased Excise Tax Credit. With $7,560 of income, the couple is far below the $25,000 MFJ AGI limit and gets $25 × 2 exemptions = $50."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated zero state tax liability as ruling out refundable credits. The Increased Excise Tax Credit is paid regardless of liability, at $25 per exemption, which gives this MFJ couple $50."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model missed the refundable Increased Excise Tax Credit. Its only test is AGI of $25,000 or less for MFJ, and it pays $25 for each of the two exemptions, for $50 instead of $0."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model concluded no AZ refundable credit applies and missed the Increased Excise Tax Credit. That credit gives low-AGI MFJ filers $25 per personal exemption, which is $50 for this couple."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model missed Arizona's refundable Increased Excise Tax Credit. The couple's AGI is under $25,000, so they qualify for $25 × 2 personal exemptions = $50."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model required tax liability or earnings for a refundable credit. The Increased Excise Tax Credit needs neither and pays $25 per exemption to MFJ filers with AGI of $25,000 or less, which gives $50."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model missed the Increased Excise Tax Credit. It is refundable, it applies to this couple because their AGI is below the $25,000 MFJ limit, and it pays $25 for each of the two exemptions, for $50."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model concluded no AZ refundable credit applies and missed the Increased Excise Tax Credit. That credit is $25 per personal exemption for low-AGI MFJ filers, so this household gets $50."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model claimed that childless couples with no wages get no AZ refundable credit. The Increased Excise Tax Credit has no wage or child requirement and pays $25 for each spouse's exemption, for $50."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated zero taxable income as ruling out refundable credits. The Increased Excise Tax Credit depends only on federal AGI of $25,000 or less for MFJ and pays $25 per exemption, which gives $50."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model assumed the only AZ refundable credit is tied to the federal EITC. It missed the Increased Excise Tax Credit, which pays $25 per personal exemption to MFJ filers with AGI of $25,000 or less, for a total of $50 here."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said no AZ refundable credit is triggered. The listed facts (MFJ, two exemptions, AGI far below $25,000) qualify the couple for the Increased Excise Tax Credit of $25 × 2 = $50."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model required earned income or children for a refundable credit. Arizona's Increased Excise Tax Credit requires neither and pays $25 for each of the two personal exemptions, for $50."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model required tax liability, earned income, or children. The Increased Excise Tax Credit is refundable, has none of those requirements, and pays $25 per exemption to MFJ filers with AGI of $25,000 or less, which is $50 here."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,The model found no AZ refundable credit and missed the Increased Excise Tax Credit. The couple's low AGI and two exemptions qualify them for $25 × 2 = $50.
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model required earnings or children for a refundable credit. Arizona's Increased Excise Tax Credit applies to any filer under the AGI limit ($25,000 for MFJ) at $25 per personal exemption, which gives $50."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model ruled out credits because there is no taxable income and there are no dependents. The Increased Excise Tax Credit counts the filers' own personal exemptions at $25 each for MFJ AGI of $25,000 or less, which gives $50."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model required qualifying earnings or children. The Increased Excise Tax Credit is refundable with no earnings test and pays $25 for each spouse's exemption, for $50."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated zero tax liability as meaning no credits. Arizona's refundable Increased Excise Tax Credit pays $25 per exemption to MFJ filers with AGI of $25,000 or less regardless of liability, so the couple gets $50."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model required qualifying children or tax liability. The Increased Excise Tax Credit is calculated from the filers' own personal exemptions ($25 × 2 = $50) whenever MFJ AGI is $25,000 or less."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model checked only for a state EITC tied to the federal EITC, which Arizona does not have. It missed the refundable Increased Excise Tax Credit, which pays this low-AGI MFJ couple $25 per exemption, for $50."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model assumed zero liability means no refundable credit. The Increased Excise Tax Credit is refundable and pays $25 for each of the two personal exemptions to MFJ filers with AGI of $25,000 or less, for $50."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model considered only the property tax refund and credits based on earnings. It missed the Increased Excise Tax Credit, which needs no rent, property tax, or earnings and pays $25 per exemption ($50 here) to MFJ filers with AGI of $25,000 or less."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said no refundable credit applies to a childless couple with zero liability. Arizona's Increased Excise Tax Credit pays such a couple $25 for each personal exemption, for $50."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model wrongly claimed Arizona has no state income tax. Arizona has an income tax with a refundable Increased Excise Tax Credit, which pays this low-AGI MFJ couple $25 × 2 exemptions = $50."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model required income or qualifying children. The Increased Excise Tax Credit applies to MFJ filers with AGI of $25,000 or less and pays $25 per personal exemption, which gives $50 for this couple."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model missed Arizona's refundable Increased Excise Tax Credit. The couple's AGI is under the $25,000 MFJ limit and they have two exemptions, so they are owed $25 × 2 = $50."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model correctly excluded the Property Tax Credit because of the age 65+ requirement. It then wrongly concluded no other refundable credit applies at zero liability, missing the Increased Excise Tax Credit of $25 per exemption ($50) for MFJ AGI of $25,000 or less."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model required taxable income or dependents. Arizona's Increased Excise Tax Credit is refundable and counts the spouses' own personal exemptions at $25 each, which gives $50 for MFJ AGI of $25,000 or less."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model missed the Increased Excise Tax Credit. It pays $25 for each of the couple's two exemptions because their AGI is below the $25,000 MFJ threshold, for a refundable credit of $50 instead of $0."
us,scenario_080,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_080,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_080,free_school_meals_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
@@ -6741,54 +6960,56 @@ us,scenario_080,local_income_tax,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,F
us,scenario_080,payroll_tax,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_080,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_080,self_employment_tax,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_080,snap,claude-fable-5,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It correctly applied broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE) and the utility allowance triggered by the energy subsidy to get $0 net income. But it used a $293 one-person maximum allotment for all 12 months. The correct maximum is $298 for January–September and $304.68 for October–December, so $293×12 = $3,516 is too low."
-us,scenario_080,snap,claude-fable-5.1,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It reached the maximum allotment, but by leaving out the $300/month financial assistance, which SNAP counts. The correct route to $0 net income is the $857 utility allowance triggered by the energy subsidy. It also multiplied $298 by 12 and missed the October 2026 increase to $304.68 for October–December."
-us,scenario_080,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly counted the $3,600 financial assistance as a resource and applied a $2,750 asset limit. It never applied Pennsylvania's broad-based categorical eligibility through the TANF non-cash program, which waives the SNAP asset test entirely. That made the household look ineligible when it actually qualifies for the maximum allotment."
-us,scenario_080,snap,claude-haiku-5.5,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It denied SNAP because $19,828 in liquid assets exceeds the resource limit. It missed that Pennsylvania's broad-based categorical eligibility through the TANF non-cash program removes the asset test. It also wrongly said there is no counted income, ignoring the $300/month financial assistance."
-us,scenario_080,snap,claude-opus-4.7,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly excluded the $300/month financial assistance, but still landed on $0 net income and the maximum benefit. Its error was using a $293 monthly maximum for all 12 months instead of $298 for January–September and $304.68 for October–December."
-us,scenario_080,snap,claude-opus-4.8,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the roughly $4,500 elderly/disabled asset limit and denied SNAP. It missed Pennsylvania's broad-based categorical eligibility through the TANF non-cash program, which waives the asset test. With $0 net income after the standard deduction and utility allowance, the household gets the maximum allotment."
-us,scenario_080,snap,claude-opus-5,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"Its $2,622 works out to about $218.50/month, well below the maximum. It wrongly treated shelter deduction limits as reducing the benefit. In fact, the $2,000 energy subsidy triggers Pennsylvania's $857 utility allowance, and the uncapped excess shelter deduction takes net income to $0, giving the full $298 and $304.68 monthly maximums."
-us,scenario_080,snap,claude-opus-5.5,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It correctly reached $0 net income and the $298 maximum but applied that amount to all 12 months. It explicitly ignored the October 2026 cost-of-living update, which raises the October–December allotment to $304.68."
-us,scenario_080,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It correctly applied broad-based categorical eligibility, the utility allowance from the energy subsidy, and $0 net income. But it used the outdated FY2025 $292 maximum allotment for all 12 months instead of $298 for January–September and $304.68 for October–December."
-us,scenario_080,snap,claude-sonnet-5,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It computed near-zero net income, then disqualified the household under the $4,250 elderly/disabled asset limit. It missed that Pennsylvania's broad-based categorical eligibility through the TANF non-cash program waives the asset test entirely."
-us,scenario_080,snap,claude-sonnet-5.5,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly said there are no shelter costs. The $2,000 energy subsidy triggers Pennsylvania's $857 utility allowance, and the resulting excess shelter deduction takes net income to $0. Instead it subtracted 30% of a $169 net income from $298 and also counted capital gains, which SNAP excludes."
-us,scenario_080,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied only the standard deduction and missed that the $2,000 energy subsidy triggers Pennsylvania's $857 utility allowance. That allowance creates an excess shelter deduction that cuts net income to $0. It also counted the $924 of capital gains as SNAP income, leaving a $170 net income and a reduced benefit."
-us,scenario_080,snap,deepseek-v4-pro,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly concluded that the energy subsidy only counts as excluded income and that no shelter deduction applies. In fact, the subsidy triggers Pennsylvania's $857 utility allowance, which takes net income to $0. It also used an outdated $292 maximum instead of $298 for January–September and $304.68 for October–December."
-us,scenario_080,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly assumed no shelter deduction. The $2,000 energy subsidy triggers Pennsylvania's $857 utility allowance, which takes net income to $0 rather than $168. It also counted capital gains as SNAP income, so it took 30% off a $300 maximum instead of paying the full allotment."
-us,scenario_080,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly denied SNAP because $19,828 in assets exceeds the disabled-household resource limit. It missed Pennsylvania's broad-based categorical eligibility through the TANF non-cash program, which waives the asset test."
-us,scenario_080,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,It correctly used the utility allowance from the energy subsidy to reach $0 net income. But it applied a $291 monthly maximum for all 12 months instead of $298 for January–September and $304.68 for October–December.
-us,scenario_080,snap,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly treated assets and low income as reasons for zero SNAP. Pennsylvania's broad-based categorical eligibility waives the asset test. Low income raises the benefit: with $0 net income after the standard deduction and utility allowance, the household gets the maximum one-person allotment."
-us,scenario_080,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,It correctly found that the utility allowance from the energy subsidy takes net income to $0. But it used a $292 monthly maximum for all 12 months instead of $298 for January–September and $304.68 for October–December.
-us,scenario_080,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It reached $0 net income through broad-based categorical eligibility and the utility allowance, though with outdated $198 standard deduction and $600 allowance figures. The final error was a $292 maximum allotment for all 12 months instead of $298 for January–September and $304.68 for October–December."
-us,scenario_080,snap,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly treated the financial assistance and assets as disqualifying. Pennsylvania's broad-based categorical eligibility waives the asset test, and the $301 monthly countable income falls to $0 net after the standard deduction and $857 utility allowance, which yields the maximum allotment."
-us,scenario_080,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,It correctly applied broad-based categorical eligibility and the heating utility allowance to reach $0 net income. But it used a $292 one-person maximum for all 12 months instead of $298 for January–September and $304.68 for October–December.
-us,scenario_080,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It reached the $298 maximum but multiplied it by 12. It missed the October 2026 cost-of-living increase to $304.68 for October–December, which brings the annual total to $3,596.04."
-us,scenario_080,snap,gemini-3.8-flash,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,It correctly used broad-based categorical eligibility and the heating utility allowance to reach $0 net income. But it applied an outdated $292 monthly maximum for all 12 months instead of $298 for January–September and $304.68 for October–December.
-us,scenario_080,snap,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no SNAP value and no reasoning, so there is no answer to score."
-us,scenario_080,snap,glm-5.3,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,It recognized the energy subsidy as LIHEAP-type assistance but never used it to trigger Pennsylvania's $857 utility allowance. That allowance's excess shelter deduction takes net income to $0. Instead it took 30% of about $170 net income off a $290 maximum.
-us,scenario_080,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly treated the facts as too thin to compute SNAP. A one-person household with $301/month countable income clears the gross test under broad-based categorical eligibility. After the standard deduction and $857 utility allowance, its net income is $0, which yields the maximum allotment."
-us,scenario_080,snap,gpt-5.4-nano,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly set SNAP to $0 because there was no earned income. SNAP pays the most to households with little or no income. Here the household has $0 net income after the standard deduction and the utility allowance triggered by the energy subsidy, so it gets the maximum one-person allotment."
-us,scenario_080,snap,gpt-5.5,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly assumed no shelter deduction. The $2,000 energy subsidy triggers Pennsylvania's $857 utility allowance, which takes net income from $96 to $0. Instead of the full $298 and $304.68 monthly maximums, it took 30% of $96 off $298."
-us,scenario_080,snap,gpt-5.6-luna,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied only the standard deduction and missed the $857 utility allowance triggered by the energy subsidy, which takes net income to $0. It also counted the $924 of capital gains in its $4,540 countable income, so it subtracted 30% of net income from the maximum."
-us,scenario_080,snap,gpt-5.6-sol,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It reduced income only by the standard deduction and missed that the $2,000 energy subsidy triggers Pennsylvania's $857 utility allowance. The resulting excess shelter deduction takes net income to $0, so the benefit is the full maximum, not a $270 reduced allotment."
-us,scenario_080,snap,gpt-5.6-terra,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly denied SNAP because $19,828 exceeds the disabled-household resource limit. It missed Pennsylvania's broad-based categorical eligibility through the TANF non-cash program, which waives the asset test."
-us,scenario_080,snap,gpt-6-astra,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It correctly applied broad-based categorical eligibility and the heating utility allowance to reach $0 net income. But it paid $298 for all 12 months, missing the October 2026 increase to $304.68 for October–December."
-us,scenario_080,snap,gpt-6-luna,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied only the standard deduction and subtracted 30% of the remaining net income. It missed that the $2,000 energy subsidy triggers Pennsylvania's $857 utility allowance, which takes net income to $0 and yields the full maximum allotment."
-us,scenario_080,snap,gpt-6-sol,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It counted the $940 of investment income (SNAP counts only the $16 of dividends, not the capital gains) and applied only the $209 standard deduction. It missed the $857 utility allowance triggered by the energy subsidy, which takes net income to $0."
-us,scenario_080,snap,gpt-6.1-sol,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It got broad-based categorical eligibility right but left $2,032 of annual net income after only the standard deduction. It missed that the energy subsidy triggers Pennsylvania's $857 utility allowance, whose excess shelter deduction takes net income to $0. It also held the maximum at $298 instead of rising to $304.68 in October–December."
-us,scenario_080,snap,grok-4.3,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly concluded that having no shelter or utility expenses makes SNAP $0. A household with little income gets close to the maximum even without shelter costs. Here, the $2,000 energy subsidy triggers Pennsylvania's $857 utility allowance, which takes net income to $0 and yields the full allotment."
-us,scenario_080,snap,grok-4.5,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,It correctly applied broad-based categorical eligibility and the uncapped utility-allowance shelter deduction to reach $0 net income. But it used a $292 monthly maximum for all 12 months instead of $298 for January–September and $304.68 for October–December.
-us,scenario_080,snap,grok-4.6,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,It correctly reached $0 net income through broad-based categorical eligibility and the heating utility allowance from the energy subsidy. But it applied a $292 monthly maximum for all 12 months instead of $298 for January–September and $304.68 for October–December.
-us,scenario_080,snap,grok-4.7,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly excluded the $300/month financial assistance from countable income, though it still reached $0 net income. It then paid $298 for all 12 months, missing the October 2026 increase to $304.68 for October–December."
-us,scenario_080,snap,grok-build-0.1,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the $4,250 disabled-household asset limit and denied SNAP. It missed that Pennsylvania's broad-based categorical eligibility through the TANF non-cash program waives the asset test."
-us,scenario_080,snap,inkling,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It counted bank assets and vehicle value against a disabled-household resource limit and also cited the absence of school-age children, which is irrelevant to SNAP. It missed Pennsylvania's broad-based categorical eligibility, which waives the asset test, so the household gets the maximum allotment."
-us,scenario_080,snap,kimi-k2.6,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the federal resource limit for households with a disabled member and denied SNAP. It missed Pennsylvania's broad-based categorical eligibility through the TANF non-cash program, which removes the asset test."
-us,scenario_080,snap,kimi-k3,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly counted only the small investment income and ignored the $300/month financial assistance, though $0 net income still follows from the utility allowance. Its final error was a $292 monthly maximum for all 12 months instead of $298 for January–September and $304.68 for October–December."
-us,scenario_080,snap,minimax-m3,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly treated $19,828 in assets plus the financial assistance as disqualifying. Pennsylvania's broad-based categorical eligibility waives the asset test, and the household's $0 net income after the standard deduction and $857 utility allowance yields the maximum allotment."
-us,scenario_080,snap,muse-wonder,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It denied SNAP because bank assets exceed the disabled-household resource limit. It missed Pennsylvania's broad-based categorical eligibility through the TANF non-cash program, which waives the asset test."
-us,scenario_080,snap,ox-alpha,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the roughly $4,500 disabled-household asset limit and denied SNAP despite very low income. It missed that Pennsylvania's broad-based categorical eligibility through the TANF non-cash program removes the asset test."
-us,scenario_080,snap,qwen-3.7-max,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied a $2,750 asset limit and denied SNAP. It missed Pennsylvania's broad-based categorical eligibility through the TANF non-cash program, which waives the asset test entirely."
-us,scenario_080,snap,qwen3.8-max,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It denied SNAP because resources exceed the limit. It missed Pennsylvania's broad-based categorical eligibility, which waives the asset test, so the household's $0 net income yields the maximum one-person allotment."
+us,scenario_080,snap,claude-fable-5,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It got BBCE, the utility allowance from the energy subsidy, and the $0 net income right, but it applied a $293 monthly maximum for all 12 months. The maximum is $298 for January–September and $304.68 for October–December, so the correct total is $3,596.04, not $3,516."
+us,scenario_080,snap,claude-fable-5.1,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It correctly reached $0 net income and the $298 one-person maximum, but it multiplied $298 by 12. That misses the October 2026 fiscal-year uprating, which raises the maximum to $304.68 for October–December and adds $20.04 to the annual total."
+us,scenario_080,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly counted the $3,600 of financial assistance as a resource and applied a $2,750 asset limit. It missed that Pennsylvania's TANF non-cash BBCE makes the household categorically eligible and waives the SNAP asset test entirely, which leads to the maximum allotment of $3,596.04."
+us,scenario_080,snap,claude-haiku-5.5,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It denied SNAP because the $19,828 in liquid assets exceeded the resource limit. Pennsylvania's TANF non-cash BBCE gives categorical eligibility and removes the asset test, and with $0 net income the household gets $3,596.04."
+us,scenario_080,snap,claude-opus-4.7,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It reached $0 net income, but by wrongly excluding the $300/month financial assistance; the engine counts it, and the utility-allowance shelter deduction still zeroes net income. It then used a $293 maximum for all 12 months instead of $298 for January–September and $304.68 for October–December."
+us,scenario_080,snap,claude-opus-4.8,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the roughly $4,500 elderly/disabled asset limit to the $19,828 bank balance and denied SNAP. Pennsylvania's TANF non-cash BBCE confers categorical eligibility with no asset test, so the household gets the maximum allotment."
+us,scenario_080,snap,claude-opus-5,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"Its $2,622 works out to about $218.50/month, a partial benefit, even though its own reasoning has essentially zero countable income. With the energy-subsidy utility allowance taking net income to $0, the benefit is the full maximum of $298 (January–September) and $304.68 (October–December)."
+us,scenario_080,snap,claude-opus-5.5,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It correctly used BBCE, $0 net income, and the $298 maximum, but it deliberately left out the October 2026 update. The maximum rises to $304.68 for October–December, so the year totals $3,596.04, not 298×12."
+us,scenario_080,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"Its BBCE, utility-allowance, and $0 net income steps were correct, but it used the FY2025 one-person maximum of $292 for every month. The correct maximum is $298 for January–September and $304.68 for October–December."
+us,scenario_080,snap,claude-sonnet-5,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It reached a near-zero net income but then applied the $4,250 elderly/disabled asset limit and denied SNAP. It missed that Pennsylvania's TANF non-cash BBCE waives the asset test for this household."
+us,scenario_080,snap,claude-sonnet-5.5,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It assumed no shelter costs and missed that the $2,000 energy subsidy grants the $857 standard utility allowance through heat-and-eat, which creates an excess shelter deduction that zeroes net income. It also counted the $924 of capital gains as SNAP income. That left $169 of net income and a partial $247/month benefit instead of the full maximum."
+us,scenario_080,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied only the standard deduction and never used the $857 utility allowance that the energy subsidy confers, which would bring net income to $0. It also counted capital gains as income. That subtracted 30% of $170 in net income from the maximum instead of paying $298/$304.68 in full."
+us,scenario_080,snap,deepseek-v4-pro,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated the energy subsidy only as excluded income and missed that it triggers the $857 utility allowance and an excess shelter deduction that zeroes net income. It also counted capital gains and used an outdated $292 maximum, which produced a $239/month partial benefit."
+us,scenario_080,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It assumed no shelter deduction and missed the $857 utility allowance that the energy subsidy triggers through heat-and-eat. That allowance drives net income to $0. It also counted the $924 of capital gains as income, so it subtracted 30% of $168 from the maximum."
+us,scenario_080,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It denied SNAP because $19,828 exceeded the disabled-household asset limit. Pennsylvania's TANF non-cash BBCE makes the household categorically eligible and removes the asset test."
+us,scenario_080,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It correctly used the utility allowance to reach $0 net income, but it applied a $291 monthly maximum for all 12 months. The correct maximum is $298 for January–September and $304.68 for October–December."
+us,scenario_080,snap,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated the assets and low income as barring a benefit. It missed that Pennsylvania's TANF non-cash BBCE waives the asset test, and that low income with $0 net income produces the maximum allotment, not zero."
+us,scenario_080,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It correctly used the utility-allowance excess shelter deduction to reach $0 net income, but it applied the outdated $292 maximum for every month. The correct maximum is $298 for January–September and $304.68 for October–December."
+us,scenario_080,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It reached $0 net income through BBCE and the utility allowance, though with wrong deduction amounts ($198 standard, about $600 utility allowance). It then multiplied an outdated $292 maximum by 12 instead of using $298 for January–September and $304.68 for October–December."
+us,scenario_080,snap,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It concluded that the assets and financial assistance made the benefit zero. It missed that Pennsylvania's TANF non-cash BBCE waives the asset test and that the deductions bring net income to $0, which pays the full maximum allotment."
+us,scenario_080,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It correctly applied BBCE and the heating utility allowance to reach $0 net income, but it used $292/month for all 12 months. The correct maximum is $298 for January–September and $304.68 for October–December."
+us,scenario_080,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"Its $3,576 is the $298 maximum times 12. It missed the October 2026 uprating, which raises the one-person maximum to $304.68 for October–December."
+us,scenario_080,snap,gemini-3.8-flash,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It correctly found that the energy assistance triggers the utility allowance and zeroes net income, but it applied the outdated $292 maximum for every month. The correct maximum is $298 for January–September and $304.68 for October–December."
+us,scenario_080,snap,gemini-4-argon,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It correctly combined BBCE with the utility allowance and the $298 maximum, but it applied $298 to all 12 months. That ignores the October 2026 increase to $304.68 for October–December."
+us,scenario_080,snap,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no SNAP value and no explanation, so there was nothing to score against the $3,596.04 reference."
+us,scenario_080,snap,glm-5.3,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It saw the energy subsidy only as excluded income and a route to categorical eligibility. It missed that the subsidy also grants the $857 utility allowance, whose excess shelter deduction zeroes net income. It also counted capital gains, which produced a partial benefit of about $240/month."
+us,scenario_080,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly claimed the facts were too incomplete to establish a benefit and defaulted to $0. A one-person household with $300/month of countable assistance, BBCE eligibility, and an energy-subsidy utility allowance has $0 net income and gets the full maximum allotment."
+us,scenario_080,snap,gpt-5.4-nano,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It set SNAP to $0 because there was no earned income or other listed details. Earned income is not required: the one-person unit with $301.33 of monthly gross income, BBCE, and the utility allowance has $0 net income and gets $298/$304.68 per month."
+us,scenario_080,snap,gpt-5.5,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It explicitly assumed no shelter deduction. It missed that the $2,000 energy subsidy confers the $857 utility allowance, whose excess shelter deduction wipes out the remaining $96 of net income, so the full $298/$304.68 maximum applies."
+us,scenario_080,snap,gpt-5.6-luna,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied no shelter deduction and missed the utility allowance that the energy subsidy triggers through heat-and-eat. It also counted the $924 of capital gains in the $4,540 of countable income. That subtracted 30% of $2,032 in net income instead of paying the full maximum."
+us,scenario_080,snap,gpt-5.6-sol,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It reduced income by the standard deduction only and left about $92/month of net income. It missed the $857 utility allowance from the energy subsidy, which brings net income to $0 and pays the full maximum of $298, then $304.68."
+us,scenario_080,snap,gpt-5.6-terra,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It denied SNAP because $19,828 exceeded the disabled-household resource limit. It missed that Pennsylvania's TANF non-cash BBCE makes the household categorically eligible with no asset test."
+us,scenario_080,snap,gpt-6-astra,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It correctly reached $0 net income through BBCE and the heating utility allowance, but it paid $298 for all 12 months. That misses the October 2026 uprating to $304.68 for October–December."
+us,scenario_080,snap,gpt-6-luna,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied only the standard deduction and left a positive net income. It missed that the energy subsidy confers the $857 utility allowance, whose excess shelter deduction zeroes net income and yields the full maximum, not $269/month."
+us,scenario_080,snap,gpt-6-sol,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It counted the $924 of capital gains as SNAP income and applied only the $209 standard deduction. It never applied the $857 utility allowance that the energy subsidy triggers, which brings net income to $0, so it reported a partial $247/month benefit."
+us,scenario_080,snap,gpt-6.1-sol,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It handled BBCE correctly but used only the standard deduction and counted the capital gains, leaving $2,032 of annual net income. It missed the utility-allowance excess shelter deduction from the energy subsidy, which zeroes net income and pays the full maximum."
+us,scenario_080,snap,grok-4.3,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly treated the absence of shelter or utility expenses as making SNAP $0. Deductions only lower net income, and the $2,000 energy subsidy itself confers the $857 utility allowance, which zeroes net income and pays the full maximum allotment."
+us,scenario_080,snap,grok-4.5,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It correctly used BBCE and the utility-allowance excess shelter deduction to reach $0 net income, but it multiplied the outdated $292 maximum by 12. The correct maximum is $298 for January–September and $304.68 for October–December."
+us,scenario_080,snap,grok-4.6,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It correctly reached $0 net income through BBCE and the heating utility allowance, but it applied a $292 maximum for every month. The correct maximum is $298 for January–September and $304.68 for October–December."
+us,scenario_080,snap,grok-4.7,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It reached the $298 maximum but applied it for 12 months. It missed the October 2026 uprating to $304.68 for October–December, and it also wrongly excluded the $300/month financial assistance from countable income."
+us,scenario_080,snap,grok-build-0.1,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the $4,250 disabled-household asset limit and declared the household ineligible. Pennsylvania's TANF non-cash BBCE confers categorical eligibility with no asset test."
+us,scenario_080,snap,inkling,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It counted the bank and vehicle assets against a SNAP resource limit and cited the absence of school-age children, which is irrelevant to SNAP. It missed that Pennsylvania's TANF non-cash BBCE waives the asset test for this household."
+us,scenario_080,snap,kimi-k2.6,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the federal disabled-member resource limit to the $19,828 balance and denied SNAP. It missed that Pennsylvania's TANF non-cash BBCE makes the household categorically eligible and removes the resource test."
+us,scenario_080,snap,kimi-k3,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It correctly reached BBCE and $0 net income, though it wrongly left out the $300/month financial assistance. It then used the outdated $292 maximum for all 12 months instead of $298 for January–September and $304.68 for October–December."
+us,scenario_080,snap,minimax-m3,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly added the $3,600 of financial assistance to the $19,828 of assets as resources and denied SNAP. Pennsylvania's TANF non-cash BBCE waives the asset test, and the household's $0 net income pays the full maximum."
+us,scenario_080,snap,muse-spark-1.3,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It handled BBCE correctly but applied only the $204 standard deduction and counted the capital gains, leaving $174 of net income. It missed the $857 utility allowance from the energy subsidy, which zeroes net income and yields the full maximum."
+us,scenario_080,snap,muse-wonder,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,It denied SNAP because the bank assets exceeded the disabled-household resource limit. It missed that Pennsylvania's TANF non-cash BBCE confers categorical eligibility with no asset test.
+us,scenario_080,snap,ox-alpha,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the roughly $4,500 disabled-household asset limit to $19,828 and paid nothing. It missed that Pennsylvania's TANF non-cash BBCE waives the asset test, which leaves the full maximum allotment."
+us,scenario_080,snap,qwen-3.7-max,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied a $2,750 asset limit (the wrong limit, since the household has a disabled member) and denied SNAP. It missed that Pennsylvania's TANF non-cash BBCE eliminates the asset test entirely."
+us,scenario_080,snap,qwen3.8-max,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,"It ruled the household ineligible on resources. Pennsylvania's TANF non-cash BBCE gives categorical eligibility with no asset test, and $0 net income yields $298/month for January–September and $304.68/month for October–December."
us,scenario_080,ssi,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model supplied no SSI output or explanation, violating the required structured-output contract."
us,scenario_080,ssi,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated the prompt's general disability fact as establishing SSI disability, despite the applicable engine input is_ssi_aged_blind_disabled=False. Because the 41-year-old is neither SSI-aged, blind, nor SSI-disabled, the federal base-rate and unearned-income calculation does not apply and SSI is $0."
us,scenario_080,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model correctly derived 100% Pennsylvania Tax Forgiveness and explicitly calculated that it reduces the $28.86 preliminary tax to $0, but then submitted the unreduced $28.86. It failed to carry its own nonrefundable-credit calculation into the output."
@@ -6802,140 +7023,145 @@ us,scenario_080,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_erro
us,scenario_080,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no parseable output for state_refundable_credits, violating the required submission contract."
us,scenario_080,state_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model misclassified Pennsylvania Schedule SP tax forgiveness as a refundable credit that pays out the $28.86 liability. Schedule SP is nonrefundable and only reduces state income tax, so it contributes $0 to state_refundable_credits."
us,scenario_080,tanf,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It set Massachusetts income tax to 0 inside SALT and itemized only $22,543. PolicyEngine includes $8,484.41 of estimated MA withholding, for a total of $31,027.41. The model also miscounted the bracket base: $17,754.75 instead of $17,966 below $105,700. It then raised its own result to $29,385 for no stated reason."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It put about $8,230 of MA income tax (a liability estimate) into SALT. PolicyEngine uses 5% × (AGI − $4,400) = $8,484.41. The model also added the $6 REIT income on top of AGI, so taxable income was about $260 above the frozen withholding-based reference (~$143,320 vs $143,059.47); its $26,995 is $3.69 above the recorded liability-based reading of $26,991.31."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the 2024 standard deduction ($14,600) and 2024 brackets. It deducted unreimbursed employee business expenses above the line, which is not allowed. It also wrongly concluded that $16,900 of mortgage interest falls short of the standard deduction, even though itemizing with uncapped-under-$40,400 SALT gives $31,027. It then replaced its own $30,957 with an arbitrary $29,825."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave a rough $33,000 with no deduction detail. Itemizing $31,027.41 (mortgage interest plus real estate tax plus $8,484.41 estimated MA tax) gives taxable income of $143,059.47 and tax of $26,932.27. The $33,000 figure matches taking only a standard deduction or a capped SALT deduction, with the bracket math overstated on top."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It capped SALT at the pre-OBBBA $10,000 instead of the 2026 $40,400 cap, so itemized deductions were $26,900 rather than $31,027.41. It then threw out its own $27,887 bracket result and reported an unsupported $31,369."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the expired $10,000 SALT cap (2026 cap is $40,400), which reduced SALT by $4,127 relative to the frozen reference's calculation using an unlisted withholding estimate. It also used 2025 bracket thresholds instead of 2026 ones. It then replaced its computed $28,172 with an unexplained $31,379."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left Massachusetts income tax out of SALT and itemized only $22,543 instead of $31,027.41 including the $8,484.41 MA withholding estimate. That put taxable income about $8,500 above the frozen reference, which adds an unlisted withholding estimate; with no state income tax paid, the recorded sales-tax reading gives $28,763.81. It then inflated its own ~$28,968 to $31,650 with no basis."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used computed MA tax liability ($8,238.70) as the SALT income-tax component. PolicyEngine uses estimated MA withholding of 5% × ($174,088.12 − $4,400) = $8,484.41. Itemized deductions were $245.71 below the frozen reference, which uses an unlisted withholding estimate; its $26,992.66 is within $0.02 of the recorded corrected-liability reading of $26,992.64."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted only real estate tax in SALT and omitted the $8,484.41 estimated MA income tax, so itemized deductions were $22,543 instead of $31,027.41. It also used 2025 bracket thresholds ($11,925/$48,475/$103,350) rather than 2026's ($12,400/$50,400/$105,700)."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It capped SALT at the old $10,000 instead of the 2026 $40,400 cap, putting itemized deductions $4,127 below the frozen reference, which uses an unlisted withholding estimate. On its own $147,194 taxable income, 2026 brackets give about $27,925, so the $33,700 it reported is also a bracket-arithmetic error."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It estimated MA income tax at about $8,284 for SALT instead of PolicyEngine's 5%-of-(AGI − $4,400) withholding estimate of $8,484.41. That cut itemized deductions by about $200 and put taxable income at ~$143,266 rather than $143,059.47."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It capped SALT at the repealed $10,000 limit instead of the 2026 $40,400 cap, so it itemized $26,900, about $4,100 below the frozen reference's $31,027.41, which uses an unlisted withholding estimate."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the TCJA sunset and applied a $5,400 personal exemption with pre-TCJA 10/15/25/28% brackets. OBBBA made the TCJA rates and the zero exemption permanent. It also subtracted the $7,389 ESI premium from wages already reported as taxable and put no state income tax in SALT, while the frozen reference adds an $8,484.41 estimate of MA withholding that the prompt does not list."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied pre-TCJA law, with a $5,312 personal exemption and the 15/25/28% bracket schedule, even though 2026 keeps the TCJA brackets and has no exemption. Its reported $27,594.14 also contradicts the $29,794.41 it computed in its own reasoning."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It put $7,539.70 of state income tax into SALT instead of the $8,484.41 MA withholding estimate (5% × ($174,088.12 − $4,400)). It also counted the $6 REIT income in AGI, so taxable income was about $950 above the frozen withholding-based reference ($144,010 vs $143,059), and about $705 above the recorded liability-based reading ($143,305.47)."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated 2026 as post-TCJA-sunset, subtracting a $5,050 personal exemption and using 15/25/28% brackets. Under 2026 law the exemption is $0 and the 10/12/22/24% brackets apply."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took a $15,000 standard deduction even though mortgage interest plus real estate tax alone total $22,543. The frozen reference itemizes $31,027.41 using an unlisted MA withholding estimate; the recorded zero-state-income-tax reading itemizes $23,396. Its taxable income was about $16,000 above the frozen reference."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied TCJA-expired brackets and a personal exemption, which 2026 law does not have. It also lowered AGI to $166,705 by subtracting the $7,389 ESI premium from wages that are already the taxable amount."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the TCJA had expired and subtracted a $5,300 personal exemption with pre-TCJA brackets. It also reduced wages by the $7,389 ESI premium and itemized $22,543 with no state income tax in SALT; the frozen reference instead adds an $8,484.41 estimate of MA withholding that the prompt does not list."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its taxable income of $169,008 leaves out most itemized deductions: $31,027.41 in the frozen reference, using an unlisted withholding estimate, or $23,396 under the recorded zero-state-income-tax reading. The frozen reference's taxable income is $143,059.47. Its $24,197 tax also does not follow from 2026 single brackets applied to its $169,008 base, which would give about $33,160."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the $7,389 ESI premium out of wages that are already the taxable amount. It also built SALT from real estate tax alone, omitting the $8,484.41 MA income tax estimate. Its $27,858 does not match 2026 brackets on its own $144,151 base either."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $24,907 implies taxable income about $8,400 below the frozen reference's $143,059.47, which uses an unlisted MA withholding estimate. That gap matches also excluding the $7,389 ESI premium from wages on top of the $31,027.41 itemized deductions."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It estimated about $8,238 of MA income tax, close to the excluded frozen liability of $8,238.41; the recorded Part A loss-offset correction gives $8,232.90. It then capped SALT at the old $10,000 instead of the 2026 $40,400 cap, itemizing $26,900. The frozen federal reference itemizes $31,027.41 using an unlisted withholding estimate."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated pre-TCJA law as current for 2026, subtracting a $5,150 personal exemption and using 15/25/28% brackets. OBBBA kept the 10/12/22/24% schedule with no exemption, under which the frozen reference's calculation, using an unlisted withholding estimate, yields $26,932.27."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used $8,388.70 of MA tax in SALT instead of the $8,484.41 withholding estimate and added the $6 REIT income to AGI, which put taxable income about $100 above the frozen reference, whose withholding estimate is an unlisted input. It also summed its brackets wrong: $1,240 + $4,560 + $12,166 + $8,990.66 is $26,956.66, not $26,916.66."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It capped SALT at the obsolete $10,000 instead of the 2026 $40,400 cap. Even on that capped base, 2026 brackets give about $27,900, so its $22,450 also understates the bracket computation."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $41,495 is about 24% of total income, which matches applying the top marginal rate to nearly all income instead of running the progressive 10/12/22/24% brackets on $143,059.47 of taxable income after $31,027.41 of itemized deductions."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added a personal exemption and used a pre-TCJA rate schedule for 2026. Its ~$30,933 itemized figure was close, but OBBBA set the exemption to $0 and kept the 10/12/22/24% brackets, which give the frozen reference's $26,932.27 when its unlisted withholding estimate is used."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reduced wages by the $7,389 ESI premium, even though the $175,002 wages are already the taxable amount. Taxable income came out about $8,400 too low, and tax was about $2,000 under the reference."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its answer is consistent with using its MA liability estimate of $8,238.70 in SALT; its federal explanation gives no state-tax figure. The frozen reference instead uses an unlisted withholding estimate of $8,484.41. Its $26,992.59 is within $0.05 of the recorded corrected-liability reading of $26,992.64."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It understated the MA income tax portion of SALT by about $140 compared with the $8,484.41 withholding estimate (5% of AGI above $4,400). That raised taxable income by the same amount and tax by $34."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $30,773.10 of itemized deductions includes only $8,230.10 of MA income tax. PolicyEngine uses $8,484.41 (5% × ($174,088.12 − $4,400)), so the deduction was $254.31 below the frozen reference, which uses an unlisted withholding estimate; its $26,993.29 is within $1 of the recorded corrected-liability reading of $26,992.64."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its taxable income of about $143,260 is roughly $200 above $143,059.47. The cause is an MA income tax figure in SALT that falls short of the $8,484.41 withholding estimate."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted $8,330.10 of state income tax instead of the $8,484.41 MA withholding estimate (5% of AGI above the $4,400 exemption). Taxable income was $154 above the frozen withholding-based reference ($143,213.70), and its $26,969.29 was $37.02 above that reference but $22.02 below the recorded liability-based reading of $26,991.31."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $30,773.10 of itemized deductions embeds $8,230.10 of MA tax instead of the $8,484.41 withholding estimate (5% × ($174,088.12 − $4,400)). That put SALT $254 below the frozen reference, which uses an unlisted withholding estimate; its $26,993.29 is within $1 of the recorded corrected-liability reading of $26,992.64."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its taxable income of about $151,500 matches itemizing only mortgage interest and real estate tax ($22,543). It left out the $8,484.41 estimated MA income tax that PolicyEngine includes in SALT under the $40,400 cap."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the TCJA sunset: a $5,447 personal exemption and restored 15/25/28% brackets. OBBBA made the TCJA rate schedule permanent with no exemption, so the 10/12/22/24% brackets apply; the $143,059.47 base belongs to the frozen reference's calculation using an unlisted withholding estimate."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the TCJA had sunset and subtracted a $5,300 personal exemption with the restored 10/15/25/28% brackets. 2026 law keeps the TCJA brackets and a $0 exemption."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It modeled 2026 as post-TCJA-sunset with a $5,350 personal exemption and 15/25/28% brackets. Its ~$30,828 itemized figure was close, but 2026 law applies the 10/12/22/24% brackets with no exemption."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used pre-TCJA reverted brackets (15/25/28%) instead of the 2026 TCJA-permanent schedule. It also itemized $22,543 with no state income tax in SALT; the frozen reference instead adds an $8,484.41 estimate of MA withholding that the prompt does not list."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It put about $8,335 of MA tax into SALT instead of the $8,484.41 withholding estimate. On its own ~$143,215 taxable income, the brackets give about $26,970, so its $27,056 adds an extra arithmetic overstatement."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value or explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was no answer to score."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized $22,543 (mortgage interest plus real estate tax), giving taxable income of $151,543.80. The frozen reference adds an $8,484.41 estimate of MA withholding that the prompt does not list, giving taxable income of $143,059.47; with no state income tax paid, the recorded SALT reading instead adds $853 of sales tax."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reported $0 federal income tax with no reasoning. Even after $31,027.41 of itemized deductions and the QBI deduction, taxable income is $143,059.47, which produces $26,932.27 under 2026 single brackets."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used about $8,384 of MA tax in SALT instead of the $8,484.41 withholding estimate and added $6 of REIT income to AGI, which put taxable income about $108 above the frozen reference, whose withholding estimate is an unlisted input. Its $27,047 also exceeds what 2026 brackets give on its own ~$143,167 base (about $26,992)."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It put $8,538 of MA income tax into SALT, above the $8,484.41 that 5% × ($174,088.12 − $4,400) gives. Itemized deductions were about $54 above the frozen reference, whose withholding estimate is an unlisted input; its tax was $11.27 below that reference and $70.31 below the recorded liability-based reading of $26,991.31."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the $15,000 standard deduction beat $22,543 of itemized deductions, which is backwards, and it also put no state income tax in SALT, while the frozen reference adds an $8,484.41 estimate of MA withholding that the prompt does not list. It used pre-2026 brackets, and its reported $39,827.88 contradicts its own $31,281.32 computation."
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the standard deduction because it thought $22,543 of itemized deductions fell short. In fact $22,543 already exceeds the $16,100 standard deduction, and the frozen reference adds an $8,484.41 estimate of MA withholding that the prompt does not list, bringing itemized deductions to $31,027.41."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Treated the Massachusetts income tax deduction as zero and deducted only the $5,643 property tax as SALT. That understated itemized deductions by $8,484.41 (taxable ~151,550 vs 143,059.47). It then raised its own ~$28,970 bracket result to an unsupported $29,385."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Put ~$8,230 of computed MA tax liability into SALT instead of the $8,484.41 deduction (5% of AGI above the $4,400 exemption). It also added the $6 REIT income to AGI, so taxable income came out ~$261 too high (~143,320 vs 143,059.47) and the tax ~$63 too high."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used the 2024 $14,600 standard deduction and 2024 brackets. It wrongly deducted $1,782 of unreimbursed employee expenses above the line and wrongly concluded itemizing did not pay, missing $31,027 of itemized deductions (mortgage interest plus SALT with MA income tax). Its final $29,825 also does not follow from its own $30,957 bracket figure."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Gave a rough $33,000 with no derivation. That figure implies taxable income near $168,000, so it never took the $31,027 of itemized deductions (mortgage interest $16,900 + SALT $14,127.41) that bring taxable income down to $143,059.47."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied the expired $10,000 SALT cap instead of the 2026 OBBBA cap of $40,400, losing $4,127 of SALT deduction. It then replaced its own $27,887 bracket result with an unsupported $31,369."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Capped SALT at $10,000 instead of allowing the full $14,127.41 under the $40,400 2026 cap, and used 2025 bracket thresholds instead of 2026 ones. It then reported $31,379, which does not match its own $28,172 computation."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Left Massachusetts income tax ($8,484.41) out of SALT and itemized only $22,543, so taxable income came to ~$151,544 instead of $143,059.47. It then raised its own ~$28,968 bracket result to an unsupported $31,650."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used the $8,238.70 MA tax liability as the SALT income-tax component instead of the $8,484.41 deduction (5% of AGI over $4,400). It also counted the $6 REIT income in dividends, overstating taxable income by ~$252 and the tax by ~$60."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Limited SALT to the $5,643 real estate tax and never added the $8,484.41 Massachusetts income tax deduction. It also used 2025 bracket thresholds (11,925/48,475/103,350) instead of 2026's (12,400/50,400/105,700)."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Capped SALT at $10,000 instead of the 2026 $40,400 cap, which understated itemized deductions by $4,127. It then reported $33,700, far above the ~$27,980 that 2026 brackets give on its own $147,194 taxable income."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Estimated the state income tax in SALT at ~$8,284 instead of $8,484.41 (5% of AGI above the $4,400 exemption) and added the REIT income to AGI. Taxable income came out ~$207 high and the tax ~$50 high."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied the old $10,000 SALT cap instead of the 2026 $40,400 cap. Itemized deductions came to $26,900 instead of $31,027.41 and taxable income to $147,194 instead of $143,059.47."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Assumed the TCJA sunset (personal exemption and 10/15/25/28% brackets), but TCJA rates are permanent for 2026 with no personal exemption. It also subtracted $7,389 of ESI premiums from wages already stated as gross and left MA income tax out of SALT."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied pre-TCJA law, with a $5,312 personal exemption and the old 10/15/25/28% brackets, instead of the permanent 2026 TCJA-structure brackets with no exemption. It also submitted $27,594.14, which contradicts the $29,794.41 its reasoning computed."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used $7,539.70 for MA income tax in SALT instead of $8,484.41 (5% of AGI above the $4,400 exemption), and added REIT income to AGI. Taxable income was ~$951 too high (144,010 vs 143,059), so the tax was ~$228 too high."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Assumed the TCJA expired: it subtracted a $5,050 personal exemption and applied 10/15/25/28% brackets. For 2026 the TCJA structure is permanent (12,400/50,400/105,700 at 10/12/22/24%) with no personal exemption."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Took a $15,000 standard deduction instead of itemizing. It missed the $31,027.41 of itemized deductions ($16,900 mortgage interest + $14,127.41 SALT including MA income tax), which beat the $16,100 2026 standard deduction."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied TCJA-expired brackets and a personal exemption instead of the permanent 2026 TCJA-structure schedule. It also cut AGI to $166,705 by subtracting $7,389 of ESI premiums from wages already stated as gross."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Assumed the TCJA expired: it applied a $5,300 personal exemption and pre-TCJA brackets. It also subtracted $7,389 of ESI premiums from gross wages and left the $8,484.41 Massachusetts income tax out of SALT."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Stated taxable income of $169,008, which skips the $31,027 of itemized deductions that bring taxable income to $143,059.47. Its $24,197 also does not follow from 2026 brackets applied to that $169,008 figure (which yields ~$33,500)."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Subtracted $7,389 of ESI premiums from wages that were already stated as gross, and left the $8,484.41 Massachusetts income tax out of SALT, itemizing only $22,543. Its $27,858 also does not match 2026 brackets applied to its own $144,151 taxable income."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Gave no figures, but $24,907 implies taxable income of ~$134,600, about $8,400 below the correct $143,059.47. That gap matches excluding the $7,389 ESI premium from wages already reported as gross."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Capped SALT at $10,000 although 2026 OBBBA allows up to $40,400, so the full $14,127.41 of property plus MA income tax was deductible. Taxable income came out $147,187 instead of $143,059.47."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used $8,238 of MA tax liability in SALT instead of the $8,484.41 deduction (5% of AGI above the $4,400 exemption). That overstated taxable income by ~$246 and the tax by ~$59."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Assumed the TCJA sunset: it subtracted a $5,150 personal exemption and taxed income at 10/15/25/28% pre-TCJA brackets. For 2026 the 10/12/22/24% schedule is permanent and there is no personal exemption."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used $8,388.70 for MA income tax in SALT instead of $8,484.41, which overstated taxable income by ~$102. It also mis-added the brackets: 17,966 + 8,990.66 = 26,956.66, not its reported 26,916.66."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Capped SALT at $10,000 instead of allowing $14,127.41 under the 2026 $40,400 cap. Its $22,450 also does not follow from 2026 brackets on its own deductions, which give roughly $27,960."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Reported $41,495, which implies taxable income near $205,000, more than the AGI itself. It never subtracted the $31,027 of itemized deductions to reach $143,059.47 or applied the 24% top marginal rate correctly."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Subtracted an estimated personal exemption on top of ~$30,933 of itemized deductions and used a non-2026 rate schedule. The personal exemption is $0 under permanent TCJA rules, and the 2026 10/12/22/24% brackets give $26,932.27."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Reduced wages by the $7,389 ESI premium even though the $175,002 is already stated as gross wages included in AGI. That understated taxable income by roughly $8,400 relative to $143,059.47."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $26,992.59 implies taxable income of ~$143,311, which matches deducting MA tax liability (~$8,233) instead of the $8,484.41 deduction (5% of AGI above $4,400). The tax ended up ~$60 too high."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $26,966.21 implies taxable income of ~$143,201, which means about $141 less Massachusetts income tax was deducted than the $8,484.41 the deduction uses (5% of AGI over the $4,400 exemption)."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Itemized $30,773.10, using ~$8,230 of MA tax liability instead of the $8,484.41 MA income tax deduction. Taxable income was ~$253 too high and the tax ~$61 too high."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Reached taxable income of ~$143,260 by deducting less MA income tax than the $8,484.41 figure (5% of AGI above the $4,400 exemption). The ~$200 excess in taxable income produced a ~$48 overstatement."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Deducted $8,330.10 of state income tax instead of $8,484.41 (5% of the $174,088.12 AGI above the $4,400 exemption). Taxable income came out $143,213.70 instead of $143,059.47."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Itemized $30,773.10, using ~$8,230 of MA tax liability instead of the $8,484.41 MA income tax deduction. Taxable income was ~$253 too high and the tax ~$61 too high."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its taxable income of ~$151,500 shows it itemized only mortgage interest and property tax, leaving out the $8,484.41 Massachusetts income tax that belongs in the SALT deduction."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Assumed the TCJA sunset in 2026: it subtracted a ~$5,447 personal exemption and applied restored 10/15/25/28% brackets. Under the permanent 2026 schedule there is no exemption and the brackets are 10/12/22/24% at 12,400/50,400/105,700."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied post-sunset law, with a $5,300 personal exemption and 10/15/25/28% brackets. 2026 keeps the TCJA-structure brackets with no personal exemption, which yields $26,932.27 on $143,059.47 of taxable income."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Treated 2026 as post-TCJA-sunset: it subtracted a $5,350 personal exemption and taxed income at 10/15/25/28% instead of the permanent 2026 10/12/22/24% brackets with no exemption."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied reverted pre-TCJA 10/15/25/28% brackets instead of the permanent 2026 schedule. It also left the $8,484.41 Massachusetts income tax out of SALT, itemizing only $22,543."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used ~$8,335 of state tax instead of the $8,484.41 MA income tax deduction, which put taxable income at ~$143,215. It also overstated the bracket math: 17,966 + 24% × 37,515 = 26,970, not 27,056."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,The model returned no value and no explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits.
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Itemized only $22,543 (mortgage interest plus property tax) and left out the $8,484.41 Massachusetts income tax that is deductible as SALT under the $40,400 cap. Taxable income came out $151,543.80 instead of $143,059.47."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Reported $0 even though taxable income of $143,059.47 at 2026 single brackets generates $26,932.27 of tax and no nonrefundable credits apply."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Itemized only mortgage interest and real estate tax ($22,543) and left out the $8,484.41 Massachusetts income tax deduction, leaving taxable income ~$8,500 too high at $151,551."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used ~$8,384 of state tax in SALT instead of $8,484.41 and added REIT income to AGI, giving ~$143,167 of taxable income. It also misapplied the brackets: 17,966 + 24% × 37,467 = 26,958, not 27,047."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Overestimated the MA income tax in SALT at $8,538 instead of $8,484.41 (5% of the $174,088.12 AGI above the $4,400 exemption) and added REIT income to AGI. Taxable income was ~$47 too low and the tax ~$11 too low."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Wrongly concluded that $22,543 of itemized deductions was below a $15,000 standard deduction and took the standard deduction. That also left out the MA income tax that brings itemized deductions to $31,027.41. Its final $39,827.88 contradicts its own $31,281 bracket computation."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Took the standard deduction on the false premise that $22,543 of itemized deductions was smaller. It also left out the $8,484.41 MA income tax, which raises itemized deductions to $31,027.41, well above the $16,100 2026 standard deduction."
us,scenario_081,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It correctly computed the MA PFML employee share as 0.46% × $175,002 = $805.01 but then dropped it, wrongly assuming state payroll tax is not modeled. It then submitted $13,268.70, a figure $118.95 below its own FICA sum of $13,387.65 and backed by no calculation."
-us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Its federal FICA was correct ($10,850.12 + $2,537.53), but it left out the Massachusetts PFML employee contribution entirely. The reference includes the maximum withholdable share of 0.46% × $175,002 = $805.01. The prompt's 'mandatory' wording does not settle whether the employer passes that share to the employee."
-us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It first used the stale $168,600 wage base, then went back to 7.65% but mis-multiplied it ($13,382.65 instead of $13,387.65), and submitted an unexplained $13,383.41. It said Massachusetts has no separate mandatory employee payroll tax and left out PFML; the reference assumes the maximum $805.01 deduction at 0.46%, but the employer may deduct less or none."
-us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Its answer is federal FICA only ($10,850 + $2,538, rounded). It left out the $805.01 Massachusetts PFML employee share (0.46% of wages), which the reference counts as withheld at the maximum permitted rate."
-us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It estimated PFML at about $0; the reference assumes the maximum deductible employee share of 0.46%, or $805.01, while the employer may deduct less or none. It then submitted $12,321.73, which contradicts its own subtotal of $13,387.65, with an incoherent wage-base excuse even though it had said the full wages were taxed."
-us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It wrote $10,850.12 + $2,537.53 but reported the sum as $12,717.62 instead of $13,387.65, a simple addition error. It also set the MA PFML contribution to zero, calling it unmodeled, when the 0.46% rate gives $805.01."
-us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It set the Massachusetts PFML employee contribution to ~$0, whereas the reference counts the maximum withholdable share of 0.46% × $175,002 = $805.01. It also submitted $13,385 against its own rounded FICA total of $13,388."
-us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It identified the exact MA PFML employee contribution ($805.01 at 0.46%) and then left it out, assuming it is not modeled. The reference adds it to FICA for a total of $14,192.66."
-us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It reached the frozen reference of $14,192.66 using the maximum deductible 0.46% share, then switched to a made-up 0.604% employee share by treating the 2026 split as 0.46% family / 0.42% medical, with employees paying all of medical and 40% of family. The reference uses published 2026 rates of 0.18% family and 0.70% medical; the employer may deduct up to all of the family portion plus 40% of the medical portion, or deduct less or none. The made-up rate inflated PFML to $1,057.01."
-us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It computed FICA as $13,387.65 twice, then submitted $12,318.65, which is a digit-transposition error. It also called MA PFML employer-side only and so left out the $805.01 employee share at 0.46%."
-us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It computed federal FICA correctly at $13,387.65 and explicitly left out the Massachusetts PFML contribution. The reference adds the maximum employee share of 0.46% × $175,002 = $805.01."
-us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It stated that Massachusetts has no employee state payroll tax, so it reported FICA only ($13,387.65). The reference includes the MA PFML employee contribution of 0.46% of wages ($805.01)."
-us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It used an outdated MA PFML employee rate of 0.38%, giving about $665, instead of the 2026 maximum employee share of 0.46% (0.18% family + 40% of 0.70% medical), which gives $805.01."
-us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It counted PFML at 0.375% ($656.26), below the reference's maximum deductible 0.46% share ($805.01); the employer may deduct less or none. It then submitted $13,593.41, which contradicts its own stated total of $14,043.91."
-us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It applied a 0.44% MA PFML employee rate ($770.01) instead of the 2026 maximum employee share of 0.46% ($805.01), which left the total $35 short."
-us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It used the old 2023 MA PFML employee rate of 0.318% ($556.51). The 2026 maximum employee share is 0.46% (0.18% family + 0.28% medical), which gives $805.01."
-us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It said it applied 6.2% + 1.45% to $175,002, which equals $13,387.65, but reported $11,843, an arithmetic error. It also left out the $805.01 MA PFML employee contribution."
-us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It shrank the FICA wage base to $167,613 by subtracting the $7,389 employer-sponsored insurance premiums, even though nothing says they are pre-tax salary reductions. FICA and PFML both apply to the full $175,002. Its PFML estimate was also below the 0.46% rate."
-us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It cut FICA wages to $167,613 by treating the $7,389 ESI premiums as pre-tax, when the full $175,002 is taxable. It also used a 0.24% PFML rate instead of 0.46%."
-us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It understated Social Security as $10,830 instead of 6.2% × $175,002 = $10,850.12, and gave the PFML contribution as $765.01 instead of 0.46% × $175,002 = $805.01. The total came out about $60 short."
-us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It reduced FICA wages to $167,613 by subtracting the $7,389 ESI premiums, which are not given as pre-tax, instead of taxing the full $175,002. It also left out the $805.01 MA PFML employee contribution."
-us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It said it included MA PFML, but its $13,444 total is only about $56 above full-wage FICA of $13,387.65. The reference assumes the maximum deductible PFML share of 0.46% × $175,002 = $805.01; its implied PFML amount is below that maximum, but the employer may deduct less or none."
-us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It reported FICA only ($13,387.65) and left out the Massachusetts PFML employee share. The reference counts that share at the maximum 0.46% rate, or $805.01."
-us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It used a 0.532% PFML employee rate built from a 0.352% medical employee share. The reference uses the maximum deductible medical share of 40% of 0.70% = 0.28%, plus 0.18% family, totaling 0.46% and $805.01; the model's $931 exceeds that maximum, and the employer may deduct less or none."
-us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It stated there is no Massachusetts mandatory employee payroll tax and reported FICA only. The reference adds the MA PFML employee share of 0.46% × $175,002 = $805.01."
-us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only Social Security and Medicare, with a small $1.72 arithmetic drift above $13,387.65, and never considered the MA PFML employee contribution. The reference includes that contribution at the maximum 0.46% share, or $805.01."
-us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly said the $175,002 in wages exceeds the $200,000 Additional Medicare threshold, then reported $5,420, which is less than half of Social Security alone ($10,850.12). It also left out the $805.01 PFML contribution."
-us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Its FICA of $13,387.65 is correct, but it estimated PFML withholding at $962.51, an effective 0.55% rate. The 2026 maximum employee share is 0.46%, which gives $805.01."
-us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It reported federal FICA only (about $13,388) and left out the Massachusetts PFML employee contribution. The reference includes that contribution at 0.46% of wages ($805.01)."
-us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It applied the combined employer-plus-employee Medicare rate of 2.9% instead of the employee rate of 1.45%, giving 9.1% × $175,002 ≈ $15,926. It also left out the $805.01 MA PFML employee share."
-us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,It used the outdated 0.318% MA PFML employee rate ($556) instead of the 2026 maximum employee share of 0.46% ($805.01).
-us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It applied 7.65% to wages and stated there is no state payroll tax, so it left out the MA PFML employee contribution. The reference counts that contribution at the maximum 0.46% share, or $805.01."
-us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It gave no payroll_tax value and no explanation, so there was no answer to score."
-us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It used a 0.256% PFML employee rate ($448.01) instead of the 2026 maximum employee share of 0.46% (0.18% family + 40% of 0.70% medical), which gives $805.01."
-us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It submitted $0 with no reasoning, ignoring payroll tax on $175,002 of wages entirely. The frozen reference is $10,850.12 Social Security + $2,537.53 Medicare + $805.01 MA PFML, assuming maximum PFML withholding; counting only mandatory employee contributions gives federal tax alone, $13,387.65."
-us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It estimated MA PFML at roughly $367, an effective rate of about 0.21%. The 2026 maximum employee share is 0.46%, which gives $805.01."
-us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It stated that Massachusetts has no modeled employee payroll tax and reported FICA only ($13,387.65). The reference adds the MA PFML employee contribution of 0.46% × $175,002 = $805.01."
-us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It computed FICA as $13,387.65 and said no mandatory state payroll taxes apply in Massachusetts, but then submitted an unexplained $14,525.24. It also never applied the 0.46% PFML employee rate, which gives $805.01."
-us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Its reasoning lists only Social Security, Medicare and Additional Medicare, which total $13,387.65 here, yet it submitted $13,922 with no calculation behind the extra $534. It also never applied the 0.46% MA PFML rate, which gives $805.01."
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It correctly worked out SS of $10,850.12, Medicare of $2,537.53 and a PFML contribution of $805.01 at 0.46%. It then dropped the PFML amount and submitted $13,268.70, which is $118.95 below even its own FICA-only sum of $13,387.65. The submitted value matches none of its own steps. The correct total, with PFML included, is $14,192.66."
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It computed FICA correctly at $13,387.65 but left out the Massachusetts PFML employee contribution (0.46% × $175,002 = $805.01). That fits the reading that the PFML employee share isn't a 'mandatory' employee tax, since employers can choose to pay it. The reference reads it as mandatory, assuming the maximum employee withholding."
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It capped Social Security at $168,600, which is the 2024 wage base, not the 2026 one; the 2026 base is above $175,002, so the full wages are taxable. It also said Massachusetts has no employee payroll tax, missing the $805.01 PFML contribution. Finally, it submitted $13,383.41, which doesn't match either its $12,990.73 or its $13,382.65 subtotal."
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It gave rounded FICA of $13,388 and left out the Massachusetts PFML employee contribution of $805.01 (0.46% of wages). That fits the reading that the employer-optional PFML employee share isn't a mandatory employee tax. The reference counts it, assuming the maximum withholding."
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly set PFML to $0, claiming employees of small employers pay 0% of the medical portion; in fact the employee share is the full 0.18% family rate plus 40% of the 0.70% medical rate, or 0.46% ($805.01). It then submitted $12,321.73 even though its own FICA subtotal was $13,387.65, and blamed the gap on a wage-base cap that doesn't bind."
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It noted the Massachusetts PFML employee contribution but set it to $0 for lack of a rate, leaving out $805.01 (0.46% × $175,002). It then submitted $12,717.62 while labeling it 10,850.12 + 2,537.53, which actually adds up to $13,387.65."
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It treated the Massachusetts PFML employee contribution as roughly $0, leaving out the 0.46% employee share ($805.01) that the reference counts by assuming the maximum employee withholding. That follows the reading that the employer-optional PFML share isn't mandatory. It also submitted $13,385 against its own $13,388 sum."
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It correctly worked out the Massachusetts PFML employee contribution at 0.46% (about $805) and then left it out, submitting FICA only ($13,387.65). That follows the reading that the employer-optional PFML share isn't a mandatory employee tax. The reference includes it, giving $14,192.66."
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It first got $14,192.66 using the correct 0.46% PFML share, then switched to 0.604%. That rate rests on a reversed split: it assumed a 0.42% medical rate paid fully by employees and a 0.46% family rate with a 40% employee share. Under the actual Massachusetts split, employees pay up to 100% of the 0.18% family rate and up to 40% of the 0.70% medical rate, for 0.46% ($805.01) in total, not $1,057.01."
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It treated PFML as employer-only and left out the $805.01 employee contribution (0.46% of wages). Then, after twice computing $13,387.65, it submitted the digit-transposed $12,318.65."
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It deliberately left out the Massachusetts PFML employee contribution and submitted FICA only ($13,387.65). That follows the reading that the employer-optional PFML employee share isn't mandatory. The reference adds 0.46% × $175,002 = $805.01, assuming the maximum withholding."
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It said Massachusetts has no employee state payroll tax and submitted FICA only ($13,387.65), leaving out the $805.01 PFML employee contribution (0.46% of wages). Its total fits the reading that the employer-optional PFML share isn't a mandatory employee tax. The reference counts the maximum withholding."
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It included Massachusetts PFML but used a 0.38% employee rate. The actual share is 0.46% (the full 0.18% family rate plus 40% of the 0.70% medical rate), so PFML comes to $805.01 rather than about $665, and it then rounded the total to $14,053."
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It used a 0.375% PFML employee rate ($656.26) instead of 0.46% ($805.01). It also submitted $13,593.41, which contradicts its own stated total of $14,043.91."
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Its FICA figures were correct, but it used a 0.44% PFML employee rate ($770.01) instead of the 2026 share of 0.46% (0.18% family + 40% × 0.70% medical = $805.01). That left it $35 short."
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It used the outdated 2023 PFML employee rate of 0.318% ($556.51). The 2026 share is 0.46% (0.18% family + 40% of the 0.70% medical rate), which is $805.01 on $175,002."
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It described 6.2% SS plus 1.45% Medicare on $175,002, which gives $13,387.65, yet submitted $11,843, a number its own method doesn't produce. It also left out the $805.01 Massachusetts PFML employee contribution."
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It subtracted the $7,389 employer-sponsored insurance premium from FICA wages, taxing $167,613. The household facts don't say these premiums are paid pre-tax, so FICA applies to the full $175,002. Its PFML estimate of about $580 also falls short of 0.46% × $175,002 = $805.01."
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It reduced FICA wages by the $7,389 ESI premium, to $167,613, instead of taxing the full $175,002. It also used a 0.24% PFML rate ($402) instead of the 0.46% employee share ($805.01)."
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It miscalculated Social Security as $10,830; the correct figure is 6.2% × $175,002 = $10,850.12. It also understated PFML at $765.01 instead of 0.46% × $175,002 = $805.01."
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It took the $7,389 ESI premium out of FICA wages and taxed only $167,613, when FICA applies to the full $175,002. It also left out the $805.01 Massachusetts PFML employee contribution."
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It said it included Massachusetts PFML, but its $13,444 total is only $56 above full-wage FICA ($13,387.65). That means it badly understated the PFML employee contribution, which is 0.46% × $175,002 = $805.01."
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It submitted FICA only ($13,387.65) and left out the $805.01 Massachusetts PFML employee contribution. That fits the reading that the employer-optional PFML share isn't a mandatory employee tax. The reference includes it, assuming the maximum withholding."
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,gemini-4-argon,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It submitted FICA only ($13,387.65) and left out the 0.46% Massachusetts PFML employee contribution ($805.01). That follows the reading that the PFML employee share is employer-optional rather than a mandatory employee tax."
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It put the PFML medical employee share at 0.352%, but the correct figure is 40% of the 0.70% medical rate, or 0.28%. The resulting 0.532% total gave $931 instead of 0.46% × $175,002 = $805.01."
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It said there is no mandatory Massachusetts employee payroll tax and submitted FICA only ($13,387.65), leaving out the $805.01 PFML employee share. That fits the reading that the employer-optional PFML contribution isn't mandatory. The reference assumes the maximum employee withholding."
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only SS and Medicare (about $13,389) and left out the $805.01 Massachusetts PFML employee contribution. That follows the reading that the employer-optional PFML share isn't a mandatory employee tax."
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly applied Additional Medicare Tax, even though $175,002 is below the $200,000 threshold. Its $5,420 total is also less than the Social Security tax alone ($10,850.12), and it left out the $805.01 PFML contribution."
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,It estimated Massachusetts PFML withholding at $962.51 (0.55% of wages) instead of the 0.46% employee share (0.18% family + 40% × 0.70% medical = $805.01).
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It gave rounded FICA of $13,388 and left out the $805.01 Massachusetts PFML employee contribution. That fits the reading that the employer-optional PFML share isn't a mandatory employee payroll tax."
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It applied the combined 2.9% Medicare rate, which includes the employer's 1.45%. The employee-only rate of 1.45% gives $2,537.53. It also left out the $805.01 PFML employee contribution."
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It used the outdated 2023 PFML employee rate of 0.318% ($556). The 2026 share is 0.46% (0.18% family + 40% of the 0.70% medical rate), or $805.01."
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It calculated 7.65% × $175,002 = $13,388, said there is no state payroll tax, and left out the $805.01 Massachusetts PFML employee share. That fits the reading that the employer-optional PFML contribution isn't a mandatory employee tax."
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No payroll_tax value or explanation was returned. The correct figure is $10,850.12 SS + $2,537.53 Medicare + $805.01 Massachusetts PFML = $14,192.66."
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,It used a 0.256% PFML employee rate ($448.01) instead of the 2026 share of 0.46% (0.18% family + 40% × 0.70% medical = $805.01).
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It reported $0 employee payroll tax despite $175,002 of wages subject to SS and Medicare. The correct figure is $10,850.12 SS + $2,537.53 Medicare + $805.01 Massachusetts PFML = $14,192.66."
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,muse-spark-1.3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It estimated the Massachusetts PFML employee share at about $595 (around 0.34%) instead of 0.46% × $175,002 = $805.01."
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It estimated Massachusetts PFML at about $367 (around 0.21%) instead of the 0.46% employee share ($805.01), which is the full 0.18% family rate plus 40% of the 0.70% medical rate."
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It submitted FICA only ($13,387.65) and treated the Massachusetts PFML employee share as not a mandatory payroll tax, leaving out $805.01 (0.46% of wages). The reference counts that share by assuming the maximum employee withholding."
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It computed $13,387.65 and then submitted an unrelated $14,525.24 labeled as a rounding of that sum. It also said Massachusetts has no employee payroll tax, missing the $805.01 PFML contribution that brings the total to $14,192.66."
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It brought Additional Medicare Tax into its total even though wages of $175,002 are below the $200,000 threshold. Its $13,922 doesn't break down into any stated components. The correct figure is FICA of $13,387.65 plus the $805.01 Massachusetts PFML employee contribution."
us,scenario_081,self_employment_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its own components came to about $8,238: $8,230.10 of Part B tax plus $8.30 on interest and dividends. It then added an unexplained ~$142 'rounding' adjustment and answered $8,380. It also left the $56 of interest out of Part B, but that shifted no tax because it taxed the interest at 5% elsewhere."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the $1,080 short-term capital loss as wiping out the $166 of interest and dividends. Under the Massachusetts rules, the $56 of interest stays in Part B and the ~$110 of dividends is taxed at 5% in Part A. Leaving these out dropped about $8 of tax ($8,230 vs $8,238.41)."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted a made-up $4,550 of employee business expenses instead of the $4,400 exemption, $4,000 rent deduction, and $2,000 FICA deduction. It then subtracted an invented $3,835 of 'property tax and exemption' credits. No nonrefundable credit applies, and tax is 5% of $164,658 plus 5% of ~$110 of dividends."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave a rounded $8,000 instead of computing the base. That base is wages plus interest ($175,058), less the $2,000 FICA deduction, the $4,000 rent deduction, and the $4,400 exemption, which is $164,658 taxed at 5%, plus 5% on the dividends."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted the full ~$11,287 of FICA instead of the $2,000 Massachusetts cap. It also dropped the rent deduction because it assumed the person owns a home, though $44,400 of rent is listed and earns the $4,000 deduction. After all that it inflated its own $7,966 figure to $8,730 with no basis."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted only the $4,400 personal exemption. It left out the $2,000 Social Security/Medicare deduction and the $4,000 rent deduction (50% of $44,400, capped). Those $6,000 of missing deductions overstate tax by $300."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the exemption and the $2,000 FICA deduction but left out the $4,000 rent deduction for the listed $44,400 rent. It then raised its own $8,438 figure to $8,620 with unexplained 'small adjustments'."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It capped the rent deduction at $3,000 instead of the current $4,000. It also left out the $2,000 Social Security/Medicare deduction, so taxable income came out $3,116 too high ($167,774 vs $164,658 plus $110 of dividends)."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It said the rent deduction did not apply because the person is an owner and never took the $2,000 FICA deduction, giving $8,539 after only the exemption. It then cut that to $8,200 with no rule behind the change. The correct path deducts $4,000 for rent and $2,000 for FICA."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the $4,000 rent deduction and the exemption but left out the $2,000 Social Security/Medicare deduction. It also netted the $1,080 short-term loss against ordinary income ($174,088 base), which Massachusetts Part B does not allow."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $4,800 exemption instead of the $4,400 single exemption. It started from federal AGI, which nets the capital loss, and it left out both the $4,000 rent deduction and the $2,000 FICA deduction."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted $22,543 of federal-style itemized deductions (mortgage interest and real estate taxes), which Massachusetts does not allow, and used a $5,000 exemption instead of $4,400. It also started from an AGI that wrongly takes the $7,389 employer insurance premiums out of wages, and it left out the $4,000 rent and $2,000 FICA deductions."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly took the $4,000 rent, $2,000 FICA, and $4,400 exemption deductions. It also deducted $22,543 of federal itemized deductions (mortgage interest and property taxes), which Massachusetts does not allow. Its submitted $7,519.53 does not match the $7,111.55 its own reasoning reached."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted $16,900 of mortgage interest and $2,000 of real estate taxes, neither of which is a Massachusetts income tax deduction. It also left out the $4,000 rent deduction and the $2,000 Social Security/Medicare deduction."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It capped the rent deduction at the outdated $3,000 instead of $4,000. It also left the $56 of interest out of Part B and never taxed the ~$110 of Part A dividends."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied 5% to roughly gross income ($175,000) with no deductions. It skipped the $4,400 personal exemption, the $4,000 rent deduction, and the $2,000 FICA deduction, which bring Part B taxable income down to $164,658."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started from $167,613 of 'taxable wages' by taking the $7,389 employer-sponsored insurance premiums out of wages. The listed $175,002 of gross wages is the Massachusetts Part B wage base. Its deductions ($4,400, $4,000, $2,000) were correct."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the $7,389 employer insurance premiums out of the $175,002 gross wages, a reduction that does not apply here. It also left out the $4,000 rent deduction and the $2,000 Social Security/Medicare deduction, applying only the $4,400 exemption."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $8,750 is 5% of about $175,000 of gross income with no deductions. It skipped the $4,400 exemption, the $4,000 rent deduction, and the $2,000 FICA deduction."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used $167,613 of 'taxable wages', which takes the $7,389 employer insurance premiums out of the $175,002 gross wages. Massachusetts Part B starts from the full $175,002 plus $56 of interest, so its base is understated by about $7,500."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $7,869 equals 5% of $157,379. That is wages net of the $7,389 employer insurance premiums ($167,613) plus $166 of investment income, minus the three deductions. It wrongly took the premiums out of the $175,002 gross wages."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $4,400 personal exemption and the $2,000 Social Security/Medicare deduction, and it capped the rent deduction at $3,000 instead of $4,000. It also netted the $1,080 short-term loss against ordinary income, which Part B does not allow."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It capped the rent deduction at the outdated $3,000 instead of $4,000 and left out the $2,000 Social Security/Medicare deduction. That left taxable income at $167,774 instead of $164,658 of Part B income plus $110 of dividends."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $6,440 implies about $128,800 of taxable income, roughly $36,000 below the correct $164,658 Part B base. That is consistent with subtracting federal-style itemized deductions (mortgage interest, property taxes), which Massachusetts does not allow, instead of only the $4,400 exemption, $4,000 rent deduction, and $2,000 FICA deduction."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $13,951 is about 8% of total income, well above Massachusetts' flat 5% rate. The correct result is 5% of $164,658 plus 5% of ~$110 of dividends, so it applied a wrong rate or a progressive rate schedule."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It let the $1,080 short-term capital loss absorb the $166 of interest and dividends. The $56 of interest belongs in Part B and the ~$110 of dividends is taxed at 5% in Part A, which adds about $8 (total $8,238.41)."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $7,915 is 5% of a federal AGI of $166,705 less the exemption and the $4,000 rent deduction. That AGI wrongly takes the $7,389 employer insurance premiums out of wages and nets the capital loss. It also left out the $2,000 Social Security/Medicare deduction."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the $4,400 exemption and the $4,000 rent deduction but left out the $2,000 Social Security/Medicare deduction. That overstates tax by about $100 ($166,774 base vs $164,658 plus dividends)."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It exempted the $56 of bank interest and let the short-term capital loss absorb the dividends. The interest is taxed in Part B and the ~$110 of dividends is taxed at 5% in Part A, which adds about $8."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $8,284 comes from a $174,088 base less the exemption and the $4,000 rent deduction. It left out the $2,000 Social Security/Medicare deduction and netted the $1,080 short-term loss against ordinary income."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $2,000 Social Security/Medicare deduction, which overstates tax by $100. It also let the capital loss erase the $56 of interest and ~$110 of dividends, which are taxed at 5%."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the $56 of bank interest as exempt and let the capital loss absorb the dividends. The $56 is taxed in Part B and the ~$110 of dividends is taxed at 5% in Part A, which adds about $8."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied 5% to the full $174,094 AGI. It skipped the $4,400 personal exemption, the $4,000 rent deduction, and the $2,000 FICA deduction."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted $1,782 of unreimbursed employee business expenses, which are not a Massachusetts Part B deduction here. It also left out the $4,000 rent deduction and the $2,000 Social Security/Medicare deduction."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the exemption and the $2,000 FICA deduction but never took the $4,000 rent deduction (50% of the $44,400 rent, capped). That leaves taxable income at $167,774 instead of $164,658."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the exemption and the $4,000 rent deduction but left out the $2,000 Social Security/Medicare deduction. It also started from federal AGI, which nets the $1,080 short-term loss against Part B income."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted only the $4,400 exemption from federal AGI. It left out the $4,000 rent deduction and the $2,000 Social Security/Medicare deduction that reduce Part B income to $164,658."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It capped the rent deduction at the outdated $3,000 instead of $4,000 and left out the $2,000 Social Security/Medicare deduction."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value or explanation for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there is no answer to score."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It said there was 'no separate rent expense input' and ignored the listed $44,400 pre-subsidy rent. That rent earns the $4,000 Massachusetts rent deduction. It also netted the capital loss into a $174,088 base."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reported $0 even though a Massachusetts resident with $175,002 of wages owes the flat 5% tax. That tax is on $164,658 of Part B taxable income plus Part A dividends, for $8,238.41."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the exemption and the $2,000 payroll-tax deduction but left out the $4,000 rent deduction for the listed $44,400 rent. It also netted the capital loss against ordinary income."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted only the $4,400 exemption from wages. It left out the $2,000 Social Security/Medicare deduction and the $4,000 rent deduction, which overstates Part B tax by $300."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted only the $4,400 exemption from federal AGI. It left out the $4,000 rent deduction and the $2,000 Social Security/Medicare deduction, and it let the short-term loss reduce ordinary income."
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $7,800 implies $156,000 of taxable income, about $8,700 below the correct $164,658 Part B base plus $110 of dividends. That means it subtracted deductions beyond the $4,400 exemption, $4,000 rent deduction, and $2,000 FICA deduction that Massachusetts allows."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its own working reached about $8,238: $164,602 of Part B times 5% is $8,230.10, plus $8.30 on $166 of interest and dividends, which matches the target base. It then bumped the answer to $8,380 by 'adding back rounding,' an unexplained $142 increase with no rule behind it."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the $1,080 short-term capital loss to wipe out the $166 of interest and dividends. In fact the $56 of interest stays in Part B and the $110 of dividends is taxed at 5% as Part A income, and the loss does not offset either. Leaving them out lowered the tax by about $8 and produced $8,230."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted $4,550 of made-up 'MA deductions' in place of the $4,400 personal exemption, the $4,000 rent deduction, and the $2,000 FICA deduction. It then invented $3,835 of property-tax and exemption 'credits' that do not apply to this filer. The correct base is $164,768 taxed at 5%, or $8,238."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave a round $8,000 without itemizing deductions. The correct calculation is 5% × (175,002 + 56 − 2,000 FICA − 4,000 rent − 4,400 exemption) plus 5% of the $110 dividend, which is $8,238."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted about $11,287 of full employee FICA, but the Massachusetts payroll-tax deduction is capped at $2,000. It also dropped the $4,000 rent deduction on the assumption that the filer owns a home, even though $44,400 of rent is given. It then raised its own $7,966 figure to $8,730 without any rule to support it."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted only the $4,400 personal exemption. It left out the $2,000 Social Security/Medicare deduction and the $4,000 renter deduction (50% of $44,400 rent, capped). That overstated taxable income by $6,000 and the tax by $300."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the $2,000 FICA deduction but left out the $4,000 renter deduction on the $44,400 of rent. It then added about $180 of unexplained 'small adjustments' to its own $8,438 and answered $8,620."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the outdated $3,000 cap on the renter deduction instead of the current $4,000 cap. It also left out the $2,000 Social Security/Medicare deduction, which overstated taxable income by about $3,000."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the filer as a homeowner and gave no rent deduction, even though $44,400 of rent qualifies for the $4,000 cap. It also left out the $2,000 FICA deduction. It then cut its own $8,539 to $8,200 with no rule behind the change."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the $4,000 rent deduction and the $4,400 exemption but left out the $2,000 Social Security/Medicare deduction. It also netted the $1,080 short-term loss into the income base, which Massachusetts does not allow against Part B income or dividends."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $4,800 personal exemption instead of $4,400. It left out both the $4,000 renter deduction and the $2,000 FICA deduction, and it netted the short-term capital loss against ordinary income."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started from an understated AGI of $166,705 and subtracted $22,543 of federal itemized deductions (mortgage interest and property taxes), which Massachusetts does not allow. It also used a $5,000 exemption instead of $4,400 and left out the rent and FICA deductions."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted $22,543 of federal itemized deductions (mortgage interest and real estate taxes), which Massachusetts does not allow against Part B income. That cut the base far below $164,768. Its submitted $7,519.53 also does not match its own $7,111.55 calculation."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted $16,900 of mortgage interest and $2,000 of real estate taxes, neither of which is a Massachusetts deduction. It also left out the $4,000 renter deduction and the $2,000 FICA deduction."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It capped the renter deduction at the old $3,000 instead of $4,000. It also left out the $56 of interest from Part B and the $110 of Part A dividends, so it ended up with $165,602 instead of $164,768."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"$8,750 is 5% of roughly $175,000 of gross income. It skipped the $4,400 personal exemption, the $4,000 renter deduction, and the $2,000 FICA deduction."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $7,389 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums from the $175,002 of wages, starting Part B at $167,613. The full gross wage is the Part B base. It also left out the $56 of interest and $110 of dividends."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reduced wages by the $7,389 of ESI premiums to get $167,613 instead of using the full $175,002. It then left out both the $4,000 renter deduction and the $2,000 FICA deduction, and it dropped the interest and dividends."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"$8,750 is a flat 5% of about $175,000 of gross income. It applied none of the Massachusetts reductions: the $4,400 exemption, the $4,000 rent deduction, and the $2,000 FICA deduction."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It began from 'MA taxable wages' of $167,613, which subtracts the $7,389 of ESI premiums from gross wages; the Part B base keeps the full $175,002. It also dropped the $56 of interest and $110 of dividends."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its taxable income of about $157,380 matches wages after the $7,389 of ESI premiums are removed, less the exemption, rent, and FICA deductions. The Part B base is the full $175,002 of wages, so it understated income by $7,389."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $4,400 personal exemption entirely, used the outdated $3,000 rent cap instead of $4,000, and skipped the $2,000 FICA deduction. It also netted the $1,080 short-term loss against ordinary income."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It capped the renter deduction at $3,000 instead of the current $4,000 and left out the $2,000 Social Security/Medicare deduction. That overstated taxable income by about $3,000."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"$6,440 at 5% implies about $128,800 of taxable income. To get there it deducted roughly $36,000 more than Massachusetts allows. The only allowed deductions are the $4,400 exemption, the $4,000 rent cap, and the $2,000 FICA cap, which leave $164,768."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"$13,951 is about 8% of income, well above Massachusetts' flat 5% rate on Part A dividends and Part B income. The correct figure is 5% of $164,768, or $8,238."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the $1,080 short-term capital loss to offset the $166 of interest and dividends. In fact the $56 of interest stays in Part B and the $110 of dividends is taxed at 5% in Part A, and the loss does not cancel them. This left out about $8 of tax."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"$7,915 at 5% implies about $158,300 of taxable income, roughly $6,470 below the correct $164,768. That base is wages plus $56 of interest, less the $2,000 FICA cap, the $4,000 rent cap, and the $4,400 exemption, plus $110 of dividends. The model over-deducted relative to it."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the $4,400 exemption and the $4,000 renter deduction but left out the $2,000 deduction for Social Security and Medicare withholding. That added $100 of tax and produced $8,338.70."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It exempted the $56 of interest under the bank-interest exclusion and used the capital loss to absorb the $110 of dividends. The $56 is taxable Part B income and the $110 is taxable Part A income at 5%, which adds about $8 to its $8,230.10."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the personal exemption and the rent deduction but left out the $2,000 Social Security/Medicare deduction. It also netted the short-term loss into income, which landed at $8,284 instead of $8,238."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $2,000 Massachusetts deduction for employee Social Security and Medicare tax, so wages were reduced only by the exemption and the rent deduction. It also used the capital loss to cancel the $166 of interest and dividends, which are taxable."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It exempted the $56 of bank interest and let the capital loss absorb the $110 of dividends. Both stay taxable at 5%, as Part B and Part A income respectively, so its $8,230.10 is about $8 short."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied 5% to the full $174,094 of AGI. It skipped the $4,400 personal exemption, the $4,000 renter deduction, and the $2,000 FICA deduction, and it netted the capital loss against ordinary income."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted $1,782 of unreimbursed employee business expenses, which are not part of the Massachusetts Part B deduction set here. It also left out the $4,000 renter deduction and the $2,000 FICA deduction."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied $1,000 of the capital loss against ordinary income, but the loss does not offset Part B income or dividends. It also left out the $4,000 renter deduction on the $44,400 of rent."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the exemption and the $4,000 rent deduction but left out the $2,000 deduction for employee Social Security and Medicare tax. It also used net AGI after the $1,080 short-term loss instead of keeping wages, interest, and dividends whole."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted only the $4,400 exemption from AGI. It left out the $4,000 renter deduction and the $2,000 FICA deduction, both of which are Massachusetts-specific deductions separate from itemizing."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It capped the rent deduction at $3,000 instead of the current $4,000 and left out the $2,000 Social Security/Medicare deduction. It also netted the short-term loss against income."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no value or explanation for this variable, so nothing could be scored."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It said there was 'no separate rent expense input' and ignored the listed $44,400 of rent. That dropped the $4,000 renter deduction (50% of rent, capped), and it also netted the capital loss into the base."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It returned $0 with no reasoning, even though Massachusetts taxes this resident at 5% on $164,658 of Part B taxable income plus $110 of Part A dividends. That comes to $8,238."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted only the $4,400 exemption from wages plus investment income. It left out the $4,000 renter deduction and the $2,000 Social Security/Medicare deduction, which overstated tax by $300."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the $2,000 payroll-tax deduction and the $4,400 exemption but never applied the $4,000 renter deduction on the $44,400 of rent. It also netted the capital loss into the base."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its Part B was wages less only the $4,400 exemption. It left out the $4,000 renter deduction and the $2,000 FICA deduction, which overstated tax by $300."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It said Massachusetts allows no deductions beyond the personal exemption and so left out the $4,000 renter deduction and the $2,000 Social Security/Medicare deduction. It also netted the short-term loss against ordinary income."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"$7,800 at 5% implies $156,000 of taxable income, roughly $8,800 below the correct $164,768. That base allows only the $4,400 exemption, the $4,000 rent cap, and the $2,000 FICA cap, so the model over-deducted."
us,scenario_081,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_082,child1_chip_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model incorrectly treated age 1 as within the applicable CHIP age range. The trace applies CHIP's age criterion against the child and returns false, while Medicaid eligibility also returns NONE."
us,scenario_082,child1_chip_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model omitted the requested child1_chip_eligible output and supplied no explanation, violating the required submission contract."
@@ -6955,53 +7181,55 @@ us,scenario_082,child1_medicaid_eligible,minimax-m3,llm_error,health_coverage,Fa
us,scenario_082,child1_medicare_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_082,child1_wic_eligible,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model incorrectly asserted that the household met the WIC income requirement. It failed to compare approximately $90,132 of annual household income with the much lower 185%-of-poverty limit for a two-person household."
us,scenario_082,child1_wic_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated the child's age under five as sufficient for WIC eligibility. Age establishes categorical eligibility only; the household must also pass the 185%-of-poverty income test, which it fails at approximately $90,132 of annual income."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"It submitted $14,748, which matches neither of its own figures: the ~$10,353 final it computed or the ~$12,953 pre-credit tax. The derivation itself also missed the $700 non-itemizer charitable deduction, wrongly deducted the $8 IRA contribution (phased out for a 401(k) participant), and used a $2,000 CTC instead of the 2026 $2,200."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its deductions are essentially right, but it put the tax on $79,380 of ordinary income at $10,444.60. The 2026 head-of-household brackets (10% to $17,700, 12% to $67,450, 22% above) give $10,364.60, so its bracket thresholds overstated tax by $80. It also wrongly took the $8 IRA deduction, which is phased out for an active 401(k) participant at this AGI."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It filed as single with a $14,600 standard deduction instead of head of household with $24,150 plus the $700 non-itemizer charitable deduction, and it took the CDCC as 20% of the full $9,600 instead of the $3,000 one-child cap. It then dropped its own ~$8,506 computation and asserted $23,437 with no supporting arithmetic."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"It gave no computation. Its $14,500 is above the correct pre-credit tax of $12,379.77, so it never correctly applied the $24,150 head-of-household standard deduction plus the $700 non-itemizer charitable deduction, the $3,000 capital-loss deduction, or the $2,200 CTC and $600 CDCC."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $23,500 standard deduction instead of $24,150, left out the $700 non-itemizer charitable deduction, and applied stale head-of-household brackets (12% ending at $64,850 instead of $67,450). That overstated both taxable income ($94,094 vs $92,811) and the ordinary-rate tax."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $23,000 standard deduction with outdated brackets (12% ending at $64,850), skipped the $700 non-itemizer charitable deduction, and took a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200. It then raised its own $10,460 result to $11,150 with no stated basis."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $24,500 standard deduction instead of the 2026 head-of-household $24,150, left out the $700 non-itemizer charitable deduction, and taxed ordinary income with stale bracket thresholds ($17,000/$64,850 instead of $17,700/$67,450). The result was $9,930 instead of $9,579.77."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It explicitly assumed no active-participant phase-out and deducted the $8 traditional IRA contribution. Because Head contributes to a 401(k), that deduction is fully phased out at $117k head-of-household AGI. Together with rounding the SALT refund and wage figures, this left taxable income $7.12 too low ($92,804 vs $92,811.12), or $1.57 of tax at 22%."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left the $13,424 of qualified dividends out of AGI ($106,519) and then subtracted them again from taxable income, so they were removed from the ordinary base twice. It also double-counted the short-term gain inside the capital-loss netting and used a $22,500 standard deduction and a $2,000 CTC."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,other,False,"It computed $10,739 and then submitted an unrelated $13,920. The derivation itself used a $22,500 standard deduction, stale brackets (12% ending at $63,100), no $700 non-itemizer charitable deduction, and a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI, $24,150 standard deduction, brackets and credits are all correct, but it left out the 2026 above-the-line charitable deduction for non-itemizers, which covers the full $700 gift. That leaves taxable income $700 too high and overstates tax by $154 at 22%."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the full $33,000 long-term loss and then another $3,000 instead of capping the net loss deduction at $3,000. It also used a $46,000 standard deduction, roughly double the head-of-household $24,150, and took the CDCC as 35% of $5,000 instead of 20% of the $3,000 one-child cap."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied pre-TCJA rules for 2026: $9,680 of personal exemptions, 10/15/25% brackets, and a $1,000 CTC. OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent, so the correct inputs are no exemptions, the $24,150 standard deduction plus the $700 charitable deduction, the 10/12/22% brackets, and a $2,200 CTC."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA sunset, claiming $11,000 of personal exemptions and a $1,000 CTC that it then phased out entirely. Under 2026 OBBBA law there are no exemptions, the head-of-household standard deduction is $24,150, and the full $2,200 CTC applies at this income."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $23,100 standard deduction, left out the $700 non-itemizer charitable deduction, and overstated the tax on $81,130 of ordinary income ($11,059.60 vs $10,749.60 under the 2026 head-of-household brackets). It then used a $2,300 CTC instead of the $2,200 statutory amount."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset rules, with $10,000 of personal exemptions and a $1,000 CTC, and itemized an inflated $18,564 of SALT. The correct path is the $24,150 head-of-household standard deduction plus the $700 non-itemizer charitable deduction, no exemptions, and a $2,200 CTC."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It understated AGI as $100,571 instead of $117,661.12, so most of the dividend income dropped out. It also subtracted only a $2,000 CTC, leaving out the $600 CDCC and $200 of the 2026 $2,200 CTC."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $21,208 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums from wages, giving an AGI of $96,446 instead of $117,661. It also applied pre-TCJA personal exemptions ($10,400) and gave no child tax credit at all, subtracting only the $600 CDCC."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It cut AGI to $96,454 by excluding the $21,208 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums from wages. It also added TCJA-sunset personal exemptions and used a $1,000 CTC instead of $2,200."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,other,False,"It gave no computation. Its $12,790.25 is above the correct pre-credit regular tax of $12,379.77, so it never netted the $2,200 CTC and $600 CDCC against a correctly computed head-of-household liability."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It deducted personal exemptions, which do not exist under 2026 OBBBA law, and so understated taxable income. It also named only the CDCC as a nonrefundable credit and did not properly apply the $2,200 CTC."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no computation. Its $3,384 implies taxable income roughly $28k too low, which is what you get by netting the full $30,711 capital loss against income instead of capping the deduction at $3,000."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $2,000 CTC instead of the 2026 $2,200 and left out the $700 non-itemizer charitable deduction, which together overstate tax by $354. Its ordinary-rate tax was also computed with stale head-of-household brackets."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an estimated $23,063 standard deduction and brackets (10% to $16,913, 12% to $64,575) instead of the 2026 values of $24,150, $17,700 and $67,450. It also left out the $700 non-itemizer charitable deduction and the $67.50 SALT refund income, and used a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted the $21,208 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums as medical expenses and itemized $23,266. That total is still below the $24,150 standard deduction plus the $700 non-itemizer charitable deduction, so itemizing raised taxable income. It also overstated the ordinary-rate tax using stale brackets ($11,046 vs $10,715 on $80,972)."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,other,False,"It skipped the computation. Its $12,719 is above the correct pre-credit regular tax of $12,379.77, so it never correctly applied the $24,850 of head-of-household deductions or netted the $2,800 of CTC and CDCC."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized real-estate tax, medical and charity instead of taking the larger $24,150 head-of-household standard deduction plus the $700 non-itemizer charitable deduction. Its $17,303 is above even the correct pre-credit tax of $12,379.77, so it also failed to apply the $2,200 CTC and $600 CDCC."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took $24,415 of itemized deductions, less than the $24,850 available from the $24,150 standard deduction plus the $700 non-itemizer charitable deduction. It also subtracted a $2,000 CTC instead of the 2026 $2,200."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $89,951 AGI comes from netting the entire $30,711 capital loss against income. The net capital loss deduction is capped at $3,000, so the correct AGI is $117,661.12 and $27,711 carries forward."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI, $24,150 standard deduction and credits are correct, but it left out the 2026 charitable deduction for non-itemizers, which covers the full $700 gift. That leaves taxable income $700 too high and overstates tax by $154."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the standard deduction, the $2,200 CTC and the $600 CDCC but not the $700 non-itemizer charitable deduction, and its regular tax ran about $500 over the $12,379.77 the 2026 head-of-household brackets produce. The result was $10,236 instead of $9,579.77."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized medical expenses that included the $21,208 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums. Those premiums are not a deductible medical cost here, so itemized deductions came out at about $28.5k, above the correct $24,150 standard deduction plus the $700 charitable deduction, and taxable income was understated."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the standard deduction, the $3,000 capital-loss cap and the $2,200 and $600 credits correctly, but left out the 2026 non-itemizer charitable deduction of $700. That overstates tax by $154."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its taxable income of $93,504 leaves out the $700 non-itemizer charitable deduction. It also includes the $8 IRA deduction, which is phased out for a 401(k) participant at this AGI. The correct taxable income is $92,811.12."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized medical costs that counted the $21,208 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums. Without those premiums the itemized total falls below the $24,150 standard deduction plus the $700 charitable deduction, so its larger deduction understated taxable income and tax."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,other,False,"It gave no computation. Its $14,000 is above the correct pre-credit regular tax of $12,379.77, so it never applied the $24,150 head-of-household standard deduction plus the $700 charitable deduction, the $3,000 capital-loss deduction, or the $2,800 of CTC and CDCC."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA had sunset, claimed two personal exemptions and phased the CTC out entirely. It also subtracted the $21,208 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums from wages. Under 2026 OBBBA law AGI is $117,661, there are no exemptions, and the full $2,200 CTC applies."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied post-sunset rules: 10/15/25% brackets, two $5,300 exemptions, and a $1,000 CTC phased out above $75,000. Under 2026 law the brackets are 10/12/22%, there are no exemptions, the $24,150 standard deduction plus the $700 charitable deduction applies, and the full $2,200 CTC is allowed."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $28,094 of itemized deductions treats the $21,208 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums as medical expenses above the 7.5% floor. Those premiums are not deductible here, so the correct deduction is the $24,150 standard deduction plus the $700 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used post-TCJA-expiration parameters, with a $12,591 standard deduction and higher bracket rates, and gave no child tax credit at all. Under 2026 OBBBA law the head-of-household standard deduction is $24,150, there is a $700 charitable deduction, and the $2,200 CTC applies."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $700 non-itemizer charitable deduction and took the phased-out $8 IRA deduction. It also overstated ordinary tax on $80,080 ($10,638 vs $10,519 under the 2026 head-of-household brackets of 10% to $17,700 and 12% to $67,450)."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value or explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was no answer to score."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the $30,711 net capital loss as offsetting most of the income and concluded tax was $0. The loss deduction against ordinary income is capped at $3,000, which leaves $92,811 of taxable income and $12,379.77 of tax before the $2,800 of credits."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the $21,208 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums as a pre-tax reduction of wages, cutting taxable income to about $71,600. With wages counted at $100,013.62 net of only the 401(k) deferral, taxable income is $92,811.12."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI, $24,150 standard deduction, brackets and credits are correct, but it left out the 2026 charitable deduction for non-itemizers, which covers the full $700 gift. Taxable income is therefore $700 too high and tax $154 too high."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It netted the full $30,711 capital loss into AGI instead of capping the deduction at $3,000, and treated all but $400 of the CTC as refundable when the full $2,200 is usable against this liability. It then dropped its own ~$6,509 result and submitted an unrelated $12,866.90."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It filed as single with a $15,750 standard deduction instead of head of household with $24,150 plus the $700 charitable deduction. It also invented a QBI deduction with no business income, started from an inflated $139,775 pre-adjustment AGI, used a $1,875 CTC instead of $2,200, and dropped the $600 CDCC."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its own working ended near $10,353, but it submitted $14,748, a number its derivation does not support. Along the way it left out the $68 SALT refund income and the 2026 $700 non-itemizer charitable deduction, deducted the $8 IRA (fully phased out for an active participant), and used a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its AGI, deductions, qualified-dividend tax and credits are essentially right, but it put the ordinary tax on $79,380 at $10,444.60. Under the 2026 HoH brackets (10% to $17,700, 12% to $67,450, 22% above) the tax is $10,364.60, so it overstated by $80. It also deducted the $8 traditional IRA, which is fully phased out for an active 401(k) participant at this AGI."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It used the $14,600 single standard deduction instead of the $24,150 HoH amount. It also netted the full capital loss against income rather than capping it at $3,000, which gave an AGI of $89,275 instead of $117,661. Finally, it submitted $23,437, which contradicts its own pre-credit figure of $8,506."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"It gave no computation and mentioned only the CDCC, leaving out the $2,200 nonrefundable CTC. Its $14,500 is even above the correct pre-credit tax of $12,379.77, so it also did not apply the 15% qualified-dividend rate or the $3,000 capital-loss deduction to reach the correct $92,811 of taxable income."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an outdated $23,500 HoH standard deduction instead of $24,150, left out the $700 non-itemizer charitable deduction, and excluded the $68 SALT refund, giving taxable income of $94,094 instead of $92,811. It also taxed ordinary income at stale brackets (10% to $17,000, 12% to $64,850) instead of the 2026 HoH thresholds of $17,700 and $67,450."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $23,000 HoH standard deduction, left out the $700 non-itemizer charitable deduction, used stale brackets (12% ending at $64,850), and applied a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200. It then replaced its own $10,460 result with an unsupported $11,150."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $24,500 standard deduction instead of $24,150, left out the $700 non-itemizer charitable deduction, and deducted the phased-out $8 IRA. Its main error was taxing ordinary income at brackets ending at $17,000 and $64,850 instead of $17,700 and $67,450, which pushed its ordinary tax up to $10,716."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted the $8 traditional IRA contribution, even though the head is an active 401(k) participant with AGI far above the 2026 HoH phase-out ceiling of $91,000. Because of that its AGI and taxable income came out about $7 low, and its tax $1.57 low."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left the $13,424 of qualified dividends out of AGI but still carved them out of taxable income. It also added the $2,289 short-term gain as separate ordinary income even though that gain is already netted into the capped $3,000 loss. Together these gave an AGI of $106,519 instead of $117,661. It also used a $22,500 standard deduction, estimated brackets and a $2,000 CTC."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $22,500 standard deduction and 2025 HoH brackets (12% ending at $63,100), left out the $700 charitable deduction, and used a $2,000 CTC. It then submitted $13,920, which contradicts its own after-credit result of $10,739."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $700 below-the-line charitable deduction that OBBBA allows non-itemizers starting in 2026 (up to $1,000 for HoH). Its taxable income was therefore $93,512 instead of $92,811, which overstated tax by $154 (22% × $700)."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the full $33,000 long-term loss and then another $3,000 capital-loss deduction, which drove AGI down to $86,949. It also used a fictitious $46,000 HoH standard deduction, a 35% × $5,000 CDCC, and a $300 CTC, instead of $24,150, 20% × $3,000, and $2,200."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied pre-TCJA sunset law: $9,680 of personal exemptions, 10/15/25% brackets, and a $1,000 CTC. OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent, so 2026 has no exemptions, has a $24,150 HoH standard deduction plus the $700 charitable deduction, uses 10/12/22% brackets, and has a $2,200 CTC."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied pre-TCJA sunset law: $11,000 of personal exemptions, old rate brackets, and a $1,000 CTC phased out at the old $75,000 HoH threshold. As a result it dropped the $2,200 CTC, which 2026 law allows in full because the phase-out starts at $200,000."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $23,100 standard deduction instead of $24,150, left out the $700 non-itemizer charitable deduction, and deducted the phased-out $8 IRA. It also overtaxed $81,130 of ordinary income at $11,059.60, against $10,749.60 at the 2026 HoH brackets, and used a $2,300 CTC instead of $2,200."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied expired pre-TCJA rules: $10,000 of personal exemptions and a $1,000 CTC. It also itemized $19,264 rather than taking the larger $24,150 HoH standard deduction plus the $700 non-itemizer charitable deduction under 2026 law, and it used only $1,000 of the $2,200 CTC."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It understated AGI at $100,571 against the correct $117,661.12, effectively leaving out most of the $20,480 of dividends. It subtracted only a $2,000 CTC and skipped the $600 CDCC, when the full nonrefundable credits are a $2,200 CTC and a $600 CDCC."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $21,208 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums from wages, cutting AGI to $96,446. In the correct computation only the $181 traditional 401(k) deferral reduces wages. It also applied $10,400 of pre-TCJA personal exemptions and left out the $2,200 CTC, subtracting only the $600 CDCC."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $21,208 of ESI premiums from wages, which gave an AGI of $96,454 instead of $117,661. It also applied repealed personal exemptions and a $1,000 CTC instead of the $2,200 CTC available in 2026."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,other,False,"It gave no derivation. Its $12,790.25 is above the correct pre-credit tax of $12,379.77, which means it effectively did not subtract the $2,200 nonrefundable CTC and $600 CDCC."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied personal exemptions, which do not exist in 2026, and named only the CDCC as a nonrefundable credit, leaving out the $2,200 CTC. The resulting tax base was far below the correct $92,811.12 of taxable income (and $12,379.77 of pre-credit tax)."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,other,False,"It gave no derivation. The correct pre-credit tax is $12,379.77 ($10,366.17 ordinary plus $2,013.60 on qualified dividends), less $2,800 of credits. Its $3,384 implies a pre-credit tax around $6,200, which matches dropping a large share of the dividend income, or of the income cut by the $3,000-capped capital loss, from taxable income."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $2,000 CTC instead of the OBBBA $2,200. Its implied pre-credit tax of $12,855 is about $475 above $12,379.77, which matches leaving out the $700 non-itemizer charitable deduction and using stale bracket thresholds instead of $17,700 and $67,450."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed TCJA had expired in 2026, so it applied personal exemptions, the old small standard deduction with $10,700 of itemized deductions, and a $1,000 CTC. Current law keeps the $24,150 HoH standard deduction plus the $700 non-itemizer charitable deduction and a $2,200 CTC. It also deducted the phased-out $8 IRA."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It left out the $68 SALT refund income and the $700 non-itemizer charitable deduction, and used a $23,063 standard deduction instead of $24,150. It also used estimated brackets ($16,913 / $64,575) instead of $17,700 / $67,450 and a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted the $21,208 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums as itemized medical expenses and then claimed the $23,266 total beat the HoH standard deduction. The 2026 standard deduction of $24,150 is larger, and taking it also allows the $700 charitable deduction, for $24,850 in total. It also overtaxed ordinary income, putting $11,046 on $80,972 against $10,715 at the 2026 brackets."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,other,False,"It gave only a generic description. Its $12,719 is $3,139 above the correct $9,579.77, which is more than the entire $2,800 of nonrefundable credits. That means it either barely reduced tax by the $2,200 CTC and $600 CDCC or overstated the regular tax well beyond the correct $12,379.77."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"It itemized instead of taking the $24,150 standard deduction plus the $700 charitable deduction, and produced $17,303, which is well above the correct pre-credit tax of $12,379.77. Its result matches taxing the dividends at ordinary rates and not netting the full $2,800 of nonrefundable credits."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a $2,000 CTC instead of the 2026 OBBBA amount of $2,200 per child. It also used $24,415 of itemized deductions instead of the larger $24,150 standard deduction plus $700 non-itemizer charitable deduction ($24,850), which left taxable income $436 too high."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of about $89,951 means it deducted the full $30,711 net capital loss, when the deduction against other income is capped at $3,000 and the rest carries forward. This understated taxable income by about $27,700."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the $24,150 standard deduction but left out the 2026 $700 below-the-line charitable deduction for non-itemizers. Taxable income was therefore $93,512 instead of $92,811, and tax $154 higher."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its implied pre-credit tax of $13,036 is $656 above $12,379.77. That gap comes from leaving out the $700 non-itemizer charitable deduction ($154 of tax) and from using bracket thresholds below the 2026 HoH levels of $17,700 and $67,450 (about $500 more)."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized medical, SALT, and charitable deductions, treating the pre-tax ESI premiums as deductible medical costs. That gave deductions about $3,700 above the correct $24,150 standard deduction plus $700 non-itemizer charitable deduction, so it understated taxable income and tax."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the $24,150 standard deduction but not the 2026 $700 non-itemizer charitable deduction. Taxable income was therefore $93,512 instead of $92,811, and tax $154 higher."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reached $93,504 of taxable income by deducting the $8 traditional IRA (fully phased out for an active 401(k) participant) and by leaving out the $700 non-itemizer charitable deduction. The correct taxable income is $92,811.12."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized medical, SALT, and charitable deductions, counting the pre-tax ESI premiums as medical expenses. That inflated deductions beyond the correct $24,150 standard deduction plus $700 charitable deduction and pushed taxable income below $92,811.12."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,other,False,"It gave no derivation. Its $14,000 is above even the correct pre-credit tax of $12,379.77, which means it neither applied the 15% qualified-dividend rate and $3,000 loss deduction correctly nor subtracted the $2,200 CTC and $600 CDCC."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset rules (personal exemptions and a phased-out CTC) instead of 2026 law under OBBBA, which keeps the $2,200 CTC unreduced below $200,000. It also subtracted the $21,208 of ESI premiums from wages, which gave an AGI of $96,454 instead of $117,661."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied post-sunset law: two $5,300 exemptions, 10/15/25% brackets, and a $1,000 CTC phased out above $75,000. 2026 law instead has a $24,150 standard deduction plus the $700 charitable deduction, 10/12/22% brackets, and a $2,200 CTC that is fully available at this income."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized $28,094 by counting the pre-tax ESI premiums as medical expenses above the 7.5% floor and adding NY income tax under the $40,000 SALT cap. The correct deduction is the $24,150 standard deduction plus the $700 non-itemizer charitable deduction. It also left out the $68 SALT refund income."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a post-TCJA-expiration standard deduction of $12,591, which gave taxable income of $105,063 instead of $92,811. It then subtracted only the $600 CDCC and left out the $2,200 nonrefundable CTC."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $700 non-itemizer charitable deduction and deducted the phased-out $8 IRA, which gave taxable income of $93,504. It also overstated ordinary tax on $80,080 at $10,638, against $10,519 at the 2026 HoH brackets."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value and no explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so the output is missing rather than wrong on the substance."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the capital loss as wiping out its tax liability, ignoring the $3,000 annual cap on deducting net capital losses against other income. With the cap applied, taxable income is $92,811.12 and tax after credits is $9,579.77."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI and credits are right, but it left out the $700 non-itemizer charitable deduction. It also overstated the regular tax by about $500, using bracket thresholds below the 2026 HoH levels of $17,700 and $67,450."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $21,208 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums from wages as a pre-tax reduction, which cut taxable income to about $71,600. In the correct computation only the $181 traditional 401(k) deferral reduces wages, leaving taxable income of $92,811.12."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the $24,150 HoH standard deduction but left out the $700 below-the-line charitable deduction that non-itemizers get starting in 2026. Taxable income was $93,512 instead of $92,811, which overstated tax by $154."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It netted the full $30,711 capital loss into AGI instead of capping the deduction at $3,000, and it ignored the 401(k) deferral. It also treated most of the CTC as refundable, used a $21,900 standard deduction, and then submitted $12,866.90, which contradicts its own $6,509 result."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It used the single-filer standard deduction of $15,750 instead of the $24,150 HoH amount. It also invented a $6,237 QBI deduction with no business income and built AGI as $139,775 without properly netting the capital loss. Its $1,875 CTC is also wrong; the full $2,200 CTC and $600 CDCC both apply."
us,scenario_082,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It applied only the ACTC limitation formula — lesser of $1,700 and 15% of earned income over $2,500 — and never performed the ordering step in which the nonrefundable CTC is first applied against tax liability and only the unused remainder becomes refundable. Its own reasoning conceded the head 'has sufficient nonrefundable CTC capacity' and then discarded that conclusion; with roughly $117,650 of AGI the pre-credit federal tax absorbs the entire credit, leaving $0. It also used the pre-OBBBA $2,000 per-child credit rather than the 2026 $2,200 amount."
us,scenario_082,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It reported the $1,700 statutory refundable ceiling as the answer after checking only the $2,500 earned-income floor, skipping the requirement that the refundable ACTC equals the CTC remaining after the nonrefundable portion offsets tax liability. Even at its own stated AGI of about $86,949, head-of-household tax before credits far exceeds the $2,200 CTC, so the credit is fully used nonrefundably and refundable credits are $0."
us,scenario_082,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It quoted $1,000, the pre-TCJA additional child tax credit cap, which has no basis in 2026 law where the credit is $2,200 per child with a $1,700 refundable ceiling. The controlling error is treating a refundable amount as automatic: this filer's federal tax before credits exceeds the full $2,200 credit, so the nonrefundable CTC absorbs all of it and $0 is refundable."
@@ -7017,148 +7245,154 @@ us,scenario_082,local_income_tax,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_l
us,scenario_082,local_income_tax,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied NYC head-of-household brackets to an NYC taxable income of $79,254, treating the household as NYC residents when only state = NY was given. Because NYC residence is an unlisted status that defaults to false, no NYC tax arises and local income tax is $0."
us,scenario_082,local_income_tax,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It said outright that it 'assumed to reside in NYC (the only NY locality with a local income tax),' which breaks the instruction to treat unlisted facts as false. Without NYC residence, its whole NYC bracket, school tax credit and child care credit computation does not apply, and local income tax is $0."
us,scenario_082,local_income_tax,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It stated that 'NYC resident income tax applies' to NY taxable income of about $104,454 and applied NYC brackets, but the household is never placed in NYC. Under the default-false rule for unlisted status facts, the household owes no NYC tax and local income tax is $0."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Computed FICA correctly at $7,664.92 but called NY PFL/DBL negligible and left them out. Reading 1 counts them at the maximum employee amounts ($411.91 PFL + $31.20 DBL = $443.11). Reading 2 leaves them out because NY lets the employer collect less or none."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Reported FICA only ($7,664.92) and left out NY PFL ($411.91 at 0.432%, capped) and DBL ($31.20). Under the reading that counts maximum NY employee contributions as mandatory state payroll taxes, the total is $8,108.03. Under the employer-absorbs reading, it is $7,664.92."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Used a 0.62% PFL rate on all wages ($621.21) and skipped the $411.91 annual cap; the 2026 rate is 0.432%. It also added a vague ~$19 for other items instead of the $31.20 DBL maximum, so it overstated the NY component by about $197."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Reported rounded FICA only ($7,665) and left out NY PFL ($411.91) and DBL ($31.20). The prompt allows both readings: these NY contributions are mandatory employee payroll taxes, or they are optional for the employer to collect and so excluded."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Included DBL at its $31.20 maximum but contradicted itself on PFL and settled on an unsupported $49.31. The reference counts the maximum the employer may collect: $411.91 of PFL (0.432% × $100,195 = $432.84, capped) plus $31.20 of DBL, or $443.11, against the model's $80.51; the employer may collect less or none."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Said NY has no mandatory employee payroll tax and reported FICA only ($7,664.92), leaving out PFL ($411.91) and DBL ($31.20). This matches the reading where employer-optional collection makes those contributions non-mandatory, not the reading that counts the maximum employee contributions."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Reported FICA only (about $7,665) and left out NY PFL ($411.91) and DBL ($31.20) as not mandatory. Under the reading that includes the maximum NY employee contributions, the total is $8,108.03."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Computed FICA at $7,664.92 and assumed no NY employee payroll tax, which leaves out PFL ($411.91) and DBL ($31.20). Whether these count as ""mandatory employee state payroll taxes"" depends on the reading, since NY lets the employer absorb them."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Included DBL at its $31.20 maximum but used the 2025 PFL rate of 0.388% with a cap of about $89,343, yielding $346.65. The reference counts the maximum collectible PFL share at the 2026 rate of 0.432%, capped at $411.91, so the model's PFL amount is $65.26 below the reference; the employer may collect less or none."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Added only a guessed ~$129.39 for NY SDI/PFL. The reference counts the maximum the employer may collect: PFL at the $411.91 cap (0.432% × $100,195 = $432.84, capped) plus DBL at $31.20, for $443.11; the employer may collect less or none."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Reported FICA only ($7,664.92) and left out NY PFL ($411.91) and DBL ($31.20). That is the reading where NY employee contributions are optional, not the one that includes the maximum employee contributions."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Subtracted the $181 traditional 401(k) deferral from FICA wages, but elective deferrals stay subject to Social Security and Medicare, so the base is the full $100,195. It also said NY has no employee payroll tax, leaving out PFL ($411.91) and DBL ($31.20)."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Included the NY DBL employee contribution ($31.20) but dropped Paid Family Leave. The reference also includes PFL at the maximum the employer may collect, $411.91 (0.432% of wages, capped); the employer may collect less or none of either contribution."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,Used an outdated PFL maximum of $369.68 instead of the 2026 cap of $411.91. It also left out the NY DBL contribution of $0.60/week × 52 = $31.20.
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Applied the correct 0.432% PFL rate to all $100,195 ($432.84) but missed the $411.91 annual maximum. That overstated PFL by $20.93."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Used about $333 for NY PFL and rounded DBL to $31, giving about $364 of NY contributions. The reference counts the maximum the employer may collect in 2026, $411.91 of PFL (0.432% rate, capped) plus $31.20 of DBL, or $443.11; the employer may collect less or none."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Applied 7.65% FICA to $100,195 ($7,665) and left out NY PFL ($411.91) and DBL ($31.20). That fits the reading where these employer-optional contributions are not mandatory, not the reading that counts the maximum employee amounts."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Subtracted the $21,208 ESI premium input from FICA wages and applied 7.65% to $78,987. The listed gross wages of $100,195 are the FICA base. It also used 0.373% for PFL on the reduced base ($294.62) instead of the 2026 rate of 0.432%, capped at $411.91."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Took the $21,208 ESI premiums out of wages, leaving a FICA base of $78,987 instead of the full $100,195, which understated SS and Medicare by about $1,622. It also used ~$394 for PFL and no DBL, compared with the reference's maximum collectible shares of $411.91 and $31.20; the employer may collect less or none."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Reported only federal SS and Medicare on gross wages ($7,664.92), with no NY PFL ($411.91) or DBL ($31.20). This matches the reading where those employer-optional contributions are excluded."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Applied FICA to $78,987 after subtracting ESI premiums, but the FICA base is the full $100,195 of gross wages. It also put about $270 on NY SDI/PFL, below the reference's $443.11 maximum collectible share ($411.91 PFL cap + $31.20 DBL); the employer may collect less or none."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Reduced FICA wages to $78,987 by subtracting the $21,208 ESI premiums, but SS and Medicare apply to the full $100,195. It also used about $334 for NY SDI/PFL, below the reference's $443.11 maximum collectible share; the employer may collect less or none."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Computed FICA correctly ($7,664.92) but left out NY PFL ($411.91) and DBL ($31.20). That follows the reading where employer-optional NY contributions are not mandatory, not the one that includes the maximum employee amounts."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Included DBL at its $31.20 maximum but computed PFL with the 2025 rate (0.388% × ~$96,200 = $373.26). The reference counts the maximum collectible PFL share at the 2026 rate of 0.432%, capped at $411.91, so the model's PFL amount is $38.65 below the reference; the employer may collect less or none."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Its own figures were $6,212 + $1,453 = $7,665, but it reported $7,765, a $100 arithmetic slip. It also said NY has no employee payroll tax, leaving out PFL ($411.91) and DBL ($31.20)."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Reported FICA only, rounded down to $7,660 from $7,664.92, and left out NY PFL ($411.91) and DBL ($31.20). This follows the reading where NY employee contributions are optional for the employer, so they are not mandatory taxes."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Reported FICA only, rounded to $7,659 instead of $7,664.92, and left out NY PFL ($411.91) and DBL ($31.20). This matches the reading that excludes employer-optional NY contributions."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Included NY PFL/DBL but estimated them together at $385.73. The reference counts the maximum the employer may collect in 2026: PFL at the $411.91 cap (0.432% rate) plus DBL at $31.20, for $443.11; the employer may collect less or none."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Added the NY disability contribution ($31.20) but left out the NY Paid Family Leave contribution, which has the same status. The reference also counts the maximum collectible PFL share of $411.91: 0.432% of $100,195 is $432.84, capped at $411.91; the employer may collect less or none of either contribution."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Applied 7.65% to $100,195 ($7,664.92) and left out NY PFL ($411.91) and DBL ($31.20). That is the reading where employer-optional NY contributions are not mandatory, not the one that counts the maximum employee amounts."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Reported FICA only, slightly understated at $7,654 versus $7,664.92, and left out NY PFL ($411.91) and DBL ($31.20). This follows the reading that excludes employer-optional NY employee contributions."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Applied the 0.432% PFL rate to all wages ($432.84) but missed the $411.91 annual maximum, overstating PFL by $20.93."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Applied 7.65% FICA to wages ($7,665) and left out NY PFL ($411.91) and DBL ($31.20). That matches the reading where employer-optional NY contributions are not mandatory employee taxes."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Treated the $21,208 ESI premium input as a pre-tax deduction from FICA wages, giving a $78,987 base instead of the full $100,195 of gross wages. It also said NY has no employee payroll tax, leaving out PFL ($411.91) and DBL ($31.20)."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Used about $367 for PFL instead of the 2026 maximum of $411.91 (0.432% rate). It also said no other NY employee payroll tax applies, leaving out the $31.20 DBL contribution."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Computed FICA correctly (about $7,665) and left out NY PFL ($411.91) and DBL ($31.20). That follows the reading that excludes employer-optional NY employee contributions."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Subtracted both the $21,208 ESI premiums and the $181 traditional 401(k) deferral from FICA wages, giving $78,806. The base is the full $100,195; 401(k) deferrals are always FICA-taxable. It also left out NY PFL ($411.91) and DBL ($31.20)."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Estimated NY PFL at about $365, an outdated amount, instead of the 2026 cap of $411.91 (0.432% rate). It also rounded SDI to $31, giving about $396 of NY contributions against the reference's $443.11 maximum collectible share; the employer may collect less or none."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No payroll_tax value or reasoning came back, so the output is missing."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Computed FICA at $7,664.92 (reported $7,665) and left out NY PFL ($411.91) and DBL ($31.20). That matches the reading where employer-optional NY contributions are not mandatory."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Reduced FICA wages to $78,987 by subtracting ESI premiums, though FICA applies to the full $100,195, which understated SS and Medicare by about $1,622. It also used $372.40 for NY contributions, below the reference's $443.11 maximum collectible share; the employer may collect less or none."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Reported FICA only (about $7,665) and left out NY PFL ($411.91) and DBL ($31.20). This follows the reading where employer-optional NY contributions are not counted as mandatory."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"At one point added NY PFL and SDI to FICA, then subtracted an invented ~$200 ""NY deduction"" from $7,664.92 and reported $7,464.33. The reference adds the maximum the employer may collect, $443.11 ($411.91 PFL cap + $31.20 DBL); the employer may collect less or none."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Its own components were $6,212.09 + $1,452.83 = $7,664.92, but it reported $7,752.42, an $87.50 arithmetic error. It also left out NY PFL ($411.91) and DBL ($31.20)."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Noticed NY PFL/DBL but left them out, stopping at federal FICA of $7,664.92. Reading 1 counts the NY employee maximums (PFL $411.91 plus DBL $31.20) for $8,108.03. Reading 2 treats them as employer-optional, not mandatory employee taxes, for $7,664.92. The model chose reading 2."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Counted only federal SS ($6,212.09) and Medicare ($1,452.83), which matches the reading where NY's employer-optional PFL/DBL contributions are not mandatory employee taxes. The reference reading adds PFL at 0.432% capped at $411.91 and DBL of $31.20, giving $8,108.03."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Used a 0.62% NY PFL rate with no cap ($621.21), then added unnamed 'other' NY withholdings to reach $8,304.92. The 2026 PFL rate is 0.432% with a $411.91 annual maximum, and the only other employee contribution is DBL at $31.20."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Rounded federal FICA to $7,665 and left out NY contributions, which matches the reading where employer-optional NY PFL/DBL are not mandatory employee taxes. The reference reading adds PFL $411.91 and DBL $31.20 for $8,108.03."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Included DBL correctly at $31.20, but cut the NY PFL to a made-up $49.31 after first estimating $354–$389 at the 2025 rate of 0.388%. The 2026 PFL is 0.432% of wages capped at $411.91, so NY adds $443.11, not $80.51."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Said NY has no mandatory employee payroll tax and stopped at $7,664.92, which matches the reading where employer-optional PFL/DBL are excluded. The reference reading counts NY PFL (0.432%, capped at $411.91) and DBL ($31.20) as employee contributions for $8,108.03."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Left out NY employee contributions and rounded federal FICA to $7,665, following the reading where NY PFL/DBL are not mandatory employee taxes. The reference reading adds PFL $411.91 and DBL $31.20 for $8,108.03."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Treated NY as having no modeled employee payroll tax and gave $7,664.92, following the employer-optional reading of NY PFL/DBL. The reference reading counts PFL $411.91 and DBL $31.20 as mandatory employee contributions, for $8,108.03."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Got DBL right ($31.20) but figured the PFL with the 2025 rate of 0.388% on an old ~$89,343 wage cap ($346.65). The 2026 PFL is 0.432% of wages capped at $411.91, so the model is $65.26 short."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Added an arbitrary $129.39 for NY SDI/PFL. The 2026 statutory amounts are PFL $411.91 (0.432%, capped) and DBL $31.20 ($0.60/week), a NY total of $443.11."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Said no NY payroll tax is modeled and gave federal FICA of $7,664.92, following the employer-optional reading of NY PFL/DBL. The reference reading adds PFL $411.91 and DBL $31.20 for $8,108.03."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Took the $181 traditional 401(k) deferral out of FICA wages. Under IRC §3121(v)(1)(A), elective deferrals stay subject to Social Security and Medicare, so FICA applies to the full $100,195. The model also left out NY PFL ($411.91) and DBL ($31.20)."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Included the NY DBL contribution ($31.20) but left out the NY Paid Family Leave contribution. PFL is withheld on the same basis at 0.432% of wages capped at $411.91, so the model is short by exactly $411.91."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Used a stale NY PFL maximum of $369.68 instead of the 2026 cap of $411.91, and left out the $31.20 DBL contribution entirely."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Applied the correct 0.432% PFL rate but to all $100,195 of wages ($432.84) without the annual cap. The 2026 PFL employee contribution is capped at $411.91, so the model is $20.93 over."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Used about $333 for NY PFL, which is the old 2024 maximum. The 2026 PFL is 0.432% capped at $411.91. DBL ($31) was roughly right."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Applied only 7.65% FICA to $100,195 ($7,665), which matches the reading where NY's employer-optional PFL/DBL are not mandatory employee taxes. The reference reading adds PFL $411.91 and DBL $31.20 for $8,108.03."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Took the $21,208 ESI premium out of FICA wages ($78,987), assuming a Section 125 pre-tax deduction that the facts do not give, and also figured the PFL on the reduced wages at an old rate ($294.62). FICA applies to the full $100,195 ($7,664.92), and PFL is capped at $411.91."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Lowered FICA wages to $78,987 by subtracting ESI premiums without any stated pre-tax cafeteria-plan arrangement, which cut SS/Medicare to $6,042.50. It also left out the $31.20 DBL and used about $394 instead of $411.91 for PFL."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Counted only federal SS and Medicare on gross wages ($7,664.92), following the reading where NY PFL/DBL are employer-optional, not mandatory employee taxes. The reference reading adds PFL $411.91 and DBL $31.20 for $8,108.03."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Used ESI-reduced FICA wages of $78,987, a pre-tax premium deduction the facts do not give. FICA should apply to all $100,195. Its NY PFL/DBL amount (about $270) is also below the 2026 total of $443.11."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Subtracted the $21,208 ESI premium from FICA wages ($78,987) without any stated pre-tax arrangement, which understates SS/Medicare by $1,622. Its NY add-on (about $333) is also below PFL $411.91 plus DBL $31.20."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Gave only federal SS ($6,212.09) and Medicare ($1,452.83), following the reading where NY's employer-optional PFL/DBL are excluded. The reference reading adds PFL $411.91 and DBL $31.20 for $8,108.03."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,gemini-4-argon,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Named the right components (FICA $7,664.92, DBL $31.20, PFL about $412.80) but added them wrong: they sum to $8,108.92, not the $8,096.92 reported. The PFL should also be the exact 2026 cap of $411.91."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Figured NY PFL at the 2025 rate of 0.388% on a $96,200 cap ($373.26). The 2026 rate is 0.432% with a $411.91 annual maximum. DBL at $31.20 was correct."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Its own components, SS $6,212 plus Medicare $1,453, total $7,665, but it reported $7,765, a $100 addition error. It also left out NY PFL ($411.91) and DBL ($31.20), which the reference counts as employee payroll taxes."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Left out NY employee contributions on the reading that NY has no mandatory employee payroll tax, since employers can fund PFL/DBL. It also rounded federal FICA down to $7,660 from $7,664.92. The reference reading adds PFL $411.91 and DBL $31.20 for $8,108.03."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Counted only SS and Medicare, following the employer-optional reading of NY PFL/DBL, and rounded down to $7,659 from $7,664.92. The reference reading adds PFL $411.91 and DBL $31.20 for $8,108.03."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Its NY total of $385.73 is the 2025 PFL maximum ($354.53) plus DBL ($31.20). The 2026 PFL maximum is $411.91, so the NY total should be $443.11."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Included the NY disability contribution ($31.20) but left out the NY Paid Family Leave contribution, which is withheld alongside it at 0.432% of wages capped at $411.91. The model is short by exactly that amount."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Applied 7.65% FICA only ($7,664.92), following the reading where NY's employer-optional PFL/DBL are not mandatory employee taxes. The reference reading adds PFL $411.91 and DBL $31.20 for $8,108.03."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Left out NY PFL/DBL on the employer-optional reading and also misstated 7.65% of $100,195 as $7,654 instead of $7,664.92. The reference reading adds PFL $411.91 and DBL $31.20 for $8,108.03."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Applied the 0.432% PFL rate to all wages ($432.84) and missed the 2026 annual cap of $411.91, overstating PFL by $20.93. DBL at $31.20 was correct."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Applied only 7.65% FICA ($7,665), following the reading where NY PFL/DBL are employer-optional and not mandatory employee taxes. The reference reading adds PFL $411.91 and DBL $31.20 for $8,108.03."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Took the $21,208 ESI premium out of FICA wages ($78,987) with no stated pre-tax cafeteria-plan election, which understates SS/Medicare. It also said NY has no employee payroll tax and left out PFL $411.91 and DBL $31.20."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Used about $367 for NY PFL instead of the 2026 cap of $411.91, and explicitly left out the $31.20 NY DBL employee contribution."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Counted only federal SS and Medicare ($7,665), following the employer-optional reading of NY PFL/DBL. The reference reading adds PFL $411.91 and DBL $31.20 for $8,108.03."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Took both the $21,208 ESI premium and the $181 traditional 401(k) deferral out of FICA wages ($78,806). 401(k) deferrals are FICA wages under IRC §3121(v), and no pre-tax premium arrangement is given, so FICA applies to $100,195. The model also left out NY PFL/DBL."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Estimated NY PFL at about $365 (an older rate and cap) instead of the 2026 cap of $411.91 (0.432% of wages). DBL at about $31 was right, so the NY total is $396 instead of $443.11."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Gave no value and no explanation for payroll_tax, so there was no answer to score against $8,108.03."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Counted only SS ($6,212.09) and Medicare ($1,452.83), rounded to $7,665, which matches the reading where NY PFL/DBL are employer-optional. The reference reading adds PFL $411.91 and DBL $31.20 for $8,108.03."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,muse-spark-1.3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Put NY PFL plus DBL at about $380, which matches stale pre-2026 PFL caps. The 2026 amounts are PFL $411.91 (0.432%, capped) plus DBL $31.20, or $443.11."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Applied FICA to $78,987 after taking out ESI premiums as if paid pre-tax, which the facts do not state, so SS/Medicare came to $6,042.50 instead of $7,664.92 on full wages. Its NY add-on of $372.40 is also below $443.11."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Counted only federal SS and Medicare ($7,665), following the reading where NY's employer-optional PFL/DBL are not mandatory employee taxes. The reference reading adds PFL $411.91 and DBL $31.20 for $8,108.03."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Dropped its own reasonable intermediate totals ($8,038–$8,169) and subtracted a made-up '-$200.61 NY deduction' from FICA. NY employee contributions are positive additions: PFL $411.91 plus DBL $31.20."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Its stated components (SS $6,212.09 plus Medicare $1,452.83, no state tax) total $7,664.92, but it reported $7,752.42, an $87.50 addition error. It also left out NY PFL ($411.91) and DBL ($31.20)."
us,scenario_082,self_employment_tax,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_082,self_employment_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model subtracted about $396 of NY child and dependent care credit as if it were nonrefundable, but that credit is refundable in New York and does not reduce tax before refundable credits. It also skipped the $68 SALT-refund subtraction and overstated the pre-credit tax at about $5,891, when the schedule tax plus recapture is $5,599.14."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The schedule tax of $5,445.89 is about right, but the supplemental recapture is wrong. The model used the 5.4% rate of the taxable-income bracket as the flat recapture rate. For NY AGI above $107,650, the rate is the higher-bracket rate, so the model's recapture of $49.75 should have been $156.51. It also failed to subtract the $68 state tax refund from NY AGI."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model set NY taxable income equal to a federal taxable income of $62,149, built with the $14,600 federal standard deduction and a mis-summed income total. It never applied the NY HOH $11,200 standard deduction or the $1,000 dependent exemption to NY AGI of $117,594. The $5,649 figure does not follow from any bracket calculation on its own stated base."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model gave no computation. The correct result is NY taxable income of $105,394 taxed at $5,442.63 under the 2026 HOH schedule, plus a $156.51 supplemental recapture because NY AGI exceeds $107,650. The $5,200 answer is consistent with a rough bracket estimate that leaves out the recapture tax."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model filed as single with an $8,000 standard deduction and no dependent exemption, when a parent with a qualifying child files head of household ($11,200 deduction plus a $1,000 exemption). It also added the $2,289 short-term gain separately instead of netting it against the long-term loss before the $3,000 cap. It then cut its own $6,221 figure to $5,076 without any stated rule."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model used single filing status with the $8,000 standard deduction and no $1,000 dependent exemption instead of HOH ($11,200). It did not subtract the traditional 401(k) contribution from wages and applied a 6% rate to income above $80,650. It then reduced $6,326 to $5,276 through an unexplained adjustment, even though no nonrefundable credit applies."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used an $8,000 standard deduction for head of household instead of the NY HOH amount of $11,200 and left out the $1,000 dependent exemption, which inflated taxable income to $109,654. It then applied rough 5.5–6% marginal rates instead of the 2026 HOH schedule plus the recapture."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The taxable income of $105,386 is close, but the model's 2026 HOH schedule tax of $5,808.15 is too high. The 3.9/4.4/5.15/5.4% brackets give about $5,442 on that base. Because the schedule tax was inflated, the 5.9%-flat-rate recapture came out at only $81.40 instead of $156.51."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model filed as single, compared itemized deductions of $9,917 against the $8,000 single standard deduction instead of the larger HOH $11,200, and left out the $1,000 dependent exemption. It used an outdated single schedule with a 5.85% rate. It then subtracted a $120 NY child care credit, which is refundable in New York and does not reduce tax before refundable credits."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model used single filing status, itemized $9,917 against an $8,000 single standard deduction instead of taking the HOH $11,200, and left out the dependent exemption. It then cut its $6,193 tax to $4,800 by citing a household credit that is fully phased out at this income."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model reached the correct taxable income of $105,394, then applied rough 4–5.5% rates and left out the $156.51 supplemental recapture tax that applies because NY AGI exceeds $107,650. The correct total is $5,442.63 + $156.51 = $5,599.14."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model deducted the full $30,711 net capital loss, giving AGI of about $86,949, instead of capping the loss at $3,000. It also claimed $2,000 of exemptions when NY allows none for the filer. It then subtracted the Empire State Child Credit, which is refundable and does not reduce tax before refundable credits."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model claimed NY itemized deductions of $20,691, but allowable NY itemized deductions are only $9,328, so the $11,200 HOH standard deduction applies. That understated taxable income at $95,971 instead of $105,394. It also used pre-2026 rates and no recapture tax."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model subtracted a $120 NY child and dependent care credit, which is refundable in New York and does not reduce tax before refundable credits. It also left out the $1,000 dependent exemption, taxing $106,394 instead of $105,394."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model claimed $2,000 of exemptions, but NY allows $1,000 only for the dependent child and nothing for the filer. It also deducted the nondeductible $8 IRA contribution. Its $5,408.73 is schedule tax only, leaving out the $156.51 supplemental recapture that applies because NY AGI exceeds $107,650."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used a $10,500 standard deduction instead of the $11,200 NY HOH amount and left out the $1,000 dependent exemption. It also omitted the supplemental recapture tax. It then subtracted a $30 household credit that is fully phased out at this income."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's own explanation taxes only wage income after the standard deduction, leaving out $20,480 of dividends and $100 of interest. The correct base is NY AGI of $117,594, which leaves $105,394 of taxable income after the $11,200 HOH deduction and $1,000 exemption. The $4,380 answer matches that understated income base and leaves out the recapture."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Taxable income of $84,178 matches subtracting the $21,208 employer-sponsored insurance premiums from wages. Those premiums are not a reduction of the listed gross wages. The correct NY taxable income is $105,394, and NY AGI above $107,650 triggers the $156.51 recapture."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's NY AGI of $96,454 subtracts the $21,208 employer-sponsored insurance premiums from wages, which is wrong because NY AGI is $117,594. It then made a further $5,000 arithmetic error, since $96,454 − $11,200 − $1,000 is $84,254, not $79,254."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,other,False,"The model gave no computation. The correct result is NY taxable income of $105,394 taxed at $5,442.63 under the 2026 HOH schedule, plus a $156.51 recapture, for $5,599.14. The $6,040.50 answer is about $441 too high, which is consistent with a single-status or smaller standard deduction, a missing dependent exemption, or pre-2026 higher rates."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model gave no figures. The $4,220 answer matches the tax on roughly $84,000 of taxable income, which is the result of wrongly subtracting the $21,208 ESI premiums from wages. The correct NY taxable income is $105,394, with a $156.51 recapture on top of the $5,442.63 schedule tax."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model gave no computation. Its $3,591 is about $2,000 below the correct $5,599.14, which matches taxing income far below the correct $105,394. That happens if the ESI premiums or the uncapped $30,711 capital loss are deducted, or if refundable credits are netted against tax."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the right $11,200 HOH deduction and $1,000 exemption. Its $5,533 matches the pre-2026 4/4.5/5.25/5.5% schedule with no supplemental recapture, instead of $5,442.63 at the 2026 reduced rates plus $156.51 of recapture for NY AGI above $107,650."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no value for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was nothing to score."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's itemized deductions included about $4,700 of NY income tax, which NY does not allow as a deduction on its own return. They also included $13,349 of 'medical' that folds in the $21,208 ESI premiums, which are not a deductible medical expense here. Actual NY itemized deductions are $9,328, below the $11,200 HOH standard deduction. The model also subtracted the refundable $120 NY child care credit."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's $5,150 rests only on 'standard deduction and limited credits'. It leaves out the $156.51 supplemental recapture for NY AGI above $107,650 and nets credits that are either refundable or phased out. The correct total is $5,442.63 of schedule tax on $105,394 plus $156.51."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"The model's $7,777 is a placeholder-style figure with no bracket calculation. It is about $2,178 above the correct $5,599.14, which comes from $105,394 of HOH taxable income at 2026 rates plus the $156.51 recapture."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model got the correct taxable income of $105,394 but applied the pre-2026 HOH rates (4/4.5/5.25/5.5%), giving $5,548. The correct 2026 rates of 3.9/4.4/5.15/5.4% give $5,442.63. The model also left out the $156.51 supplemental recapture tax that applies because NY AGI exceeds $107,650."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model gave no computation. Its $2,954.80 matches roughly half the correct taxable income. The correct derivation taxes $105,394, which is NY AGI of $117,594 less the $11,200 HOH deduction and $1,000 exemption, at 2026 HOH rates for $5,442.63, then adds the $156.51 recapture."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Taxable income of $106,394 leaves out the $1,000 NY dependent exemption for the child. The tax applied to that base is also higher than the 2026 HOH schedule plus recapture would produce."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied only the $11,200 standard deduction and left out the $1,000 dependent exemption. Its $5,977.08 is about $378 above the correct figure, which matches applying pre-2026 or higher marginal rates instead of the 2026 3.9/4.4/5.15/5.4% schedule plus the $156.51 recapture."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model itemized about $23,632 of deductions, giving taxable income of $92,961.65. Allowable NY itemized deductions are only $9,328, so the $11,200 HOH standard deduction applies and taxable income is $105,394. The inflated itemized figure counts items such as the ESI premiums or gross medical costs that are not deductible."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the HOH deduction, the exemption and the 2026 brackets, landing at about the $5,442.63 schedule tax. It left out the $156.51 supplemental recapture tax that applies because NY AGI of $117,594 exceeds $107,650."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model subtracted a $120 NY child and dependent care credit as nonrefundable, but New York makes that credit refundable, so it does not reduce tax before refundable credits. Its pre-credit tax of $5,665.24 also overstates the correct $5,442.63 schedule tax plus $156.51 recapture."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model itemized about $23,632 of deductions, giving taxable income of $92,961.65. Allowable NY itemized deductions are $9,328, below the $11,200 HOH standard deduction, so taxable income is $105,394. The supplemental tax built on that understated base also comes out too low."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model gave no computation. Its $5,500 is close to the schedule tax on $105,394 but leaves out the $156.51 supplemental recapture for NY AGI above $107,650. The correct total is $5,442.63 + $156.51 = $5,599.14."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model reduced AGI to $96,454 by subtracting the $21,208 ESI premiums from wages and used a nonexistent $12,100 HOH standard deduction instead of $11,200. It then subtracted the $120 NY child care credit, which is refundable and does not reduce tax before refundable credits."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model got the correct taxable income of $105,394 but used the pre-2026 formula of $901 plus 5.5%. Under the 2026 rate cuts the correct schedule tax is $5,442.63. The model also left out the $156.51 supplemental recapture triggered by NY AGI above $107,650."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model itemized about $23,000 of deductions, reaching taxable income of $93,545. Allowable NY itemized deductions are only $9,328, so the $11,200 HOH standard deduction applies. It also taxed the result on the single schedule ($4,271 plus 6% over $80,650) instead of the HOH schedule."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left out the $1,000 dependent exemption, giving taxable income of $106,386 instead of $105,394. It used pre-2026 rates with a wrong 4.5% bracket width and left out the $156.51 supplemental recapture. These errors largely cancel, leaving $5,598 instead of $5,599.14."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model claimed $2,000 of exemptions, but NY gives $1,000 only for the dependent and none for the filer. It then subtracted a $120 NY child care credit, which is refundable in New York and does not reduce tax before refundable credits."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no value for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was nothing to score."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model got the correct taxable income of $105,394 but applied a nonexistent 5.75% bracket rate. The 2026 HOH rate in that range is 5.4%, which gives $5,442.63. The model also left out the $156.51 supplemental recapture for NY AGI above $107,650."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model let the $33,000 long-term loss wipe out most income, but the net capital loss deduction is capped at $3,000. It also netted the federal Child Tax Credit against NY tax, which is not allowed. Correctly, NY taxable income is $105,394 and the tax is $5,599.14, not zero."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Taxable income of about $85,200 understates the correct $105,394 by roughly the $21,208 ESI premiums. Those premiums are not a reduction of the listed gross wages. The model also subtracted the refundable $120 NY child care credit."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used an $8,000 standard deduction for head of household instead of $11,200 and applied an outdated schedule with 5.85% and 6.25% rates. It then subtracted the $120 NY child care credit, which is refundable and does not reduce tax before refundable credits."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model deducted the full $30,711 net capital loss, giving AGI of $89,951, instead of capping it at $3,000. It used the single $8,000 standard deduction instead of HOH $11,200. It then raised its own $4,292.89 to $4,755.44 by citing a 'household credit', which is incoherent because the household credit is phased out at this income and a credit only lowers tax."
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Federal AGI of $139,586 ignores the $3,000 capped capital loss and overstates income. The model used single status with an $8,000 deduction and an invented 'federal deduction adjustment'. It then subtracted the Empire State Child Credit, which is refundable, and a household credit that is phased out at this income."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Computed the ESCC as 33% of a pre-TCJA $1,000 CTC ($330). It should have used the enhanced $1,000 under-4 amount less the 1.65% phase-out above $75,000, which gives $307. It also guessed about $150 for the care credit, when 606(c-2) applies about 29.35% to $3,000 of expenses for $880.55."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Got the ESCC structure nearly right ($1,000 less 1.65% of the excess over $75,000). However, it reduced the credit on the exact excess (yielding $296.21) instead of per full $1,000 step (42 × $16.50 = $693, leaving $307). The larger miss is the care credit: it used the old 20%-of-federal-CDCC rule ($120) instead of the 2026 606(c-2) formula, which gives about 29.35% × $3,000 = $880.55."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Wrongly stated that New York has no refundable child credit, so it missed the refundable Empire State Child Credit ($1,000 under-4 base less a $693 phase-out = $307). It also missed the refundable NY child and dependent care credit ($880.55 under 606(c-2))."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Assumed income ruled out every NY refundable credit. At about $117.7k AGI, the Empire State Child Credit for a child under 4 is still $307 after the 1.65% phase-out, and the 606(c-2) care credit pays $880.55 on $3,000 of expenses."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Made up a $110 under-4 ESCC amount instead of the $1,000 base reduced by $16.50 per $1,000 above $75,000 ($307). It also wrongly treated the NY care credit as nonrefundable above about $50k, when the 606(c-2) credit is refundable and worth $880.55 here."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Claimed the ESCC phases out completely and the care credit is nonrefundable at this AGI. The $1,000 under-4 ESCC only loses $693 at $117.7k AGI, leaving $307, and the refundable 606(c-2) care credit is $880.55."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Asserted that income was too high for any NY refundable credit. The $1,000 under-4 ESCC is only partly phased out ($307 remains), and the 2026 care credit pays about 29.35% of $3,000 = $880.55."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Rounded the ESCC phase-out up to 43 thousands ($290.50) instead of counting full $1,000 steps (42 × $16.50 = $693, leaving $307). It also used the old 20%-of-federal-CDCC rule ($120) instead of the 606(c-2) formula, which applies about 29.35% to $3,000 of expenses for $880.55."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Used the old 33%-of-federal-CTC ESCC formula ($660) and explicitly denied any income phase-out. The current under-4 credit is $1,000 less $16.50 per $1,000 above $75,000, which gives $307. It also computed the care credit as 20% of the $600 federal credit ($120) instead of $880.55 under 606(c-2)."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Concluded that NY AGI around $92k was too high for the ESCC. The $1,000 under-4 ESCC phases out at only $16.50 per $1,000 above $75,000, leaving $307 at the actual $117.7k AGI. It also ignored the refundable 606(c-2) care credit of $880.55."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Assumed the ESCC was fully phased out, but the $1,000 under-4 credit keeps $307 after the $693 reduction. It also applied the pre-2026 20%-of-federal-CDCC rule ($120) instead of the 606(c-2) percentage of $3,000 in expenses ($880.55)."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Only checked the NY EITC and ignored the two refundable credits that apply: the Empire State Child Credit ($307 after phase-out of the $1,000 under-4 base) and the 606(c-2) child and dependent care credit ($880.55)."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Left out the Empire State Child Credit entirely ($307 after the phase-out). It also computed the care credit under the old 20%-of-federal-CDCC rule ($120) instead of the 2026 formula, about 29.35% × $3,000 = $880.55."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied an outdated age-4 minimum to the ESCC. Children under 4 now get a $1,000 base credit, which is $307 after phase-out here. It also left out the refundable 606(c-2) care credit of $880.55."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Allowed the full $1,000 under-4 ESCC without the $16.50-per-$1,000 phase-out above $75,000, which removes $693 at $117.7k AGI. It also used the old 20%-of-federal-CDCC rule ($120) instead of the 606(c-2) credit of $880.55."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Used the outdated $330 ESCC instead of the $1,000 under-4 base less the $693 phase-out ($307). It guessed $300 for the care credit instead of about 29.35% × $3,000 = $880.55. It also added a NYC school tax credit, which does not apply because no NYC residence is given."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Reported only an old-formula $330 ESCC instead of $307 (the $1,000 under-4 base less a $693 phase-out). It also left out the refundable 606(c-2) child and dependent care credit of $880.55."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Used the $100 ESCC floor instead of the enhanced $1,000 under-4 credit less the $693 phase-out ($307). It also computed the care credit as 20% of the federal $600 ($120) instead of $880.55 under 606(c-2)."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied the 110%-of-federal care-credit rate, which belongs to the lowest income band, to a $117k AGI household and got $660. The 606(c-2) percentage at this AGI is about 29.35% of $3,000, or $880.55. It also used a $330 ESCC instead of the phased-down $1,000 under-4 amount ($307)."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Returned zero, which misses both refundable NY credits for this household: the Empire State Child Credit ($1,000 under-4 base less $693 = $307) and the 606(c-2) care credit ($880.55)."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Reported only a $330 ESCC based on the old 33%-of-CTC formula instead of $307 (the $1,000 under-4 base less a $693 phase-out). It also omitted the refundable 606(c-2) care credit of $880.55."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Counted only a $330 old-formula ESCC and left out the refundable child and dependent care credit. Under 606(c-2), that credit applies about 29.35% to $3,000 of expenses for $880.55, and the ESCC is $307 after phase-out."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Used the pre-2026 rule (20% of the $600 federal CDCC = $120) instead of the 606(c-2) formula, which gives $880.55. It also wrongly treated the ESCC as phased out, when $307 of the $1,000 under-4 credit remains."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Gave no value or explanation for state_refundable_credits, so there was nothing to score against the $1,187.55 reference."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Treated the enhanced ESCC as 100% of a $2,200 federal CTC. The actual under-4 amount is a flat $1,000 reduced by $16.50 per $1,000 of AGI above $75,000, which gives $307. It also omitted the refundable 606(c-2) care credit of $880.55."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Found no refundable NY credits and missed both the Empire State Child Credit for the 1-year-old ($307 after phase-out) and the refundable 606(c-2) child care credit on $3,000 of expenses ($880.55)."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Considered only NY EITC eligibility, so it missed the ESCC ($1,000 under-4 base less $693 = $307) and the refundable 606(c-2) care credit ($880.55). Neither credit depends on an EITC-style earned-income test."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied the old 20%-of-federal-CDCC rule ($120) instead of 606(c-2), which applies about 29.35% directly to $3,000 of expenses for $880.55. It also wrongly zeroed the ESCC, when $307 of the $1,000 under-4 credit survives the phase-out."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Allowed the full $1,000 under-4 ESCC without the $16.50-per-$1,000 phase-out above $75,000 ($693 at this AGI, leaving $307). It also left out the refundable 606(c-2) care credit of $880.55."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Rounded the ESCC phase-out up to 43 thousands ($290.50) instead of 42 full $1,000 steps (which leaves $307). It also used the pre-2026 20%-of-federal care-credit rule ($120) instead of the 606(c-2) credit of $880.55."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Wrongly treated a 1-year-old as too young for the ESCC. Children under 4 now get a $1,000 base credit, which is $307 after phase-out here. It also missed the refundable 606(c-2) care credit of $880.55."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Overcounted the ESCC phase-out by rounding the excess up to 43 thousands ($290.50 instead of $307). It also used the old 20%-of-federal-CDCC rule ($120) instead of the 2026 606(c-2) percentage applied to $3,000 of expenses ($880.55)."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Wrongly zeroed the ESCC, when $307 remains after the $693 phase-out of the $1,000 under-4 credit. It also used the pre-2026 20%-of-federal care-credit rule ($120) instead of $880.55 under 606(c-2)."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Treated the NY dependent care credit as nonrefundable, but the 606(c-2) credit is refundable ($880.55). It also wrongly denied the ESCC, which is $307 after phase-out of the $1,000 under-4 base."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Estimated the ESCC at $312, close to the correct $307. Its main error was using the old 20%-of-federal-CDCC care credit ($120) instead of the 606(c-2) formula, about 29.35% × $3,000 = $880.55."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Found no refundable state credits and missed the Empire State Child Credit ($1,000 under-4 base less a $693 phase-out = $307) and the refundable 606(c-2) child care credit ($880.55)."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Tied the ESCC to a federal CTC it believed was fully phased out. The under-4 ESCC is a flat $1,000 with its own $16.50-per-$1,000 phase-out above $75,000, which leaves $307. It also omitted the refundable 606(c-2) care credit of $880.55."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Fell back to the $100 ESCC minimum instead of the $1,000 under-4 base less a $693 phase-out ($307). It also computed the care credit as 20% of the $600 federal credit ($120) instead of $880.55 under 606(c-2)."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Used a $660 ESCC (33% of a $2,000 federal CTC) instead of the $1,000 under-4 amount reduced by $16.50 per $1,000 above $75,000 ($307). It also used the old 20%-of-federal care-credit rule ($120) instead of $880.55."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,Looked only at the NY EITC and missed the refundable Empire State Child Credit ($307 after phase-out) and the refundable 606(c-2) child and dependent care credit ($880.55).
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,Treated the NY child care credit as fully absorbed by tax liability. The 606(c-2) credit is refundable and counts in full ($880.55). It also omitted the ESCC of $307.
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Gave no value or explanation for state_refundable_credits, so there was nothing to score against the $1,187.55 reference."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied the legacy 2017-law-CTC recomputation and its $100 minimum instead of the enhanced $1,000 under-4 ESCC less $16.50 per $1,000 above $75,000 ($307). It also used 20% of the federal $600 ($120) instead of the 606(c-2) care credit of $880.55."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Concluded that income exceeded the ESCC range, but the $1,000 under-4 credit only loses $693 at $117.7k AGI ($307 remains). It also ignored the refundable 606(c-2) care credit of $880.55."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Checked only the NY EITC and missed the refundable Empire State Child Credit ($307 after phase-out of the $1,000 under-4 base) and the 606(c-2) child and dependent care credit ($880.55)."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Correctly started from the $1,000 under-4 ESCC and the $75,000 threshold but used a 5% phase-out rate instead of $16.50 per $1,000 (1.65%), so the credit went to zero instead of $307. It also omitted the refundable 606(c-2) care credit of $880.55."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Considered only the NY EITC and concluded nothing applied, which misses the ESCC ($1,000 under-4 base less $693 = $307) and the refundable 606(c-2) child care credit ($880.55)."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its $313 roughly matches the phased-down ESCC ($307), but it entirely left out the refundable child and dependent care credit. Under 606(c-2), that credit applies about 29.35% to $3,000 of expenses for $880.55."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"Subtracted about $396 of NY child and dependent care credit as if it were nonrefundable. That credit is refundable, so it does not reduce tax before refundable credits. The model's gross tax of $5,891 was also too high: the correct figure is $5,442.63 of main tax plus $156.51 of supplemental tax, or $5,599.14."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Computed the main HOH tax correctly, but used the 5.4% flat rate for the supplemental recapture. The recapture compares main tax to the 5.9% rate of the bracket above $107,650, which gives $156.51, not $49.75. The model also deducted the $8 IRA and skipped the $68 refund subtraction."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used federal taxable income ($62,149, after a $14,600 federal standard deduction) as NY taxable income. NY starts from NY AGI of $117,593.62 and subtracts its own $11,200 HOH standard deduction and $1,000 dependent exemption, giving $105,393.62. The model's $5,649 does not follow from the base it stated."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Gave a rough $5,200 with no bracket work. That is below even the $5,442.63 main tax from the 2026 HOH schedule on $105,393.62. The answer also leaves out the $156.51 supplemental tax that applies because NY AGI exceeds $107,650."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Filed as single with an $8,000 standard deduction and no dependent exemption. A parent with a qualifying child files as head of household, with an $11,200 standard deduction plus a $1,000 dependent exemption. The model then cut its $6,221 to $5,076 with no nonrefundable credit to justify the reduction."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Filed as single ($8,000 standard deduction, single bracket schedule, no $1,000 dependent exemption) instead of head of household. It then cut its $6,326 to $5,276 with an unexplained 'modest adjustment', although no nonrefundable credit applies."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used about $8,000 as the HOH standard deduction instead of $11,200 and left out the $1,000 dependent exemption, overstating taxable income at $109,654 instead of $105,393.62. It then applied rough 5.5%–6% marginal rates instead of the 2026 HOH schedule plus recapture."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Started the 5.9% HOH bracket at $32,200. In fact the 5.4% bracket runs from $20,900 to $107,650, so main tax is $5,442.63, not $5,808.15. The model's supplemental recapture was also too small ($81.40 instead of $156.51)."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Filed as single and itemized $9,917 against an $8,000 standard deduction, using outdated single brackets (5.85%). As head of household, the $11,200 standard deduction beats itemizing and a $1,000 dependent exemption applies. The model also wrongly subtracted the refundable NY child-care credit ($120)."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Used single-filer status, itemized deductions, and single brackets instead of HOH with the $11,200 standard deduction and $1,000 dependent exemption. It then cut $6,193 to $4,800 for a household credit that is fully phased out at this income."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Got the $105,394 taxable income right but applied rough '4% to 5.5%' rates instead of the 2026 HOH schedule, which gives $5,442.63. It also left out the $156.51 supplemental tax triggered by NY AGI above $107,650."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Federal AGI of about $86,949 shows the model deducted nearly the full $30,711 net capital loss. Only $3,000 is deductible, so federal AGI is $117,661. The model also used a wrong HOH deduction and $2,000 of exemptions, and subtracted the Empire State Child Credit, which is refundable."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Claimed $20,691 of itemized deductions. Actual NY itemized deductions are $9,328.22, below the $11,200 HOH standard deduction, so taxable income is $105,393.62, not $95,971. The model also used pre-2026 rates and left out the supplemental tax."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied the $11,200 standard deduction but not the $1,000 NY dependent exemption. It also subtracted a $120 NY child and dependent care credit, which is refundable and excluded from tax before refundable credits."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Subtracted $2,000 of exemptions, but NY gives no personal exemption to the filer, only $1,000 per dependent. The model also deducted the $8 IRA, which a 401(k)-covered filer at this AGI cannot deduct. It left out the $156.51 supplemental tax."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used a $10,500 standard deduction and no dependent exemption instead of $11,200 plus $1,000, giving $107,086 of taxable income instead of $105,393.62. It left out the supplemental tax and subtracted a $30 household credit that is fully phased out at this AGI."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Taxed only wage income after the standard deduction, leaving out $20,480 of dividends, $100 of interest, and the $3,000 capital-loss deduction. It also left out the $156.51 supplemental tax that applies above $107,650 of NY AGI."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $84,178 taxable income is exactly the correct base minus the $21,208 ESI premiums and the $8 IRA. The listed gross wages are not reduced by the employee's ESI premiums. Removing that amount also pushed NY AGI below $107,650, so the model missed the supplemental tax."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its NY AGI of $96,454 is the correct AGI minus the $21,208 employer-sponsored insurance premiums, which do not reduce the listed gross wages. NY AGI is $117,593.62. The model's deductions also exceeded the $11,200 standard deduction plus the $1,000 dependent exemption."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Gave $6,040.50 with no derivation, about $441 above the correct $5,599.14. A figure that high requires a higher marginal rate than the 2026 HOH 5.4% bracket ($20,900–$107,650) or a missing deduction or exemption."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $4,220 is about $1,380 below the reference. That gap matches dropping roughly $21,000 of income at 5.4%, as excluding the $21,208 ESI premiums would, plus leaving out the $156.51 supplemental tax. The correct NY taxable income is $105,393.62."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $3,591 is about $2,000 below the correct $5,599.14, which implies roughly $37,000 of taxable income missing. That points to deductions well beyond the $3,000 capital-loss cap or the excluded ESI premiums. The correct base is $105,393.62 of NY taxable income, plus the supplemental tax."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Set up the $11,200 HOH standard deduction and $1,000 exemption correctly but landed $66 short. The correct total is $5,442.63 of main tax plus $156.51 of supplemental tax, so the model under-computed the recapture triggered by NY AGI above $107,650."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,other,False,"Subtracted 'nonrefundable NY household/child care credits'. The household credit is phased out at this income, and the NY child-care credit is refundable, so no nonrefundable credit applies. The model also deducted the $8 IRA, which is non-deductible for a 401(k)-covered filer at this AGI."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Gave no answer for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits. The correct value is $5,442.63 of main HOH tax plus $156.51 of supplemental tax, or $5,599.14."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Itemized $27,966, which included about $4,700 of state income tax (NY requires adding back state and local income taxes) and $13,349 of medical expenses built from the ESI premiums. Actual NY itemized deductions are $9,328.22, so the $11,200 standard deduction applies. The model also subtracted the refundable NY child-care credit."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Gave a rough $5,150 with no bracket work. That is below the $5,442.63 main tax from the 2026 HOH schedule on $105,393.62. The answer also leaves out the $156.51 supplemental tax owed because NY AGI exceeds $107,650."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"Gave an unsupported $7,777, more than even a flat 5.9% on the full $105,393.62 taxable income ($6,218). The correct figure is $5,442.63 of graduated HOH tax plus $156.51 of supplemental tax, with no nonrefundable credits."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied the pre-2026 HOH rates (4%/4.5%/5.25%/5.5%) to the correct $105,394, which gives $5,548. The 2026 rates are 0.1 point lower (3.9%/4.4%/5.15%/5.4%), giving $5,442.63, and the model left out the $156.51 supplemental tax."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $2,954.80 implies NY taxable income near $55,000, about $50,000 below the correct $105,393.62. A gap that size requires ignoring the $3,000 capital-loss cap or excluding the ESI premiums from wages."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used about $106,394 of taxable income, leaving out the $1,000 NY dependent exemption for the child. It also overstated the graduated tax relative to the 2026 HOH schedule, where the 5.4% bracket runs from $20,900 to $107,650."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Subtracted only the $11,200 standard deduction and left out the $1,000 dependent exemption. It also applied rates above the 5.4% that the 2026 HOH schedule charges on income from $20,900 to $107,650, overshooting to $5,977.08."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $92,961.65 taxable income implies about $23,600 of itemized deductions, which requires counting the $21,208 employer-sponsored insurance premiums as medical expenses. The allowable NY itemized deductions are only $9,328.22, so the $11,200 standard deduction applies and taxable income is $105,393.62."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $5,458 is essentially just the $5,442.63 main tax from the 2026 HOH schedule. It leaves out most of the $156.51 supplemental tax that applies because NY AGI of $117,593.62 exceeds $107,650."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,other,False,"Subtracted a $120 dependent-care credit as nonrefundable, but the NY child and dependent care credit is refundable and excluded from this output. The model's pre-credit tax of $5,665.24 was also $66 higher than the correct $5,599.14 (main tax plus supplemental tax)."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Itemized about $23,600, counting the $21,208 ESI premiums as deductible medical expenses, which cut taxable income to $92,961.65. Allowable NY itemized deductions are $9,328.22, so the $11,200 standard deduction applies and taxable income is $105,393.62."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $5,500 tracks the $5,442.63 main HOH tax but leaves out most of the $156.51 supplemental tax owed because NY AGI exceeds $107,650."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its NY AGI of $96,454 subtracts the $21,208 ESI premiums, which do not reduce the listed gross wages; correct NY AGI is $117,593.62. The model also used a $12,100 HOH standard deduction instead of $11,200, and subtracted the refundable NY child-care credit."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its '$901 plus 5.5% over $20,900' formula is the pre-2026 HOH schedule. The 2026 rates are 3.9%/4.4%/5.15%/5.4%, giving $5,442.63, and the model left out the $156.51 supplemental tax."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Itemized about $23,000 (implied by $93,545 of taxable income), counting the ESI premiums as medical expenses. Allowable itemized deductions are $9,328.22, below the $11,200 HOH standard deduction. The model then applied the single schedule's 6% rate above $80,650 instead of the 2026 HOH 5.4% bracket running to $107,650."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Left out the $1,000 dependent exemption, which made taxable income $106,386. It applied pre-2026 rates (4%/4.5%/5.25%/5.5%) with wrong bracket widths and left out the $156.51 supplemental tax. These errors offset to land $1.14 below the correct $5,599.14."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Took $2,000 of exemptions, but NY gives only $1,000 per dependent and none to the filer. It skipped the $68 refund subtraction from NY AGI and subtracted a $120 NY child-care credit, which is refundable and excluded from this output."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Gave no answer for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits. The correct value is $5,442.63 of main HOH tax plus $156.51 of supplemental tax, or $5,599.14."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Got the $105,394 taxable income right but applied a 5.75% rate that does not exist in the 2026 HOH schedule, where 5.4% covers $20,900 to $107,650. That overstated main tax, and the model never added the $156.51 supplemental tax."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Treated the $33,000 long-term capital loss as offsetting most ordinary income and invoked a child tax credit to reach $0. Only $3,000 of net capital loss is deductible, so NY taxable income is $105,393.62 and tax before refundable credits is $5,599.14."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied approximate '4–6%' brackets and plural exemptions instead of the 2026 HOH schedule (3.9%/4.4%/5.15%/5.4% up to $107,650) and the single $1,000 dependent exemption. That overshot the correct $5,442.63 main tax plus $156.51 supplemental tax."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $85,200 taxable income equals NY AGI minus the $21,208 ESI premiums and the standard deduction, so it removed premiums that do not reduce listed wages. It also left out the $1,000 dependent exemption and subtracted the refundable NY child-care credit."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used $8,000 as the HOH standard deduction instead of $11,200 and applied the outdated 5.85%/6.25% rates. It also subtracted a $120 NY child-care credit, which is refundable and excluded from tax before refundable credits."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Deducted the full $30,711 net capital loss, producing $89,951 of AGI, instead of capping it at $3,000. It also filed as single with an $8,000 standard deduction instead of HOH at $11,200, and its final $4,755.44 is higher than its own bracket result of $4,292.89."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Overstated federal AGI at $139,586 instead of $117,661.12 and used the single $8,000 standard deduction plus an invented 'federal deduction adjustment'. It then subtracted the household credit (phased out at this income) and the Empire State Child Credit, which is refundable."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It computed the ESCC with the pre-2025 rule (33% of a $1,000 CTC = $330) instead of the 2026 rule: a $1,000 under-4 base less $693 of phase-out, or $307. It guessed about $150 for the care credit instead of applying the 2026 §606(c-2) percentage of about 29.35% to the $3,000 of qualifying expenses, which gives $880.55."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used the old NY care credit (20% of the $600 federal CDCC = $120) instead of the 2026 §606(c-2) credit, which is about 29.35% of the $3,000 expense cap, or $880.55. It also phased the ESCC out continuously at 1.65% ($296.21), but the rule reduces it $16.50 per full $1,000 over $75,000, leaving $307."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It said NY has no refundable child credit, so it missed the refundable Empire State Child Credit: a $1,000 base for a child under 4, phased down to $307. It also left out the refundable 2026 NY child and dependent care credit of $880.55 on $3,000 of the child care expenses."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It treated the household as too high-income for any NY refundable credit. At $117,661 AGI, the under-4 ESCC still pays $307 after its $16.50-per-$1,000 phase-out, and the 2026 §606(c-2) care credit pays $880.55."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It invented a $110 under-4 ESCC amount. The 2026 under-4 base is $1,000, reduced by $16.50 per $1,000 of AGI over $75,000, which gives $307. It also called the NY care credit nonrefundable above $50K, but the 2026 §606(c-2) credit is refundable and pays $880.55 here."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It assumed both the ESCC and the care credit disappear at this income. The under-4 ESCC keeps $307 after the $693 phase-out, and the 2026 care credit is refundable at about 29.35% of $3,000, or $880.55."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It declared income too high for the ESCC and the child care credit. The $1,000 under-4 ESCC phases out by only $693 at this AGI, leaving $307, and the 2026 §606(c-2) care credit pays $880.55."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used the old NY care credit (20% of the $600 federal CDCC = $120) instead of the 2026 §606(c-2) applicable percentage of about 29.35% on $3,000, which gives $880.55. It also counted 43 rather than 42 full $1,000 increments for the ESCC phase-out, so it got $290.50 instead of $307."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It set the ESCC at 33% of a $2,000 federal CTC ($660) with no phase-out. The 2026 rule is a $1,000 under-4 base reduced by $16.50 per $1,000 over $75,000, which gives $307. It used the old 20%-of-federal care credit ($120) instead of the $880.55 §606(c-2) credit, and it subtracted the full $33,000 long-term loss from AGI instead of the $3,000 cap."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It assumed that roughly $92K of AGI disqualifies the household from every NY refundable credit. The under-4 ESCC phases out only partly, to $307, and the refundable 2026 care credit adds $880.55 on $3,000 of expenses."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It assumed the ESCC was fully phased out, but the $1,000 under-4 base loses only $693, leaving $307. It also used the superseded 20%-of-federal-CDCC care credit ($120) instead of the 2026 §606(c-2) amount of $880.55."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,It looked only at the NY EITC and ignored the two refundable credits that apply: the under-4 Empire State Child Credit ($307 after phase-out) and the 2026 NY child and dependent care credit ($880.55).
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used the old 20%-of-federal-CDCC care credit ($120) instead of the 2026 §606(c-2) credit of about 29.35% × $3,000 = $880.55. It also left out the $307 under-4 Empire State Child Credit entirely."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the pre-2025 rule that excludes children under 4 from the ESCC. Under the 2026 rule, the age-1 child gets a $1,000 base, phased down to $307. It also left out the refundable $880.55 NY child care credit."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It took the full $1,000 under-4 ESCC without the $16.50-per-$1,000 phase-out above $75,000, which removes $693 and leaves $307. It used the old $120 care credit instead of the 2026 §606(c-2) amount of $880.55."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used the old 33% ESCC amount ($330) instead of the phased-down $307 from the $1,000 under-4 base. It guessed $300 for the care credit when the 2026 formula gives $880.55, and it added an NYC school tax credit that does not apply to this household."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It included only an ESCC of $330 under the pre-2025 formula, not the $307 that the 2026 $1,000 under-4 base gives after phase-out. It also left out the refundable 2026 NY child and dependent care credit of $880.55."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used the $100 ESCC minimum instead of the $1,000 under-4 base less $693 of phase-out, which gives $307. It also used the old 20%-of-federal care credit ($120) instead of the 2026 §606(c-2) amount of $880.55."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied the low-income 110%-of-federal NY care credit rate ($660). The 2026 §606(c-2) applicable percentage at $117,594 NY AGI is about 29.35% of $3,000, or $880.55. It also used the old $330 ESCC instead of the phased-down $307 from the $1,000 under-4 base."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,It returned zero with no derivation. It missed both refundable NY credits: the $307 under-4 Empire State Child Credit after phase-out and the $880.55 child and dependent care credit under the 2026 §606(c-2) formula.
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only a $330 ESCC under the old 33% formula instead of the $307 phased-down amount from the $1,000 under-4 base. It also left out the $880.55 refundable NY child and dependent care credit."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It reported only a $330 ESCC from the pre-2025 rule. The 2026 under-4 base of $1,000 less the $693 phase-out gives $307, and the refundable 2026 child care credit adds $880.55."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used the superseded 20%-of-federal-CDCC care credit ($120) instead of the 2026 §606(c-2) applicable percentage of about 29.35% on $3,000, which gives $880.55. It also wrongly treated the ESCC as phased out, when $307 remains."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It treated the age-1 child as ESCC-ineligible under the old age-4-and-up rule, so it missed the $307 that remains from the $1,000 under-4 base after phase-out. It also used the old 20% care credit ($120) instead of the 2026 amount of $880.55."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It gave no parseable value for state_refundable_credits, so it reported neither the $307 ESCC nor the $880.55 NY child and dependent care credit."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It set the under-4 ESCC equal to 100% of the federal CTC ($2,200). The 2026 rule is a flat $1,000 base reduced by $16.50 per $1,000 of AGI over $75,000, which gives $307. It also left out the $880.55 refundable care credit."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It found no refundable NY credits. The listed under-4 child and $9,600 of child care expenses produce a $307 Empire State Child Credit and an $880.55 child and dependent care credit under the 2026 rules."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It looked only for EITC eligibility. It missed the under-4 ESCC ($1,000 base phased down to $307) and the refundable 2026 NY child and dependent care credit ($880.55)."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied the old NY rule (20% of the $600 federal CDCC = $120) instead of the 2026 §606(c-2) credit of about 29.35% × $3,000 = $880.55. It also said no child credit remains, when the under-4 ESCC is still $307 after phase-out."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It gave the full $1,000 under-4 ESCC without the $16.50-per-$1,000 phase-out above $75,000, which removes $693. It also left out the $880.55 refundable NY child and dependent care credit."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used the old $120 (20%-of-federal) care credit instead of the 2026 §606(c-2) amount of $880.55. It also counted 43 rather than 42 full $1,000 increments for the ESCC phase-out, which gave $290.50 instead of $307."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It said the age-1 child is below the ESCC age range, but the 2026 ESCC gives a $1,000 base for children under 4 ($307 after phase-out). It also said income is too high for the refundable care credit, which pays $880.55."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used the superseded 20%-of-federal care credit ($120) instead of the 2026 §606(c-2) amount of $880.55. Its ESCC phase-out counted 43 increments ($290.50) instead of 42 full $1,000 increments, which leave $307."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used the old 20%-of-federal care credit ($120) instead of the 2026 credit of about 29.35% × $3,000 = $880.55. It also claimed the ESCC is fully phased out, when $307 of the $1,000 under-4 base remains."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It treated the NY dependent care credit as nonrefundable, but the 2026 §606(c-2) credit is refundable and pays $880.55. It also denied the ESCC, which pays $307 after phasing down from the $1,000 under-4 base."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used the old 20%-of-federal care credit ($120) instead of the 2026 §606(c-2) applicable percentage of about 29.35% on $3,000, or $880.55. Its ESCC of $312 also misses the $307 that $16.50 per full $1,000 over $75,000 produces."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,It found no qualifying refundable credits. The household gets a $307 under-4 Empire State Child Credit and an $880.55 NY child and dependent care credit under the 2026 rules.
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It claimed the federal CTC is fully phased out, which is wrong at $117,661 head-of-household AGI. Also, the 2026 under-4 ESCC is a $1,000 base with its own $16.50-per-$1,000 phase-out, which leaves $307. It also left out the refundable $880.55 NY care credit."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used the $100 ESCC minimum on the false premise that the federal CTC is phased to zero, instead of the 2026 $1,000 under-4 base less $693, which gives $307. It also used the old 20% care credit ($120) instead of the 2026 §606(c-2) amount of $880.55."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It set the ESCC at $660 (33% of the federal CTC) with no phase-out, when the 2026 under-4 base of $1,000 less $693 gives $307. It also used the old $120 care credit instead of the 2026 §606(c-2) amount of $880.55."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,It checked only the NY EITC and missed the refundable $307 under-4 Empire State Child Credit and the refundable $880.55 2026 NY child and dependent care credit.
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It treated the NY child care credit as used up against tax liability, but it is refundable and comes to $880.55 under the 2026 §606(c-2) formula. It also left out the $307 under-4 ESCC."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It gave no parseable value for state_refundable_credits, so it reported neither the $307 ESCC nor the $880.55 NY child and dependent care credit."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used the $100 minimum based on a recomputed 2017-law CTC. The 2026 under-4 ESCC is a flat $1,000 base reduced by $16.50 per $1,000 of federal AGI over $75,000, which gives $307. It also used the old 20% care credit ($120) instead of the 2026 amount of $880.55."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It concluded that income exceeds the ESCC range. The $1,000 under-4 ESCC only partly phases out, to $307, and the refundable 2026 care credit adds $880.55."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It treated EITC-style income limits as ruling out all NY refundable credits. It missed the $307 under-4 ESCC and the $880.55 2026 child and dependent care credit, neither of which ends at this income."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,It checked only the NY EITC and left out the refundable Empire State Child Credit ($307 after phase-out) and the 2026 §606(c-2) child and dependent care credit ($880.55).
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It phased the ESCC out at 5% of AGI above $75,000. The rule is $16.50 per full $1,000 (1.65%), which removes only $693 and leaves $307. It also left out the $880.55 refundable NY care credit."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It considered only the NY EITC. It missed the $307 under-4 Empire State Child Credit and the $880.55 refundable 2026 child and dependent care credit on $3,000 of the $9,600 of expenses."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only the child credit (about $313, close to the $307 ESCC) and left out the refundable 2026 §606(c-2) child and dependent care credit of $880.55."
us,scenario_083,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model incorrectly assumed the individual provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act expired for 2026 and used an $8,328 single-filer standard deduction. The applicable 2026 standard deduction exceeds $11,010, so taxable income and the resulting 10% bracket tax are both zero."
us,scenario_083,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model correctly determined that the age-20 childless filer fails the EITC age requirement and that no other refundable credit applies, but then submitted $540 instead of carrying the resulting $0 into the output."
us,scenario_083,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model correctly concluded that the filer is too young for the childless EITC and has no qualifying child for refundable CTC, but its $538 output contradicts its own all-zero component calculation."
@@ -7204,173 +7438,179 @@ us,scenario_084,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,categorical_eli
us,scenario_084,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated disability and blindness as sufficient for Medicaid while leaving the required income, resource, and coverage-group tests unapplied. PolicyEngine assigns no Medicaid category because those statuses alone do not establish eligibility."
us,scenario_084,head_medicaid_eligible,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model excluded SSDI from Medicaid MAGI merely because it considered the benefit nontaxable. Medicaid MAGI includes Social Security benefits through its program-specific adjustment, producing 1.56 times FPL rather than approximately $8,405 and placing the head above the expansion limit."
us,scenario_084,head_medicaid_eligible,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model calculated expansion MAGI as approximately $8,405 by omitting the head's Social Security disability income. The Medicaid MAGI computation yields 1.56 times FPL, so the head exceeds North Carolina's expansion threshold and has no other qualifying category."
-us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model named the 24-month SSDI waiting period but treated a disability status that holds for the whole year as meeting it. The prompt gives no SSDI duration, so months of SSDI receipt are 0, which is under 24, and the age-62 Head is not Medicare eligible."
-us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model held that SSDI receipt by itself makes someone eligible for Medicare before 65 and skipped the 24-month entitlement requirement. With no SSDI duration listed, months of receipt default to 0, so the 62-year-old Head fails both the age test and the disability test."
-us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model stated the 24-month SSDI rule and then concluded that being disabled and receiving SSDI is enough, without checking the duration. The listed facts give 0 months of SSDI receipt, so the under-65 Head is ineligible."
-us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated current SSDI benefits as automatic Medicare entitlement and ignored the 24-month waiting period. With SSDI duration unlisted and so 0, the age-62 Head does not qualify."
-us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model cited the 24-month SSDI waiting period but took a constant disability status within the year as meeting it. The months-receiving-SSDI input is unlisted and therefore 0, so the 62-year-old Head is not eligible."
-us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model said it was 'assuming established disability benefit receipt' to meet the 24-month rule, which infers a duration the prompt does not give. Months of SSDI receipt are 0, so the Head, at 62, fails the Medicare disability pathway."
-us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated SSDI receipt plus disability as meeting the Medicare disability pathway and never applied the 24-month entitlement requirement. With 0 listed months of SSDI receipt, the under-65 Head is ineligible."
-us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model asserted that the Head 'has been receiving' SSDI past the 24-month waiting period, but no duration is given and unlisted numeric inputs are 0. With 0 months of SSDI and an age of 62, the Head is not eligible for Medicare."
-us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated the SSDI waiting period as already met without any stated duration. Months of SSDI receipt default to 0, which is below the 24-month threshold, so the 62-year-old Head is ineligible."
-us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model inferred from the Head's age of 62 that SSDI had been received for at least 24 months, which the prompt does not support. Unlisted numeric inputs are 0, so months of SSDI receipt are 0 and the Head fails the disability pathway."
-us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model applied the Medicare disability provision on the basis of SSDI receipt alone and left out the 24-month entitlement requirement. With 0 listed months of SSDI, the under-65 Head does not qualify."
-us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model claimed that PolicyEngine grants Medicare for disability plus SSDI income, but PolicyEngine requires at least 24 months of SSDI receipt. That input is unlisted and therefore 0, so the 62-year-old Head is ineligible."
-us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model concluded that being disabled and receiving SSDI makes someone eligible for Medicare and never applied the 24-month SSDI duration test. Months of receipt are 0, so the Head, at 62, is not eligible."
-us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated SSDI income alone as qualifying the Head for Medicare and skipped the 24-month waiting period. With SSDI duration unlisted and so 0, the under-65 Head is ineligible."
-us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model equated current SSDI benefits with Medicare eligibility and ignored the requirement of at least 24 months of SSDI entitlement. Months of receipt are 0, so the 62-year-old Head does not qualify."
-us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated disability plus SSDI income as enough for Medicare and never checked the 24-month SSDI duration. That duration is unlisted and therefore 0, so the Head, at 62, is ineligible."
-us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model concluded that SSDI receipt qualifies the Head for Medicare and left out the 24-month waiting period. With 0 months of SSDI receipt and an age under 65, the Head is not eligible."
-us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model said PolicyEngine's rules grant Medicare to anyone under 65 who is disabled and receiving SSDI. PolicyEngine actually requires at least 24 months of SSDI receipt, and that input is 0 here, so the Head is ineligible."
-us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated disability and surviving-spouse status as indicating Medicare eligibility, but surviving-spouse status has no bearing on it. The disability pathway requires 24 months of SSDI receipt, which is 0 here, so the 62-year-old Head is ineligible."
-us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model correctly noted that Medicare is not automatic at 62 but then counted disabled status plus SSDI income as SSDI-based Medicare entitlement. PolicyEngine requires at least 24 months of SSDI receipt, and that input defaults to 0, so the Head is not eligible."
-us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model said disability plus SSDI income supports Medicare eligibility under PolicyEngine's disability rules and skipped the 24-month SSDI duration threshold. With 0 months of SSDI receipt, the under-65 Head fails that test."
-us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated SSDI receipt alone as qualifying the Head for Medicare and never applied the 24-month entitlement requirement. Months of receipt are unlisted and therefore 0, so the 62-year-old Head is ineligible."
-us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model applied the Medicare disability pathway based on disability status and SSDI income without the 24-month waiting-period test. With 0 months of SSDI receipt, the age-62 Head does not qualify."
-us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model said PolicyEngine's disability-based Medicare pathway applies to any disabled SSDI beneficiary. That pathway requires at least 24 months of SSDI receipt, and the input is 0 here, so the Head is ineligible."
-us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model classified the Head as eligible for disability-based Medicare because of disability status plus SSDI income and skipped the 24-month SSDI duration requirement. Months of receipt are 0, so the under-65 Head fails it."
-us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated a disabled SSDI recipient as automatically eligible for disability-based Medicare and ignored the 24-month waiting period. That period is unmet because months of SSDI receipt default to 0, so the 62-year-old Head is ineligible."
-us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model applied the disability-based Medicare rule on the basis of reported disability and SSDI income, but that rule also requires at least 24 months of SSDI receipt. That input is unlisted and therefore 0, so the Head, at 62, is not eligible."
-us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model asserted that the Head had been on SSDI 'for sufficient duration', a fact the prompt never gives. Months of SSDI receipt default to 0, below the 24-month threshold, so the under-65 Head is ineligible."
-us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model claimed that disability plus SSDI income meets the 24-month waiting-period rule, but no duration is listed and unlisted numeric inputs are 0. With 0 months of SSDI receipt, the 62-year-old Head is not Medicare eligible."
-us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model named the SSDI waiting period but treated it as met without any stated duration of receipt. Months of SSDI receipt are 0, so the Head, at 62, fails the 24-month test and is ineligible."
-us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model stated PolicyEngine's rule as 'age 65 or older or disabled'. The rule actually requires age 65+, ESRD, or at least 24 months of SSDI receipt. Disability status alone does not qualify, and months of SSDI receipt are 0, so the Head is ineligible."
-us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated SSDI receipt by an under-65 disabled person as qualifying for Medicare and never applied the 24-month entitlement requirement. Months of receipt are unlisted and therefore 0, so the Head is ineligible."
-us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model assumed the 24-month waiting period was met because disability benefit amounts were present, confusing the dollar amount of benefits with how long they had been received. The duration is unlisted and therefore 0, so the 62-year-old Head is not eligible."
-us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model granted Medicare on disability grounds because of SSDI receipt and skipped the 24-month SSDI entitlement threshold. With 0 months of SSDI receipt and an age of 62, the Head does not qualify."
-us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model stated the 24-month SSDI rule and then took a constant disability status within the year as meeting it, which confuses a status held all year with 24 months of entitlement. Months of SSDI receipt are unlisted and therefore 0, so the Head is ineligible."
+us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model cited the 24-month SSDI waiting period but then counted it as satisfied because disability was 'constant for the full year.' That supports at most 12 months of receipt, and the unlisted months-of-SSDI-receipt input defaults to 0. A 62-year-old without ESRD fails the 24-month test and is not Medicare eligible."
+us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated being disabled and receiving SSDI income as enough for pre-65 Medicare and skipped the required 24 months of SSDI entitlement. The months-of-receipt input is unlisted and therefore 0, so the 62-year-old head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model stated the 24-month SSDI rule, then dropped it and decided that disabled SSDI recipients are eligible without it. The head's months of SSDI receipt default to 0, so the 24-month test fails, and at age 62 without ESRD the head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model took 'disabled with SSDI benefits' as Medicare entitlement and never applied the 24-month waiting period. The months of SSDI receipt are unlisted and therefore 0, so the 62-year-old head does not qualify."
+us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model named the 24-month waiting period but treated the constant-status instruction as proof that it was met. That instruction covers only the 12-month tax year, and the unlisted months-of-receipt input defaults to 0, so the test fails and the head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model explicitly assumed 'established disability benefit receipt' to meet the 24-month SSDI test. The prompt says to treat unlisted numeric inputs as 0, so months of receipt are 0 and the 62-year-old head is not Medicare eligible."
+us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model applied the SSDI disability pathway on the strength of SSDI receipt alone and skipped the 24-month entitlement requirement. Months of receipt default to 0, so the 62-year-old head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model asserted the head 'has been receiving' SSDI long enough to clear the 24-month waiting period, but no duration is given. The months-of-receipt input defaults to 0, so the test fails and the head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated the SSDI waiting period as already served. The unlisted months-of-SSDI-receipt input is 0, which is below the required 24 months, so the 62-year-old head is not Medicare eligible."
+us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model inferred 24 months of SSDI receipt from the head being 62 and on SSDI, which is an unlisted fact. The prompt sets unlisted numeric inputs to 0, so months of receipt are 0 and the Medicare disability pathway fails."
+us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model applied the Medicare disability provision from SSDI receipt alone and left out the 24-month entitlement requirement. Months of receipt default to 0, so the 62-year-old head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model claimed PolicyEngine grants Medicare for being disabled and receiving SSDI income. PolicyEngine actually requires 24 or more months of SSDI receipt, and that input defaults to 0 here, so the head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated disability status plus SSDI income as Medicare eligibility and never checked the 24-month waiting period. Months of SSDI receipt are 0, so at age 62 without ESRD the head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated SSDI income by itself as a Medicare qualifier and skipped the 24-month entitlement requirement. That months input defaults to 0, so the 62-year-old head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model concluded that SSDI benefits qualify the head for Medicare without the required 24 months of SSDI receipt. That count defaults to 0, so the head, aged 62 and without ESRD, is not eligible."
+us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated being disabled and receiving SSDI income as enough and ignored the 24-month SSDI waiting period. Months of receipt are 0, so the 62-year-old head is not Medicare eligible."
+us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model applied the disability pathway on SSDI receipt and disability status alone, without the required 24 months of entitlement. That input defaults to 0, so the head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model claimed PolicyEngine's rules make a disabled SSDI recipient under 65 eligible. PolicyEngine actually requires at least 24 months of SSDI receipt, and that input is unlisted and therefore 0, so the head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model based eligibility on the disabled flag and surviving-spouse status. Neither confers Medicare before 65; only 24 or more months of SSDI receipt or ESRD does. Months of receipt are 0 here, so the 62-year-old head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model correctly noted that age 62 does not qualify, then treated the disabled flag plus SSDI income as Medicare entitlement. PolicyEngine requires 24 or more months of SSDI receipt, and that input defaults to 0, so the head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated disability status and SSDI income as meeting PolicyEngine's disability rule. That rule requires 24 or more months of SSDI receipt, and the input is unlisted and therefore 0, so the 62-year-old head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model concluded that SSDI income alone confers pre-65 Medicare eligibility and left out the 24-month entitlement requirement. Months of receipt default to 0, so the head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model applied the disability pathway from the disabled flag and SSDI income without the 24-month SSDI waiting period. Months of receipt are 0, so the 62-year-old head is not Medicare eligible."
+us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated any disabled SSDI beneficiary as meeting PolicyEngine's disability pathway. That pathway requires at least 24 months of SSDI receipt, and the input defaults to 0, so the head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model claimed the disabled flag and SSDI income meet PolicyEngine's disability classification. The classification turns on 24 or more months of SSDI receipt, which is 0 here, so the 62-year-old head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated SSDI receipt by a disabled person as enough for disability-based Medicare and ignored the 24-month waiting period. That count is unlisted and therefore 0, so the head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model applied the disability rule from the reported disability status and SSDI income. The rule turns on at least 24 months of SSDI receipt, which defaults to 0, so the 62-year-old head is not Medicare eligible."
+us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model asserted that the head had been on SSDI for 'sufficient duration,' but no duration is given. The prompt sets unlisted numeric inputs to 0, so months of receipt are 0, the 24-month test fails, and the head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model declared the 24-month SSDI waiting period satisfied with no supporting fact. Months of SSDI receipt default to 0, so the 62-year-old head without ESRD is not Medicare eligible."
+us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model said SSDI confers Medicare 'after the waiting period' and then assumed that period was over. The unlisted months-of-receipt input is 0, so the 24-month test fails and the head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model claimed PolicyEngine makes anyone 'disabled' Medicare eligible. PolicyEngine's under-65 pathways actually require 24 or more months of SSDI receipt or ESRD, and both are absent (months = 0, ESRD false), so the head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated SSDI income received under age 65 as a direct Medicare qualifier and skipped the 24-month entitlement requirement. Months of receipt default to 0, so the head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model explicitly assumed the 24-month waiting period was met because disability and SSDI income amounts are listed. Dollar amounts say nothing about duration, and the unlisted months-of-receipt input is 0, so the 62-year-old head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,muse-spark-1.3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated $24,828 of SSDI income as qualifying the head for disability Medicare and ignored the 24-month entitlement requirement. Months of receipt default to 0, so the head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model granted disability-based Medicare at age 62 from the disabled flag and SSDI income without applying the 24-month SSDI waiting period. Months of receipt are 0, so the head is not eligible."
+us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model named the 24-month SSDI rule but treated the year-long constancy instruction as meeting it. That instruction covers only 12 months, and the unlisted months-of-receipt input is 0, so the test fails and the head is not Medicare eligible."
us,scenario_084,snap,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Sonnet derived monthly net income of $1,737.59 but never compared it to the SNAP net income limit of 100% FPL (about $1,340/month for one person), which that figure fails by roughly 30%, and it ignored both NC's 200%-FPL BBCE gross cap (about $2,680/month against its own $2,769) and the $56,500 in bank assets against the elderly/disabled resource limit of roughly $4,650. Its own benefit formula returned $0 because 30% of net income ($521.28) exceeds the one-person maximum allotment ($298), after which it discarded that result and substituted an unsupported $183/month figure attributed to a conditional minimum benefit, a rule that provides $23-$24, not $183. It further inflated the excess medical deduction by double-counting the same $3,600 premium (listed once as health insurance premiums excluding Medicare Part B and again as other health insurance premiums) and by including $1,054 of non-prescription over-the-counter costs, which are not deductible medical expenses."
us,scenario_084,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"DeepSeek asserted the household passes the net income test after the standard and medical deductions, but net income of about $1,738/month exceeds the one-person net income limit near $1,340/month, gross income of $2,769/month exceeds North Carolina's 200%-FPL BBCE gross cap of about $2,680/month, and $56,500 in countable resources exceeds the elderly/disabled asset limit of roughly $4,650. Having wrongly cleared eligibility, it applied the $23/month minimum allotment for one- and two-person households, a floor that attaches only after a household qualifies; an income-ineligible household receives $0, not $276."
-us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its reasoning got every step right: taxable SS $14,051, AGI $45,574, deductions of $18,150 + $6,000, and tax of about $2,323. It then submitted $940, which contradicts its own calculation and has no basis in the reasoning."
-us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It counted all $27,426 of Social Security in AGI instead of the $14,051 taxable portion, and it used a made-up $27,750 standard deduction. It then wiped out the tax with a Credit for the Elderly and a Saver's Credit, but neither applies. The elderly credit is zero because the nontaxable SS and an AGI above $17,500 eliminate it. The Saver's Credit is unavailable because there is no earned income and AGI is over the limit."
-us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It called the survivor benefits 'largely nontaxable,' but provisional income of $45,236 is above $34,000, so about $14,051 is taxable and AGI is $45,574. Its $1,550 estimate is not tied to the correct taxable income of $21,423.74 after the $24,150 in deductions."
-us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got AGI right but used a $17,000 standard deduction instead of 2026's $18,150 ($16,100 + $2,050 aged). Its total deduction of $23,000 should have been $24,150. It also used the 2025 10% bracket top of $11,925 instead of $12,400, which produced $2,470 instead of $2,322.85."
-us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It put taxable Social Security at about $20,705 instead of applying the two-tier formula, which gives min(85% × 27,426, 0.85 × 11,236 + 4,500) = $14,051. That inflated AGI to $52,228, and it also used a $15,750 base standard deduction instead of $16,100."
-us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its reasoning computed taxable income of about $21,424 and tax of about $2,320 from the correct $24,150 deduction. It then submitted $1,170, a value that contradicts its own derivation."
-us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $6,000 OBBBA senior deduction and used a $17,000 standard deduction instead of 2026's $18,150. It also subtracted an $8 traditional 401(k) contribution even though there were no wages to defer, and it used the 2025 $11,925 bracket. The result was taxable income of $28,566 instead of $21,423.74."
-us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $17,000 standard deduction and never applied the $6,000 senior deduction, which produced $3,189. It then submitted $626 with no supporting calculation. The correct deductions are $18,150 + $6,000, giving taxable income of $21,423.74 and tax of $2,322.85."
-us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It got AGI right but deducted only $17,460 (a $15,400 base plus $2,060 aged) and left out the $6,000 OBBBA senior deduction. It also used a $12,050 10% bracket, which gave $3,133 instead of tax on $21,423.74 of taxable income."
-us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It overstated taxable Social Security at $19,668.60 instead of $14,051. It also used a pre-TCJA $9,800 standard deduction and a 15% bracket, but OBBBA made the TCJA $16,100 + $2,050 standard deduction and the 12% bracket permanent, and it added the $6,000 senior deduction, which the model also left out."
-us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It got AGI right but used a $17,050 standard deduction and left out the $6,000 senior deduction. That put taxable income at $28,524 instead of $21,423.74."
-us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It got AGI ($45,573.60), the $18,150 standard deduction, and the brackets right, but it left out the $6,000 OBBBA senior deduction for filers 65 and older with MAGI under $75,000. Its taxable income of $27,423.60 should have been $21,423.74."
-us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed TCJA expired in 2026 and used an $8,100 standard deduction, a personal exemption, and a 15% bracket. OBBBA made the TCJA standard deduction ($18,150 with the aged addition) and the 12% bracket permanent and added the $6,000 senior deduction."
-us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted all $27,426 of survivor benefits in gross income ($58,949) instead of the $14,051 taxable portion from the two-tier provisional-income formula. It also left out the $6,000 senior deduction."
-us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got AGI right but applied a 'pre-TCJA baseline' with a personal exemption. Under OBBBA, 2026 keeps the TCJA standard deduction of $18,150 for a 65+ single filer, adds the $6,000 senior deduction, and uses the 10%/12% brackets, which gives $2,322.85."
-us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed TCJA expired and used a personal exemption and the 15% bracket, and it subtracted an $8 401(k) contribution with no wages to defer. It never applied the permanent $18,150 standard deduction or the $6,000 OBBBA senior deduction."
-us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave $0 without any calculation. The pension, IRA, 401(k), interest, and $14,051 of taxable Social Security produce AGI of $45,574 and taxable income of $21,423.74 after $24,150 in deductions, and no nonrefundable credit offsets the $2,322.85 tax."
-us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It got AGI right but deducted only $17,450, left out the $6,000 senior deduction, and used the 2025 $11,925 bracket top. Its taxable income of $28,123.60 should have been $21,423.74."
-us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed TCJA expired and used a $15,650 package of standard deduction, aged addition, and personal exemption with pre-TCJA rates. Under OBBBA, the deduction is $18,150 plus the $6,000 senior deduction, taxed at 10%/12%."
-us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the 2025 standard deduction of $17,000 and 2025 brackets, and it left out both the 2026 inflation increase to $18,150 and the $6,000 OBBBA senior deduction. Its taxable income was $28,573.60 instead of $21,423.74."
-us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It got AGI right but deducted only about $17,000 and never applied the $6,000 senior deduction. It also used 2025 brackets (10% to $11,925) instead of 2026's $12,400."
-us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It got AGI right but used a $17,100 standard deduction instead of $18,150 and left out the $6,000 OBBBA senior deduction. Its taxable income of about $28,474 should have been $21,423.74."
-us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reasoned that having no wages and no dependents means no tax, but pension, IRA, 401(k), interest, and taxable Social Security are all ordinary taxable income. After $24,150 in deductions, they leave $21,423.74 of taxable income and $2,322.85 of tax."
-us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed retirement contributions and credits offset the income, but the $8 401(k) and $1 Roth amounts cannot be contributed without earned income, and no nonrefundable credit applies. Taxable income of $21,423.74 produces $2,322.85."
-us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied 'deductions and exemptions,' which assumes TCJA expired and brings back the personal exemption and the 15% bracket. It never used the permanent $18,150 standard deduction plus the $6,000 senior deduction, and its $4,200 is far above the correct tax on $21,423.74."
-us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got AGI right but assumed TCJA expired and used a $15,889 deduction-plus-exemption total with a 15% second bracket. OBBBA keeps the $18,150 standard deduction, adds the $6,000 senior deduction, and keeps the 12% bracket."
-us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed TCJA expired and used an $8,550 base deduction, a $5,450 personal exemption, and a 15% rate. Under OBBBA, 2026 uses an $18,150 standard deduction plus the $6,000 senior deduction and the 12% bracket."
-us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used post-TCJA-expiration brackets and a $15,350 deduction-plus-exemption total. OBBBA made the $18,150 aged standard deduction and the 10%/12% brackets permanent and added the $6,000 senior deduction, which gives taxable income of $21,423.74."
-us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted the 85% maximum ($23,264) as taxable Social Security when the two-tier formula yields $14,051, and it subtracted an $8 401(k) contribution with no wages. It also assumed TCJA expired, using a $10,631 standard deduction and a 15% bracket, and it left out the $6,000 senior deduction."
-us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It got AGI, the $18,150 standard deduction, and the brackets right, but it left out the $6,000 OBBBA senior deduction. Its taxable income was $27,424 instead of $21,423.74."
-us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It submitted no value or explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was nothing to score."
-us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It overstated taxable Social Security as the full 85% ($23,312) instead of $14,051. It then claimed taxable income fell mostly within the 10% bracket and submitted $0, even though its own figures put taxable income around $44,600. The correct taxable income of $21,423.74 produces $2,322.85."
-us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its taxable Social Security calculation left out the $4,500 first-tier amount (the lesser of $4,500 or 50% of benefits), giving $9,550.60 instead of $14,051 and understating AGI by $4,500. Its submitted $3,680 also contradicts its own computed $1,782.83."
-us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted the 85% cap ($23,312) as taxable Social Security instead of the formula result of $14,051, and it left out the $6,000 senior deduction. It then submitted $8,587.50, which doesn't match its own roughly $4,500 calculation."
-us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted the 85% maximum of Social Security and inflated AGI to $68,548, when the correct figure is $45,574. It left out the aged standard deduction addition and the $6,000 senior deduction, and it made up a $1,600 'Senior Bonus credit' and a $2,100 survivor credit, neither of which exists."
+us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its reasoning reproduced the reference exactly: AGI $45,574, deductions of $24,150 including the $6,000 senior deduction, taxable income $21,424, and tax of about $2,323. It then submitted 940, which contradicts its own computation."
+us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It put the full $27,426 of Social Security into AGI instead of the $14,050.74 taxable portion and used a made-up $27,750 standard deduction. It then wiped out the tax with an elderly credit and a Saver's Credit. Neither applies: the elderly credit is reduced to zero because nontaxable Social Security alone exceeds the $5,000 initial amount, and AGI is above the Saver's Credit limit."
+us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the survivor benefits as 'largely nontaxable'. In fact provisional income of $45,236 exceeds the $34,000 threshold, so $14,050.74 is taxable and AGI is $45,573.74. Its $1,550 understates the $21,423.74 taxable income left after the $24,150 deduction."
+us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used about $17,000 for the 2026 single-65+ standard deduction instead of $18,150 ($16,100 + $2,050), so its total deduction was $23,000 rather than $24,150. It also used the 2025 10% bracket top of $11,925 instead of $12,400, which inflated tax to $2,470."
+us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It guessed taxable Social Security at about $20,705 instead of applying the worksheet: 85% of the $11,236 excess over $34,000 plus $4,500 equals $14,050.74. That pushed AGI to $52,228. It also used a $15,750 + $2,000 standard deduction instead of $16,100 + $2,050."
+us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its reasoning correctly reached AGI of about $45,574, a $24,150 deduction, taxable income of $21,424, and tax of about $2,323. It then submitted 1,170, a value unsupported by its own computation."
+us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $6,000 OBBBA senior deduction for taxpayers 65+ and used a 2025-style $17,000 standard deduction instead of $18,150. It also subtracted an $8 401(k) deferral even though there are no wages. This gave $28,566 of taxable income instead of $21,423.74."
+us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $17,000 standard deduction with no $6,000 senior deduction and computed $3,189. It then submitted an unexplained $626. The correct path is a $24,150 deduction, $21,423.74 of taxable income, and $2,322.85 of tax."
+us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took only a $17,460 standard deduction and left out the $6,000 OBBBA senior deduction. It also used the wrong 2026 bracket top ($12,050 instead of $12,400), producing $28,114 of taxable income instead of $21,423.74."
+us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed TCJA had expired, using a $9,800 standard deduction and a 15% bracket, but OBBBA made the TCJA standard deduction and 10%/12% brackets permanent and added the $6,000 senior deduction. It also overstated taxable Social Security at $19,668.60 instead of $14,050.74."
+us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It computed AGI correctly but deducted only a $17,050 standard deduction. It left out the $6,000 OBBBA senior deduction and understated the aged standard deduction, which is $18,150 in total, so the full deduction should have been $24,150."
+us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly used the $18,150 standard deduction and the 2026 brackets but left out the $6,000 OBBBA senior deduction. Taxable income was therefore $6,000 too high and tax $720 too high: $3,042.83 instead of $2,322.85."
+us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed TCJA expired in 2026 and applied a pre-TCJA standard deduction plus a personal exemption and a 15% bracket. OBBBA kept the $16,100 standard deduction, the 10%/12% brackets, and no personal exemption, and added the $6,000 senior deduction."
+us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started from $58,949 of gross taxable income, which includes all Social Security, instead of only the $14,050.74 taxable portion. It also left out the $6,000 senior deduction, so the $24,150 deduction against $45,573.74 of AGI was never applied."
+us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It computed AGI correctly but applied pre-TCJA sunset rules with a personal exemption. Under OBBBA in 2026, the deduction is $16,100 + $2,050 + $6,000 senior deduction = $24,150, taxed at 10%/12%."
+us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied post-TCJA-expiration rules (personal exemption and a 15% bracket) instead of OBBBA's permanent $16,100 standard deduction, $2,050 aged addition, and $6,000 senior deduction. It also wrongly subtracted an $8 401(k) contribution even though there are no wages."
+us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reported zero tax, but AGI of $45,573.74 minus the $24,150 deduction leaves $21,423.74 of taxable income. No nonrefundable credit offsets the resulting $2,322.85."
+us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted only a $17,450 single-65+ standard deduction and left out the $6,000 OBBBA senior deduction. It also used the 2025 $11,925 bracket top instead of the 2026 $12,400."
+us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed TCJA had sunset and used a $15,650 total of pre-TCJA standard deduction, aged addition, and personal exemption. Under OBBBA the deduction is $24,150 including the $6,000 senior deduction, and the brackets are 10%/12%."
+us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the 2025 baseline $17,000 standard deduction and 2025 brackets and left out the $6,000 OBBBA senior deduction. The correct 2026 deduction is $24,150, leaving $21,423.74 of taxable income."
+us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the correct $18,150 standard deduction but never subtracted the $6,000 OBBBA senior deduction. It also taxed the result using the 2025 $11,925 bracket top instead of $12,400."
+us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It computed AGI correctly but applied a 2025 $17,000 standard deduction and 2025 brackets. It left out the $6,000 senior deduction, and the 2026 aged standard deduction is $18,150."
+us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took only a $17,100 standard deduction and left out the $6,000 OBBBA senior deduction for filers 65+. The full $24,150 deduction would have cut taxable income to $21,423.74."
+us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It concluded there was no tax because there are no wages. It ignored that the $20,720 pension, $9,128 of retirement distributions, $1,675 of interest, and $14,050.74 of taxable Social Security produce $21,423.74 of taxable income after the $24,150 deduction."
+us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the income was offset by the standard deduction and retirement credits. In fact $45,573.74 of AGI exceeds the $24,150 deduction by $21,423.74, and no nonrefundable credit (Saver's or elderly) applies."
+us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied personal exemptions and pre-TCJA rules. Under OBBBA in 2026 there are no personal exemptions, the brackets are 10%/12%, and the $24,150 deduction includes the $6,000 senior deduction."
+us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed TCJA sunset, using a $15,889 deduction plus personal exemption and a 15% bracket. OBBBA made the $16,100 standard deduction and 12% bracket permanent and added the $6,000 senior deduction."
+us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used TCJA-sunset parameters: an $8,550 standard deduction, a $5,450 personal exemption, and a 15% second bracket. Under current 2026 law the deduction is $16,100 + $2,050 + $6,000 and the second bracket is 12%."
+us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied post-TCJA-expiration rules with a personal exemption ($15,350 total). It missed OBBBA's permanent $18,150 aged standard deduction, the additional $6,000 senior deduction, and the 10%/12% brackets."
+us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It taxed Social Security near the 85% maximum ($23,264) instead of applying the worksheet ($4,500 + 85% × $11,236 = $14,050.74). It assumed TCJA reversion with a $10,631 deduction and a 15% bracket, and it subtracted an $8 401(k) deferral even though there are no wages."
+us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the correct $18,150 standard deduction and 2026 brackets but left out the $6,000 OBBBA senior deduction. That overstated taxable income by $6,000 and tax by $720."
+us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,It returned no answer or explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits.
+us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It made 85% of Social Security taxable instead of $14,050.74. It then claimed tax was near zero even though its own $61,449 of income minus a $16,850 deduction leaves about $44,600 of taxable income, so the zero contradicts its own arithmetic."
+us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,other,False,"It applied the right AGI, the $24,150 deduction, and the 10%/12% brackets but miscomputed the final tax. The correct figure is $1,240 + 12% × $9,023.74 = $2,322.85, not $2,327."
+us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"In the Social Security worksheet it dropped the $4,500 term (the lesser of $4,500 or half of benefits), taxing only $9,550.60 instead of $14,050.74. Its reasoning concluded $1,782.83, which also contradicts the $3,680 it submitted."
+us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It taxed the full 85% maximum of Social Security ($23,312) instead of the worksheet amount of $14,050.74 and left out the $6,000 senior deduction. It then submitted $8,587.50, which none of its own computations (about $4,500) support."
+us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It taxed 85% of Social Security instead of $14,050.74, misadded AGI as $68,548, and deducted only $16,100 with no $2,050 aged addition or $6,000 senior deduction. It then subtracted made-up 'Senior Bonus' and survivor credits that do not exist."
us,scenario_085,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_085,local_income_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_085,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"The model correctly stated that the household had no wages and computed zero employee Social Security, Medicare, and state payroll taxes, but then submitted 1459 instead of carrying that zero into the value field. The submitted number is unrelated to its stated derivation."
us,scenario_085,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model supplied no payroll-tax value or explanation, so it failed the required structured-output contract."
us,scenario_085,snap,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_085,ssi,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly reduced PA taxable income to the $1,675 of interest. It then denied Tax Forgiveness by counting Social Security and pensions in eligibility income, but Schedule SP leaves those out. Eligibility income of about $1,675 is under the $6,500 single limit, so 100% forgiveness wipes out the $51.42 and the answer is $0."
-us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model taxed only the $1,675 of interest but said eligibility income was far above the forgiveness limits. PA eligibility income leaves out Social Security and post-retirement-age pension, IRA and 401(k) distributions, so it is about $1,675, under the $6,500 threshold. Full Tax Forgiveness cuts the tax to $0."
-us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model put Social Security and retirement distributions into PA taxable income, though PA exempts both for a 67-year-old. It also subtracted an $8,700 standard deduction that PA does not have. PA taxable income is only the $1,675 of interest, and 100% Tax Forgiveness removes that liability, so the answer is $0."
-us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model stopped at 3.07% of the $1,675 of interest and never applied PA Tax Forgiveness. Eligibility income leaves out Social Security and retirement distributions, so it is about $1,675, below the $6,500 single limit for full forgiveness. The tax is $0."
-us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly exempted Social Security and retirement distributions and taxed $1,675 of interest, but it left out the nonrefundable PA Tax Forgiveness credit. With eligibility income of about $1,675, under the $6,500 single threshold, forgiveness is 100% and the tax is $0."
-us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model assumed retirement income counts toward forgiveness eligibility income and so denied forgiveness. Schedule SP eligibility income leaves out Social Security and age-qualified retirement distributions, leaving about $1,675, under the $6,500 limit. Full Tax Forgiveness cuts the tax to $0."
-us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no PA nonrefundable credits apply and left $51 of tax on the $1,675 of interest. It missed PA Tax Forgiveness, which is 100% here because eligibility income (no Social Security, no retirement distributions) is about $1,675, below $6,500. The tax is $0."
-us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model's reasoning arrived at $51 on the interest but it submitted an unsupported $500. It also never applied PA Tax Forgiveness. Eligibility income of about $1,675 qualifies for 100% forgiveness, so the tax is $0."
-us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly limited PA taxable income to $1,675 of interest but stopped at $51 of gross tax. It skipped the PA Tax Forgiveness credit, which is 100% because eligibility income of about $1,675 is under the $6,500 single limit. The tax is $0."
-us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model invented a $1,250 interest exclusion for people age 59½ and over, which PA does not have, and taxed $425. It also said no nonrefundable credits apply, missing PA Tax Forgiveness. Eligibility income of about $1,675 gets 100% forgiveness, so the tax is $0."
-us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no PA nonrefundable credits apply and kept $51 of tax on the interest. PA Tax Forgiveness is a nonrefundable credit. With Social Security and retirement distributions left out, eligibility income is about $1,675, under $6,500, so full forgiveness gives $0."
-us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model computed 3.07% of the $1,675 of interest and never checked PA Tax Forgiveness. Eligibility income, which leaves out Social Security and age-qualified retirement distributions, is under the $6,500 single threshold, so 100% forgiveness gives $0."
-us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly exempted retirement distributions and Social Security but stopped at $51.42 on the interest. It never applied PA Tax Forgiveness, which fully forgives the tax because eligibility income is about $1,675, under $6,500. The tax is $0."
-us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The $1,782 answer equals 3.07% of about $58,000, so the model taxed nearly all household income. That base includes retirement distributions, which PA exempts for a 67-year-old. PA taxable income is only $1,675 of interest, and 100% Tax Forgiveness cuts that liability to $0."
-us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model limited taxable income to $1,675 of interest but did not apply PA Tax Forgiveness. Eligibility income of about $1,675, with Social Security and retirement income left out, is below the $6,500 single limit. Full forgiveness gives $0."
-us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model stopped at $51.42 of gross PA tax on the interest and skipped the nonrefundable PA Tax Forgiveness credit. Eligibility income is about $1,675, under the $6,500 threshold, so the credit removes the whole liability and the tax is $0."
-us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model taxed the $1,675 of interest at 3.07% and did not apply PA Tax Forgiveness. Eligibility income leaves out Social Security and retirement distributions and falls below $6,500, so 100% forgiveness applies and the tax is $0."
-us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly isolated $1,675 of interest income but never applied PA Tax Forgiveness. Eligibility income of about $1,675 qualifies for 100% forgiveness under the $6,500 single limit, so the tax is $0."
-us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly exempted Social Security and retirement distributions but stopped at $51.42. It missed the PA Tax Forgiveness credit. Eligibility income of about $1,675 falls under the $6,500 single limit and gets full forgiveness, so the tax is $0."
-us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no nonrefundable credits apply and left $51 on the interest. PA Tax Forgiveness is a nonrefundable credit that fully forgives the tax, because eligibility income (no Social Security, no retirement distributions) is about $1,675, under $6,500. The tax is $0."
-us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model taxed $1,675 of interest at 3.07% and never applied PA Tax Forgiveness. With eligibility income near $1,675, below the $6,500 single limit, 100% forgiveness gives $0."
-us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly excluded retirement distributions and Social Security but did not apply the PA Tax Forgiveness credit. Eligibility income of about $1,675 is under the $6,500 threshold, so the tax is fully forgiven to $0."
-us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said total household income rules out tax forgiveness, but Schedule SP eligibility income leaves out Social Security and age-qualified retirement distributions. Eligibility income is about $1,675, under $6,500, so 100% forgiveness cuts the tax to $0."
-us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model computed about $51 on the interest and skipped PA Tax Forgiveness. Eligibility income, with Social Security and retirement distributions left out, is about $1,675, below the $6,500 single limit. Full forgiveness gives $0."
-us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model stopped at 3.07% of $1,675 of interest and did not apply PA Tax Forgiveness. Eligibility income near $1,675 qualifies for 100% forgiveness, so the tax is $0."
-us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no nonrefundable credit applies, but PA Tax Forgiveness does. Eligibility income leaves out Social Security and retirement distributions, so it is about $1,675, under the $6,500 single threshold. That gives 100% forgiveness and $0 of tax."
-us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied the flat 3.07% rate to the $1,675 of interest and did not apply PA Tax Forgiveness. Eligibility income of about $1,675 is below $6,500, so full forgiveness gives $0."
-us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model taxed the $20,720 pension and the IRA and 401(k) distributions, but PA exempts retirement distributions received after retirement age by a 67-year-old. It also said no nonrefundable credits apply. With only $1,675 of interest taxable and eligibility income under $6,500, Tax Forgiveness cuts the tax to $0."
-us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly limited the base to $1,675 of interest but stopped at $51 of gross tax. It skipped PA Tax Forgiveness, which fully forgives liability when eligibility income is under $6,500. The tax is $0."
-us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model taxed only the $1,675 of interest but missed the nonrefundable PA Tax Forgiveness credit. Eligibility income of about $1,675, with Social Security and retirement income left out, gets 100% forgiveness, so the tax is $0."
-us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model taxed $31,523 including pension, IRA and 401(k) distributions, but PA exempts these for a retiree over age 59½. It then denied forgiveness on that inflated income. Correctly, taxable and eligibility income are both about $1,675, which qualifies for 100% Tax Forgiveness and $0 of tax."
-us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly reduced PA taxable income to $1,675 of interest, then said no nonrefundable credits apply. PA Tax Forgiveness applies at 100% because eligibility income is about $1,675, below the $6,500 single limit, so the tax is $0."
-us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said forgiveness is unavailable because eligibility income is much higher, which means it counted Social Security and retirement distributions. Schedule SP eligibility income leaves those out, so it is about $1,675, under $6,500. Full forgiveness gives $0."
-us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model taxed the $1,675 of interest at 3.07% and never applied PA Tax Forgiveness. Eligibility income of about $1,675 qualifies for 100% forgiveness under the $6,500 single threshold, so the tax is $0."
-us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model put the pension, IRA and 401(k) distributions ($29,848) into PA taxable income, but PA exempts retirement distributions received after retirement age by a 67-year-old. It also said no nonrefundable credits apply. Only $1,675 of interest is taxable, and 100% Tax Forgiveness cuts the tax to $0."
+us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly reduced PA taxable income to $1,675 of interest. It then ruled out Tax Forgiveness by counting the $27,426 of Social Security and the pension income toward eligibility income. Schedule SP eligibility income leaves out both, so it is $1,675, which is under the $6,500 single limit and qualifies for 100% forgiveness, bringing the $51.42 to $0."
+us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said total eligibility income far exceeds the PA Tax Forgiveness limits. Schedule SP eligibility income excludes Social Security and exempt retirement distributions, so it is only the $1,675 of interest, under the $6,500 limit. With 100% forgiveness, the $51.42 gross tax becomes $0."
+us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model taxed all $58,949 of income, including Social Security and retirement distributions, both of which PA exempts for a 67-year-old retiree. It also applied an $8,700 PA standard deduction that does not exist and used a 3.077% rate. The correct base is $1,675 of interest, and full Tax Forgiveness reduces the tax on it to $0."
+us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model taxed the $1,675 of interest at 3.07% and stopped there, never applying PA Tax Forgiveness. Eligibility income is just the $1,675 of interest, under the $6,500 single limit, so 100% forgiveness reduces the tax to $0 rather than about $51."
+us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly exempted Social Security and retirement income and computed $51.42 on the interest. It then left out the nonrefundable PA Tax Forgiveness credit. With $1,675 of eligibility income, far below the $6,500 single limit, the household gets 100% forgiveness and owes $0."
+us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model assumed eligibility income included retirement income and therefore exceeded the Tax Forgiveness limit. Schedule SP eligibility income excludes Social Security and exempt retirement distributions, leaving $1,675, so 100% forgiveness applies and the tax is $0."
+us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no PA nonrefundable credits apply because there are no children or special credits. It overlooked PA Tax Forgiveness (Schedule SP), which applies to a single filer with $1,675 of eligibility income, under the $6,500 limit. That credit forgives the full tax, so the answer is $0, not $51."
+us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model's reasoning arrived at $51 on the interest income, but it submitted an unsupported $500. Even the $51 figure misses PA Tax Forgiveness: eligibility income is $1,675, under the $6,500 single limit, so 100% forgiveness reduces the tax to $0."
+us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly isolated the $1,675 of taxable interest but never applied PA Tax Forgiveness. Eligibility income of $1,675 is below the $6,500 single limit, so the household gets 100% forgiveness and owes $0."
+us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model subtracted a $1,250 senior interest exclusion that PA law does not provide. It also stated that no nonrefundable credits apply, missing PA Tax Forgiveness. Eligibility income of $1,675 is under the $6,500 limit, so 100% forgiveness reduces the tax to $0."
+us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model stated that no PA nonrefundable credits apply. PA Tax Forgiveness does apply, because eligibility income is only the $1,675 of interest, under the $6,500 single limit, so 100% forgiveness reduces the $51 tax to $0."
+us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model computed 3.07% of $1,675 and did not apply PA Tax Forgiveness. With $1,675 of eligibility income, under the $6,500 single limit, the full forgiveness credit reduces the tax to $0."
+us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly exempted retirement and Social Security income but did not apply the PA Tax Forgiveness credit. Eligibility income of $1,675 is under the $6,500 limit, so 100% forgiveness reduces the tax to $0."
+us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's $1,782 implies about $58,000 of PA taxable income, nearly the household's total income. That means it taxed the pension, IRA, and 401(k) distributions, which PA exempts for a 67-year-old retiree. The correct base is $1,675 of interest, and PA Tax Forgiveness reduces the tax on it to $0."
+us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model taxed the $1,675 of interest at 3.07% and stopped without applying PA Tax Forgiveness. Eligibility income is $1,675, under the $6,500 single limit, so the tax is fully forgiven to $0."
+us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model's exemptions for retirement income and Social Security were correct, but it left out the nonrefundable PA Tax Forgiveness credit. That credit fully offsets the $51.42 because eligibility income ($1,675) is under the $6,500 limit, giving $0."
+us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly isolated $1,675 of interest but did not apply PA Tax Forgiveness. Eligibility income of $1,675 qualifies for 100% forgiveness under the $6,500 single limit, so the tax is $0."
+us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model stopped at the $51.42 gross tax on interest and never applied PA Tax Forgiveness. Eligibility income is $1,675, under the $6,500 limit, so 100% forgiveness reduces the tax to $0."
+us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly exempted Social Security and retirement distributions but did not apply PA Tax Forgiveness. With $1,675 of eligibility income against the $6,500 single limit, the $51.42 tax is fully forgiven to $0."
+us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no nonrefundable credits apply. PA Tax Forgiveness applies because eligibility income is only the $1,675 of interest, under the $6,500 single limit, so 100% forgiveness reduces the tax to $0."
+us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model computed 3.07% of $1,675 and left out the PA Tax Forgiveness credit. Eligibility income of $1,675 falls under the $6,500 limit, so the household gets 100% forgiveness and owes $0."
+us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly reduced PA taxable income to $1,675 of interest but never applied PA Tax Forgiveness. Eligibility income of $1,675, under the $6,500 single limit, qualifies for full forgiveness, so the tax is $0."
+us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said total household income rules out Tax Forgiveness. Schedule SP eligibility income excludes Social Security and exempt retirement distributions, so it is only $1,675, under the $6,500 limit, and 100% forgiveness reduces the tax to $0."
+us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model taxed the $1,675 of interest at 3.07% without applying PA Tax Forgiveness. Eligibility income of $1,675 is under the $6,500 single limit, so the tax is fully forgiven to $0."
+us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly exempted Social Security and retirement distributions but left out the PA Tax Forgiveness credit. Eligibility income of $1,675 qualifies for 100% forgiveness under the $6,500 limit, so the tax is $0, not $51.42."
+us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model stated that no nonrefundable credit applies, missing PA Tax Forgiveness. Eligibility income is $1,675, under the $6,500 single limit, so the full forgiveness credit reduces the tax to $0."
+us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model taxed the $1,675 of interest at the flat rate and stopped without applying PA Tax Forgiveness. Eligibility income of $1,675 under the $6,500 limit means 100% forgiveness and $0 tax."
+us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model taxed $29,848 of pension, IRA, and 401(k) distributions. PA exempts these when received by a retiree past retirement age, as this 67-year-old is. That leaves $1,675 of interest, and since eligibility income is under the $6,500 limit, Tax Forgiveness reduces the tax to $0."
+us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly limited the base to $1,675 of interest but did not apply PA Tax Forgiveness. Eligibility income of $1,675 qualifies for 100% forgiveness under the $6,500 single limit, so the tax is $0."
+us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model computed 3.07% of $1,675 and never applied the nonrefundable PA Tax Forgiveness credit. That credit fully forgives the tax because eligibility income ($1,675) is under the $6,500 limit, giving $0."
+us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model taxed $31,523, which includes pension, IRA, and 401(k) distributions that PA exempts for a 67-year-old retiree. It then denied Tax Forgiveness based on that inflated income. Correct eligibility income is the $1,675 of interest, under the $6,500 limit, so the tax is fully forgiven to $0."
+us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly exempted retirement and Social Security income but stated that no nonrefundable credits apply, missing PA Tax Forgiveness. Eligibility income of $1,675 is under the $6,500 single limit, so 100% forgiveness reduces the tax to $0."
+us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said PA Tax Forgiveness is unavailable because eligibility income is much higher. Schedule SP eligibility income excludes Social Security and exempt retirement distributions, so it is only $1,675, under the $6,500 limit, and the tax is fully forgiven to $0."
+us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model taxed the $1,675 of interest at 3.07% but did not apply PA Tax Forgiveness. With $1,675 of eligibility income, under the $6,500 single limit, the tax is fully forgiven to $0."
+us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly excluded retirement and Social Security income but left out the PA Tax Forgiveness credit. Eligibility income of $1,675 qualifies for 100% forgiveness under the $6,500 limit, giving $0."
+us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model included $29,848 of pension, IRA, and 401(k) distributions in PA taxable income and stated that no nonrefundable credits apply. PA exempts retirement distributions received by a retiree past retirement age, which leaves $1,675 of interest. PA Tax Forgiveness then eliminates that tax, so the answer is $0."
us,scenario_086,child1_chip_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated Medicaid ineligibility as sufficient for CHIP eligibility and never applied Georgia’s CHIP income limit. Although the 12-year-old satisfies the age criterion, the household fails the CHIP income criterion, so the child is not eligible."
us,scenario_086,child1_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model correctly found that income exceeds Georgia’s child Medicaid limit, then reversed its result by treating PeachCare/CHIP as part of PolicyEngine’s Medicaid output. Medicaid and CHIP are separate benchmark variables, and child1 qualifies for no Medicaid category at 3.44 times FPL."
us,scenario_086,child1_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model incorrectly deducted the head’s employer-sponsored insurance premiums from Medicaid MAGI and then asserted that $74,824 was within a roughly $50,487 limit. Those premiums do not reduce MAGI on the stated facts, and 3.44 times FPL exceeds Georgia’s child Medicaid thresholds."
us,scenario_086,child1_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model invented a three-person household despite the prompt listing only the head and child, then conflated the 247% FPL PeachCare/CHIP ceiling with Medicaid eligibility. For the actual two-person household, child1 is at 3.44 times FPL and has no Medicaid eligibility category."
us,scenario_086,child1_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model relied on age-based categorical eligibility without applying Georgia’s income threshold for a 12-year-old child. Child1’s MAGI income level is 3.44 times FPL, above the applicable child Medicaid limits, leaving the Medicaid category as NONE."
us,scenario_086,child1_medicaid_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model supplied no answer or explanation for child1_medicaid_eligible, violating the required output contract."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the $12,824 of Social Security dependent benefits as the child's income and left out the $10,900.40 (85%) taxed on the head's return. It also subtracted $275 of auto loan interest, which is not deducted here. Its own steps reached $1,925 ($4,125 tax less the $2,200 CTC), yet it submitted an unrelated $3,305."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It got the 85% taxable Social Security and the $24,150 HoH standard deduction right, but also subtracted $275 of auto loan interest, which is not allowed here. That put taxable income at $48,137.40 instead of $48,412.90. It also ended the 2026 HoH 10% bracket at $17,000 instead of $17,700, which only partly offsets the deduction error."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $19,648 of employer-sponsored premiums and both $1,560 health premium entries as above-the-line deductions, which they are not, and counted all $12,824 of benefits instead of the $10,900.40 taxable portion. It also filed single with the 2024 $14,600 deduction instead of HoH with $24,150, used a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200, and submitted its $3,779 tax before the credit."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It computed the tax as a married-filing-jointly household, but a single parent with a 12-year-old files head of household. It also left out the $10,900.40 of taxable Social Security. The correct computation taxes $48,412.90 of HoH taxable income for $5,455.55, then subtracts the $2,200 CTC."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the Social Security dependent benefits as the child's non-taxable income and left the $10,900.40 taxable portion out of the head's AGI. It also used an outdated $23,000 HoH standard deduction instead of OBBBA's $24,150 and a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assigned the benefits to the child, leaving out the $10,900.40 of taxable Social Security, and used a $23,000 HoH standard deduction instead of $24,150. It then swapped its computed $4,304 tentative tax for an unexplained $4,673 and submitted that before-credit figure. It never subtracted the CTC, even though its text shows $2,673."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It said the Social Security benefits are not taxable at this income, but provisional income of about $68,075 is far above the $34,000 upper base, so 85% ($10,900.40) is taxable. It also used a $24,500 standard deduction instead of $24,150, raised its own $4,119 bracket result to $4,519, and subtracted a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its computation matches the reference at every step except the educator expense. It capped that deduction at $300, while the reference deducts the full $337.50, which leaves $37.50 more taxable income ($48,450.40) and $4.50 more tax ($3,260.05)."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed TCJA expired after 2025 and used pre-TCJA rules: personal exemptions, an $8,300 single standard deduction, a 15% bracket and a $1,000 CTC. OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent, so 2026 has a $24,150 HoH deduction, 10%/12% brackets and a $2,200 CTC. It also filed single instead of head of household and left out the $10,900.40 of taxable Social Security."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the $12,824 of Social Security benefits as non-taxable even though provisional income is far above $34,000, which makes 85% ($10,900.40) taxable. It also used a $23,350 standard deduction instead of $24,150 and a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200. It computed $2,271 and then submitted an unexplained $3,892."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its taxable Social Security, educator deduction, standard deduction, brackets and $2,200 CTC all match. But it also subtracted $275 of auto loan interest as a qualified vehicle-loan interest deduction, which is not allowed here, cutting taxable income to $48,137 and the tax by $33."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $23,100 HoH standard deduction instead of OBBBA's 2026 amount of $24,150 and a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200. It also capped educator expenses at $300 instead of deducting $337.50. Together these overstate taxable income and the after-credit tax."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied pre-TCJA sunset rules ($11,000 standard deduction, $9,600 of personal exemptions, a 15% bracket, $1,000 CTC) instead of OBBBA's permanent $24,150 HoH deduction, 10%/12% brackets and $2,200 CTC. It also subtracted $1,560 of health premiums from wages and left out the $10,900.40 of taxable Social Security."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It got the 85% taxable Social Security right but used a $23,100 HoH standard deduction instead of OBBBA's 2026 $24,150 and subtracted a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200. It also capped educator expenses at $300 instead of deducting $337.50."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed TCJA expired, using a $12,200 standard deduction, $10,600 for two personal exemptions, a 15% bracket and a $1,000 CTC. Under OBBBA, 2026 has a $24,150 HoH standard deduction, no personal exemptions, 10%/12% brackets and a $2,200 CTC."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied pre-TCJA sunset rules ($16,500 deduction, $10,100 of personal exemptions, a 15% bracket, $1,000 CTC) instead of OBBBA's permanent 2026 parameters. It also subtracted the $19,648 of employer-sponsored premiums from wages, even though gross income uses the full $62,000 of wages."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted all $12,824 of Social Security instead of the $10,900.40 taxable portion, used a $15,300 standard deduction instead of the $24,150 HoH amount, and used a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200. Its $1,782 does not even follow from its own inputs, which give a tentative tax well above $5,000."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the TCJA individual provisions expire in 2026, so it restored personal exemptions, the 15% bracket and a $1,000 CTC. OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent, giving a $24,150 HoH deduction, no exemptions, 10%/12% brackets and a $2,200 CTC. Its AGI of about $72,560 was essentially correct."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied post-TCJA-expiration rules ($15,000 HoH standard deduction, $10,100 of personal exemptions, $1,000 CTC) instead of OBBBA's permanent 2026 parameters. It also subtracted the $19,648 of employer-sponsored premiums from the $62,000 of wages, which should be used in full."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation. The correct path adds $10,900.40 of taxable Social Security to $62,000 of wages, subtracts $337.50 of educator expenses and the $24,150 HoH deduction, taxes $48,412.90 at 10%/12% ($5,455.55), and subtracts the $2,200 CTC. Its $3,043 is $212.55 too low, which equals about $1,770 of understated taxable income at 12%."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted a $2,000 CTC instead of the 2026 OBBBA amount of $2,200. Its implied $5,678 tentative tax is $222 above the correct $5,455.55, which matches using the pre-OBBBA $22,500 HoH standard deduction and a $300 educator cap instead of $24,150 and $337.50."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied personal exemptions, which are zero for 2026 because OBBBA permanently repealed them, so its taxable income and tax came out far too low. The correct taxable income is $48,412.90, including $10,900.40 of taxable Social Security after the $24,150 HoH deduction, giving $5,455.55 of tax less the $2,200 CTC."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It got the 85% taxable Social Security right but used the pre-OBBBA $22,500 HoH standard deduction instead of 2026's $24,150. It also ended the 10% bracket at $17,000 instead of $17,700, capped educator expenses at $300 instead of $337.50, and subtracted a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the Social Security dependent benefits as the child's non-taxable income, so the $10,900.40 taxable portion never reached the head's AGI. It also used a $22,500 HoH standard deduction instead of $24,150 and a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI and $2,200 CTC were right, but it used a $24,350 standard deduction instead of $24,150. It also miscomputed the bracket tax: 10%/12% on about $48,212 is about $5,431, not $6,347, so the tax was overstated by roughly $900."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the standard deduction and credits wipe out the tax entirely. Taxable income is $48,412.90 after the $24,150 HoH deduction, which produces $5,455.55 of tax, far more than the $2,200 CTC, leaving $3,255.55."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It brought in itemized medical deductions and applied no credits beyond basic limits. The $3,060 of non-employer medical costs is far below the 7.5%-of-AGI floor, so the $24,150 HoH standard deduction applies, and the $2,200 CTC must be subtracted. It also never included the $10,900.40 of taxable Social Security."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $10,900.40 of taxable Social Security and used a $22,500 standard deduction instead of $24,150. It then set aside a $384 'refundable portion' and subtracted only $384.40 of nonrefundable CTC. Because the tentative tax exceeds the credit, the full $2,200 CTC is applied nonrefundably first."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It taxed only $6,412 (50%) of the Social Security benefits. Provisional income of about $68,075 is far above the $34,000 upper base for a head of household, so the 85% cap applies and $10,900.40 is taxable."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the right structure (HoH, taxable Social Security, $338 educator deduction, $24,150 standard deduction, $2,200 CTC) but showed no figures. Its $3,269 is $13.45 too high, which equals about $112 of extra taxable income at 12% compared with the exact $48,412.90."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the Social Security dependent benefits entirely. They belong on the head's return, with 85% ($10,900.40) taxable because provisional income is far above $34,000. Its brackets and $2,200 CTC were right, but its taxable income was $37,550 instead of $48,412.90."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted 'limited mortgage interest' even though only a mortgage balance is listed, so the interest is $0 and the standard deduction applies. Its income also leaves out the $10,900.40 of taxable Social Security. Its $4,523 does not match $5,455.55 of tax on $48,412.90 less the full $2,200 CTC."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied post-TCJA-expiration rules ($12,389 standard deduction, $10,733 of personal exemptions, a 15% bracket, $1,000 CTC) instead of OBBBA's permanent 2026 parameters: a $24,150 HoH deduction, no exemptions, 10%/12% brackets and a $2,200 CTC. Its $72,562 AGI was correct."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied 2026 'sunset' rules ($12,400 HoH standard deduction, two $5,350 personal exemptions, a 15% bracket, $1,000 CTC) instead of OBBBA's permanent $24,150 HoH deduction, no exemptions, 10%/12% brackets and $2,200 CTC. It also capped educator expenses at $300 instead of $337.50."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It miscomputed 85% of $12,824 as $10,890 instead of $10,900.40 and capped educator expenses at $300 instead of deducting $337.50. It then overstated the tax on its $48,440 of taxable income ($5,464 instead of $5,458.80), leaving the after-credit result about $8 too high."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied post-TCJA rules: a $12,538 standard deduction, $10,862 of personal exemptions, a 15% bracket from $17,902, and a $1,000 CTC. Under OBBBA, 2026 has a $24,150 HoH deduction, no exemptions, a 12% second bracket and a $2,200 CTC. Its $72,562 AGI was correct."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It capped educator expenses at $300 while the reference deducts the full $337.50, which adds $4.50 of tax. Separately, it computed taxable Social Security as $10,890 instead of $10,900.40 and rounded the tentative tax to about $5,460, so its total is about $3,260 instead of $3,255.55."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It gave no value or explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was no answer to score."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted $275 of auto loan interest, which is not deducted here, cutting taxable income to $48,137.40 instead of $48,412.90 and the tax by about $33. Everything else matches: 85% taxable Social Security, the $338 educator deduction, the $24,150 deduction, the 2026 brackets and the $2,200 CTC."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It filed single with the 2025 $15,000 deduction and single brackets. A parent with a 12-year-old qualifies for head of household, with a $24,150 deduction and a 10% bracket up to $17,700. It also left out the $10,900.40 of taxable Social Security and used a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It overstated taxable income by about $862 ($49,275 instead of $48,412.90) and ended the 10% bracket at $17,000 instead of $17,700. That gives a $5,573 tentative tax instead of $5,455.55; its $2,200 CTC was right."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It filed single ($16,100 deduction, single brackets reaching 22%) instead of head of household with the $24,150 deduction, and it deducted $275 of auto loan interest. It then let only $500 of the CTC reduce tax. Because tax exceeds the credit, the full $2,200 applies nonrefundably; the $1,700 refundable cap only limits the additional CTC."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It filed married filing jointly, with MFJ Social Security base amounts and a $31,200 deduction. An unmarried parent with a 12-year-old files head of household, with a $24,150 deduction and HoH brackets. It also used a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the $32,200 MFJ deduction, excluded the dependent benefits, and claimed taxable income falls to $0, although $62,000 of wages minus even $32,200 leaves positive taxable income. The correct HoH computation gives $48,412.90 of taxable income, $5,455.55 of tax, and $3,255.55 after the $2,200 CTC."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the $12,824 of Social Security dependent benefits as the child's income and left out the $10,900.40 taxable portion, capped the educator expense at $300, and subtracted $275 of auto loan interest that does not qualify. Its own arithmetic came to $1,925, but it submitted $3,305, which contradicts that working."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It got AGI right but also subtracted $275 of auto loan interest. The OBBBA vehicle-loan deduction needs a qualifying new, US-assembled vehicle, which the facts do not give. It also used $17,000 as the top of the 10% HoH bracket instead of the 2026 figure of $17,700, so it taxed $48,137.40 instead of $48,412.90 and used the wrong bracket."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It filed Head as single with the 2024 $14,600 standard deduction instead of head of household with $24,150. It also included the full $12,824 of benefits instead of the 85% taxable amount, and subtracted ESI and other health premiums above the line, which is not allowed. It then submitted its pre-credit tax of $3,779 without subtracting the CTC."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a married-filing-jointly computation for a lone parent who files as head of household ($24,150 standard deduction). It also never added the $10,900.40 of taxable Social Security benefits to AGI, so its tax base was too small."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the Social Security dependent benefits as the child's income and left the $10,900.40 taxable portion out of Head's AGI. It also used a $23,000 HoH standard deduction instead of $24,150, a $17,000 top for the 10% bracket instead of $17,700, a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200, and a $300 educator cap."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left the $10,900.40 of taxable Social Security out of AGI, used a $23,000 standard deduction, and then submitted $4,673, a pre-credit figure, even though its own text subtracts the CTC to reach $2,673. The correct result is $5,455.55 of tax on $48,412.90, less the $2,200 CTC."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It said the $12,824 of benefits was not taxable at this income. In fact provisional income of about $68,074 is far above the $34,000 HoH threshold, so $10,900.40 is taxable. It also used a $24,500 standard deduction and a $2,000 CTC instead of $24,150 and $2,200."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Everything matched except the educator expense: it capped the deduction at $300, but the full $337.50 is deductible for 2026. That left $37.50 too much taxable income ($48,450.40 instead of $48,412.90) and $4.50 too much tax."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed TCJA expired in 2026 and applied pre-TCJA rules: personal exemptions, a 15% bracket, a $1,000 CTC, and a single-filer standard deduction. OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent, so 2026 has a $24,150 HoH deduction and a $2,200 CTC. It also left the $10,900.40 of taxable Social Security out of Head's AGI."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the benefits as non-taxable even though provisional income is well over $34,000, so $10,900.40 belongs in AGI. It also used outdated parameters (a $23,350 deduction, a 10% bracket ending at $16,550, a $2,000 CTC) and then added an unexplained upward adjustment to reach $3,892."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted $275 of auto loan interest as a deduction. The OBBBA qualified passenger vehicle loan interest deduction needs a qualifying new vehicle, which the facts do not establish. That understated taxable income by $275 and tax by $33, giving $3,222 instead of $3,255.55."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used pre-OBBBA parameters: a $23,100 HoH standard deduction instead of $24,150 and a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200. It also capped the educator expense at $300 and estimated the tax roughly at about $5,600 instead of $5,455.55."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied pre-TCJA law, with an $11,000 standard deduction, personal exemptions, a 15% bracket and a $1,000 CTC, instead of the 2026 OBBBA rules. It also subtracted $1,560 of non-employer health premiums from wages and left the $10,900.40 of taxable Social Security out of AGI."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its taxable Social Security of $10,900.40 was right, but it used the pre-OBBBA $23,100 HoH standard deduction instead of $24,150 and a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200. It also capped the educator expense at $300, which overstated taxable income by about $1,087."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset rules: a $12,200 standard deduction, two personal exemptions, a 15% bracket and a $1,000 CTC. For 2026, OBBBA sets a $24,150 HoH deduction, 10%/12% brackets, no exemptions and a $2,200 CTC."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed TCJA expired, so it used personal exemptions, a 15% bracket and a $1,000 CTC instead of the OBBBA $24,150 HoH deduction and $2,200 CTC. It also subtracted the $19,648 of ESI premiums from the $62,000, even though that figure is the employment income that enters gross income."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It included all $12,824 of Social Security benefits instead of the 85% cap ($10,900.40). It also used a $15,300 single-style standard deduction instead of the $24,150 HoH deduction and a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200, and its $1,782 does not follow from those inputs."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of about $72,560 was correct, but it assumed the TCJA individual provisions expired. That restored personal exemptions, a 15% bracket and a $1,000 CTC, whereas OBBBA keeps the $24,150 HoH deduction, 10%/12% brackets and a $2,200 CTC for 2026."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied TCJA-expiration rules ($15,000 HoH deduction, $10,100 of exemptions, $1,000 CTC) instead of the 2026 OBBBA parameters. It also subtracted the $19,648 of ESI premiums from the $62,000 of employment income."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation. The correct figure is $48,412.90 of taxable income (AGI $72,562.90 less $24,150), $5,455.55 of tax, less the $2,200 CTC. Its $3,043 is $212.55 too low, which matches understating taxable income by about $1,771 at the 12% rate."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied a $2,000 CTC instead of the 2026 $2,200 credit. Its implied pre-credit tax of $5,678 is about $222 too high, which matches using a pre-OBBBA standard deduction smaller than $24,150 and a 10% bracket ending at $17,000 instead of $17,700."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It said it applied personal exemptions, which do not exist for 2026 under OBBBA. That shrank taxable income far below the correct $48,412.90 and produced $1,888.74 instead of $5,455.55 of tax less the $2,200 CTC."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its taxable Social Security was right, but it used a $22,500 HoH standard deduction instead of $24,150, a 10% bracket ending at $17,000 instead of $17,700, and a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200. It also capped the educator expense at $300."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the correct $2,200 CTC, but its implied pre-credit tax of $5,557.58 is $102 above the $5,455.55 that comes from $48,412.90 of taxable income. That means it overstated taxable income by about $850, which matches using a standard deduction below $24,150."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the Social Security dependent benefits as the child's non-taxable income and left the $10,900.40 taxable portion out of Head's AGI. It also used a $22,500 standard deduction, a $2,000 CTC and a $300 educator cap instead of $24,150, $2,200 and the full $337.50."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI ($72,562) and CTC ($2,200) were correct, but it computed $6,347 of tax on about $48,212 of taxable income. At the 2026 HoH rates (10% to $17,700, 12% above) that income produces only about $5,430. The bracket arithmetic overstated tax by roughly $900."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the standard deduction and CTC eliminate all tax. In fact $48,412.90 of taxable income produces $5,455.55 of tax, and the $2,200 nonrefundable CTC leaves $3,255.55."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It built taxable income from wages minus the standard deduction and itemized medical deductions. It never added the $10,900.40 of taxable Social Security to AGI, and it brought in medical deductions that do not apply because the $24,150 standard deduction is larger."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left the $10,900.40 of taxable Social Security out of AGI and used a $22,500 standard deduction. It also wrongly reduced the nonrefundable CTC by a made-up $384 refundable share. The nonrefundable CTC is applied first, up to the tax liability, so the full $2,200 applies here."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted only 50% of benefits ($6,412) as taxable. Provisional income of about $68,074 is far above the $34,000 HoH upper threshold, so the 85% cap applies and $10,900.40 is taxable."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its implied pre-credit tax of $5,469 matches taxing the correct $48,412.90 with a 10% bracket ending at $17,000 instead of the 2026 HoH top of $17,700. That adds $14 of tax before the $2,200 CTC."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its brackets, standard deduction and CTC were correct, but it left the $10,900.40 of taxable Social Security (85% of the $12,824 of benefits received by Head) out of AGI. It also capped the educator expense at $300, so it taxed $37,550 instead of $48,412.90."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left the $10,900.40 of taxable Social Security out of AGI. It also subtracted mortgage interest, but no interest amount was given and the standard deduction applies, so no mortgage interest deduction exists here."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $72,562 was correct, but it applied post-TCJA-expiration rules: a $12,389 deduction, $10,733 of personal exemptions, a 15% bracket and a $1,000 CTC. OBBBA keeps the $24,150 HoH deduction, 10%/12% brackets and a $2,200 CTC for 2026."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed TCJA had sunset, so it used a $12,400 deduction, two $5,350 exemptions, a 15% bracket and a $1,000 CTC. For 2026, OBBBA sets a $24,150 HoH deduction, 10%/12% brackets and a $2,200 CTC."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It capped the educator expense at $300 instead of allowing the full $337.50, and miscomputed 85% of $12,824 as $10,890 instead of $10,900.40. It then put $5,464 of tax on $48,440, about $5 above the 2026 HoH bracket result."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI was correct, but it used inflated pre-TCJA parameters: a $12,538 deduction, $10,862 of exemptions, a 15% bracket and a $1,000 CTC. For 2026, OBBBA sets a $24,150 HoH deduction, 10%/12% brackets and a $2,200 CTC."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It capped the educator expense at $300 instead of allowing the full $337.50, and understated taxable Social Security as $10,890 instead of $10,900.40. Rounding then gave $3,260 instead of $3,255.55."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value or explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was nothing to score. The correct derivation gives $5,455.55 of tax on $48,412.90 of taxable income, less the $2,200 CTC."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted $275 of auto loan interest, but the OBBBA vehicle-loan interest deduction needs a qualifying new vehicle and none is listed. That lowered taxable income to $48,137.40 instead of $48,412.90, so it came out $33 low."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It filed Head as single (a $15,000 deduction and single brackets) instead of head of household with a qualifying 12-year-old ($24,150 deduction, 10% bracket to $17,700). It also left the $10,900.40 of taxable Social Security out of AGI and used a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It skipped the $337.50 educator expense deduction, setting AGI equal to gross income of about $72,900, so it taxed $48,750 instead of $48,412.90. It also overstated the tax on that base ($5,509 instead of about $5,496)."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It overstated taxable income at $49,275 instead of $48,412.90 and used a 10% bracket ending at $17,000 instead of the 2026 HoH top of $17,700. Together these pushed the pre-credit tax to $5,573 instead of $5,455.55."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It filed Head as single ($16,100 deduction and single brackets reaching 22%) instead of head of household, and deducted $275 of auto loan interest that does not qualify. It also subtracted only $500 of the CTC; the full $2,200 is nonrefundable up to the tax liability, and the $1,700 refundable cap applies only to the leftover ACTC."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated a parent and child as married filing jointly, using the MFJ base amount and a $31,200 standard deduction with MFJ brackets. The correct status is head of household, with a $24,150 deduction and the 10% bracket ending at $17,700. It also used a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied a $32,200 MFJ standard deduction to a head-of-household filer and excluded the Social Security benefits entirely. It then claimed taxable income was $0, which is wrong even on its own numbers ($74,824 less $32,200 is far above zero)."
us,scenario_086,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model estimated tax of about $4,300 and a CTC of $2,200, then set ACTC to min($1,700, 15% × (earnings − $2,500)). It left out the limit that ACTC cannot exceed the CTC remaining after the nonrefundable offset. Because $4,300 of tax absorbs the whole $2,200, the refundable portion is $0."
us,scenario_086,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model said the tax liability is 'largely offset' by the CTC and still assigned the full $1,700 ACTC cap. The refundable amount is limited to CTC left unused after tax, and pre-credit tax of more than $4,000 uses up the entire credit. It also used the old $2,000 per-child amount instead of $2,200."
us,scenario_086,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model correctly found that tax of about $4,300 absorbs the full CTC and leaves no ACTC. It then reversed itself by inventing extra deductions that do not exist in the facts and submitted $1,700. The correct conclusion from its own reasoning is $0."
-us,scenario_086,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model computed the one-child EITC as $4,450 minus 7.65% of ($72,600 − $27,700), but 7.65% is the childless phase-out rate and the one-child rate is 15.98%. The head's earned income is $62,000, which is above the roughly $51,000 point where the one-child EITC reaches $0. EITC is therefore $0, and with the CTC fully used against tax, total refundable credits are $0."
+us,scenario_086,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model ran the one-child EITC phase-out on a made-up $27,700 AGI. The head's earned income is $62,000, which is above the roughly $51,000 point where the one-child EITC reaches $0. EITC is therefore $0, and with the CTC fully used against tax, total refundable credits are $0."
us,scenario_086,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model claimed a $1,000 ACTC without computing tax liability. Tax on $62,000 of wages (taxable income of at least about $37,500 after the HoH standard deduction) is more than $4,000. That absorbs the entire $2,200 CTC, so the refundable portion is $0."
us,scenario_086,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model assumed 'limited earnings,' but the head earns $62,000. At that level, pre-credit federal tax of more than $4,000 fully absorbs the $2,200 CTC, so no ACTC is refundable. Its $1,500 figure is an unsupported guess."
us,scenario_086,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"An ACTC of $384 implies pre-credit income tax of only about $1,816. The actual figure is above $4,000: taxable income is at least about $37,500 after the $24,150 HoH standard deduction, before counting any taxable Social Security. Because tax exceeds the $2,200 CTC, nothing is left to refund."
@@ -7388,53 +7628,55 @@ us,scenario_086,payroll_tax,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"T
us,scenario_086,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"The model stated the correct component amounts—$3,844 of Social Security tax and $899 of Medicare tax—but failed to add them correctly. Those components total $4,743, not $3,979, and no Georgia-specific adjustment changes that sum."
us,scenario_086,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model supplied no payroll-tax value or explanation, so it failed the required structured-output contract."
us,scenario_086,payroll_tax,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,other,False,"The model stated the correct $3,844 Social Security tax and $899 Medicare tax but submitted $3,813 instead of adding them. The stated components total $4,743."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the $24,000 married-filing-jointly figure as the head-of-household standard deduction, a $4,000 dependent exemption, and a 5.19% rate instead of $15,000, $5,000 and 4.99%. It then submitted $2,732, which does not match its own $1,749 calculation. The correct result is $41,662.50 × 4.99% = $2,078.96."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It wrongly subtracted the $275 of auto loan interest from Georgia AGI; personal interest is not a Georgia subtraction. It also used the $24,000 joint figure as the head-of-household standard deduction, a $4,000 dependent exemption, and a 5.09% rate. That gave $33,387 of taxable income instead of $41,662.50 taxed at 4.99%."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied Georgia's old graduated brackets (1%–6%, single filer), which HB 1437 replaced with a flat tax, rather than the 2026 flat rate of 4.99%. It also skipped the Social Security subtraction, the $15,000 head-of-household standard deduction and the $5,000 dependent exemption."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a 5.19% rate instead of 4.99%. At 5.19%, $2,900 implies about $55,900 of taxable income. The model therefore applied only about $6,000 of deductions, not the $15,000 head-of-household standard deduction plus the $5,000 dependent exemption that leave $41,662.50."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an $18,500 head-of-household deduction, a $4,000 dependent exemption and a 5.19% rate instead of $15,000, $5,000 and 4.99%. It then replaced its own $2,032.51 result with $2,191, an amount its reasoning does not support."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It treated the head as a single filer with a $12,000 standard deduction instead of head of household with $15,000. It also used a $4,000 dependent exemption instead of $5,000 and a 5.09% rate instead of 4.99%. It then arbitrarily changed its own $2,324 result to $1,869."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $12,000 standard deduction and a $4,000 dependent exemption instead of the $15,000 head-of-household deduction and $5,000 exemption. It also used a 5.09% rate instead of 4.99%, and $300 of educator expenses instead of $338. Correct taxable income is $41,662.50, not $45,700."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its federal AGI already excluded Social Security, yet it subtracted the full $12,824 of benefits again. Georgia subtracts only the $10,900.40 that is federally taxable, from an AGI that includes it. It also filed as single and used the pre-HB 1437 amounts ($5,400 standard deduction, $2,700 personal exemption, $3,000 dependent exemption) with a 5.39% rate instead of $15,000 + $5,000 at 4.99%."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the $12,000 single standard deduction and a $4,000 dependent exemption at 5.19%, which gives $2,372. It then inflated that to $2,765 with no basis. The correct calculation uses $15,000 + $5,000 of deductions and 4.99%, giving $2,078.96."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The Georgia AGI of $61,662 is right. However, it used a $12,000 standard deduction and a $4,000 dependent exemption instead of $15,000 for head of household and $5,000 per dependent, and a 5.09% rate instead of 4.99%."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It taxed the full federal AGI of about $72,600 without subtracting the $10,900.40 of taxable Social Security that Georgia excludes. It also used a $9,000 standard deduction with two $2,700 personal exemptions and a 5.29% rate, instead of $15,000 + $5,000 at 4.99%."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It started from an unexplained $60,140 AGI instead of $61,662.50. It also applied pre-HB 1437 amounts ($5,400 standard deduction plus $2,700 exemptions for the head and the child) at 5.29%, instead of the $15,000 head-of-household deduction and $5,000 dependent exemption at 4.99%."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used outdated amounts ($5,700 standard deduction, a $2,700 filer exemption and a $3,000 child exemption), leaving $50,300 of taxable income. The correct deductions are $15,000 + $5,000, leaving $41,662.50. It also used 5.09% instead of 4.99%."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The 4.99% rate is right. However, it started from the $62,000 of gross wages instead of a Georgia AGI of $61,662.50 (net of the $338 educator expense). It also used a $12,000 deduction plus $6,700 of exemptions instead of the $15,000 head-of-household deduction and $5,000 dependent exemption, leaving $43,300 taxable instead of $41,662.50."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $19,648 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums from AGI, but these are employer-paid and not a deduction, which gave a $52,952.40 AGI. It never subtracted the $10,900.40 of taxable Social Security. It also used a $15,800 exemption, a $3,000 dependent exemption and a 5.39% rate instead of $15,000 + $5,000 at 4.99%."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave no derivation. The correct calculation is $61,662.50 − $15,000 − $5,000 = $41,662.50, taxed at 4.99%. Its $2,690 corresponds to about $50,000–$54,000 of taxable income, which means it applied roughly $12,000 of deductions to wages, left out the $5,000 dependent exemption, and used an outdated rate."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The Georgia AGI of $61,662 is right. However, it used a $12,000 head-of-household standard deduction and a $3,000 dependent deduction instead of $15,000 and $5,000, and a 5.39% rate instead of the 2026 rate of 4.99%."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started from a $52,952 federal AGI, which comes from wrongly subtracting the $19,648 of employer insurance premiums and not subtracting the $10,900.40 of taxable Social Security. Georgia AGI is $61,662.50. It also deducted only $15,000 in total instead of $15,000 + $5,000, and taxed the result at 5.29% instead of 4.99%."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation. Its $3,212 corresponds to about $60,000 of taxable income at a rate above 5%. That means it taxed roughly the full Georgia AGI without the $15,000 head-of-household deduction and $5,000 dependent exemption, and did not use the 4.99% rate on $41,662.50."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation. Its $3,047 matches federal AGI ($72,562) minus about $16,000 of deductions, taxed at 5.39%. That means it did not subtract the $10,900.40 of taxable Social Security that Georgia excludes, and it used the wrong deduction amounts and rate instead of $15,000 + $5,000 at 4.99%."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation. Its $1,432.32 corresponds to only about $27,000–$29,000 of taxable income, far below $41,662.50. That means it took far more than the correct $20,000 of deductions, for example a $24,000 joint-sized standard deduction or the employer premiums subtracted from AGI."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $12,000 head-of-household standard deduction and a $3,000 dependent exemption instead of $15,000 and $5,000, and a 5.39% rate instead of 4.99%. It also used $300 of educator expenses rather than the $338 PolicyEngine allows, which put Georgia AGI at $61,700."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The Georgia AGI of $61,662 is right. However, it used a $10,600 head-of-household standard deduction and skipped the $5,000 dependent exemption entirely, and it taxed at 5.39% instead of $15,000 + $5,000 at 4.99%."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the $24,000 joint figure as the head-of-household standard deduction and added about $8,400 of personal and dependent exemptions, deducting $32,400 instead of $20,000. It also used 5.19% instead of 4.99%."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no figures. Its $1,639 corresponds to about $32,000 of taxable income at a 5% rate. That means it deducted roughly $10,000 too much, missing the correct $15,000 head-of-household deduction plus $5,000 dependent exemption, which leave $41,662.50 taxed at 4.99%."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It built state taxable income from a federal-style base with medical and other adjustments. Its $498 implies only about $10,000 of taxable income instead of $41,662.50. Georgia takes only its own $15,000 head-of-household deduction and $5,000 dependent exemption from the $61,662.50 Georgia AGI."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $12,000 head-of-household standard deduction and $4,500 of exemptions instead of $15,000 and $5,000, and a 5.19% rate instead of 4.99%. That gave $45,162 of taxable income instead of $41,662.50."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly removed taxable Social Security. However, $1,357.80 implies only about $26,000–$27,000 of taxable income, meaning it deducted roughly $35,000 instead of the $15,000 head-of-household deduction plus $5,000 dependent exemption. The correct tax is $41,662.50 × 4.99%."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used $12,000 and $4,000 of deductions instead of the $15,000 head-of-household standard deduction and $5,000 dependent exemption, and a 5.09% rate instead of 4.99%."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a 5.19% rate instead of 4.99%. At that rate, $1,903 implies about $36,700 of taxable income, so it deducted roughly $25,000 from Georgia AGI instead of $15,000 + $5,000 = $20,000."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $12,000 standard deduction and a $4,000 dependent exemption instead of the $15,000 head-of-household deduction and $5,000 dependent exemption. It also used a 5.09% rate instead of the 2026 rate of 4.99%."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The 4.99% rate is right. However, it invented a $4,000 taxpayer exemption, even though Georgia no longer has a personal exemption, and used a $12,000 standard deduction and $3,000 dependent exemption instead of $15,000 and $5,000. It also used $300 of educator expenses instead of $338, leaving $42,700 taxable instead of $41,662.50."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $12,000 head-of-household deduction and a $4,000 dependent exemption instead of $15,000 and $5,000, and taxed $45,662 at 5.19% instead of $41,662.50 at 4.99%."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The Georgia AGI of $61,662 is right. However, it used a $12,000 head-of-household deduction and a $4,000 dependent exemption instead of $15,000 and $5,000, and a 5.09% rate instead of 4.99%."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave no figures. Its $2,184 corresponds to about $42,000–$43,800 of taxable income at a rate between 4.99% and 5.19%. That means it used deduction amounts and a rate that differ from the correct $15,000 head-of-household deduction, $5,000 dependent exemption and 4.99% applied to $61,662.50."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an $18,000 head-of-household standard deduction and left out the $5,000 dependent exemption, leaving $43,662 of taxable income instead of $41,662.50. It also used 5.29% instead of 4.99%."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The Social Security subtraction is right. However, it used a $12,000 head-of-household deduction and $5,700 of personal and dependent exemptions instead of $15,000 + $5,000, and a 5.39% rate instead of 4.99%."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $12,000 head-of-household standard deduction and a $3,000 dependent exemption instead of $15,000 and $5,000, which left $46,700 taxable instead of $41,662.50. It also used a 5.19% rate instead of 4.99%."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $338 educator expense a second time, even though federal AGI already reflects it. It also used pre-HB 1437 amounts ($5,400 standard deduction plus two $2,700 exemptions) and a 5.49% rate instead of the $15,000 head-of-household deduction, $5,000 dependent exemption and 4.99%."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its taxable income of about $40,700 is close to the correct $41,662.50. The main error is the rate: it used 5.29% instead of Georgia's 2026 flat rate of 4.99%."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The 4.99% rate and $61,662 Georgia AGI are right. However, it applied a $12,000 standard deduction and two $2,700 personal exemptions, which Georgia no longer allows. The correct amounts are the $15,000 head-of-household deduction and a $5,000 dependent exemption, which leave $41,662.50 taxable instead of $44,262."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It wrongly subtracted the $275 of auto loan interest, which gave a $61,387 AGI. It also used an $18,500 head-of-household deduction and a $3,000 dependent exemption instead of $15,000 and $5,000, and a 5.19% rate instead of 4.99%. Its result lands near the reference only because these errors offset each other."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It started from gross wages and applied outdated amounts: a $5,000 standard deduction and a $2,700 personal exemption, with no dependent exemption. It also used a 5.19% rate. The correct calculation takes the $15,000 head-of-household deduction and $5,000 dependent exemption from $61,662.50 and applies 4.99%."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its taxable income of about $41,000 is close to the correct $41,662.50. The error is the rate: it used 5.19% instead of the 2026 flat rate of 4.99%."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It wrongly subtracted the $275 of auto loan interest from federal AGI. It also used a $12,000 single deduction, a $3,700 personal exemption and a $4,000 dependent exemption instead of the $15,000 head-of-household deduction and $5,000 dependent exemption. The decisive error is the 5.09% rate instead of 4.99%."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It included the full $12,824 of Social Security in Georgia taxable income instead of starting from the $61,662.50 Georgia AGI, which already excludes taxable Social Security. It also used $12,000 + $2,700 + $3,000 of deductions and a 5.12% rate instead of $15,000 + $5,000 at 4.99%."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started from gross income of $74,824, including Social Security, instead of a Georgia AGI of $61,662.50. It then subtracted a $23,100 federal-style standard deduction instead of Georgia's $15,000 head-of-household deduction and $5,000 dependent exemption, and applied an effective rate of about 4.57% instead of 4.99%."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used $24,000 as the head-of-household standard deduction, which is the married-filing-jointly amount; the correct figure is $15,000. It also used a $4,000 dependent exemption instead of $5,000 and a 5.19% rate instead of 4.99%. It then submitted $2,732, which contradicts its own $1,749 calculation."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It subtracted the $275 of auto loan interest, which is non-deductible personal interest, and used a $24,000 standard deduction instead of $15,000. It also used a $4,000 dependent exemption instead of $5,000 and a 5.09% rate instead of 4.99%. Together these cut taxable income to $33,387 instead of $41,662.50."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied Georgia's repealed 1%–6% graduated brackets to gross wages, with no standard deduction or dependent exemption. The correct method applies the 4.99% flat rate to $61,662.50 minus $15,000 and minus $5,000."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used a 5.19% rate instead of 4.99%. Its $2,900 answer implies about $55,900 of taxable income, so it greatly understated the $15,000 standard deduction and $5,000 dependent exemption. Those deductions bring Georgia AGI of $61,662.50 down to $41,662.50 of taxable income."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It omitted the taxable Social Security from federal AGI; that omission happens to give the correct Georgia AGI. It then used an $18,500 head-of-household standard deduction instead of $15,000, a $4,000 dependent exemption instead of $5,000, and a 5.19% rate instead of 4.99%. It also submitted $2,191, which does not match its own $2,032.51 calculation."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used a $12,000 standard deduction instead of $15,000, a $4,000 dependent exemption instead of $5,000, and a 5.09% rate instead of 4.99%. That gave $2,324, which it then cut to $1,869 with no stated basis."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It capped the educator expense at $300, giving Georgia AGI of $61,700; the full $338 is allowed, so Georgia AGI is $61,662.50. It also used a $12,000 standard deduction instead of $15,000, a $4,000 dependent exemption instead of $5,000, and a 5.09% rate instead of 4.99%."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its federal AGI never included the Social Security benefits, yet it still subtracted the full $12,824 from that AGI. It then used the repealed pre-2024 structure: a $5,400 standard deduction, a $2,700 personal exemption, and a $3,000 dependent exemption. It also used a 5.39% rate instead of 4.99%. Its answer lands near the reference only because these errors offset each other."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used a $12,000 standard deduction instead of $15,000, a $4,000 dependent exemption instead of $5,000, and a 5.19% rate instead of 4.99%. That gave about $2,372, which it then raised to $2,765 with no basis."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It computed Georgia AGI of $61,662 correctly. It then used a $12,000 standard deduction instead of $15,000, a $4,000 dependent exemption instead of $5,000, and a 5.09% rate instead of the 2026 rate of 4.99%."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It never subtracted the $10,900.40 of taxable Social Security, so it started from about $72,600 instead of $61,662.50. It also used a $9,000 standard deduction and two $2,700 personal exemptions under the repealed structure, and a 5.29% rate instead of 4.99%."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It started from an unsupported AGI of $60,140 instead of Georgia AGI of $61,662.50. It used the repealed $5,400 standard deduction and two $2,700 personal exemptions instead of the $15,000 standard deduction and $5,000 dependent exemption. It also used a 5.29% rate instead of 4.99%."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used the repealed pre-2024 structure: a $5,700 standard deduction plus a $2,700 filer exemption and a $3,000 child exemption. The correct deductions are a $15,000 standard deduction and a $5,000 dependent exemption. It taxed $50,300 instead of $41,662.50, and at 5.09% instead of 4.99%."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used the correct 4.99% rate, but it started from $62,000 of wages without the $338 educator deduction. It used a $12,000 standard deduction instead of $15,000 and $6,700 of exemptions instead of the single $5,000 dependent exemption. As a result it taxed $43,300 instead of $41,662.50."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started from an understated AGI of $52,952.40 instead of Georgia AGI of $61,662.50. It applied a nonexistent $15,800 head-of-household exemption and a $3,000 dependent exemption instead of $15,000 and $5,000. It also used the 2024 rate of 5.39% instead of the 2026 rate of 4.99%."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It gave no breakdown. Its $2,690 answer implies about $54,000 of taxable income at 4.99%, so it never applied the $15,000 standard deduction and the $5,000 dependent exemption. Those deductions bring Georgia AGI of $61,662.50 down to $41,662.50."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It computed Georgia AGI of $61,662 correctly. It then used a $12,000 standard deduction instead of $15,000, a $3,000 dependent exemption instead of $5,000, and a 5.39% rate instead of 4.99%."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started from an understated AGI of $52,952 instead of Georgia AGI of $61,662.50. It also subtracted only $15,000 in total deductions instead of the $15,000 standard deduction plus the $5,000 dependent exemption, and used a 5.29% rate instead of 4.99%."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It gave no breakdown. Its $3,212 answer implies about $64,000 of taxable income at 4.99%, so it skipped both the taxable Social Security subtraction and the $20,000 of standard deduction plus dependent exemption. The correct taxable income is $41,662.50."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It gave no breakdown. Its $3,047 answer implies about $61,000 of taxable income at 4.99%, so it never applied the $15,000 standard deduction and the $5,000 dependent exemption to Georgia AGI of $61,662.50. Those deductions reduce taxable income to $41,662.50."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It gave no breakdown. Its $1,432.32 answer implies about $28,700 of taxable income at 4.99%, so it overstated deductions by roughly $13,000 beyond the correct $15,000 standard deduction and $5,000 dependent exemption."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used Georgia AGI of $61,700 because it capped the educator expense; the correct figure is $61,662.50. It used a $12,000 standard deduction instead of $15,000, a $3,000 dependent exemption instead of $5,000, and a 5.39% rate instead of 4.99%."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It excluded Social Security correctly, but its $2,236.29 answer implies about $43,000–$45,000 of taxable income at a rate near 5%. That means it subtracted less than the $15,000 standard deduction plus $5,000 dependent exemption, which bring taxable income to $41,662.50 at 4.99%."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It computed Georgia AGI of $61,662 correctly. It then used a $10,600 standard deduction instead of $15,000, omitted the $5,000 dependent exemption entirely, and used a 5.39% rate instead of 4.99%."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It computed Georgia AGI correctly. It then used a $24,000 standard deduction (the married-filing-jointly figure) and about $8,400 of exemptions, instead of a $15,000 standard deduction and a $5,000 dependent exemption. It also used a 5.19% rate instead of 4.99%."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It gave no figures. Its $1,639 answer implies about $32,800 of taxable income at 4.99%, so it overstated deductions well beyond the $15,000 standard deduction and $5,000 dependent exemption. Those deductions leave $41,662.50 taxable."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It based Georgia tax on a federal-style taxable income that was far too low. Its $498 answer implies only about $10,000 of taxable income, instead of $61,662.50 Georgia AGI minus $15,000 and $5,000, which is $41,662.50 taxed at 4.99%."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used a $12,000 standard deduction instead of $15,000 and $4,500 of exemptions instead of the $5,000 dependent exemption. It also used a 5.19% rate instead of 4.99%, and so taxed $45,162 instead of $41,662.50."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It excluded Social Security correctly, but its $1,357.80 answer implies only about $26,000–$27,000 of taxable income. That means it applied roughly $35,000 of deductions instead of the $15,000 standard deduction plus $5,000 dependent exemption."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied a $12,000 deduction instead of the $15,000 standard deduction and a $4,000 dependent exemption instead of $5,000. It also used a 5.09% rate instead of 4.99%, and so taxed $45,662.40 instead of $41,662.50."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used a 5.19% rate instead of 4.99%. Its $1,903 answer implies about $36,700 of taxable income, so it overstated deductions by about $5,000 beyond the $15,000 standard deduction and $5,000 dependent exemption."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used a $12,000 standard deduction instead of $15,000, a $4,000 dependent exemption instead of $5,000, and a 5.09% rate instead of 4.99%. It therefore taxed $45,662 instead of $41,662.50."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used the correct 4.99% rate, but it used a $12,000 standard deduction instead of $15,000 and claimed a $4,000 taxpayer exemption that does not exist. It also used a $3,000 dependent exemption instead of $5,000 and capped the educator expense at $300. As a result it taxed $42,700 instead of $41,662.50."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It computed income of $61,662 correctly. It then used a $12,000 standard deduction instead of $15,000, a $4,000 dependent exemption instead of $5,000, and a 5.19% rate instead of 4.99%."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It computed Georgia AGI of $61,662 correctly. It then used a $12,000 standard deduction instead of $15,000, a $4,000 dependent exemption instead of $5,000, and a 5.09% rate instead of 4.99%."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It gave no breakdown. Its $2,184 answer implies about $42,000–$44,000 of taxable income at a rate of 5% or more, so it understated the $15,000 standard deduction and $5,000 dependent exemption and/or used a rate above 4.99%."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It computed Georgia AGI of $61,662 correctly. It then used an $18,000 standard deduction instead of $15,000, omitted the $5,000 dependent exemption entirely, and used a 5.29% rate instead of 4.99%."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used a $12,000 standard deduction instead of $15,000 and $5,700 of personal and dependent exemptions instead of the single $5,000 dependent exemption. It also used a 5.39% rate instead of 4.99%."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used a $12,000 standard deduction instead of $15,000 and a $3,000 dependent exemption instead of $5,000. It also used a 5.19% rate instead of 4.99%, and so taxed $46,700 instead of $41,662.50."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $338 educator expense a second time, even though it was already in federal AGI. It also used the repealed $5,400 standard deduction and two $2,700 exemptions instead of $15,000 and $5,000, and the 2024 rate of 5.49% instead of 4.99%."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its taxable income of about $40,700 is close to the correct $41,662.50, but it used a 5.29% flat rate instead of the 2026 rate of 4.99%. That overstates the tax."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used the correct 4.99% rate, but it used a $12,000 standard deduction instead of $15,000. It also applied two repealed $2,700 personal exemptions ($5,400) instead of the single $5,000 dependent exemption, and so taxed $44,262 instead of $41,662.50."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It understated Georgia AGI at $61,387 instead of $61,662.50. It used an $18,500 standard deduction and a $3,000 dependent exemption instead of $15,000 and $5,000, and a 5.19% rate instead of 4.99%. These errors happen to offset and land within $9 of the correct $2,078.96."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used a $5,000 standard deduction and a $2,700 personal exemption, and omitted the $5,000 dependent exemption. The correct deductions are a $15,000 standard deduction and the $5,000 dependent exemption. It taxed $54,000 at 5.19% instead of $41,662.50 at 4.99%."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It never subtracted the $10,900.40 of taxable Social Security, so it started from about $72,900 instead of $61,662.50. It also used about $12,000 plus $6,000 of deductions instead of $15,000 plus $5,000, and a 5.19% rate instead of 4.99%."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its taxable income of about $41,000 is close to the correct $41,662.50, but it used a 5.19% rate instead of the 2026 rate of 4.99%. That pushed the tax above the correct amount."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It understated Georgia AGI at $61,387 and used a $12,000 standard deduction instead of $15,000. It also claimed a nonexistent $3,700 personal exemption and used a $4,000 dependent exemption instead of $5,000. Its rate was 5.09% instead of 4.99%."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It included the full $12,824 of Social Security in Georgia income instead of subtracting the taxable Social Security. It also used a $12,000 standard deduction plus repealed $2,700 and $3,000 exemptions instead of $15,000 and $5,000, and a 5.12% rate instead of 4.99%."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started from $74,824 of gross income that still included the Social Security it claimed to exclude, instead of Georgia AGI of $61,662.50. It applied a single $23,100 deduction with no $5,000 dependent exemption. Its implied rate of about 4.57% does not match the 4.99% flat rate."
us,scenario_086,state_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model invented a Georgia refundable dependent-child credit of $260 per qualifying child. Georgia has no such applicable refundable credit, so the 12-year-old dependent generates $0 in state refundable credits."
us,scenario_088,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model omitted the deduction for the $9,600 of qualified tips included in wages, leaving $7,085 of purported taxable income. It also incorrectly included the $675 state tax refund in gross income without establishing a prior-year itemized-deduction tax benefit."
us,scenario_088,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model supplied neither a numeric value nor an explanation for the requested output, violating the required output contract."
@@ -7468,48 +7710,49 @@ us,scenario_088,snap,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"It skipped
us,scenario_088,snap,glm-5.2,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"It reasoned that the disability plus $20,814 in mortgage interest and property taxes drove net income to zero, and it awarded the full one-person maximum of $3,492 ($291 x 12). It never checked countable resources. The $31,776 bank balance breaks the $4,500 elderly or disabled asset limit and Texas's $5,000 limit, so the household is ineligible and SNAP is $0."
us,scenario_088,snap,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"It used the disability to move straight to the net-income test and let the homeowner shelter costs zero out net income, which produced the maximum one-person allotment of $298 x 12 = $3,576. It never applied the SNAP resource test. The $31,776 bank balance exceeds the $4,500 limit for elderly or disabled households and Texas's $5,000 limit, so the household is ineligible and SNAP is $0."
us,scenario_088,snap,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"It applied the uncapped shelter deduction for disabled households, zeroed out net income, and paid the $298 monthly maximum, for $3,576 a year. It ignored the SNAP resource test. The head's $31,776 in bank assets exceeds the $4,500 elderly or disabled asset limit and Texas's $5,000 limit, so the household is ineligible and SNAP is $0."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Got AGI ($106,200), the $32,200 standard deduction and the $9,568 QBI deduction right, but left out the $3,467 OBBBA qualified overtime deduction, which brought it to $7,236. It then replaced its own figure with an unexplained $8,225."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Took an invented ~$1,200 SE health insurance deduction even though the spouse has employer coverage. It also dropped the head's $252 spousal IRA deduction and understated QBI at ~$9,330. On top of that, it left out the $3,467 qualified overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Made up $57,893 of head wages that were not listed, which pushed gross income to $173,759. It also used the outdated $29,200 standard deduction and skipped both the QBI deduction and the overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"Gave a rounded $6,800 with no calculation behind it. The correct chain is AGI $106,200.13 minus the $32,200 standard deduction, the $9,568.44 QBI deduction and the $3,467.43 overtime deduction, giving $60,964.27 taxable at 10%/12% = $6,819.71. The submitted number is a round estimate, not a bracket computation."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Got AGI right at $106,200, but used the 2025 $31,500 standard deduction instead of $32,200, approximated QBI at $9,200 instead of $9,568, and left out the $3,467 overtime deduction. It then inflated its own $7,377 to $9,089 with unspecified 'adjustments'."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Got AGI right at $106,200, but skipped both the $9,568 QBI deduction and the $3,467 overtime deduction. It then added the $4,286 SE tax and other amounts into income tax, even though SE tax is not part of income tax before refundable credits."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its own bracket calculation came to about $7,150 without the $3,467 overtime deduction. It then submitted $12,850 based on 'higher effective rates', which no bracket supports, so it effectively added non-income-tax amounts."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Deducted the head's $5,403 traditional 401(k) even though the head has no wages for elective deferrals to come out of. It also used an extrapolated $30,800 standard deduction and $24,517 bracket instead of the OBBBA $32,200 and $24,800, and left out the $3,467 overtime deduction. Its errors happened to roughly cancel out."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Treated the $19,650 partnership/S-corp income as SE earnings, which overstated the half-SE-tax deduction at $3,532. It also dropped the head's spousal IRA, used a $30,000 standard deduction, and skipped both the QBI deduction and the overtime deduction before rounding up to $8,300."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Got AGI ($106,200), the standard deduction ($32,200), QBI ($9,568) and the brackets right, but left out the OBBBA qualified overtime deduction for the spouse's $3,467 FLSA overtime premium. That missing deduction is the entire $416 gap (12% × $3,467)."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Added the $3,467 overtime premium on top of wages that already include it, and excluded the $7,789 ESI premium from wages. It also claimed a $2,400 SE health insurance deduction, used a $30,000 standard deduction and 2025 brackets, and skipped both the QBI deduction and the overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Miscalculated spouse wages net of the 401(k) as $57,735 instead of $58,935, and used the 2024 $29,200 standard deduction. It took QBI as 20% of $49,985 without subtracting the half-SE-tax deduction, applied 2025 brackets, and left out the $3,467 overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Assumed the TCJA expired in 2026 and used personal exemptions with pre-TCJA rates, but OBBBA made the TCJA rates and the $32,200 standard deduction permanent. It also excluded the ESI premium from wages and skipped the QBI deduction and overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Got AGI right at $106,200, but used a $31,500 standard deduction and a $24,400 bracket edge. It also left out both the $9,568 QBI deduction and the $3,467 overtime deduction, which overstated taxable income by about $13,700."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied a TCJA sunset that did not happen: a $16,000 standard deduction, personal exemptions and a 15% bracket, instead of OBBBA's $32,200 deduction and 10%/12% brackets. It also subtracted the $7,789 ESI premium from wages and skipped the QBI deduction and overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied only the standard deduction and retirement contributions, with no QBI deduction and no overtime deduction. Even AGI $106,200 less $32,200 gives just $8,384 of tax, so its $11,090 also overstates income or rates beyond those omissions."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Assumed the TCJA sunset, using a $16,600 standard deduction, $10,600 of exemptions and pre-TCJA brackets, instead of the OBBBA-permanent $32,200 deduction and 10%/12% brackets. It also excluded the ESI premium from wages and skipped both the QBI deduction and the overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied pre-TCJA law: a $15,300 standard deduction, personal exemptions, and a 15% bracket above $18,650. It also excluded the $7,789 ESI premium from wages and skipped both the QBI deduction and the overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Gave $15,622 with no derivation, more than double the correct $6,819.71. That is more tax than even undeducted gross income at 10%/12% produces, so it ignored the standard, QBI and overtime deductions and overstated income."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Excluded the spouse's $7,789 ESI premium from wages, which dropped AGI to $98,411 instead of $106,200. It also used a $30,800 standard deduction instead of $32,200 and left out the $3,467 qualified overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Started from an AGI of about $98,663, which reflects excluding the $7,789 ESI premium from wages; the correct AGI is $106,200. It did not apply the $32,200 standard deduction together with the $3,467 overtime deduction, so it ended up at $6,647."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Listed only the standard deduction and named no QBI deduction or overtime deduction. Its $7,612 implies about $67,600 of taxable income, roughly $6,600 above the correct $60,964.27, which is consistent with leaving out the $3,467 overtime deduction and understating QBI or the standard deduction."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Got AGI ($106,199.91) and QBI ($9,568.38) right, but used a $30,600 standard deduction and $24,300 bracket instead of OBBBA's $32,200 and $24,800. It also left out the $3,467 qualified overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Disallowed the head's $252 IRA even though a spousal IRA is deductible against the working spouse's compensation, and made an arithmetic error that put AGI at $104,131 instead of $106,200. It also used a $31,500 standard deduction and left out the $3,467 overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,missing_output,False,"Returned $0, claiming the facts were incomplete, even though the household lists $65,881 of wages, $30,335 of SE income and $19,650 of partnership income. These produce $60,964.27 of taxable income and $6,819.71 of tax."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"Its $6,828 implies about $61,033 of taxable income, roughly $69 above the correct $60,964.27. It approximated the half-SE-tax, $9,568.44 QBI and $3,467.43 overtime deductions instead of computing them exactly."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied the overtime deduction but excluded the $7,789 ESI premium from wages, dropped the head's $252 spousal IRA, and left out the $9,568 QBI deduction entirely. Those changes net out to its $62,996 taxable income, which is $2,032 too high."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its list of deductions leaves out the OBBBA qualified overtime deduction for the $3,467 FLSA premium. Its $7,530 implies about $66,900 of taxable income, so it also understated the standard deduction or QBI deduction by about $2,450."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Treated the spouse's $7,789 ESI premium as a pre-tax wage exclusion, which cut AGI to $98,410.90 instead of $106,200.13. That one error lowered taxable income to $53,175.52; all of its other deductions are correct."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Subtracted the $7,789 ESI premium from wages as a pre-tax exclusion, which gave an AGI of $98,410.90 instead of $106,200.13. That understated taxable income by $7,789 even though its standard, overtime and QBI deductions were correct."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Treated income as 'around 120k' and applied only the standard deduction and retirement contributions. It never took the $9,568 QBI deduction or the $3,467 overtime deduction, and its $12,450 also exceeds what 10%/12% brackets produce on AGI minus the standard deduction."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Got AGI right at $106,200, but applied a TCJA sunset (a $16,637 standard deduction, $10,611 of exemptions and a 15% bracket) that OBBBA prevented. As a result it also skipped the QBI deduction and overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Got AGI right at $106,200, but applied pre-TCJA 2026 law with a $16,600 standard deduction, personal exemptions and a 15% bracket, instead of OBBBA's permanent $32,200 deduction and 10%/12% brackets. It also left out the QBI deduction and overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Got AGI right at $106,200, but taxed it under a TCJA sunset that did not happen, with a $16,600 standard deduction, $10,600 of exemptions and a 15% rate. It left out the $9,568 QBI deduction and the $3,467 OBBBA overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Added the $3,467 overtime premium on top of wages that already include it, which put gross income at $119,333. It also deducted the head's $5,403 401(k) despite the head having no wages, claimed a $600 SE health insurance deduction, and skipped both the QBI deduction and the overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Computed QBI as 20% of $49,985 without first subtracting the $2,143 half-SE-tax deduction from SE QBI, which gave $9,997 instead of $9,568. It also used a $24,500 bracket edge and left out the $3,467 qualified overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Added the $3,467 overtime premium on top of wages that already include it, and deducted the head's 401(k) despite the head having no wages. It also used a $29,900 standard deduction and 2025 brackets, and skipped both the QBI deduction and the overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Got taxable income essentially right at $60,964.52, but used a $24,400 top for the 10% bracket instead of the 2026 MFJ $24,800, which added $8. It also placed the overtime deduction above the line rather than after AGI."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Deducted the head's $5,403 401(k) despite the head having no wages, and treated the partnership income as SE earnings, which overstated the half-SE-tax deduction at $3,531. It also took QBI on the unreduced $49,985, used a $30,000 standard deduction and 2025 brackets, and left out the overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Deducted the head's $5,403 401(k) despite the head having no wages, which put AGI at $100,797 instead of $106,200. It also took QBI on the unreduced $49,985 ($9,997 instead of $9,568) and left out the $3,467 overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Deducted the head's 401(k) despite the head having no wages, used a $32,300 standard deduction, and skipped both the QBI deduction and the overtime deduction. It also miscalculated the 10% bracket tax as $2,783.50 on $23,200, which should be $2,320."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Invented $132,619 of head wages from the spouse's hourly wage fields and a $14,180 half-SE-tax deduction. It then subtracted an $8,000 child tax credit even though the household has no children."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its reasoning correctly reached AGI $106,200, the $32,200 standard deduction, the $9,568 QBI deduction and tax of $7,236, but it left out the $3,467 qualified overtime deduction, which brings tax down to $6,819.71. It then submitted $8,225, an unexplained increase that does not match its own calculation."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed a self-employed health insurance deduction of about $1,200, but the spouse is covered by employer-sponsored insurance, which rules that deduction out. It also dropped the head's $252 spousal IRA, understated the QBI deduction at about $9,330 instead of $9,568, and never took the $3,467 qualified overtime deduction."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It invented about $57,893 of head wages even though the head has no listed wages, and it used the old $29,200 standard deduction. It also omitted both the QBI deduction and the $3,467 overtime deduction, which pushed taxable income far above the correct $60,964."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"It gave a rounded $6,800 with no line-item computation. The exact result is AGI $106,200 minus the $32,200 standard deduction, the $9,568 QBI deduction and the $3,467 overtime deduction, which gives taxable income of $60,964.27 and tax of $6,819.71."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It reached the correct AGI of $106,200 but used a $31,500 standard deduction instead of the 2026 MFJ $32,200, an approximate QBI deduction of $9,200 instead of $9,568, and a 10% bracket ending at $24,150 instead of $24,800. It omitted the $3,467 overtime deduction and then raised its own $7,377 to $9,089 with no explanation."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $4,286 self-employment tax and other amounts to income tax, but SE tax is not part of federal income tax before refundable credits. It also skipped the $9,568 QBI deduction and the $3,467 overtime deduction and used a $31,500 standard deduction instead of $32,200."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its bracket work came to about $7,150 using a guessed $32,600 standard deduction and no overtime deduction. It then submitted $12,850 by vaguely citing 'higher effective rates' on business income, even though QBI and partnership income are taxed at ordinary rates in the 12% bracket here."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the head's $5,403 traditional 401(k), but the head has no wages, so that contribution reduces nothing and AGI stays at $106,200 rather than $100,797. It also guessed a $30,800 standard deduction and inflated 2025 brackets instead of using $32,200 and $24,800, and it omitted the $3,467 overtime deduction."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the $19,650 partnership/S-corp income as self-employment earnings, which inflated the half-SE-tax deduction. It also disallowed the head's spousal IRA, used a $30,000 standard deduction, and omitted both the $9,568 QBI deduction and the $3,467 overtime deduction."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It got AGI ($106,200), the standard deduction ($32,200), the QBI deduction ($9,568) and the brackets right, but it left out the 2026 qualified overtime deduction for the spouse's $3,467 FLSA overtime premium. That deduction is worth 12% × $3,467 ≈ $416 and brings $7,236 down to $6,819.71."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $3,467 overtime premium on top of gross wages, although that premium is already included in them, and it subtracted $7,789 of ESI premiums from wages. It also claimed a self-employed health insurance deduction the spouse cannot take while covered by an employer plan, used a $30,000 standard deduction and 2025 brackets, and omitted the QBI and overtime deductions."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It cut spouse wages by an extra $1,200 for health premiums, giving $57,735 instead of $58,935, and used the outdated $29,200 standard deduction and 2025 brackets. It also computed QBI on the full $49,985 without subtracting the half-SE-tax deduction and omitted the $3,467 overtime deduction."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a TCJA sunset with personal exemptions, but OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent, so 2026 uses a $32,200 standard deduction and 10%/12% brackets. It also subtracted ESI premiums from wages and omitted the QBI and overtime deductions."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reached the correct AGI of $106,199.90 but omitted the $9,568 QBI deduction and the $3,467 qualified overtime deduction. It also used a $31,500 standard deduction and a $24,400 bracket edge instead of $32,200 and $24,800."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed a TCJA sunset, with a $16,000 standard deduction, personal exemptions and a 15% bracket, but 2026 law keeps the $32,200 MFJ standard deduction and a 12% bracket. It also subtracted the $7,789 ESI premiums from wages and omitted the QBI and overtime deductions."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It offered only a rough combination of income less the standard deduction and retirement contributions. It never applied the $9,568 QBI deduction or the $3,467 overtime deduction, which take taxable income down to $60,964 and tax to $6,819.71."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA individual provisions sunset in 2026 and used a $16,600 standard deduction plus personal exemptions, but current law keeps the $32,200 MFJ standard deduction and 10%/12% brackets. It also subtracted ESI premiums from wages and omitted the QBI and overtime deductions."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied pre-TCJA rules (a $15,300 standard deduction, personal exemptions and a 15% bracket above $18,650), but 2026 law uses a $32,200 standard deduction and a 12% bracket. It also subtracted $7,789 of ESI premiums from wages and omitted the QBI and overtime deductions."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation, and $15,622 is more than double the correct liability. That figure is consistent with taxing most of gross income without the $32,200 standard deduction, the $9,568 QBI deduction and the $3,467 overtime deduction that bring taxable income to $60,964."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the spouse's $7,789 ESI premiums from wages, putting AGI at $98,411 instead of $106,200, used a $30,800 standard deduction instead of $32,200, and applied the 2024 $23,200 bracket edge. It also omitted the $3,467 overtime deduction."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of about $98,663 comes from subtracting the $7,789 ESI premiums from wages and dropping the head's $252 IRA deduction; the correct AGI is $106,200. It also did not take the $3,467 qualified overtime deduction."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It describes only wages and business income less the standard deduction and never mentions the $3,467 overtime deduction or the full $9,568 QBI deduction. Its $7,612 implies taxable income about $6,600 above the correct $60,964."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got AGI ($106,200) and QBI ($9,568) right, but it used a $30,600 standard deduction and a $24,300 10% bracket edge instead of the 2026 MFJ $32,200 and $24,800. It also omitted the $3,467 qualified overtime deduction."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It disallowed the head's $252 IRA, but a spousal IRA is deductible based on the spouse's earnings. It also used a $31,500 standard deduction and a $24,600 bracket edge instead of $32,200 and $24,800, and it omitted the $3,467 overtime deduction."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,other,False,"It wrongly said the facts were insufficient and reported $0, even though the prompt gives all wages, SE income, partnership income and retirement contributions. Those inputs produce taxable income of $60,964 and tax of $6,819.71."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"It gave no itemized derivation, and its $6,828 implies taxable income about $70 above the correct $60,964.27. The exact result applies the $32,200 standard deduction, the $9,568.44 QBI deduction and the $3,467.43 overtime deduction to AGI of $106,200.13."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It never applied the $9,568 QBI deduction on the spouse's SE and partnership income. Its taxable income of $62,996 also reflects subtracting $7,789 of ESI premiums from wages and dropping the head's $252 IRA, which partly offset the missing QBI deduction."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its list of deductions leaves out the $3,467 qualified overtime deduction. Its $7,530 implies taxable income of about $66,900 instead of $60,964, an overstatement beyond the overtime amount alone."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the spouse's $7,789 ESI premiums as a pre-tax wage exclusion, putting AGI at $98,411 instead of $106,200. Taxable wages are gross wages less only the $6,946 traditional 401(k). Its standard deduction, overtime deduction and QBI deduction all match the reference."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the spouse's $7,789 ESI premiums from wages, putting AGI at $98,410.90 instead of $106,200.13. Taxable wages are reduced only by the $6,946 traditional 401(k). Its $32,200 standard deduction, $3,467 overtime deduction and $9,568 QBI deduction are correct."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave a rough estimate based on income of about $120k with retirement contributions subtracted. It omitted the half-SE-tax and IRA adjustments, the $9,568 QBI deduction and the $3,467 overtime deduction, which together bring taxable income to $60,964."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It reached the correct AGI of $106,200 but then assumed a TCJA sunset (a $16,637 standard deduction plus personal exemptions and a 15% bracket). Current 2026 law uses a $32,200 standard deduction and a 12% bracket, plus the QBI and overtime deductions it omitted."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It reached the correct AGI of $106,200 but then assumed pre-TCJA rules ($16,600 standard deduction, $10,600 in exemptions, a 15% bracket). Under OBBBA, 2026 uses a $32,200 standard deduction and 10%/12% brackets, along with the $9,568 QBI and $3,467 overtime deductions."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It reached the correct AGI of $106,200 but assumed the TCJA sunsets, applying a $16,600 standard deduction, personal exemptions and a 15% bracket. 2026 law keeps the $32,200 standard deduction and 12% bracket, and it also omitted the QBI and overtime deductions."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $3,467 overtime premium on top of gross wages, which already include it, and subtracted the head's $5,403 401(k) even though the head has no wages. It also claimed an SE health insurance deduction blocked by the spouse's employer coverage, used a $30,660 standard deduction, and omitted the QBI and overtime deductions."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It computed the QBI deduction on the full $49,985 ($9,997) without subtracting the half-SE-tax deduction from SE income; the correct figure is $9,568. It also used a $24,500 bracket edge instead of $24,800 and omitted the $3,467 qualified overtime deduction."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $3,467 overtime premium on top of gross wages, which already include it, and subtracted the head's 401(k) despite the head having no wages. It also used a $29,900 standard deduction and 2025 brackets, and omitted the QBI and overtime deductions."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its taxable income of $60,964.52 matches the reference, but it applied a 10% bracket ending at $24,400 instead of the 2026 MFJ threshold of $24,800. That error adds $8 of tax."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the head's $5,403 401(k) despite the head having no wages and treated partnership income as SE earnings, which inflated the half-SE-tax deduction to $3,531. It also took QBI on the full $49,985, used a $30,000 standard deduction and 2025 brackets, and omitted the $3,467 overtime deduction."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reached the correct AGI of about $106,200 but omitted the $9,568 QBI deduction and the $3,467 qualified overtime deduction. It also used a $31,500 standard deduction instead of $32,200, which left taxable income at $74,700 instead of $60,964."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the head's $5,403 traditional 401(k) even though the head has no wages, putting AGI at $100,797 instead of $106,200. It also took QBI on the unreduced $49,985 ($9,997 instead of $9,568) and omitted the $3,467 overtime deduction."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the head's $5,403 401(k) despite the head having no wages and used a $32,300 standard deduction instead of $32,200. It omitted the $9,568 QBI and $3,467 overtime deductions, and its bracket arithmetic ($2,783.50 at $23,200) does not match the 2026 schedule."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It invented $132,619 of head wages that the prompt does not list and subtracted an $8,000 child tax credit even though the household has no children. It also omitted the QBI and overtime deductions, so both its income base and its credits are wrong."
us,scenario_089,federal_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model awarded a $2,242.80 Additional Child Tax Credit despite the household having no qualifying children. It also fabricated $120,000 of head wages from hours worked and mislabeled $2,400 of supposed excess Additional Medicare withholding as a refundable credit, even though no head wage or hourly rate was listed and tax withholding refunds are not included in federal_refundable_credits."
us,scenario_089,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It made up about $6,200 of payroll tax for the head, who has no wages listed (the prompt says to treat unlisted amounts as 0). It also added the $3,467 overtime premium on top of the $65,881 gross wages, which already include overtime, and invented an NC employee payroll tax that does not exist. The correct base is just the spouse's $65,881, giving $5,039.91."
us,scenario_089,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It charged FICA on wages for both spouses even though the head has no wages. It also used $69,348 by adding the overtime premium to gross wages that already include overtime. Only the spouse's $65,881 is taxable, which comes to $5,039.91, not $10,400."
@@ -7546,46 +7789,47 @@ us,scenario_089,self_employment_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_out
us,scenario_089,self_employment_tax,minimax-m3,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model combined the $19,650 of partnership/S-corp income with the $30,335 of SE income, for a $49,985 base, and taxed $46,161 of net earnings. Only the $30,335 belongs in the SE base. Counting the $19,650 inflated the tax from about $4,286 to $7,063."
us,scenario_089,self_employment_tax,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model noticed that S-corp income generally isn't subject to SE tax, but then treated all $19,650 as partnership earnings and added it to the base. Only the $30,335 of SE income counts. Applying 92.35% × 15.3% to that alone gives about $4,286, not $7,062.66."
us,scenario_089,self_employment_tax,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model rounded the SE income plus the partnership/S-corp income to a combined $50,000 base, but only the $30,335 of SE income counts. It then subtracted a made-up $668.78 'offset' for employee Social Security tax paid on wages. Wages only reduce the 12.4% base once wages plus SE earnings exceed the 2026 Social Security wage base. The spouse's roughly $66k in wages plus $28k in net SE earnings is far below that, so no offset applies."
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It wrongly disallowed the head's $252 traditional IRA. That contribution is deductible under the spousal-IRA rule using the spouse's compensation, and dropping it gave $80,952 of taxable income and $3,230 of tax instead of $80,700 and $3,219.94. It then submitted $4,022, which matches none of its own arithmetic."
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The rate (3.99%) and standard deduction ($25,500) are right, but it understated federal AGI as $105,252 instead of $106,200. The extra ~$948 of deductions has no basis in the facts, so taxable income came out at $79,752 instead of $80,700."
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It listed the right income parts but never computed NC taxable income. $4,532 at 3.99% implies about $113,600 of taxable income, which means the $25,500 MFJ standard deduction was never effectively subtracted from the $106,200 AGI."
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted unspecified 'retirement/health adjustments' beyond what federal AGI allows. $2,700 at 3.99% implies only ~$67,700 of taxable income, so it removed health premium or medical inputs that do not reduce AGI. The correct base is $106,200 − $25,500 = $80,700."
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the head's $5,403 traditional 401(k), giving an AGI of $100,797. The head has no wages, so no elective deferral can reduce income. It then dropped its own $3,004 result and submitted an unsupported $4,710."
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly computed AGI of $106,199, taxable income of $80,699 and tax of $3,220 at 3.99%. It then threw that result away for an invented ~$132,500 'full income base' and submitted $5,290."
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"It stated AGI of ~$106,500 and taxable income of ~$81,000, which would give about $3,232. It then multiplied 3.99% by an unexplained $87,100, an arithmetic inconsistency that pushed the tax up to $3,475."
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a 4.25% rate and a $30,000 MFJ standard deduction. The correct 2026 parameters are 3.99% and $25,500. It also miscomputed SE tax (30,335 × 0.9235 is $28,014, not $28,974). Its $3,235 is the result of these errors offsetting each other, not of the correct $80,700 × 3.99% calculation."
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It wrongly applied the 92.35% SE-tax factor to the income itself, cutting the pass-through and SE income included in AGI. It also treated the partnership/S-corp income as SE income and used a 4.25% rate instead of 3.99%. It then rounded its own $2,979 up to an unsupported $3,800."
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used AGI of $99,477 instead of $106,200, an unexplained understatement of about $6,700. It also used a $27,500 MFJ standard deduction instead of NC's $25,500, so taxable income was $71,977 instead of $80,700."
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $104,999.90 is exactly $1,200 below the correct $106,199.90. It subtracted the $600 + $600 'other health insurance premiums' as a self-employed health insurance deduction, which is not allowed because both spouses have employer-sponsored coverage."
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used AGI of $98,411, which subtracts the spouse's $7,789 ESI premium input as a pretax wage reduction even though it does not reduce AGI. It also used a $30,600 standard deduction instead of $25,500 and a 4.0% rate instead of 3.99%."
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $98,411 AGI is exactly $7,789 below $106,200, meaning it subtracted the spouse's employer-sponsored insurance premium from wages as a pretax deduction. That input does not reduce AGI. With the correct $106,200 AGI, taxable income is $80,700, not $72,911."
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation. $4,410 at 3.99% implies about $110,500 of taxable income, which is above the $106,200 AGI, so the $25,500 MFJ standard deduction was never subtracted."
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started from a federal AGI of $98,411, which wrongly subtracts the spouse's $7,789 ESI premium input from wages. The correct AGI is $106,200, giving $80,700 of NC taxable income instead of $72,911."
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used AGI of $98,411, which wrongly subtracts the spouse's $7,789 ESI premium input from wages. It also used a $29,250 MFJ standard deduction instead of NC's $25,500."
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation. $6,787 at 3.99% implies about $170,000 of NC taxable income, far above the household's $106,200 AGI, so it inflated the income base instead of computing $106,200 − $25,500."
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $98,410.90 is exactly $7,789 below the correct $106,199.90, which means it treated the spouse's ESI premium input as a pretax wage reduction. That input does not reduce AGI, so taxable income should be $80,700, not $72,911."
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"$2,919.20 corresponds to an AGI of $98,663. That figure comes from subtracting the spouse's $7,789 ESI premium, which does not reduce AGI, and disallowing the head's $252 spousal IRA, which is deductible. The correct base is $80,700 of taxable income."
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation. $3,514 at 3.99% implies about $88,000 of taxable income, roughly $7,400 above the correct $80,700. The answer is consistent with not taking the spouse's 401(k) or other adjustments out of AGI."
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted only $28,014 of SE income (the 92.35% SE-tax base) in AGI instead of the full $30,335. That understated AGI by $2,320.53 ($103,879 vs $106,200). The 0.9235 factor applies only to computing SE tax, not to the income included in AGI."
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started from federal taxable income ($63,098), which already reflects the federal standard deduction and QBI deduction. NC starts from federal AGI ($106,200). It also used an outdated $21,500 MFJ standard deduction instead of $25,500."
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It returned zero tax even though AGI is $106,200 and only $25,500 is deductible for NC. The resulting $80,700 of taxable income is taxed at 3.99%."
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"$3,055 at 3.99% implies about $76,600 of taxable income, or an AGI near $102,000. That is ~$4,100 below the correct $106,200, so it took retirement adjustments beyond the spouse's 401(k) and the $577 of IRA deductions."
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It explicitly subtracted 'pretax ESI premiums' from the spouse's wages, removing $7,789 and producing AGI of $98,411. The ESI premium input does not reduce AGI, so taxable income should be $80,700, not $72,911."
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its NC taxable income of $69,696 implies an AGI of about $95,200, roughly $11,000 below the correct $106,200. The gap is consistent with subtracting the ESI premium input and other non-deductible amounts from wages."
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"$3,230 equals 3.99% × $80,952, which is $252 too high. It disallowed the head's traditional IRA contribution, which is deductible as a spousal IRA based on the spouse's compensation."
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $98,410.90 is exactly $7,789 below the correct $106,199.90, because it removed the spouse's ESI premium input from wages as a pretax deduction. With the correct AGI, NC taxable income is $80,700."
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started from an AGI of $98,410.90, which wrongly subtracts the spouse's $7,789 ESI premium input from wages. The correct AGI is $106,200, giving $80,700 of NC taxable income."
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation. $3,120 at 3.99% implies about $78,200 of taxable income, or an AGI near $103,700. That is ~$2,500 below the correct $106,200 after the spouse's 401(k), half of SE tax and $577 of IRA deductions."
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It had the correct AGI ($106,200) and standard deduction ($25,500) but applied 4.25%, NC's 2025 rate. The 2026 rate is 3.99%, giving $3,219.94 instead of $3,430."
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly reached $80,700 of taxable income but applied the 2025 rate of 4.25%. The 2026 rate is 3.99%."
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a 4% rate instead of 3.99%. It also understated AGI as $103,664 instead of $106,200, so taxable income came out at $78,164 instead of $80,700."
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It started from the correct ~$106,200 AGI but used an MFJ standard deduction of about $26,700 instead of NC's $25,500. That reduced taxable income to ~$79,500 instead of $80,700."
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,It returned no parseable value or explanation for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits.
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $102,732.90 is exactly $3,467 below the correct $106,199.90, so it took the FLSA overtime premium out of AGI. The federal qualified-overtime deduction is below the line and does not reduce AGI, and NC's computation starts from AGI with no overtime subtraction."
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied NC's 4.5% rate from 2024 instead of the 2026 rate of 3.99%. It also understated AGI as $99,409 instead of $106,200."
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $100,797 subtracts the head's $5,403 traditional 401(k), but the head has no wages, so no elective deferral can reduce income. Only the spouse's $6,946 deferral counts, which gives AGI of $106,200 and taxable income of $80,700."
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $3,467 FLSA overtime premium on top of gross wages that already include overtime. It also subtracted the head's $5,403 401(k) although the head has no wages, and it applied a 4.5% rate instead of the 2026 rate of 3.99%."
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It invented a $248,485 AGI, more than double the household's $106,200, along with a $32,200 standard deduction and a 4.5% rate. It also invented a credit for taxes paid to other states, though nothing in the facts sources any income outside North Carolina."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It worked its way to about $3,230, then submitted $4,022, which nothing in its working supports. Its intermediate figure was also wrong because it refused the Head's $252 traditional IRA. A joint return with a working spouse qualifies the Head for a spousal IRA deduction, so AGI is $106,200, not $106,452."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the correct 3.99% rate and $25,500 standard deduction but put federal AGI at $105,252 instead of $106,200. That removed about $948 of income through a deduction that does not apply here."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $4,532 equals about 4.25% of roughly $106,600, the full AGI. So it effectively skipped the $25,500 NC joint standard deduction and used a superseded rate instead of 3.99% on $80,700."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took extra 'retirement/health adjustments' off income, such as health premiums and the Head's 401(k) with no wages behind it. That left taxable income of about $67,700 instead of $80,700. The only valid adjustments are the spouse's 401(k), half of SE tax, and the two IRAs."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted the Head's $5,403 traditional 401(k), but the Head has no wages to defer from, so AGI came out $100,797 instead of $106,200. It then dropped its own $3,004 result and submitted an unsupported $4,710."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,other,False,"It derived the correct $106,199 AGI, $80,699 taxable income, and $3,220 tax. It then threw that away for an invented $132,500 'full income base' and submitted $5,290."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It stated taxable income of about $81,000 (AGI less $25,500) but applied 3.99% to $87,100. Taxing about $6,400 that does not exist inflated the answer to $3,475."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $30,000 joint standard deduction and a 4.25% rate. North Carolina's 2026 joint standard deduction is fixed at $25,500 and the rate is 3.99%. It also overstated SE tax at $4,433 instead of $4,286, so its AGI was slightly off."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the superseded 4.25% rate and charged SE tax on the $19,650 partnership/S-corp income as well as the $30,335 SE income. That over-deducted half of SE tax. It then rounded its own $2,979 up to an unsupported $3,800."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It understated AGI by about $6,700 ($99,477 versus $106,200), which matches deducting the Head's 401(k) although the Head has no wages. It also used a $27,500 joint standard deduction instead of the statutory $25,500."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $104,999.90 is exactly $1,200 below the correct $106,199.90, meaning it took a self-employed health insurance deduction for the two $600 premiums. Both spouses have access to employer-sponsored coverage, which bars that deduction."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It subtracted the spouse's $7,789 ESI premium from the stated gross wages, giving AGI of $98,411. On top of that it used a $30,600 standard deduction and a 4.0% rate instead of $25,500 and 3.99%."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $98,411 is exactly $7,789 below $106,200 because it treated the spouse's ESI premium as a pre-tax wage reduction. The stated gross wages are not reduced by that premium. Its $25,500 deduction and 3.99% rate were correct."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"At 3.99%, its $4,410 implies about $110,500 of taxable income, roughly full AGI or more. So it did not subtract the $25,500 joint standard deduction from the $106,200 AGI."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started from an AGI of $98,411, which takes the spouse's $7,789 ESI premium out of the stated gross wages. The correct AGI is $106,200, so it understated taxable income by $7,789. The deduction and rate were right."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started from an AGI of $98,411, which subtracts the $7,789 ESI premium from wages. It also used a $29,250 joint standard deduction instead of North Carolina's fixed $25,500."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"At 3.99%, its $6,787 implies about $170,000 of taxable income, more than the household's total income of $115,866. The correct base is $80,700 ($106,200 AGI less $25,500)."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $98,410.90 is exactly the correct $106,199.90 minus the spouse's $7,789 ESI premium. Treating that premium as a reduction to the stated gross wages understated taxable income by $7,789."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $2,919 implies about $73,200 of taxable income, roughly $7,500 under $80,700. That matches subtracting the spouse's $7,789 ESI premium from gross wages when computing AGI."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $3,514 is $294 too high and matches the superseded 4.25% rate applied to about $82,700. The correct figure is 3.99% of $80,700."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It entered self-employment income in AGI as the 92.35% SE-tax base ($28,014) instead of the full $30,335, then also subtracted half of SE tax. That understated AGI by $2,320 ($103,879 versus $106,200)."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started from federal taxable income ($63,098) instead of federal AGI, so federal deductions were taken before the NC deduction as well. It also used a $21,500 joint standard deduction instead of $25,500."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reported zero tax, ignoring $115,866 of spouse wages, SE income and partnership income. That income produces $80,700 of NC taxable income after the $25,500 standard deduction."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $3,055 implies about $76,600 of taxable income, roughly $4,100 under $80,700. The extra 'retirement deductions' it applied go beyond the spouse's $6,946 401(k) and the $577 of IRA contributions."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It explicitly subtracted 'pretax ESI premiums' ($7,789) from the spouse's stated gross wages, leaving taxable income of $72,911. The correct figure is $80,700."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its taxable income of $69,696 is $11,004 below $80,700. It took off non-deductible items, such as the spouse's $7,789 ESI premium, on top of the valid 401(k), half-SE-tax and IRA adjustments."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $3,230 equals 3.99% of $80,952, which means it refused the Head's $252 traditional IRA. A spouse with no compensation can deduct a spousal IRA on a joint return."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $98,410.90 equals the correct $106,199.90 minus the spouse's $7,789 ESI premium, which is not taken off the stated gross wages. That understated taxable income by $7,789."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used an AGI of $98,410.90, which wrongly subtracts the spouse's $7,789 ESI premium from gross wages. The correct AGI is $106,199.90."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $3,120 implies about $78,200 of taxable income, roughly $2,500 under $80,700. That matches understating AGI, for example by using the 92.35% SE earnings base instead of the full $30,335."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $106,200 AGI and $25,500 deduction were correct, but it applied the 2025 rate of 4.25%. North Carolina's 2026 rate is 3.99%."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly reached $80,700 of taxable income but applied 4.25% instead of the 2026 rate of 3.99%."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a 4% rate instead of 3.99%. It also understated AGI at $103,664 instead of $106,200 by over-deducting about $2,500 of SE-related adjustments."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a joint standard deduction of about $26,700. North Carolina's is fixed by statute at $25,500 and not indexed to inflation, so taxable income came out about $79,500 instead of $80,700."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It gave no answer or explanation for this variable, so there was no value to score."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $102,732.90 is exactly $3,467 below $106,199.90, so it took the federal overtime-premium deduction out of AGI. That deduction comes after AGI, and North Carolina starts from AGI, so it does not lower NC taxable income."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied 4.5%, the 2024 rate, instead of 3.99% for 2026. It also understated AGI by about $6,800 ($99,409 versus $106,200) through deductions that do not apply, such as the Head's 401(k) with no wages."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It started from the right AGI of about $106,200 but applied the superseded 4.25% rate instead of 3.99%."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $100,797 deducts the Head's $5,403 traditional 401(k), but the Head has no wages so no deferral can be made. The correct AGI is $106,200 and taxable income is $80,700."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It double-counted the $3,467 overtime premium as income on top of wages that already include it, and charged SE tax on the partnership income. It also deducted the Head's 401(k) with no wages and applied a 4.5% rate instead of 3.99%."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It made up an AGI of $248,485, more than double the household's $115,866 gross income, and used a $32,200 deduction and a 4.5% rate. It also invented an other-state tax credit. The correct calculation is 3.99% × ($106,200 − $25,500)."
us,scenario_089,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_090,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model treated the 22-year-old as eligible for the childless EITC, missing its minimum age of 25. Its subsequent phase-in and phaseout estimate is irrelevant because age disqualifies the filer before the credit schedule is applied."
us,scenario_090,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model applied the childless EITC schedule to a 22-year-old even though the minimum qualifying age is 25. It also submitted $721 after calculating a $535.50 phase-in amount, but the controlling error is that no EITC schedule applies to this filer."
@@ -7614,77 +7858,80 @@ us,scenario_090,snap,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"The model
us,scenario_090,snap,glm-5.3,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"The model applied only the 130% FPG gross-income test and the benefit formula and never tested the head's $20,300 bank balance against the SNAP resource limit. Kansas has no BBCE, so the $3,000 federal resource limit makes the household ineligible, giving $0 rather than $1,286."
us,scenario_090,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"The model asserted that the household has 'low net resources' even though the head holds $20,300 in bank assets. Kansas does not use BBCE, so that balance exceeds the federal $3,000 SNAP resource limit and makes the household ineligible. The correct value is $0, not the model's unsupported $438."
us,scenario_090,snap,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"The model stated 'Kansas uses BBCE so no asset test' and skipped the resource test. Kansas does not use broad-based categorical eligibility, so the $20,300 bank balance exceeds the federal $3,000 resource limit, the household is ineligible, and SNAP is $0, not $1,112."
-us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the pre-2024 $2,250 personal exemption and a $3,500 standard deduction, leaving $1,270 taxed at 5.2%. It missed that SB 1 (2024) raised the single-filer exemption to $9,160, which together with the standard deduction exceeds the $7,020 AGI and brings Kansas taxable income to $0."
-us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the correct $3,605 standard deduction but paired it with the repealed $2,250 personal exemption instead of the $9,160 single-filer exemption from SB 1. Total deductions of about $12,765 exceed the $7,020 AGI, so tax is $0, not $60.58."
-us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model made up a standard deduction of 'one-third of federal' (about $5,100) and left out the Kansas personal exemption entirely. The actual $3,605 standard deduction plus the $9,160 single exemption wipes out the $7,020 AGI, leaving $0 tax."
-us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted only a $3,500 standard deduction, left out the $9,160 single-filer personal exemption, and applied the repealed 3.1% bottom rate. With the exemption included, Kansas taxable income is $0."
-us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the old $2,250 personal exemption and a $3,500 standard deduction, leaving $1,270 taxed at 5.2%. Since SB 1 the single exemption is $9,160, which together with the standard deduction exceeds the $7,020 AGI, so tax is $0."
-us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used a $2,320 exemption, which is the per-dependent amount, instead of the $9,160 single-filer personal exemption. It also applied the repealed 3.1% rate. The correct deductions exceed the $7,020 AGI, so taxable income and tax are $0."
-us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted $3,500 plus a $2,320 exemption (the dependent amount) instead of the $9,160 single-filer personal exemption. It also cited a $7,000 'low-income exclusion' threshold that is not part of current Kansas law. The correct deductions alone bring Kansas taxable income to $0."
-us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used a $2,320 personal exemption instead of the $9,160 single-filer exemption enacted in 2024. As a result it found $1,100 of taxable income where the correct deductions leave $0."
-us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied the old $2,250 personal exemption rather than the $9,160 single exemption, and it taxed at the repealed 3.1% rate. The $3,605 standard deduction plus the $9,160 exemption exceeds the $7,020 AGI, so tax is $0."
-us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the pre-2024 $3,500 standard deduction, the $2,250 exemption, and the 3.1% bracket. It missed SB 1's $9,160 single-filer personal exemption, which brings Kansas taxable income to $0."
-us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied the old $2,250 exemption and the 3.1% rate rather than the current $9,160 single-filer exemption. Deductions exceed the $7,020 AGI, so there is no Kansas taxable income."
-us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted only a $3,500 standard deduction and left out the Kansas personal exemption entirely, which is $9,160 for a single filer. It also used the repealed 3.1% rate. Including the exemption reduces taxable income to $0."
-us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left out the $9,160 single-filer personal exemption and applied a made-up 5.15% flat rate to $3,320. The standard deduction plus the exemption exceeds the $7,020 AGI, so tax is $0."
-us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's $1,120 of taxable income implies about $5,900 of combined deductions, which matches the old roughly $2,250–$2,320 exemption. Under SB 1 the single-filer exemption is $9,160, which drives taxable income to $0."
-us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the correct $3,605 standard deduction but the superseded $2,250 personal exemption, leaving $1,165 taxed at 5.2%. The $9,160 single exemption wipes out the remaining AGI, so tax is $0."
-us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's $1,165 of taxable income reflects the old $2,250 personal exemption rather than the $9,160 single-filer exemption from 2024. The correct exemption brings Kansas taxable income and tax to $0."
-us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used $2,320, which is the per-dependent exemption, as the filer's personal exemption instead of the $9,160 single-filer amount. That left $1,095 of taxable income where the correct figure is $0."
-us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted only the standard deduction and left out the $9,160 single-filer personal exemption. It also applied a 5.7% flat rate that Kansas does not have, since the current rates are 5.2% and 5.58%. With the exemption, taxable income is $0."
-us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used an exemption of about $2,300 instead of the $9,160 single-filer exemption and estimated a rate of about 5.5%. Correct deductions exceed the $7,020 AGI, so Kansas tax is $0."
-us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used a $2,380 personal exemption, an outdated figure, rather than the $9,160 single-filer exemption. That left $940 taxable where the correct deductions leave $0."
-us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model treated the personal exemption as a $110 tax credit. Kansas has no such credit: its personal exemption is a $9,160 deduction from income for a single filer. That deduction, together with the standard deduction, exceeds the $7,020 AGI and leaves $0 of tax."
+us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted a $3,500 standard deduction and the pre-2024 $2,250 personal exemption, leaving $1,270 taxed at 5.2%. Under SB 1, the single personal exemption is $9,160. Together with the standard deduction, that more than covers the $7,020 AGI, so Kansas taxable income and tax are both $0."
+us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the correct $3,605 standard deduction but the outdated $2,250 personal exemption instead of the $9,160 single exemption enacted in 2024. As a result, it left $1,165 taxable when Kansas taxable income is $0."
+us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model invented a standard deduction of about $5,100 (one-third of the federal amount) and skipped the Kansas personal exemption entirely. The correct subtractions are the $3,605 standard deduction plus the $9,160 single exemption, which together exceed the $7,020 AGI and leave $0 tax."
+us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted only a $3,500 standard deduction, left out the $9,160 single personal exemption, and applied the repealed 3.1% bracket. With the exemption included, taxable income is $0."
+us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the pre-2024 $2,250 personal exemption, which left $1,270 taxed at 5.2%. With the $9,160 single exemption from SB 1, the $7,020 AGI is fully offset and tax is $0."
+us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the $2,320 dependent-exemption amount as the filer's own exemption, plus a $3,800 standard deduction and the obsolete 3.1% rate. The single filer's exemption is $9,160, so taxable income is $0."
+us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted $3,500 and a $2,320 exemption, which is the dependent amount, leaving $1,200 taxed at 5.2%. The single personal exemption is $9,160, which together with the standard deduction exceeds the $7,020 AGI, so no tax is due regardless of any low-income exclusion."
+us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used a $2,320 exemption, which is the dependent amount, instead of the $9,160 single personal exemption. That left $1,100 taxable when Kansas taxable income is $0."
+us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied the outdated $2,250 personal exemption and the repealed 3.1% bracket. With the $9,160 single exemption plus the $3,605 standard deduction, the $7,020 AGI is fully offset and tax is $0."
+us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used pre-2024 law: a $3,500 standard deduction, a $2,250 exemption, and a 3.1% bottom bracket. SB 1 raised the single exemption to $9,160, which brings Kansas taxable income to $0."
+us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the pre-2024 $2,250 personal exemption and the 3.1% bracket, leaving $1,270 taxable. The 2024-onward single exemption is $9,160, so the $7,020 AGI produces $0 taxable income."
+us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted only the $3,500 standard deduction, left out the Kansas personal exemption ($9,160 for a single filer), and taxed $3,520 at the repealed 3.1% rate. With the exemption, taxable income is $0."
+us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left out the $9,160 single personal exemption entirely and taxed $3,320 at an invented 5.15% flat rate. The standard deduction plus the exemption exceeds the $7,020 AGI, so tax is $0."
+us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's $1,120 of taxable income implies about $5,900 in combined deduction and exemption, which means it used an old-law exemption of about $2,300. The 2024-onward single exemption is $9,160, so taxable income is $0 and tax is $0, not $58.24."
+us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model paired the $3,605 standard deduction with the outdated $2,250 personal exemption, leaving $1,165 taxed at 5.2%. The single exemption is $9,160, which zeroes out Kansas taxable income."
+us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's $1,165 of taxable income reflects the old $2,250 exemption. Kansas's $9,160 single personal exemption plus the $3,605 standard deduction exceeds the $7,020 AGI, so tax is $0."
+us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used $2,320, which is the dependent-exemption amount, as the filer's personal exemption. The single filer's own exemption is $9,160, so Kansas taxable income is $0, not $1,095."
+us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left out the $9,160 personal exemption and applied a non-existent 5.7% flat rate to $3,520. With the exemption and the $3,605 standard deduction, the $7,020 AGI produces $0 taxable income and $0 tax."
+us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used an exemption of about $2,300 (the old amount) and an invented 5.5% flat rate, leaving about $1,100 taxable. The single personal exemption is $9,160, so Kansas tax is $0."
+us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied pre-2024 law: a $3,500 standard deduction, a $2,250 exemption, and a 3.1% rate. Since 2024, SB 1 sets the single exemption at $9,160, which together with the standard deduction exceeds the $7,020 AGI and yields $0 tax."
+us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used an exemption of about $2,380 instead of the $9,160 single personal exemption, which left $940 taxable. With the correct exemption, Kansas taxable income and tax are $0."
+us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model treated Kansas's personal exemption as a $110 tax credit and taxed $3,520 at 5.2%. Kansas allows the exemption as a $9,160 subtraction from income for a single filer, which together with the $3,605 standard deduction wipes out the $7,020 AGI."
us,scenario_090,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It priced the Kansas food sales tax credit off an income test alone, inventing an ""under-60, AGI below the poverty guideline"" rule; the actual credit (K.S.A. 79-32,271) requires the filer to be 55 or older, blind or disabled, or to have a dependent child under 18 residing in the home, and a 22-year-old single filer with no dependents meets none of those categories. It also missed that the credit has been nonrefundable since tax year 2013, so it cannot enter state_refundable_credits at all. Its $60 corresponds to no Kansas parameter — the statutory amount is $125 per exemption."
us,scenario_090,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It applied the 7.65% childless phase-in rate to $7,000 of wages to get a $535.50 federal EITC while ignoring the childless-EITC age requirement of 25 through 64; the head is 22, so the federal EITC is $0 and the Kansas EITC — which is a flat percentage of the federal credit — is $0. It compounded this by using an 18% Kansas match; the Kansas rate is 17%, though at a $0 federal base either rate yields $0."
us,scenario_090,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It used the correct 17% Kansas match but multiplied it against a federal EITC of $535.50 that does not exist: the childless EITC is available only to filers aged 25 through 64, and the head is 22, so the federal credit phases in to $0 and 17% of $0 is $0. Kansas has no independent earned-income credit computation, so a zero federal EITC forces ks_eitc to zero."
us,scenario_090,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It computed the Kansas refundable EITC as 17% of a $536 federal EITC without applying the age-25 minimum for the childless federal EITC; at age 22 the head's federal EITC is $0, making the Kansas EITC $0. Its Kansas rate and arithmetic were right, but the federal base it multiplied was disallowed by the age test."
us,scenario_090,state_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied only the Kansas food sales tax credit's income ceiling and skipped the categorical qualification, which limits the credit to filers who are 55 or older, blind or disabled, or have a dependent child under 18 living with them; a 22-year-old single filer with no dependents satisfies none of those, so the credit is $0. It further treated the credit as refundable, but Kansas made it nonrefundable beginning in tax year 2013, so even a qualifying $125 credit would not appear in state_refundable_credits."
us,scenario_090,tanf,glm-5.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Kansas TANF requires a dependent child in the assistance unit, and this 22-year-old head is a childless adult, so the benefit is $0 regardless of income; the household also holds $20,300 in bank assets, far above Kansas's TANF resource limit. glm-5.3 ran no eligibility test at all - it copied the $4,800 'financial assistance' input, a separate unearned-income variable in PolicyEngine rather than a TANF payment, straight into the tanf output. Its own stated reasoning ('financial assistance during the year, which is its annual TANF cash assistance amount') shows the substitution, and the prompt's instruction not to infer unlisted benefit receipt forbids reclassifying that input as TANF."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It never applied the $628 qualified-overtime deduction. Its own math reached $1,545 − $120 = $1,425, about $75 too high because of that missing deduction, and it then submitted $1,276, which none of its arithmetic supports."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It taxed the $1,170 of non-Schedule-D capital gains as 12% ordinary income, which the reference keeps out of taxable income, and it skipped the $628 qualified-overtime deduction. Together that is $215.90 too much (12% × $1,798), giving $1,565.90 instead of $1,350."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It used a stale $14,600 standard deduction, taxed qualified dividends at 15% when they fall in the 0% band, and claimed a $2,500 AOTC even though no qualified tuition is listed, so the AOTC is $0. The submitted $650 doesn't follow from any of its steps. It also left out the overtime deduction and the $120 Saver's Credit."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wiped out all liability with an AOTC, but the AOTC is $0 with no qualified tuition expenses. Taxable income is $18,284.66 after the $16,100 standard deduction and $628 overtime deduction, which produces $1,470 of tax, and only the $120 Saver's Credit offsets it."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It taxed the $1,170 non-Schedule-D gains as ordinary income, skipped the $628 overtime deduction, and said no nonrefundable credits applied, missing the $120 Saver's Credit on $1,199 of contributions. It then submitted $1,656, which doesn't match its own $1,686."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated $27,000 as already net of the $926 traditional 401(k), so it never excluded the deferral. It also omitted the $628 overtime deduction and subtracted an arbitrary $331 of AOTC, even though no qualified tuition is listed and the AOTC is $0. It never applied the $120 Saver's Credit."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It computed about $1,684 before credits without the $628 overtime deduction, then raised the answer to $2,109 with no stated basis. It also never applied the $120 Saver's Credit. The correct figure is $1,470 of tax minus $120."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,000 standard deduction and an $11,925 top for the 10% bracket instead of the 2026 figures of $16,100 and $12,400. It also omitted the $628 qualified-overtime deduction and the $120 Saver's Credit, ending at $1,687."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It used a $15,750 standard deduction with a $12,000 10% bracket and no overtime deduction. It then subtracted a $1,500 nonrefundable AOTC with no qualified tuition listed and arbitrarily 'adjusted' to $1,470. It also said the Saver's Credit didn't apply, when the $120 credit is what takes $1,470 down to $1,350."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It never applied the 2026 qualified-overtime deduction for the $628 FLSA overtime premium. That left ordinary taxable income $628 too high and tax about $75 too high ($1,425.50 instead of $1,350)."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,400 standard deduction instead of the 2026 $16,100 and omitted the $628 qualified-overtime deduction, which overstated ordinary taxable income by about $1,328. Its Saver's Credit of $119.90 was right, but the base tax came out to $1,635 instead of $1,470."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted $1,800 of non-employer health premiums from wages as if they were pre-tax. It also used the outdated $15,000 standard deduction and $11,925 bracket and left out the $628 overtime deduction. Those errors happened to net out close, but its unrounded $1,470.90 tax minus $119.90 gives $1,351, not the reference's $1,470 − $120 = $1,350."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,400 standard deduction and a $12,225 10% bracket instead of the 2026 $16,100 and $12,400, and it omitted the $628 qualified-overtime deduction. Ordinary taxable income came out at $15,645 instead of $14,316.66."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,300 standard deduction instead of the 2026 $16,100 and never applied the $628 qualified-overtime deduction. That inflated the base tax to $1,645 instead of $1,470 before the $120 Saver's Credit."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It excluded the $6,589 of ESI premiums from wages, used a TCJA-sunset standard deduction plus personal exemption, and offset all tax with an AOTC that is $0 when no qualified tuition is listed. The only nonrefundable credit available is the $120 Saver's Credit."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its stated taxable income of about $25,500 is far above the correct $18,284.66, which reflects the $16,100 standard deduction, the $628 overtime deduction, and $3,968 of 0%-rate qualified dividends. Its $1,399 doesn't come from the $1,470 bracket tax minus the $120 Saver's Credit."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It cut wages to $20,411 by excluding the $6,589 of ESI premiums, and it applied a pre-TCJA standard deduction and personal exemption even though the 2026 single standard deduction is $16,100 with no exemption. It also omitted the $628 overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA sunset ($8,300 standard deduction plus $5,300 exemption) instead of the 2026 $16,100 standard deduction, and excluded the $6,589 of ESI premiums from AGI. It also omitted the $628 overtime deduction and the $120 Saver's Credit."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It gave no derivation. The $1,475 sits at the $1,470 tax-before-credits level, so it is consistent with leaving out the $120 Saver's Credit (10% of $1,199 in retirement contributions)."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It excluded the $6,589 of ESI premiums from wages and applied a standard deduction plus personal exemption under the TCJA sunset, instead of the 2026 $16,100 standard deduction and $628 overtime deduction. It also applied no Saver's Credit."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its explanation ends at 1756 but it submitted 1086, so the two contradict each other. Neither figure applies the $628 qualified-overtime deduction or the $120 Saver's Credit that lead to $1,350."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the outdated $15,000 standard deduction and $11,925 10% bracket instead of the 2026 $16,100 and $12,400, and omitted the $628 overtime deduction. Its explanation reaches $1,567, yet it submitted $1,617."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,400 standard deduction and a $12,200 10% bracket instead of the 2026 $16,100 and $12,400, and it left out the $628 qualified-overtime deduction. That made ordinary taxable income $15,645 instead of $14,316.66."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It said no nonrefundable credits applied and so missed the $120 Saver's Credit on $1,199 of retirement contributions. It also used a $15,200 standard deduction instead of $16,100 and omitted the $628 overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It claimed the standard deduction and an AOTC eliminated the tax. In fact, $35,012.56 of AGI leaves $18,284.66 taxable after the $16,100 standard deduction and $628 overtime deduction, and the AOTC is $0 with no qualified tuition listed."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It used an AOTC to zero out the tax, but the AOTC is $0 because no qualified tuition is listed. That leaves $1,470 of bracket tax on $14,316.66 of ordinary income, offset only by the $120 Saver's Credit."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It computed the $1,470 tax correctly with the $16,100 standard deduction and $628 overtime deduction, but said there were no usable nonrefundable credits. It missed the $120 Saver's Credit (10% of $1,199 in traditional and Roth contributions at AGI around $35k)."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It offset all tax with a nonrefundable AOTC that is $0 because no qualified tuition is listed. The only nonrefundable credit is the $120 Saver's Credit against $1,470 of tax."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave only qualified dividends the 0% rate and taxed the $1,170 non-Schedule-D gains as 12% ordinary income, adding about $140. It also omitted the $120 Saver's Credit, which yields $1,610 instead of $1,350."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the $6,589 of ESI premiums as a pre-tax exclusion from wages and so cut AGI to $29,594. Those premiums are not excluded, AGI is $35,012.56, and ordinary taxable income is $14,316.66 rather than $7,728."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,other,False,"It figured the Saver's Credit on only the $969 of traditional 401(k) and IRA contributions, which gives $96.90. It left out the $163 Roth 401(k) and $67 Roth IRA contributions, which also count, so the credit is $120 on $1,199."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It got the $1,470 tax right but said no other usable credits existed. It missed the $120 nonrefundable Saver's Credit on $1,199 of retirement contributions at AGI in the 10% tier."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It excluded the $6,589 of ESI premiums from wages, which understated AGI by $6,589, and it also omitted the $120 Saver's Credit. The result was $772.80 instead of $1,470 − $120."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It claimed the standard deduction plus an AOTC eliminated liability, but the AOTC is $0 with no qualified tuition listed. $18,284.66 of taxable income remains and produces $1,470 of tax before the $120 Saver's Credit."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA had expired, applying a personal exemption, the restored 15% bracket, and a smaller standard deduction. 2026 law instead has a $16,100 standard deduction, no exemption, a 12% second bracket, and the $628 overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied post-sunset law (about $8,300 standard deduction, $5,300 exemption, 15% bracket) instead of the 2026 $16,100 standard deduction with 10%/12% brackets. It also omitted the $628 qualified-overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got the $14,317 of ordinary taxable income and the $119.90 Saver's Credit right, but capped the 10% bracket at $12,200 instead of the 2026 $12,400. That shifted $200 into the 12% bracket and gave $1,474 instead of $1,470."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It excluded the $6,589 of ESI premiums from wages and applied a TCJA-sunset $8,350 standard deduction plus a $5,330 exemption instead of the 2026 $16,100 standard deduction and $628 overtime deduction. It also skipped the $120 Saver's Credit."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA sunset (about $8,300 standard deduction, $5,200 exemption, 15% bracket) and omitted the $628 overtime deduction. It also computed the Saver's Credit as $97 on traditional contributions only, when the correct credit is $120 on $1,199 that includes the Roth contributions."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,It returned no value and no explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits.
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It used an AOTC to zero out the tax, but no qualified tuition is listed, so the AOTC is $0. That leaves $1,470 of tax offset only by the $120 Saver's Credit."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the 50% Saver's Credit rate, but AGI of about $35k is above the 2026 single 50%-tier limit ($24,250) and falls in the 10% tier. It also left the Roth contributions out of the base, taxed the $1,170 gains as ordinary income, and omitted the $628 overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It added the $628 overtime premium on top of $27,000 in wages, which already include it, instead of deducting it as qualified overtime. It then zeroed the tax with an AOTC that is $0 because no qualified tuition is listed."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed a single filer's standard deduction cut $40,571 of income to $0 taxable income, which is wrong because the 2026 standard deduction is only $16,100. Correct taxable income is $18,284.66, producing $1,470 of tax before the $120 Saver's Credit."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left out the $628 qualified-overtime deduction, so its ordinary taxable income was $14,945 instead of about $14,317. Its own math reached $1,545 − $120 = $1,425, but it then submitted $1,276, which matches neither its computation nor the correct $1,470 − $120 = $1,350."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left out the $628 qualified-overtime deduction. It also taxed the $1,170 non-Schedule-D capital gains as ordinary income, which made its ordinary taxable income $16,115 instead of about $14,317. Its saver's credit of $119.90 was right, but the tax it was subtracted from was about $216 too high."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used an outdated $14,600 standard deduction, did not exclude the traditional 401(k), and left out the overtime deduction. It taxed qualified dividends at 15% when they belong in the 0% bracket. It then claimed a $2,500 AOTC even though no qualified tuition was listed, and gave a final $650 that doesn't follow from its own steps. It never applied the $120 saver's credit to the correct $1,470 tax."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model used the nonrefundable AOTC to wipe out the tax, but no qualified tuition was listed, so the AOTC is $0. It also subtracted health premiums from income. The correct calculation is $1,470 in regular tax on about $14,317 of ordinary taxable income, minus the $120 saver's credit, for $1,350."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left out the $628 overtime deduction and taxed the $1,170 non-Schedule-D gains as ordinary income, which gave $16,115 of ordinary taxable income instead of about $14,317. It also stated that no nonrefundable credits applied, missing the $120 saver's credit (10% of $1,199 in contributions). Its submitted $1,656 doesn't match its own $1,686 tentative tax."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model treated the $27,000 wages as already net of the 401(k) and never subtracted the $926, which inflated AGI to $37,109. It also left out the $628 overtime deduction. It then applied an arbitrary $331 AOTC even though no qualified expenses were listed, and missed the $120 saver's credit. The correct figure is $1,470 − $120 = $1,350."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left out the $628 overtime deduction and the $120 saver's credit. Its bracket math gave about $1,684, but it then inflated that to $2,109 without any basis. The correct ordinary taxable income of about $14,317 gives $1,470, and after the $120 saver's credit the result is $1,350."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a $15,000 standard deduction and a $11,925 top for the 10% bracket instead of the 2026 values of $16,100 and $12,400. It left out the $628 overtime deduction and never applied the $120 saver's credit for the $1,199 in retirement contributions."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model's final $1,470 equals the correct tax before credits. It never subtracted the $120 saver's credit (10% of $1,199 in contributions), which brings the result to $1,350. Its reasoning also used a $15,750 standard deduction, taxed the capital gains as ordinary income, and applied a $1,500 AOTC even though no tuition was listed."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left out the $628 qualified-overtime deduction, which gave $14,945 of ordinary taxable income and $1,545 in tax. With the deduction, ordinary taxable income is about $14,317, the tax is $1,470, and after the $120 saver's credit the result is $1,350."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used a $15,400 standard deduction instead of the 2026 amount of $16,100 and left out the $628 overtime deduction. That overstated ordinary taxable income at $15,645 instead of about $14,317. The saver's credit of $119.90 was handled correctly."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model landed within $1 only through offsetting errors. It subtracted $1,800 in health premiums from wages, which isn't allowed, used a $15,000 standard deduction, and used a $11,925 top for the 10% bracket. It should have used the $16,100 standard deduction, the $628 overtime deduction, and a $12,400 top for the 10% bracket. Rounding to whole dollars, as the reference does, gives $1,470 − $120 = $1,350, not $1,351."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used a $15,400 standard deduction instead of $16,100, left out the $628 overtime deduction, and used a $12,225 top for the 10% bracket instead of $12,400. That gave $15,645 of ordinary taxable income instead of about $14,317."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used a $15,300 standard deduction instead of $16,100 and left out the $628 overtime deduction, which overstated taxable income at $20,883. The correct ordinary taxable income of about $14,317 gives $1,470, and after the $120 saver's credit the result is $1,350."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model used an AOTC to offset the tax, but no qualified tuition was listed, so the AOTC is $0. It also subtracted the $6,589 in ESI premiums from wages and used a deduction-plus-exemption of about $13,000 instead of the $16,100 standard deduction and $628 overtime deduction. Only the $120 saver's credit applies, which leaves $1,350."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's taxable income of about $25,500 means it did not fully apply the $16,100 standard deduction or the $628 overtime deduction. It also failed to separate the $3,968 in qualified dividends into the 0% bracket. The correct ordinary taxable income is about $14,317, which gives $1,470, and after the $120 saver's credit the result is $1,350."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model cut wages to $20,411 by subtracting the $6,589 in ESI premiums, which the reference does not do. It also applied pre-TCJA rules with a smaller standard deduction and a personal exemption. Under 2026 law there is no exemption, the standard deduction is $16,100, and the $628 overtime deduction applies, which gives $1,470 in tax before the $120 saver's credit."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model assumed the TCJA sunset ($8,300 standard deduction plus a $5,300 exemption) and subtracted the $6,589 in ESI premiums from wages. Under 2026 law the standard deduction is $16,100 and the $628 overtime deduction applies. It also omitted the $120 saver's credit."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model gave no derivation. Its $1,475 is roughly the $1,470 tax before credits, so it failed to subtract the $120 saver's credit (10% of $1,199 in contributions) that brings the result to $1,350."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $6,589 in ESI premiums from wages and applied a personal exemption, which no longer exists for 2026. It also left out the $628 overtime deduction and the $120 saver's credit."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,other,False,"The model's explanation computed $1,756 but it submitted $1,086, so the answer contradicts its own work. The $1,756 path also left out the $628 overtime deduction and the $120 saver's credit."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used a $15,000 standard deduction instead of $16,100, left out the $628 overtime deduction, and used 2025 bracket widths. It then submitted $1,617, which doesn't match its own $1,567. The correct figure is $1,470 − $120 = $1,350."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model got the tax before credits exactly right ($1,470 on $14,317 of ordinary taxable income) but never subtracted the nonrefundable saver's credit. That credit is 10% of the $1,199 in traditional and Roth contributions, or $120, which brings the result to $1,350."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used a $15,400 standard deduction and a $12,200 top for the 10% bracket instead of $16,100 and $12,400, and left out the $628 overtime deduction. That overstated ordinary taxable income at $15,645 instead of about $14,317."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used a $15,200 standard deduction instead of $16,100 and left out the $628 overtime deduction. It also stated that no nonrefundable credits applied, missing the $120 saver's credit for the $1,199 in contributions."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated the AOTC and standard deduction as eliminating the tax. In fact, about $14,317 of ordinary taxable income remains after the $16,100 standard deduction, and the AOTC is $0 because no qualified tuition was listed. The tax is $1,470 minus the $120 saver's credit, or $1,350."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model claimed an AOTC that eliminated the tax, but no qualified tuition was listed, so the AOTC is $0. The remaining $1,470 is reduced only by the $120 saver's credit, which gives $1,350."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model computed the $1,470 tax before credits correctly but stated there were no usable nonrefundable credits. It missed the 10% saver's credit on the $1,199 in retirement contributions, which takes off $120 and brings the result to $1,350."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated the AOTC as offsetting the full tax, but no qualified tuition was listed, so the AOTC is $0. Only the $120 saver's credit reduces the $1,470 tax, which leaves $1,350."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's $1,610 matches taxing the $1,170 non-Schedule-D capital gains as ordinary income: about $15,487 of ordinary taxable income gives $1,610. The correct ordinary taxable income is about $14,317. The model also omitted the $120 saver's credit."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model treated the $6,589 in ESI premiums as pretax and subtracted them, which cut AGI to $29,594 and ordinary taxable income to $7,728. The reference keeps the full $27,000 in wages, which gives about $14,317 of ordinary taxable income and $1,470 in tax before the $120 saver's credit."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,other,False,"The model figured the saver's credit on only the $969 in traditional contributions, giving $96.90. It left out the $163 Roth 401(k) and $67 Roth IRA contributions, which are also eligible, so the base is $1,199 and the credit is $120. The tax should also have been rounded to $1,470 before credits."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model computed the $1,470 tax before credits correctly but applied no nonrefundable credits. It missed the $120 saver's credit (10% of $1,199 in traditional and Roth contributions), which brings the result to $1,350."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $6,589 in ESI premiums from wages, which shrank ordinary taxable income to $7,728 instead of about $14,317. It also omitted the $120 saver's credit."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated the AOTC and other credits as eliminating the tax, but the AOTC is $0 because no qualified tuition was listed. About $14,317 of ordinary taxable income remains, which gives $1,470, and after the $120 saver's credit the result is $1,350."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model assumed the TCJA had expired, adding back a personal exemption and the 15% bracket. For 2026 the law has a $16,100 standard deduction, no exemption, 10%/12% brackets, and a $628 overtime deduction, which gives $1,470 before the $120 saver's credit."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied post-TCJA-sunset rules: an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,300 exemption, and a 15% second bracket. Under 2026 law the standard deduction is $16,100, the $628 overtime deduction applies, and the brackets are 10% and 12%, which gives $1,470 − $120 = $1,350."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly found $14,317 of ordinary taxable income and the $119.90 saver's credit. However, it ended the 10% bracket at $12,200 instead of the 2026 single threshold of $12,400, which made the tax $1,474.04 instead of $1,470."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $6,589 in ESI premiums from wages and applied a personal exemption with an $8,350 standard deduction, which are pre-TCJA rules. It also omitted the $628 overtime deduction and the $120 saver's credit."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model assumed the TCJA sunset, with an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,200 exemption, and a 15% bracket, instead of the 2026 rules: a $16,100 standard deduction, the $628 overtime deduction, and 10%/12% brackets. It also figured the saver's credit at $97, leaving out the Roth contributions."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no value and no explanation for this output. The correct value is $1,470 in tax minus the $120 saver's credit, or $1,350."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model used the AOTC to offset all of the tax, but the AOTC is $0 because no qualified tuition was listed. The $1,470 tax is reduced only by the $120 saver's credit."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used a $15,750 standard deduction and a $11,925 top for the 10% bracket. It taxed the $1,170 capital gains as ordinary income, left out the $628 overtime deduction, and omitted the $120 saver's credit."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model applied the 50% saver's credit rate, even though AGI of about $36,000 for a single filer falls in the 10% tier. It also left the Roth contributions out of the base. The correct credit is 10% × $1,199 = $120. It additionally left out the $628 overtime deduction and taxed the $1,170 gains as ordinary income."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model claimed a $1,960 AOTC even though no qualified tuition was listed, so the AOTC is $0. It also added the $628 overtime premium on top of the $27,000 wages even though the wages already include it, when that $628 is actually a deduction."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model contradicted itself: it found positive taxable income and then said the standard deduction reduced it to $0. The $16,100 standard deduction and $628 overtime deduction leave about $14,317 of ordinary taxable income, which gives $1,470 in tax, minus the $120 saver's credit."
us,scenario_091,federal_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its own reasoning reached the correct result — no qualified tuition expenses are listed, so under the prompt's unlisted-inputs-are-zero rule the American Opportunity Credit and its 40% refundable portion are $0 — and it then overrode that derivation to submit $400 as a 'minimal refundable AOTC assumption'. It also mis-stated the EITC bar as the AGI phase-out ceiling while never applying the age-25 floor that independently zeroes the childless EITC for this 22-year-old."
us,scenario_091,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,other,False,"It treated the AOTC administrative flags (1098-T, institution EIN, half-time enrollment, credential pursuit) as if they established up to $4,000 of qualified expenses, when tuition is an unlisted input equal to $0, so the credit computed as 100% of the first $2,000 plus 25% of the next $2,000 is $0 and the refundable portion is $0. It then submitted $1,200, exceeding the $1,000 statutory refundable cap it had itself just cited."
us,scenario_091,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,other,False,"It jumped from AOTC eligibility flags straight to the $2,500 statutory maximum and took 40% of it, never computing the credit base: qualified tuition expenses are $0 here, so the credit and its refundable portion are $0. Its EITC rationale is also wrong on its own numbers — $10,152 of investment income is below the disqualifying limit — and it missed the actual disqualifier, the age-25 floor for childless EITC claimants."
@@ -7714,54 +7961,56 @@ us,scenario_091,payroll_tax,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The
us,scenario_091,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no payroll_tax value and no explanation, so there was nothing to score. The correct answer is 7.65% of $27,000 in wages, or $2,065.50."
us,scenario_091,payroll_tax,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model added the $628 FLSA overtime premium on top of the $27,000 gross wages, taxing $27,628. The prompt states that gross wages already include overtime pay, so this counts the overtime twice. The correct base is $27,000, giving $2,065.50."
us,scenario_091,self_employment_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used an outdated sliding-scale standard deduction ($12,760 base, 12% phase-out above $18,400), giving $10,668 instead of $12,074.61, and it never subtracted the $700 exemption. It then submitted $1,257, which contradicts its own recomputed figure of about $975."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It started from federal AGI of $36,183 without the 30% exclusion of the $1,170 capital gain distributions ($351). It also never deducted the $700 exemption: it taxed $24,184 instead of $23,056.95, and its first bracket ($14,680) was too low."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $10,152 of interest, dividends and capital gains, used the federal standard deduction instead of Wisconsin's sliding-scale deduction, and then applied the federal American Opportunity Credit against Wisconsin tax. Wisconsin has no such credit, so the $878.52 liability stands."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed Wisconsin taxable income was low enough to produce zero tax. In fact WI AGI is $35,831.56, including $10,152 of investment income, and after the $12,074.61 standard deduction and the $700 exemption, $23,056.95 remains taxable and generates $878.52."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly refused the 30% capital gain exclusion on the non-Schedule-D capital gain distributions, which are long-term gains and qualify. It also guessed a standard deduction of about $9,500 instead of $12,074.61, and it inflated its own computed $1,014 to $1,140 with no basis."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It phased the Wisconsin standard deduction down to about $7,700 instead of $12,074.61 and skipped the 30% capital gain exclusion. It then added unexplained adjustments that raised its $1,093 to $1,163."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It assumed the standard deduction was phased down to about $9,000 instead of $12,074.61 and taxed federal AGI without the $351 capital gain exclusion. This overstated taxable income at about $26,500 instead of $23,056.95."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its method was correct (30% exclusion, sliding-scale deduction, $700 exemption), but its 2026 indexed standard deduction of $12,003 was $72 below the actual $12,074.61. That left taxable income at $23,129 instead of $23,056.95 and the tax about $3.50 too high."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used 2024 parameters: a $12,230 base deduction phased out above $15,000, and a $13,810 first bracket. It also omitted the 30% capital gain exclusion, which gave taxable income of $25,795 instead of $23,056.95."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It taxed federal AGI without the $351 capital gain exclusion and understated the standard deduction at $11,340 instead of $12,074.61, which put taxable income at $24,143. It then subtracted a 'Married/Single credit and personal exemption credit' that does not exist for this filer."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It estimated the phased standard deduction at about $11,600 instead of $12,074.61 and applied no 30% capital gain exclusion. This put taxable income near $23,900 instead of $23,056.95, and it also used a slightly low first-bracket threshold."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied a full $13,450 standard deduction with no income phase-out and skipped the 30% capital gain exclusion. Its taxable income of $22,033 is below the correct $23,056.95, and its first bracket ($14,320) was also too low."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used 2025 rules with the repealed 3.54%/4.65% rates and an unphased $13,230 standard deduction. It omitted the $700 exemption and started from an AGI of $34,383 that wrongly removed $1,800 of income."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied a $14,050 standard deduction with no sliding-scale phase-out, never deducted the $700 exemption, and skipped the 30% capital gain exclusion. Its taxable income was $22,133 instead of $23,056.95."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It phased the standard deduction down too steeply to $9,963 instead of $12,074.61, omitted the $700 exemption and the $351 capital gain exclusion, and taxed $26,219.60 instead of $23,056.95."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $29,594 comes from subtracting the $6,589 employer-sponsored insurance premiums from income, but those premiums are not a reduction to the given wages. It also skipped the 30% capital gain exclusion, which understated WI AGI ($35,831.56) by about $6,240."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated $27,000 of wages as the entire AGI. That ignores the $926 401(k) deferral and all $10,152 of interest, dividends and capital gain distributions that make up the $35,831.56 WI AGI."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $588 matches taxable income of about $16,300, the result of wrongly removing the $6,589 employer insurance premiums from income. The correct WI taxable income is $23,056.95, giving $878.52."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $6,589 employer-sponsored insurance premiums to reach a state AGI of $29,594 instead of $35,831.56, and it never deducted the $700 exemption. Its taxable income of $16,887 is far below $23,056.95."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its $1,177 implies taxable income of about $30,000, roughly $7,000 above the correct $23,056.95. That is consistent with omitting the $351 capital gain exclusion, phasing the standard deduction far below $12,074.61 and dropping the $700 exemption."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied a 60% capital gain exclusion, but Wisconsin's general rate is 30%, giving $351. It also subtracted a medical expense credit that does not apply to this filer, which pushed the tax down to $543.09."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It submitted $944, but its explanation states $1,018, so the answer contradicts itself. Both figures overstate taxable income relative to $23,056.95 after the $351 exclusion, the $12,074.61 standard deduction and the $700 exemption. It also wrongly treated the exemption as a credit."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its $1,113 implies taxable income of about $28,000 instead of $23,056.95. That is consistent with skipping the 30% capital gain exclusion and over-phasing the sliding-scale standard deduction well below $12,074.61."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It claimed the Wisconsin standard deduction is fully phased out at $36k, when it is still $12,074.61. It also omitted the $700 exemption and the $351 capital gain exclusion, so it taxed the entire $36,183 and added a 5.3% bracket that never applies here."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly treated the sliding-scale standard deduction as fully phased out, when $12,074.61 remains. It also skipped the $700 exemption and the 30% capital gain exclusion, taxing all $36,183."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed state treatment eliminates the tax. WI AGI of $35,831.56, less the $12,074.61 standard deduction and the $700 exemption, leaves $23,056.95 of taxable income with no offsetting nonrefundable credit, so the tax is $878.52."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the federal American Opportunity Credit against Wisconsin tax. Wisconsin has no such nonrefundable credit, so the $878.52 tax on $23,056.95 of taxable income is unreduced."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $628 overtime premium and the $1,800 health insurance premiums from Wisconsin income, giving $33,404. The only Wisconsin subtraction here is the $351 capital gain exclusion, so WI AGI is $35,831.56. The model also overstated the standard deduction at $12,514."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its $943 implies taxable income about $1,500 above $23,056.95. That is consistent with taxing federal AGI without the $351 capital gain exclusion and phasing the standard deduction below $12,074.61."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $847 implies taxable income about $700 below $23,056.95. That is consistent with overestimating the 2026 sliding-scale standard deduction (correct value $12,074.61) or counting the exemption twice."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $860 implies taxable income about $420 below the correct $23,056.95. That is consistent with overstating the phased standard deduction relative to $12,074.61, or with mis-set 2026 bracket thresholds."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reached Wisconsin income of $27,443 by removing both the $6,589 employer insurance premiums and the $1,800 other health premiums. Neither reduces WI AGI here; the only subtraction is the $351 capital gain exclusion, giving $35,831.56."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It taxed about $36,183 of state income and skipped the 30% exclusion ($351) of the capital gain distributions. Combined with a low standard deduction estimate, this overstated taxable income relative to $23,056.95."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used federal AGI of $36,183 as Wisconsin income with no $351 capital gain exclusion, and it phased the standard deduction below $12,074.61, which put the tax at about $920."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reduced Wisconsin income to $27,443 by subtracting the $6,589 ESI premiums and the $1,800 insurance premiums. Neither is subtracted from WI AGI here, which is $35,831.56 after only the $351 capital gain exclusion."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the standard deduction and credits fully offset the tax. The $12,074.61 standard deduction and the $700 exemption leave $23,056.95 taxable, and no Wisconsin nonrefundable credit applies, so the tax is $878.52."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It started from federal AGI of $36,183 without the $351 capital gain exclusion and phased the standard deduction down to about $11,046 instead of $12,074.61. That gave taxable income of $24,437 instead of $23,056.95."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly reached WI AGI of $35,832 but phased the standard deduction down to $10,618 instead of $12,074.61, using too low a phase-out threshold. It also used a $14,320 first bracket instead of the higher 2026 threshold."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reduced federal AGI to $35,555 by subtracting the $628 overtime premium. That federal overtime deduction is not an above-the-line adjustment and does not lower Wisconsin income, so WI AGI is $35,831.56."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used an AGI of $29,594, which wrongly removes the $6,589 employer insurance premiums from income. It also omitted the $700 exemption and the $351 capital gain exclusion."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the outdated 4.65% second-bracket rate instead of 4.4% and understated the standard deduction at about $11,000 instead of $12,074.61. Its taxable income of about $24,500 is above the correct $23,056.95."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value or explanation for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there is no answer to score against the $878.52 reference."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its method was correct (30% exclusion, sliding scale, $700 exemption), but it computed the phased standard deduction as $11,868.47 instead of $12,074.61. That left taxable income $206 too high ($23,263.53) and the tax about $8.60 too high."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the School Property Tax Credit, which requires rent or property taxes paid. This household reports neither, so no credit offsets the $878.52 tax."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used taxable income of about $23,660, roughly $600 above the correct $23,056.95. That is consistent with omitting the $351 capital gain exclusion and understating the sliding standard deduction relative to $12,074.61."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It set the phase-out threshold far too high at $27,800, which inflated the standard deduction to $13,480. It also skipped the $351 capital gain exclusion and never deducted the $700 exemption; these errors partly offset and gave $22,700 of taxable income instead of $23,056.95."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted half the ESI premiums ($3,294.50) from wages, used unphased standard deduction guesses and the repealed 3.54%/4.65% rates, and treated the $700 exemption as a $77 credit. The exemption is a deduction from income."
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It overstated income at $40,571, ignoring the 401(k) deferral and the capital gain exclusion, and it skipped the sliding-scale phase-out and the exemption. It then zeroed out the tax with nonrefundable credits that this filer does not qualify for."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It correctly reached Wisconsin income of about $35,832, but used a stale sliding-scale base and phaseout start ($12,760 phased from $18,400), which gave a standard deduction of $10,668 instead of $12,074.61. It also never subtracted the $700 exemption. Its own arithmetic gave about $975, yet it submitted $1,257 based on unspecified 'adjustments' that no Wisconsin rule supports."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It taxed the full federal AGI of $36,183 without the 30% capital-gain-distribution exclusion ($351). It also computed taxable income as AGI minus the standard deduction only (36,183 − 11,999 = 24,184), leaving out the $700 personal exemption. Its taxable income was therefore about $1,130 too high compared with the correct $23,056.95."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It left $10,152 of interest, dividends and capital gains out of AGI and started from federal taxable income with the federal standard deduction instead of Wisconsin's sliding-scale deduction. It then offset Wisconsin tax with the federal American Opportunity Credit, but Wisconsin has no AOTC, so the $878.52 liability stays intact."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed Wisconsin taxable income was low enough for zero tax. In fact, $35,831.56 of Wisconsin AGI minus the $12,074.61 standard deduction and $700 exemption leaves $23,056.95, which is taxed at 3.5%/4.4% for $878.52, and no nonrefundable credit offsets it."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly held that capital gain distributions reported outside Schedule D don't qualify for Wisconsin's 30% long-term gain exclusion, so it skipped the $351 subtraction. It also guessed a phased standard deduction of about $9,500 instead of $12,074.61. It then submitted $1,140 even though its own calculation gave $1,014."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It over-phased the Wisconsin sliding-scale standard deduction to about $7,700 when the correct 12% reduction leaves $12,074.61. It also omitted the 30% capital gain exclusion. It then raised its own $1,093 result to $1,163 based on 'itemized/school credit adjustments' that don't apply."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It started from the full $36,183 federal AGI without the $351 (30%) capital gain exclusion. It also cut the sliding-scale standard deduction to about $9,000 instead of $12,074.61, which put taxable income at about $26,500 instead of $23,056.95."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its structure was correct: $35,832 Wisconsin AGI after the 30% exclusion, then the sliding deduction and the $700 exemption. However, it estimated the 2026 indexed phased standard deduction at $12,003 instead of $12,074.61, which left taxable income about $72 too high and overstated tax by about $3."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly said Wisconsin taxes capital gains as ordinary income in full, so it skipped the 30% exclusion of the $1,170 distributions. It also used 2024 parameters with a $15,000 phaseout start, which gave a $9,688 standard deduction instead of $12,074.61, and it used the 2024 $13,810 bracket edge."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It omitted the 30% capital gain exclusion and understated the phased standard deduction at about $11,340, which made taxable income $24,143 instead of $23,056.95. It then subtracted a nonexistent 'Married/Single credit and personal exemption credit,' even though Wisconsin's $700 exemption is a deduction it had already taken."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It put the phased standard deduction at about $11,600 instead of $12,074.61 and did not apply the 30% exclusion of the $1,170 capital gain distributions. That left taxable income at about $23,900 instead of $23,056.95."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used a flat $13,450 single standard deduction and never applied Wisconsin's 12% sliding-scale reduction, which brings the deduction down to $12,074.61 at this income. It also skipped the 30% capital gain exclusion, and the result was taxable income too low at $22,033."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It cut federal AGI to $34,383 by removing $1,800 that isn't an AGI subtraction. It used an unphased $13,230 standard deduction, dropped the $700 exemption, and applied the repealed 3.54%/4.65% rates instead of the current 3.5%/4.4%."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It subtracted an unphased $14,050 standard deduction from the full $36,183 AGI. It skipped Wisconsin's 12% sliding-scale reduction (correct deduction $12,074.61), the 30% capital gain exclusion, and the $700 personal exemption."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its taxable income of $26,219.60 equals $36,183 minus a $9,963 standard deduction. That shows it never applied the $700 personal exemption or the $351 capital gain exclusion, and it over-phased the standard deduction, which correctly is $12,074.61."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its federal AGI of $29,594 equals the correct $36,183 minus the $6,589 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums. The listed wages are not reduced by those premiums; only the $926 traditional 401(k) deferral comes out. This understated Wisconsin taxable income by about $5,600."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its explanation treats the income base as $27,000 AGI. That ignores the $926 401(k) exclusion and the $10,152 of interest, dividends and capital gain distributions, which bring Wisconsin AGI to $35,831.56. It never showed the standard-deduction, exemption, or bracket steps needed to reach $878.52."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"No reasoning was given. The $588 answer implies Wisconsin taxable income of about $16,400 under the 3.5%/4.4% schedule, roughly $6,600 below the correct $23,056.95. That shortfall matches wrongly subtracting the $6,589 employer-sponsored insurance premiums from income."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used AGI of $29,594, which wrongly subtracts the $6,589 employer-sponsored insurance premiums from wages. It also left out the $700 personal exemption and the 30% capital gain exclusion, and its taxable income of $16,887 was far below the correct $23,056.95."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"No calculation was given. The $1,177 answer implies taxable income of about $29,800 under the 3.5%/4.4% schedule. That means it deducted only about $6,000 from $35,831.56 of Wisconsin AGI instead of the $12,074.61 sliding-scale standard deduction plus the $700 exemption."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied a 60% capital gain exclusion, but that rate is only for farm assets; the general Wisconsin long-term exclusion is 30% ($351 here). It also subtracted a 'medical expense credit' that doesn't apply to this filer. Both steps pushed tax below the $878.52 that results when no nonrefundable credit applies."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It treated the Wisconsin exemption as a 'personal exemption credit' when it is a $700 deduction from income, and its explanation gives $1,018 while it submitted $944. Both figures imply taxable income well above $23,056.95, because it understated the $12,074.61 sliding-scale deduction."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The $1,113 answer implies Wisconsin taxable income of about $28,300, roughly $5,250 above the correct $23,056.95. That is consistent with over-phasing the sliding-scale standard deduction and skipping the 30% capital gain exclusion."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the 30% exclusion and the sliding-scale deduction, but its explanation never subtracts the $700 personal exemption. The $928.52 answer implies taxable income about $1,100 above $23,056.95, consistent with dropping the exemption and slightly understating the $12,074.61 standard deduction."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It claimed the Wisconsin single standard deduction is fully phased out at $36,183 of AGI. In fact the 12% reduction leaves $12,074.61, and the deduction phases out only at a much higher income. It then taxed all of AGI without the $700 exemption or the 30% capital gain exclusion, and applied a 5.3% bracket that this income never reaches."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It claimed the standard deduction is fully phased out and taxed all $36,183 of federal AGI. That drops the $12,074.61 sliding-scale deduction, the $700 exemption and the $351 capital gain exclusion, so it taxed about $13,100 more income than the correct $23,056.95."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,other,False,"It asserted Wisconsin tax is fully eliminated, but $23,056.95 of taxable income remains after the $12,074.61 standard deduction and $700 exemption. That income is taxed at 3.5%/4.4% for $878.52, and no Wisconsin nonrefundable credit applies."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used the federal American Opportunity Credit facts to wipe out the Wisconsin tax. The AOTC is a federal credit with no Wisconsin counterpart, so the $878.52 Wisconsin liability is not reduced."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its Wisconsin income of $33,404 is the correct $35,832 minus the $628 FLSA overtime premium and the $1,800 other health insurance premiums. Neither is a Wisconsin AGI subtraction for this filer, and the employer-sponsored coverage bars the Wisconsin medical care insurance subtraction."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The $943 answer implies taxable income of about $24,500, roughly $1,450 above $23,056.95. That matches taxing the full $36,183 federal AGI without the $351 capital gain exclusion and using a standard deduction below the correct $12,074.61."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It followed the right steps, but the $847 answer implies taxable income about $700 below $23,056.95. That corresponds to a sliding-scale standard deduction of about $12,790 instead of $12,074.61, which means it understated the 12% phase-down."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"No calculation was given. The $860 answer implies taxable income about $420 below the correct $23,056.95, which means it overstated the phased standard deduction relative to $12,074.61."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its Wisconsin income of $27,443 is the correct $35,832 minus both the $6,589 employer-sponsored insurance premiums and the $1,800 other health premiums. Neither reduces this filer's Wisconsin income, so taxable income came out at $13,715 instead of $23,056.95."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It taxed about $36,183, the federal AGI without the 30% exclusion of the $1,170 capital gain distributions. The $936 answer implies taxable income of about $24,350, meaning its standard deduction was about $1,000 below the correct sliding-scale amount."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It started from $36,183 and never took the $351 (30%) capital gain exclusion that brings Wisconsin AGI down to $35,831.56. The $920 answer implies taxable income of about $24,000, roughly $940 above the correct $23,056.95."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its Wisconsin income of $27,443 subtracts both the $6,589 employer-sponsored insurance premiums and the $1,800 other health premiums from the correct $35,832. Neither is a Wisconsin subtraction here, and the result understated taxable income by about $9,300."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,other,False,"It asserted that the standard deduction and credits fully offset the tax. The phased $12,074.61 standard deduction and $700 exemption still leave $23,056.95 of taxable income, and no Wisconsin nonrefundable credit applies, so the tax is $878.52."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It started from the full $36,183 federal AGI without the 30% capital gain exclusion. It also used a phased standard deduction of about $11,050 instead of $12,074.61, which put taxable income at $24,437 instead of $23,056.95."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly applied the $351 exclusion and the $700 exemption. However, it used outdated sliding-scale parameters that gave a $10,618 standard deduction instead of $12,074.61, and it used the 2024 $14,320 first-bracket edge, overstating taxable income by about $1,460."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its federal AGI of $35,555 equals the correct $36,183 minus the $628 FLSA overtime premium. The federal overtime deduction does not reduce AGI and does not flow into Wisconsin income, so its Wisconsin income was $628 too low."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $29,594 wrongly subtracts the $6,589 employer-sponsored insurance premiums from wages. It also skipped the 30% capital gain exclusion and the $700 personal exemption, which gave $16,811 of taxable income instead of $23,056.95."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the repealed 4.65% second-bracket rate instead of 4.4%. It also understated the phased standard deduction at about $10,950 instead of $12,074.61 and skipped the 30% capital gain exclusion, which left taxable income near $24,500."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no value and no explanation for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was nothing to score against the $878.52 liability."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly reached $35,832 of Wisconsin income and the $700 exemption. However, its 2026 sliding-scale base and threshold produced an $11,868.47 standard deduction instead of $12,074.61, which left taxable income about $206 too high."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wiped out the tax with the Wisconsin School Property Tax Credit, which requires rent or property taxes paid. This household reports neither, so no credit reduces the $878.52."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It started from $36,183 without the 30% capital gain exclusion. It also took a standard deduction around $10,500 instead of $12,074.61, which left about $25,000 of taxable income versus the correct $23,056.95."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its taxable income of about $23,660 is roughly $600 above $23,056.95. That matches leaving out the $351 (30%) exclusion of the $1,170 capital gain distributions and slightly understating the $12,074.61 sliding-scale deduction."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It started the 12% standard-deduction phase-down at about $27,800 when the 2026 threshold is about $20,100, so its deduction of about $13,480 was too high (correct: $12,074.61). It also skipped the 30% capital gain exclusion, and the result was taxable income of $22,700, too low."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted half of the $6,589 employer-sponsored insurance premiums from AGI and dropped the IRA deduction. It used unphased standard deductions, applied the repealed 3.54%/4.65% rates, and treated the $700 exemption as a $77 credit. It then averaged several guessed scenarios."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It overstated Wisconsin income at $40,571 and used an unphased $12,200 deduction without the exemption. It then cut the tax to zero with unnamed nonrefundable credits, but no Wisconsin nonrefundable credit applies to this filer, so the $878.52 liability remains."
us,scenario_091,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_092,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model treated the full $17,400 Social Security benefit as gross income instead of applying the provisional-income formula, under which none of it is taxable. With AGI of $14,980, the aged-single standard deduction eliminates all taxable income."
us,scenario_092,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model incorrectly included 85% of Social Security by comparing total income directly with the $34,000 threshold; Social Security taxation uses provisional income, including only one-half of benefits, and yields no taxable Social Security here. It also inconsistently applied the basic and age-based standard-deduction amounts, but the correct $14,980 AGI is fully offset by the applicable deduction."
@@ -7774,29 +8023,30 @@ us,scenario_092,head_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibilit
us,scenario_092,head_medicaid_eligible,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied an approximately $2,829 monthly SSI-related income limit that does not establish eligibility for this Alabama case, then compared income after a $20 disregard to that incorrect standard. The person receives no SSI and qualifies through no aged/disabled category, so that threshold calculation cannot produce Medicaid eligibility."
us,scenario_092,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model correctly recognized that the household has no wages, then improperly invented an “implied Social Security-taxable earnings equivalent” equal to the $17,400 Social Security retirement benefit. Retirement benefits are not employee payroll-taxable earnings, so applying the combined 7.65% FICA rate to that amount produced the erroneous $1,253.76 instead of $0."
us,scenario_092,self_employment_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It set Alabama AGI at the full $14,980 pension and missed the $6,000 retirement income exclusion for a filer aged 65 or older. It also took the $3,000 standard deduction even though itemized deductions of $9,028 are larger. With the exclusion and itemizing, taxable income is zero, but it taxed $10,480 and got $484."
-us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized the $9,028 correctly, but it assumed the private pension is fully taxable and never applied Alabama's $6,000 retirement income exclusion for filers aged 65 or older. That exclusion cuts AGI to $8,980, which is below the itemized total. It also subtracted a $1,000 age-65 exemption that Alabama does not have, which gave it $3,452 taxable and $132.60."
-us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started from the full $14,980 pension and missed the $6,000 retirement income exclusion for filers aged 65 or older. It took the $3,000 standard deduction instead of the larger $9,028 in itemized deductions and invented a $1,500 aged exemption. That left $8,980 taxable and $409, instead of zero taxable income."
-us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its only reasoning is that it applied the standard deduction. Its $639 matches roughly $13,580 of taxable income at Alabama's brackets. That means it taxed nearly the whole pension, ignoring both the $6,000 retirement exclusion for filers aged 65 or older and the $9,028 in itemized deductions, which together reduce taxable income to zero."
-us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly itemized $9,028, but it kept Alabama AGI at $14,980 and missed the $6,000 retirement income exclusion for filers aged 65 or older. That exclusion cuts AGI to $8,980, below the itemized total, so taxable income is zero rather than $4,452 ($183)."
-us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It taxed the full $14,980 pension without the $6,000 retirement income exclusion for filers aged 65 or older. It used the $3,000 standard deduction instead of the $9,028 in itemized deductions and added an age exemption that does not exist ($2,500 total exemptions), which gave $9,480 taxable and $434 instead of zero."
-us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized the $9,028 correctly, but it treated all $14,980 of pension income as Alabama gross income and missed the $6,000 retirement income exclusion for filers aged 65 or older. With AGI at $8,980, the itemized deductions wipe out taxable income, so the tax is $0, not $182.60."
-us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted the $9,028 in itemized deductions from the full $14,980 pension and never applied Alabama's $6,000 retirement income exclusion for filers aged 65 or older. That exclusion brings AGI to $8,980, below the itemized total, so taxable income is zero rather than $4,452."
-us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It set Alabama AGI at the full $14,980 pension, missing the $6,000 retirement income exclusion for filers aged 65 or older. It also took the $3,000 standard deduction instead of the larger $9,028 in itemized deductions, so it taxed $10,480 ($484) instead of zero."
-us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It missed the $6,000 retirement income exclusion for filers aged 65 or older and kept Alabama AGI at $14,980. It took the $3,000 standard deduction even though itemized deductions total $9,028, and it invented a $1,000 age-65 exemption. That gave $9,480 taxable and $434 instead of zero."
-us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It taxed the full $14,980 pension with the $3,000 standard deduction, ignoring the $6,000 retirement income exclusion for filers aged 65 or older and the $9,028 in itemized deductions, which together make taxable income zero. It also used a 1.5% first-bracket rate instead of 2%. Its own components ($7.50 + $100 + $374) add to $481.50, not the $731.50 it submitted."
-us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reduced the full $14,980 pension by a standard deduction, the personal exemption and an age-65 exemption that Alabama does not have. Its $414 implies about $9,080 of taxable income. It never applied the $6,000 retirement income exclusion for filers aged 65 or older and never itemized the $9,028, which together bring taxable income to zero."
-us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $2,000 standard deduction and $2,500 of personal and age exemptions against the full $14,980 pension. It missed the $6,000 retirement income exclusion for filers aged 65 or older and the $9,028 in itemized deductions, which reduce taxable income to zero. Its own figures give $10,480 taxable and $484."
-us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized $9,028 correctly, but it started from federal AGI of $14,980 and did not subtract Alabama's $6,000 retirement income exclusion for filers aged 65 or older. With that exclusion, AGI of $8,980 is fully offset by the itemized deductions, so the tax is $0, not $183."
-us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized $9,028 correctly, but it left the pension fully taxable at $14,980 and missed Alabama's $6,000 retirement income exclusion for filers aged 65 or older. It also subtracted a $1,500 age-65 exemption that Alabama does not have. That gave $2,952 taxable and $108, when the exclusion plus itemizing leaves zero taxable income."
-us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly itemized $9,028 and applied the medical and employee-expense floors correctly. It still set Alabama AGI at the full $14,980 pension without the $6,000 retirement income exclusion for filers aged 65 or older. The exclusion brings AGI to $8,980, below the itemized total, so taxable income is zero rather than $4,452."
-us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave only a generic explanation. Its $182 matches the itemized route on the full $14,980 pension: $14,980 - $9,028 - $1,500 = $4,452 taxable. It left out Alabama's $6,000 retirement income exclusion for filers aged 65 or older, which lowers AGI below the itemized deductions and makes the tax $0."
-us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly itemized $9,028, but it started from federal AGI of $14,980 and skipped Alabama's $6,000 retirement income exclusion for filers aged 65 or older. That exclusion reduces AGI to $8,980, which the itemized deductions fully offset, so the tax is $0 rather than $183."
-us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no value and no explanation for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so no substantive calculation was scored against the $0 reference."
-us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It taxed the full $14,980 pension with a $2,500 standard deduction and the $1,500 exemption. It missed the $6,000 retirement income exclusion for filers aged 65 or older and did not itemize the $9,028 in deductions, which exceed the post-exclusion AGI of $8,980. That gave $10,980 taxable and $509 instead of zero."
-us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started from a federal AGI of $29,770 that includes the taxable share of Social Security, which Alabama fully exempts. It also missed the $6,000 retirement income exclusion for filers aged 65 or older, used a $4,000 personal exemption instead of the single $1,500, and took no standard or itemized deduction, which inflated taxable income to $24,770."
-us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It taxed the full $14,980 pension, missing the $6,000 retirement income exclusion for filers aged 65 or older. It used a phased-down $1,750 standard deduction instead of the $9,028 in itemized deductions, and it applied a 4.95% top rate instead of Alabama's 5%, which gave $11,730 taxable and $542.14 instead of zero."
-us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It invented a federal-style $4,200 standard deduction plus a $1,500 age-65 add-on. It missed the $6,000 retirement income exclusion for filers aged 65 or older and the $9,028 in itemized deductions. It then raised its own $349 bracket result to $852.45 with an unexplained adjustment, even though the federal tax deduction can only lower Alabama tax, and the federal tax here is zero anyway."
+us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted the full $14,980 private pension as Alabama AGI and never applied Alabama's retirement-income exclusion for a filer aged 65 or older. It also used the $3,000 standard deduction instead of the larger $9,028 itemized deductions. Applying the exclusion and the itemized deductions leaves no Alabama taxable income, not the $10,480 the model taxed."
+us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model raised the defined-benefit pension exemption itself but then chose not to apply it, so it taxed the full $14,980 pension. It also added a $1,000 age-65 exemption that Alabama does not have. Once the pension is excluded, the $9,028 itemized deductions and $1,500 exemption cover what remains, and the tax is $0, not $132.60."
+us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model left the whole $14,980 pension in Alabama AGI and missed Alabama's retirement-income exclusion for filers 65 and older. To compensate, it invented a $1,500 aged exemption, and it used the $3,000 standard deduction even though the $9,028 itemized deductions are larger. With the exclusion and itemized deductions, the $8,980 it taxed falls to $0."
+us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model's $639 matches taxing about $13,580, meaning the full pension less only a small standard deduction, at the 2%/4%/5% brackets. It applied no Alabama retirement-income exclusion and no itemized deductions. With the exclusion and the $9,028 itemized deductions, no Alabama taxable income remains."
+us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly itemized $9,028 and took the $1,500 personal exemption, but it started from the full $14,980 pension as Alabama AGI. It missed Alabama's exclusion of a 65-plus filer's retirement income. With that exclusion, the deductions cover the remaining AGI, so the $4,452 it taxed is actually $0."
+us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model taxed the full $14,980 pension and used the $3,000 standard deduction plus $2,500 of exemptions, $1,000 of which is an age exemption Alabama does not provide. It missed both Alabama's retirement-income exclusion for those 65 and older and the larger $9,028 itemized deductions, which together bring Alabama taxable income to $0."
+us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model itemized the $9,028 correctly, but it treated the whole $14,980 pension as Alabama gross income. Alabama excludes retirement income for a 65-plus filer, and after that exclusion the itemized deductions and $1,500 exemption leave zero taxable income instead of the $4,452 the model computed."
+us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model started from the full $14,980 pension as Alabama income and skipped Alabama's retirement-income exclusion for a 77-year-old filer. Once the exclusion applies, the $9,028 itemized deductions plus the $1,500 personal exemption fully offset Alabama AGI, so the tax is $0, not $182.60."
+us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model kept the full $14,980 pension in Alabama AGI and missed the retirement-income exclusion for filers 65 and older. It also used the $3,000 standard deduction instead of the larger $9,028 itemized deductions. Together, these two corrections eliminate the $10,480 of taxable income the model taxed."
+us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model's itemized deductions and exemption were correct, but it taxed the full $14,980 private pension. It never applied Alabama's exclusion of retirement income for filers 65 and older. After the exclusion, Alabama AGI does not exceed the $9,028 itemized deductions plus the $1,500 exemption, so the tax is $0."
+us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model taxed the full $14,980 pension and took a $1,000 age-65 exemption that Alabama does not have. It never applied the actual Alabama retirement-income exclusion for those 65 and older, and it used the $3,000 standard deduction instead of the $9,028 itemized deductions. With the correct treatment, Alabama taxable income is $0, not $9,480."
+us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model taxed the full $14,980 pension with no Alabama retirement-income exclusion for a filer 65 or older, and it used the $3,000 standard deduction instead of the $9,028 itemized deductions. It also applied a nonexistent 1.5% bottom rate and misadded its own components: $7.50 + $100 + $374 is $481.50, not $731.50."
+us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model reduced the full $14,980 pension only by a standard deduction, the personal exemption, and an invented age-65 exemption. It missed Alabama's retirement-income exclusion for 65-plus filers and the larger $9,028 itemized deductions, which together leave no Alabama taxable income."
+us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model taxed the full $14,980 pension after a $2,000 standard deduction and $2,500 of exemptions, including a fictitious age exemption. It applied neither Alabama's retirement-income exclusion for those 65 and older nor the $9,028 itemized deductions. Under Alabama's rules, $0 of taxable income remains, not $10,480."
+us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used the correct $9,028 itemized deductions and $1,500 exemption, but it started from the full $14,980 pension as Alabama AGI. It omitted Alabama's exclusion of retirement income for filers 65 and older, which leaves AGI fully covered by the deductions, so the tax is $0, not $183."
+us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model itemized correctly but invented a $1,500 additional age-65 exemption in place of Alabama's actual retirement-income exclusion. It therefore kept the full $14,980 pension in Alabama AGI. With the real exclusion, the $9,028 of itemized deductions absorbs the remaining income and the tax is $0, not $108."
+us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model handled the itemized deductions and the medical and employee-expense floors correctly, but it treated the full $14,980 pension as Alabama AGI. It never applied Alabama's retirement-income exclusion for a filer 65 or older. After that exclusion, the deductions and the $1,500 exemption reduce taxable income to $0."
+us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model's $182 matches taxing $4,452, which is the full $14,980 pension less the $9,028 itemized deductions and the $1,500 exemption. That shows it applied no Alabama retirement-income exclusion for this 77-year-old filer. With the exclusion, Alabama taxable income and tax are both zero."
+us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly itemized $9,028 and took the $1,500 exemption, but it kept the full $14,980 pension in Alabama AGI. It missed Alabama's retirement-income exclusion for filers 65 and older, which leaves the deductions covering all remaining income, so the tax is $0, not $183."
+us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no value and no explanation for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there is no answer to evaluate against the $0 reference."
+us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model taxed the full $14,980 pension after a $2,500 standard deduction and a $1,500 exemption. It skipped Alabama's retirement-income exclusion for those 65 and older and ignored the $9,028 itemized deductions, which together reduce the $10,980 it taxed to $0."
+us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used a federal-style AGI of $29,770 that includes taxable Social Security, even though Alabama fully exempts Social Security. It also taxed the whole pension with no retirement-income exclusion for those 65 and older. On top of that, it used a $4,000 personal exemption meant for married filers and an invented age exemption, and it ignored the $9,028 itemized deductions."
+us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model taxed the full $14,980 pension with no Alabama retirement-income exclusion for a filer 65 or older. It phased the standard deduction down to $1,750 at an AGI where the full deduction applies, and it applied a 4.95% top rate where Alabama's rate is 5%. It also ignored the $9,028 itemized deductions, which together with the exclusion bring Alabama tax to $0."
+us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model taxed the pension with no Alabama retirement-income exclusion, invented a $4,200 standard deduction and a $1,500 additional age deduction, and ignored the $9,028 itemized deductions. It then raised its own $349 figure to $852.45 by citing the federal-tax deduction, which can only lower Alabama tax. With the exclusion and itemized deductions, the correct result is $0."
us,scenario_092,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_093,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated the disability flag as sufficient for Missouri's SSI-related or MO HealthNet for the Disabled pathway and explicitly disregarded the pathway's additional eligibility requirements. Dependent 1 receives no SSI and qualifies for no Medicaid category, while their 2.82-times-FPL MAGI also disqualifies them from the MAGI pathways."
us,scenario_093,dependent1_medicare_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model asserted that ""PolicyEngine treats disabled individuals as Medicare eligible regardless of age,"" inventing a disability branch that is_medicare_eligible does not contain — the variable keys solely on age >= 65. Applying the actual age test to Dependent 1's age of 27 yields False."
@@ -7804,53 +8054,55 @@ us,scenario_093,dependent1_medicare_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,age_disab
us,scenario_093,dependent1_medicare_eligible,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model recited the correct statutory rule — 24 months of SSDI receipt confers Medicare — then discarded it, concluding that ""for tax-benefit modeling purposes, a disabled individual is treated as Medicare-eligible."" PolicyEngine's is_medicare_eligible implements no such shortcut: it is the age >= 65 test alone, which Dependent 1 at age 27 fails."
us,scenario_093,dependent1_medicare_eligible,glm-5.2,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model stated a disjunctive engine rule — ""In PolicyEngine, Medicare eligibility is determined by age 65 or older OR disability status"" — and fired the second branch off the is_disabled flag. That OR branch does not exist in is_medicare_eligible, which evaluates age >= 65 only, so Dependent 1 at 27 is not eligible."
us,scenario_093,dependent1_medicare_eligible,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model claimed eligibility ""under the modeled disability-based Medicare eligibility criterion because disability is reported,"" attributing a disability criterion to PolicyEngine that is_medicare_eligible does not implement. The only modeled criterion is age >= 65, which Dependent 1 at age 27 fails, and the reported disability flag carries no SSDI entitlement, ESRD, or ALS status on these facts."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It subtracted a $1,000 auto-loan-interest deduction, which cuts taxable income to $79,208 instead of $80,208. The OBBBA vehicle-loan deduction requires qualifying-vehicle facts that the prompt does not give. It then cut its own $8,509 result to $8,067 with no explanation, when the correct result is $9,129 tax minus the $500 credit for other dependents, or $8,629."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It added the dependent's $45,000 of wages to the couple's joint AGI. The tax unit's gross income covers only the head's and spouse's wages and interest, so AGI is $112,408 and taxable income is $80,208. It also took an unsupported $1,000 auto-loan-interest deduction. Together these pushed taxable income into the 22% bracket."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It included the dependent's $45,000 of wages in the joint return and used the outdated $29,200 standard deduction and old brackets instead of 2026's $32,200 deduction with the 10% bracket ending at $24,800. It then subtracted an invented $4,246 for 'refundable credits and reconciliation', even though the requested output comes before refundable credits. It also never applied the $500 credit for other dependents."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Its own reasoning estimated about $5,000 of tax, yet it submitted 0. The joint return has $80,208 of taxable income, which produces $9,129 of tax, or $8,629 after the $500 credit for other dependents. A zero liability is impossible at that income."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It ruled out the 27-year-old as a dependent using the qualifying-relative gross income test and a support test. Because the dependent is permanently disabled, they count as a qualifying child at any age, which earns the $500 credit for other dependents. It also used a $31,500 standard deduction and a $24,150 10% bracket limit instead of 2026's $32,200 and $24,800."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It denied the dependent using the qualifying-relative gross income limit, even though a permanently disabled child is a qualifying child at any age with no gross income test. That cost it the $500 credit for other dependents. It also used a $31,500 standard deduction and a $24,000 10% bracket limit instead of 2026's $32,200 and $24,800."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It deducted the full $3,000 of student loan interest, ignoring the $2,500 cap, and used a $32,600 standard deduction instead of $32,200. It then added an unexplained $2,000 to its own $8,371 result, labelled as the dependent's own tax. That tax is not part of the joint return's liability."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It put all three earners' wages ($163,000) on the joint return, when the dependent's $45,000 is not part of the tax unit's gross income. The correct AGI is $112,408. It also took an unsupported $1,000 auto-loan-interest deduction, which pushed taxable income to $124,208 and into the 22% bracket."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It disqualified the 27-year-old using the qualifying-relative gross income test, missing that permanent disability makes them a qualifying child at any age, which earns the $500 credit for other dependents. It also used a projected $30,000 standard deduction and a $23,850 bracket limit instead of 2026's $32,200 and $24,800."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It reached $9,376 using a $30,300 standard deduction instead of $32,200, then arbitrarily raised the answer to $10,800 with no supporting calculation. It also denied the dependent claim, so it missed the $500 credit for other dependents."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It ruled the 27-year-old out as a dependent because of their $45,000 of earnings. A permanently disabled child is a qualifying child regardless of age, with no gross income test, so the $500 credit for other dependents applies. It also took an unsupported $1,000 auto-loan-interest deduction, which put taxable income at $79,208 instead of $80,208."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It included the dependent's $45,000 of wages in the joint AGI, then wrongly treated the IRA and student-loan deductions as fully phased out. At the correct joint AGI of $112,408, both deductions are fully allowed. It also used a $30,600 standard deduction instead of $32,200 and omitted the $500 credit for other dependents."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It added a separate single return for the dependent ($2,354.82), but the output is only the joint return of the tax unit that claims that dependent. It also subtracted the employer health insurance premiums from wages, which understated the joint tax at $7,398.60 instead of $8,628.99."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It added up tax across a joint return and a separate single return for the dependent, instead of computing only the couple's joint return. It also subtracted $8,389 of employer health insurance premiums per person from wages, which lowered parent AGI to $95,630 instead of $112,408. It never applied the $500 credit for other dependents."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It added a separate single-return tax of $2,309.98 for the dependent, even though the dependent is claimed in the couple's tax unit and has no separate liability in this output. It also subtracted the employer health insurance premiums from wages, which lowered joint AGI to $95,630 instead of $112,408."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired, bringing back personal exemptions and a $15,850 standard deduction. OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent, with a 2026 joint standard deduction of $32,200. It also subtracted employer health insurance premiums from wages and added a separate return for the dependent."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It started from $163,156 of gross income, which includes the dependent's $45,000 of wages, but joint AGI counts only the head's and spouse's income. It also deducted the full $3,000 of student loan interest instead of the $2,500 cap, and dropped the $190 IRA deduction."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It applied pre-TCJA parameters with personal exemptions, although OBBBA keeps the $32,200 joint standard deduction and TCJA brackets for 2026. It also had the dependent file a separate return and added that tax to the household total, instead of reporting only the joint return with the $500 credit for other dependents."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It added a separate single return for the dependent to the joint return and used post-sunset personal exemptions instead of 2026 OBBBA law. It also subtracted employer health insurance premiums, which put joint AGI at $95,630 instead of $112,408."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It gave no reasoning. The correct calculation is joint AGI of $112,408 minus the $32,200 standard deduction, giving $80,208 of taxable income and $9,129 of tax, then minus the $500 credit for other dependents for $8,629. Its $11,048 overstates the liability by about $2,400, which means it taxed income or omitted deductions or credits beyond what that joint calculation allows."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It combined the couple's joint return with a separate return for the dependent, even though the dependent belongs to the couple's tax unit and has no separate liability in this output. It also subtracted employer health insurance premiums from wages. Its total landing at $9,127.42 is a coincidence of those offsetting errors, not the correct $8,628.99."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It treated the dependent as a separate single tax unit and added that tax to the couple's joint return. The output is only the joint return, at $9,129 minus the $500 credit for other dependents."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It counted the dependent's $45,000 of wages in household AGI ($157,598) and applied personal exemptions from the pre-TCJA rules. Correct joint AGI excludes the dependent's wages ($112,408), and OBBBA's $32,200 standard deduction applies with no exemptions."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It correctly claimed the disabled adult as a dependent for the $500 credit for other dependents, but then also added $3,353.74 of tax from a separate return for that dependent. The output is only the joint return. It also used a $30,840 standard deduction and a $23,850 bracket limit instead of $32,200 and $24,800."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It added a separate single-return tax of $3,210 for the dependent and denied the $500 credit for other dependents, even though the permanently disabled child is a qualifying dependent at any age. It also deducted the full $3,000 of student loan interest instead of the $2,500 cap, and used a $25,200 limit for the 10% bracket instead of $24,800."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It claimed that deductions wipe out the household's tax. The joint return still has $80,208 of taxable income after the $32,200 standard deduction, which produces $9,129 of tax, or $8,629 after the $500 credit for other dependents."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It offered no traceable calculation and referred to itemized medical effects that do not apply, since $2,102 of medical costs falls well below the 7.5%-of-AGI floor. Its $6,347 understates the correct figure. Taxable income is AGI of $112,408 minus the $32,200 standard deduction, or $80,208, which produces $9,129 of tax and $8,629 after the $500 credit for other dependents."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It put all three members' wages on the joint return and subtracted all three $8,389 employer health insurance premiums, ending at AGI of $132,241. The tax unit's AGI includes only the head's and spouse's income and does not subtract those premiums, so it is $112,408 and taxable income is $80,208."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Its taxable income of $124,708 includes the dependent's $45,000 of wages on the joint return, when only the head's and spouse's income counts, for $80,208 of taxable income. It also applied no credit at all, missing the $500 credit for other dependents for the disabled adult child."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It summed all household wages into the joint return, including the dependent's $45,000, which pushed taxable income above $125,000 and into the 22% bracket. The correct joint taxable income is $80,208."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Its joint taxable income of $85,208 is $5,000 too high. The correct figure is AGI of $112,408 minus the $32,200 standard deduction, or $80,208, so its tentative tax of $9,728.96 is $600 above the correct $9,128.99. Its brackets and the $500 credit for other dependents were otherwise right."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It included the dependent's $45,000 of wages on the joint return and subtracted every member's $8,389 employer health insurance premium, which gave AGI of $132,241. The correct joint AGI excludes the dependent's wages and does not subtract those premiums, so it is $112,408."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It got the joint return's tax exactly right at $9,128.96. It then wrongly added $3,220 from a separate return for the dependent and denied the $500 credit for other dependents, even though the permanently disabled adult child is claimed in the couple's tax unit."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It subtracted the $8,389 employer health insurance premiums for the head and spouse from wages, lowering joint AGI to $95,630. Those premiums are not excluded from the reported wages, so AGI is $112,408 and taxable income is $80,208."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It based tax on total 'household wages', so the dependent's $45,000 is taxed along with the couple's income. The output covers only the head's and spouse's joint income: $80,208 of taxable income, $9,129 of tax, and $8,629 after the $500 credit for other dependents."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It applied post-TCJA-sunset rules with personal exemptions and 15% brackets, although OBBBA keeps the $32,200 joint standard deduction and the 10%/12% brackets for 2026. It also added a separate single-return tax of $4,846 for the dependent, who is claimed in the couple's tax unit and earns them the $500 credit for other dependents."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It used sunset-era parameters: a $16,600 standard deduction, $5,300 exemptions, and a 15% bracket, instead of 2026 OBBBA law. It also added a separate return for the dependent ($4,130) and skipped the $500 credit for other dependents on the joint return."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It added $3,224 from a separate single return for the dependent and denied the $500 credit for other dependents. It also deducted an invented $173 of overtime premium, although the head works 36 hours a week and has no overtime."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It applied post-TCJA brackets and a $30,750 standard deduction instead of 2026's $32,200 and 10%/12% brackets, which inflated the joint tax to $11,001. It also added a separate return for the dependent ($3,820) instead of claiming the $500 credit for other dependents on the joint return."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It computed the joint return correctly at $80,208 of taxable income and $9,129 of tax. It then added $3,220 from a separate single return for the dependent and missed the $500 credit for other dependents, which applies because the permanently disabled adult child is a qualifying dependent."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No answer or reasoning was returned for this variable, so there is no submitted value to compare with $8,628.99."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It put all three members' wages on the joint return. That raised AGI to $161,656 and led it to treat the IRA deduction as phased out. With only the head's and spouse's income, AGI is $112,408, the $190 IRA deduction is fully allowed, and taxable income is $80,208."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It gave no reasoning and reported zero tax. The joint return has AGI of $112,408 and $80,208 of taxable income after the $32,200 standard deduction, which produces $9,129 of tax, or $8,629 after the $500 credit for other dependents."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It computed the joint return at about $9,139 but added $3,225 from a separate return for the dependent. It also gave no $500 credit for other dependents, even though the permanently disabled adult child is claimed in the couple's tax unit."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It included the dependent's $45,000 of wages in joint AGI ($157,408) and taxed the excess at 22%. The tax unit's AGI includes only the head's and spouse's income ($112,408), so taxable income is $80,208 and all of it stays within the 10% and 12% brackets."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It subtracted employer health insurance premiums from wages, deducted the full $3,000 of student loan interest instead of the $2,500 cap, dropped the IRA deduction, and denied the $500 credit for other dependents. It then submitted $7,625.75, which matches none of its own computed totals ($7,248 or $9,345)."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It included the dependent's $45,000 of wages in joint AGI and deducted the full $3,000 of student loan interest. It then submitted $3,778, which contradicts its own computed liability of $13,491. The correct joint calculation is $80,208 of taxable income, $9,129 of tax, and $8,629 after the $500 credit for other dependents."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model subtracted a $1,000 auto-loan interest deduction, but the vehicle has no listed new or US-assembled status, so the OBBBA deduction does not apply. That cut taxable income to $79,208 instead of $80,208. It then replaced its own $8,509 figure with an arbitrary $8,067 instead of $9,129 − $500 ODC = $8,629."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model put the dependent's $45,000 of wages on the head/spouse return, which pushed taxable income into the 22% bracket. It also subtracted a $1,000 auto-loan interest deduction that the unlisted vehicle facts don't support. Only the couple's $113,942 of net wages and $1,156 of interest belong in AGI, so taxable income is $80,208."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model included the dependent's $45,000 of wages and used 2025-era parameters (a $29,200 deduction and a $23,500 10% bracket) instead of the 2026 $32,200 deduction and $24,800 bracket. It then subtracted an invented $4,246 of 'refundable credits' from a measure that excludes refundable credits, and it never applied the $500 ODC."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model's own reasoning estimated about $5,000 of tax but it submitted $0. Taxable income of $80,208 (AGI $112,408 minus the $32,200 deduction) produces $9,129 of tax, and after the $500 ODC that leaves $8,629."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"AGI of $112,408 was correct, but the model denied dependent status on a support-test theory. A permanently disabled child is a qualifying child at any age, which earns the $500 credit for other dependents. It also used a $31,500 standard deduction and a $24,150 bracket instead of 2026's $32,200 and $24,800."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model ruled out the disabled 27-year-old by applying the qualifying-relative gross-income test. A permanently and totally disabled child is a qualifying child at any age with no income test, so the $500 ODC applies. It also used a $31,500 deduction and a $24,000 bracket instead of $32,200 and $24,800."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model deducted the full $3,000 of student-loan interest even though the cap is $2,500, and it used a $32,600 standard deduction instead of $32,200. It then added about $2,000 for the dependent's 'own tax', which does not belong in this tax unit's liability. The correct figure is $9,129 − $500 = $8,629."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model added the dependent's $45,000 of wages to the joint return's AGI and subtracted a $1,000 auto-loan interest deduction that the vehicle facts don't support. That inflated taxable income to $124,208; the correct figure is $80,208, which gives $9,129 of tax less the $500 ODC."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"AGI of $112,408 was correct, but the model applied the qualifying-relative gross-income limit and denied dependent status. A permanently disabled child of any age is a qualifying child, which earns the $500 ODC. It also used a $30,000 standard deduction and a $23,850 bracket instead of the 2026 OBBBA $32,200 and $24,800."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"AGI of $112,408 was correct, but the model used a $30,300 standard deduction and a $23,850 bracket instead of $32,200 and $24,800. It then inflated its own $9,376 figure to an arbitrary $10,800 and skipped the $500 ODC for the disabled adult child."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model subtracted a $1,000 auto-loan interest deduction that the unlisted vehicle conditions don't support, giving $79,208 of taxable income instead of $80,208. It also ruled that the $45,000 earner isn't a dependent, but a permanently disabled child is a qualifying child at any age, so the $500 ODC applies."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model counted the dependent's $45,000 of wages in the joint AGI. That wrongly triggered phaseouts of the IRA and student-loan deductions, and the model also used a $30,600 standard deduction and gave no ODC. The correct joint AGI is $112,408, with both deductions fully allowed."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model subtracted the $8,389 ESI premiums from box-1 wages, which understated the couple's AGI, and then added a separate $2,354.82 return for the dependent. Neither belongs in this single tax unit. The correct joint AGI is $112,408, with $9,129 of tax less the $500 ODC."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model reduced all wages by the $8,389 ESI premiums, which brought the parents' AGI down to $95,630 instead of $112,408. It then summed taxable income across a joint return and a separate dependent return and taxed the total. The dependent's wages are not taxed in this tax unit."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model subtracted the ESI premiums from wages, giving a parent AGI of $95,630 instead of $112,408, and then added $2,309.98 of tax from a separate return for the dependent. The ODC was right, but the joint tax should be $9,129 − $500 with no dependent return."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model assumed the TCJA expired in 2026 and used personal exemptions with a $15,850 standard deduction. OBBBA made TCJA permanent with a $32,200 MFJ deduction. The model also subtracted ESI premiums and added a separate tax for the dependent."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model taxed the full $163,156 of household income, including the dependent's $45,000 of wages, and deducted the full $3,000 of student-loan interest instead of the $2,500 cap. It omitted the $190 IRA deduction and the $500 ODC."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model used pre-TCJA 2026 parameters with personal exemptions, but OBBBA keeps the $32,200 standard deduction and TCJA brackets. It also added a separate return for the dependent's wages, which are not taxed in this single tax unit."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model applied post-TCJA-sunset personal exemptions and deductions instead of OBBBA's permanent $32,200 deduction. It subtracted ESI premiums to get a $95,630 AGI instead of $112,408, and it added a separate $3,006.65 dependent return."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model gave no reasoning. Its $11,048 is about $2,400 above the correct $8,629, which is consistent with taxing the dependent's wages on top of the joint return or leaving out the ODC. The correct result is taxable income of $80,208 → $9,129 of tax − $500 ODC."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model split the household into a joint return and a separate single return for the dependent, and it subtracted ESI premiums from wages. The dependent's wages are not taxed in this single tax unit, and ESI premiums don't reduce box-1 wages here. The correct figure is $9,129 − $500 ODC."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model added a separate single-return tax for the dependent to the joint tax, but the dependent's $45,000 is not taxed in this one-tax-unit household. Its total also skips the $500 ODC that reduces the joint $9,129 to $8,629."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model put the dependent's wages into the household AGI (about $157,598) and subtracted post-TCJA personal exemptions. The correct AGI is $112,408 with the $32,200 deduction and no exemptions."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model aggregated the dependent's $45,000 of wages into the joint AGI ($157,408), which pushed income into the 22% bracket. The tax unit's AGI is only the couple's $112,408, which gives $9,129 of tax less the $500 ODC that the model correctly applied."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model added $3,353.74 of tax from a separate return for the dependent, which this single tax unit doesn't include. It also used a $30,840 deduction and a $23,850 bracket instead of 2026's $32,200 and $24,800."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model treated the disabled 27-year-old as a self-supporting separate filer, which added $3,210 and dropped the $500 ODC. A permanently disabled child is a qualifying child at any age. It also deducted the full $3,000 of student-loan interest instead of the $2,500 cap."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model claimed the deductions wipe out all tax. The couple's $112,408 AGI minus the $32,200 deduction leaves $80,208 of taxable income, which is $9,129 of tax, or $8,629 after the ODC."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model applied vague 'itemized medical' effects that don't apply: the roughly $2,100 of medical expenses is far below the 7.5% AGI floor, and the standard deduction applies. The correct figure is $80,208 of taxable income → $9,129 − $500 = $8,629, not $6,347."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model included the dependent's $45,000 of wages and subtracted all three $8,389 ESI premiums from box-1 wages, which gave an AGI of $132,241. The correct AGI is $112,408, with only the couple's wages net of 401(k) and no ESI subtraction."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model built its taxable income of about $124,708 on the dependent's wages being in the joint return. It also dropped the $500 ODC for the permanently disabled adult child. The correct taxable income is $80,208."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model included the dependent's $45,000 of wages in the joint income and skipped the $190 IRA deduction, which pushed taxable income to about $125,398 in the 22% bracket. The correct taxable income is $80,208, which gives $9,129 of tax less the $500 ODC."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model's taxable income of $85,208 is $5,000 too high. AGI is $112,408 and the 2026 standard deduction is $32,200, which leaves $80,208 and $9,129 of tentative tax, not $9,728.96."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model included the dependent's wages in the joint return and subtracted ESI premiums from wages, which gave an AGI of $132,241. The correct AGI is $112,408, using only the couple's 401(k)-reduced wages and interest."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The couple's $9,128.96 was correct, but the model added $3,220 from a separate return for the dependent and dropped the $500 ODC. The permanently disabled 27-year-old is the couple's qualifying-child dependent."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model subtracted the $8,389 ESI premiums from box-1 wages, which cut AGI to $95,630 instead of $112,408. Its taxable income of $63,430 should be $80,208."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model taxed 'household wages', which put the dependent's $45,000 into the tax unit. Only the couple's $112,408 AGI is taxed, giving $9,129 less the $500 ODC."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model applied post-TCJA-sunset rules (personal exemptions and the 15% bracket), but OBBBA keeps the $32,200 deduction and 10%/12% brackets. It also added a separate $4,846 return for the dependent and gave no ODC."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model used a sunset-era $16,600 deduction, $5,300 exemptions and the 15% bracket instead of the OBBBA $32,200 deduction and 12% bracket. It also added a separate $4,130 dependent return and omitted the $500 ODC."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model deducted a $173 'overtime premium' that isn't in the facts. It added a separate $3,224 return for the dependent and omitted the $500 ODC for the permanently disabled qualifying child."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model used post-TCJA brackets and a $30,750 deduction instead of OBBBA's $32,200 and 10%/12% brackets. It added a separate $3,820 dependent return and omitted the $500 ODC."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The joint tax of about $9,129 was correct, but the model added $3,220 from a separate return for the dependent and skipped the $500 ODC. A permanently disabled child is a qualifying child at any age."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no value for this output, and no reasoning came with it. The correct derivation is $80,208 of taxable income → $9,129 of tax − $500 ODC = $8,629."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model added the dependent's $45,000 of wages to the joint AGI, which made it wrongly phase out the $190 IRA deduction. That inflated taxable income to $129,456; the correct taxable income is $80,208."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model gave no reasoning and answered $0, as if the couple owed no tax. Their $112,408 AGI less the $32,200 deduction leaves $80,208 taxed at $9,129, which is $8,629 after the ODC."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"AGI of $112,408 was correct, but the model used a $31,000 deduction instead of $32,200. It also omitted the $500 ODC for the permanently disabled 27-year-old qualifying child."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The joint taxable income of $80,208 was correct, but the model added about $3,225 from a separate return for the dependent. It also skipped the $500 ODC that applies to the permanently disabled adult child."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model included the dependent's $45,000 of wages in the joint AGI ($157,408), which pushed income into the 22% bracket. The tax unit's AGI is $112,408, which gives $9,129 of tax − $500 ODC."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model subtracted the $8,389 ESI premiums from wages, deducted the full $3,000 of student-loan interest instead of $2,500, dropped the IRA deduction and omitted the ODC. Its submitted $7,625.75 doesn't match any of its own computed totals."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model included the dependent's $45,000 of wages and deducted the full $3,000 of student-loan interest. It then submitted $3,778, which contradicts its own computed liability of $13,491. The correct figure is $9,129 − $500 = $8,629."
us,scenario_093,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_093,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,other,False,"It got all six per-person components right ($3,286, $768.50, $4,030, $942.50, $2,790, $652.50), but added them to $11,469.50 instead of $12,469.50. It then submitted $12,348.76, a figure that matches neither its own sum nor its components."
us,scenario_093,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"Its reasoning names the correct method, 7.65% employee FICA on $163,000 of combined wages with no Additional Medicare Tax. It never did the multiplication, which gives $12,469.50, and submitted 0 instead."
@@ -7871,54 +8123,56 @@ us,scenario_093,payroll_tax,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It sub
us,scenario_093,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No payroll_tax value or explanation came back, so no answer could be scored."
us,scenario_093,payroll_tax,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"It submitted 0 with no reasoning, which means no employee FICA at all on $163,000 of W-2 wages. All three workers owe 6.2% Social Security plus 1.45% Medicare, for a total of $12,469.50."
us,scenario_093,payroll_tax,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly computed $4,054.50 + $4,972.50 + $3,442.50 = $12,469.50. It then submitted $12,553.50, so the error was in copying its own total into the answer."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Got the couple's AGI (~$112,100) and standard deduction roughly right but never took Missouri's federal-income-tax deduction (5% of $8,629 = $431.45 at MO AGI $100k–$125k). It ran the whole ~$79,800 joint taxable income through the rate schedule once. Missouri splits combined-return taxable income between spouses by income share and taxes each share separately, giving $1,452.33 + $1,935.91."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Put the dependent's $45,000 wages into Missouri AGI ($156,408 instead of the spouses' $112,408.25). That pushed AGI over $125,000 and zeroed the federal-tax deduction, which is actually $431.45 in the 5% tier. It also taxed the inflated $124,208 on one schedule instead of taxing each spouse's income-share separately."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Started from $119,156 without excluding the $4,058 traditional 401(k) deferrals, the $190 IRA deduction or the $2,500 student-loan interest deduction. It used a $27,900 standard deduction instead of 2026's $32,200 and applied an invented 4.04% effective rate instead of Missouri's graduated schedule. It also skipped the $431.45 federal-tax deduction and the per-spouse split of the $79,776.80 taxable income."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Returned $0 with no computation. The couple has $79,776.80 of Missouri taxable income ($112,408.25 MO AGI − $32,200 standard deduction − $431.45 federal-tax deduction), and no nonrefundable credit offsets the resulting $3,388.25. The model treated a fully taxable middle-income joint return as having no liability."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Left the $4,058 of traditional 401(k) deferrals in AGI ($116,466 instead of $112,408.25) and used a ~$30,000 standard deduction instead of $32,200, overstating taxable income at $86,466. It also omitted the $431.45 federal-tax deduction and taxed joint income on one schedule rather than each spouse's income-proportional share separately. Its $3,567 also falls below what its own single-schedule base produces."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Deducted the full $3,000 of student-loan interest (the cap is $2,500), used $31,500 instead of the $32,200 standard deduction, and called the federal-tax deduction near zero when it is 5% of $8,629 = $431.45. Its own formula gives about $3,640, but it then 'adjusted' to $4,126. It also never split taxable income between the spouses for separate rate application."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Added about $1,400 of separate Missouri tax on the dependent's $45,000 wages, but the dependent belongs to the couple's tax unit and has $0 Missouri AGI. On the couple's side it used a $32,600 standard deduction, skipped the $431.45 federal-tax deduction and did not tax each spouse's share separately."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Computed Missouri AGI as $157,408 by including the dependent's $45,000 wages; the Missouri return counts only the spouses' $112,408.25. That inflated taxable income to $125,208 and wrongly removed the 5%-tier federal-tax deduction of $431.45. It also taxed the joint amount once rather than each spouse's income share separately."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Subtracted the $16,778 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums from wages (AGI $95,130 vs. $112,408.25), used a $30,000 standard deduction, and took a $4,400 personal exemption that Missouri no longer allows. It deducted 100% of federal tax ($7,339) when Missouri allows only an AGI-tiered percentage (5% → $431.45). It then applied a flat 4.7% instead of the graduated schedule run on each spouse's share."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Reached ~$102,000 of Missouri taxable income, about $22,000 above the correct $79,776.80, because it netted AGI against a $30,000 standard deduction incorrectly. It also skipped the $431.45 federal-tax deduction and applied the schedule once to the joint total instead of per spouse."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Correctly reached $112,408 MO AGI and the $32,200 standard deduction but omitted the federal-income-tax deduction (5% of $8,629 = $431.45). It ran the full $80,208 through the schedule once. Missouri allocates combined-return taxable income between spouses by income share and taxes each share separately, so the lower brackets apply twice; that split alone takes about $181 off its $3,594."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Used a $160,098 AGI that includes the dependent's $45,000 wages (Missouri AGI here is the spouses' $112,408.25), a $30,600 standard deduction instead of $32,200, and $6,300 of personal exemptions that Missouri repealed. It then applied a flat 4.5% instead of the graduated 2026 schedule per spouse and missed the $431.45 federal-tax deduction."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Added a $1,056.06 separate single-return tax for the dependent, whose Missouri AGI is $0 inside the couple's tax unit. It computed the couple's $3,221.32 with 2024 standard deductions and brackets instead of the 2026 $32,200 standard deduction, the $431.45 federal-tax deduction, and the 2026 schedule applied to each spouse's share."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Its $99,241 'total' Missouri taxable income adds the dependent's wages to the couple's income, but the Missouri return covers only the spouses, whose taxable income is $79,776.80. It also used a 4.6% top rate instead of the 2026 schedule's 4.7%, and did not apply the schedule separately to each spouse's income-proportional share."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Cut the couple's AGI to $95,630 by subtracting $16,778 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums, which are not wage exclusions here; the correct MO AGI is $112,408.25. It then added an $801.81 separate tax on the dependent, whose wages are not part of the Missouri return for this tax unit."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Computed a separate single return for the dependent (citing a $5,000 single federal-tax-deduction cap) and added it to the couple's tax, though the dependent contributes $0 Missouri AGI in this one-unit household. It also used a 4.8% top rate instead of 4.7% and did not tax each spouse's share of the $79,776.80 separately."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Gave no derivation. Its $6,055 is nearly double the correct figure and matches taxing a base that includes the dependent's $45,000 wages at roughly the top rate. The Missouri base is only the spouses' $79,776.80, split by income share and taxed per spouse on the graduated schedule."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Taxed 'combined' household income, including the dependent's $45,000 wages, at a rough 4.5% rate. The Missouri return covers only the spouses' $112,408.25 MO AGI, minus the $32,200 standard deduction and the $431.45 federal-tax deduction. That base is taxed on the graduated 2026 schedule separately for each spouse's share."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Its $4,166 is about $778 too high, the size of a separate Missouri tax on the dependent's $45,000 wages; the dependent's Missouri AGI is $0 in this tax unit. Only the spouses' $79,776.80 of taxable income, split by income share and taxed per spouse, belongs in the total."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Gave no derivation; its $5,321 matches a base that includes the dependent's $45,000 wages. The correct liability taxes only the spouses' $79,776.80 ($112,408.25 − $32,200 − $431.45 federal-tax deduction), with each spouse's income-proportional share run through the 2026 schedule separately."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Its $3,421 is $33 too high. That gap equals leaving out the $431.45 federal-tax deduction (about $20 of tax; 5% of $8,629 at MO AGI $100k–$125k) plus using 2025 instead of 2026 bracket thresholds in the per-spouse computation (about $9). Its taxable base was about $80,208 instead of $79,776.80."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Summed tax over several 'household tax units,' adding a separate liability for the dependent's $45,000 wages, but the dependent sits in the couple's unit with $0 Missouri AGI. The correct figure is only the spouses' tax on $79,776.80, allocated by income share and taxed per spouse ($1,452.33 + $1,935.91)."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Gave no derivation; its $5,250 corresponds to adding the dependent's $45,000 wages to the taxable base or taxing a dependent return. Missouri taxable income here is only the spouses' $79,776.80 after the $32,200 standard deduction and $431.45 federal-tax deduction, taxed per spouse."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Taxed the dependent as a separate single filer ($30,400 taxable), used 2024 standard deductions ($29,200 MFJ instead of $32,200), and applied a flat 4.7% to everything. Missouri's schedule is graduated and the $431.45 federal-tax deduction applies. The couple's taxable income is split by income share and taxed per spouse, with nothing owed for the dependent."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Applied a flat 4.7% instead of the graduated schedule, deducted the full $3,000 of student-loan interest (the cap is $2,500), and added $1,356 for the dependent as a separate single filer. The dependent's Missouri AGI is $0 in this tax unit, the $431.45 federal-tax deduction applies, and each spouse's share of taxable income is taxed separately."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Claimed the standard deduction and 'allowances' wipe out all Missouri tax. In fact $112,408.25 MO AGI minus the $32,200 standard deduction and the $431.45 federal-tax deduction leaves $79,776.80 taxable. That produces $3,388.25, and no nonrefundable credit offsets it."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Gave an unsupported approximation of $3,427, $39 too high. It never computed the $431.45 federal-tax deduction (5% of $8,629 at MO AGI $100k–$125k) or applied the 2026 schedule to each spouse's income-proportional share ($34,743.94 and $45,032.86)."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Built a $157,598 federal AGI that includes the dependent's $45,000 wages. It then subtracted $5,400 of repealed Missouri exemptions and a $1,000 health-insurance subtraction that does not apply here, and used a 4.5% top rate. The Missouri return covers only the spouses' $112,408.25, with the $431.45 federal-tax deduction and per-spouse taxation under the 2026 schedule (4.7% top rate)."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Its $124,708 of Missouri taxable income includes the dependent's $45,000 wages; the spouses' Missouri taxable income is $79,776.80. It also skipped the $431.45 federal-tax deduction and taxed the joint amount on one schedule instead of per spouse."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Said the couple was above the federal-tax-deduction range because it folded the dependent's $45,000 wages into AGI. MO AGI is $112,408.25, which falls in the 5% tier and yields a $431.45 deduction. Its $5,720 reflects taxing about $125,000 on one schedule rather than $79,776.80 split between the spouses."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Subtracted personal exemptions that Missouri eliminated starting in 2018, pushing taxable income below the correct $79,776.80 and landing $196 low. The correct base is $112,408.25 − $32,200 − $431.45 federal-tax deduction, taxed per spouse by income share."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Its implied Missouri AGI of about $132,000 is overstated (the correct figure is $112,408.25), so it denied the federal-tax deduction, which is $431.45 in the 5% tier. It also subtracted $1,000 of health-insurance premiums not allowed here and taxed $99,041 on one schedule instead of $79,776.80 per spouse."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Its $3,124 is $264 too low, equal to about $5,600 of excess deductions. With MO AGI of $112,408.25 in the $100,001–$125,000 tier, the only federal-tax deduction is 5% of the couple's $8,629 federal tax ($431.45). Taxable income must be $79,776.80, split between the spouses."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Added tax on the dependent's ~$28,900 as a separate single return, but the dependent has $0 Missouri AGI in the couple's tax unit. For the couple it taxed $80,208 without the $431.45 federal-tax deduction and did not split taxable income between the spouses."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Cut AGI to $95,630 by subtracting the $16,778 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums from wages; correct MO AGI is $112,408.25. The lower AGI put it in the 15% federal-tax-deduction tier ($1,653.90) instead of the 5% tier ($431.45), understating taxable income at $61,776.10 versus $79,776.80."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Gave a one-line estimate; its $3,780 corresponds to running about $84,000 of joint taxable income through the schedule once. The correct base is $79,776.80 after the $32,200 standard deduction and $431.45 federal-tax deduction, split by income share and taxed separately for each spouse."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Overstated the couple's taxable income at $95,365 (the correct figure is $79,776.80). It added a separate $1,547 tax on the dependent's income, but the dependent has $0 Missouri AGI in the couple's unit. It also used a 4.8% top rate instead of 4.7%."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Overstated the couple's taxable income at $95,808 (the correct figure is $79,776.80 after the $32,200 standard deduction and $431.45 federal-tax deduction). It added $1,555 for the dependent as a separate single filer, though the dependent contributes $0 Missouri AGI, and taxed joint income on one schedule rather than per spouse."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Added a $1,196 separate tax for the dependent, whose Missouri AGI is $0 within the couple's unit. For the couple it skipped the $431.45 federal-tax deduction and applied the schedule once to $80,035 instead of taxing each spouse's income-proportional share separately."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Used an outdated 4.95% top rate (the 2026 schedule tops out at 4.7%) and added a $1,354 separate tax for the dependent, who has $0 Missouri AGI in this unit. It also left out the $431.45 federal-tax deduction and the per-spouse split of taxable income."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Added a $1,047 separate single-return tax for the dependent, but the dependent's Missouri AGI is $0 in the couple's tax unit. Only the couple's tax, $3,388.25 computed per spouse on $79,776.80, belongs in the total."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Used invented Missouri parameters: a $13,000 (later $29,900) MFJ standard deduction, repealed $2,000 personal exemptions, a 35% federal-tax deduction, and a 5.3%–5.5% bracket schedule. It then added an arbitrary 'indexation' bump. The correct figures are a $32,200 standard deduction, a 5% federal-tax deduction of $431.45, and the 2026 schedule (4.7% top rate) applied to each spouse's share."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Started from a $161,656 household AGI that includes the dependent's $45,000 wages and skips the $4,058 401(k) and $190 IRA reductions. That wiped out the federal-tax deduction and led it to tax $129,456. Missouri AGI is the spouses' $112,408.25, giving $79,776.80 of taxable income split between them."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Returned $0 with no reasoning. The couple has $79,776.80 of Missouri taxable income after the $32,200 standard deduction and $431.45 federal-tax deduction, which produces $3,388.25 with no offsetting nonrefundable credit."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Added a $1,251 tax on the dependent's ~$28,900 as a separate filer, though the dependent has $0 Missouri AGI in the couple's unit. For the couple it left out the $431.45 federal-tax deduction and taxed $80,208 on one schedule rather than per spouse."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Included the dependent's $45,000 wages in AGI ($157,408 instead of $112,408.25), subtracted $3,600 of personal exemptions that Missouri repealed, and taxed the joint amount once rather than per spouse. The inflated AGI also wrongly eliminated the 5%-tier federal-tax deduction of $431.45."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Pooled all three people's wages with no 401(k), IRA or student-loan reductions ($164,156), used a $26,600 standard deduction and applied a flat 4.95% rate. It then reported $11,145.20, which contradicts its own $6,809 intermediate. The correct base is only the spouses' $79,776.80, taxed per spouse on the 2026 schedule (4.7% top rate)."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Its $124,942 taxable base includes the dependent's $45,000 wages; the spouses' Missouri taxable income is $79,776.80. It also applied a flat 4.5% instead of the graduated 2026 schedule run separately on each spouse's income-proportional share."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It reached roughly the right taxable income (~$79,800, vs. $79,776.80 after the $431.45 federal-tax deduction it never applied), but it taxed the joint total on a single schedule. Missouri splits taxable income between the spouses ($34,743.94 / $45,032.86) and taxes each share separately. Its loose bracket estimate gave $3,506 instead of $1,452.33 + $1,935.91 = $3,388.25."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It added the dependent's $45,000 wages to the joint Missouri AGI ($156,408), but the engine counts only the spouses' $112,408.25. That inflated AGI pushed it over $125,000 and wiped out the 5% federal-tax deduction ($431.45). It also taxed the joint total on one schedule instead of splitting it between the spouses."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It started from gross income of $119,156 without subtracting the $4,058 in 401(k) deferrals, $190 in IRA contributions or $2,500 of student-loan interest. It used a $27,900 standard deduction instead of $32,200. It then applied an invented 4.04% effective rate instead of Missouri's bracket schedule, taxed separately on each spouse's share of $79,776.80."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It reported $0 with no computation. Missouri AGI of $112,408.25, minus the $32,200 standard deduction and the $431.45 federal-tax deduction, leaves $79,776.80 of taxable income. Taxed per spouse, that comes to $3,388.25, so the zero ignores a clearly positive liability."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It said 401(k) deferrals reduce AGI but left the $4,058 out of its arithmetic, so AGI came to $116,466 instead of $112,408.25. It used a $30,000 standard deduction instead of $32,200 and skipped the $431.45 federal-tax deduction. It also taxed the joint total on one schedule instead of each spouse's share separately."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It deducted the full $3,000 of student-loan interest instead of the $2,500 cap, and used a $31,500 standard deduction instead of $32,200. It skipped the 5% federal-tax deduction ($431.45). Its own formula gave about $3,640, which it then inflated to $4,126 without explanation, and it never split taxable income between the spouses."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It added a separate Missouri liability for the dependent's $45,000 wages. The engine keeps the dependent in the joint unit with $0 Missouri AGI and no tax. On the joint return it used a $32,600 standard deduction and one schedule, instead of the $32,200 deduction, the $431.45 federal-tax deduction and per-spouse taxation."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It counted the dependent's $45,000 in joint Missouri AGI ($157,408 instead of $112,408.25). That pushed AGI over $125,000 and wrongly zeroed out the 5% federal-tax deduction. It also taxed $125,208 on one schedule instead of taxing each spouse's share of $79,776.80."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It subtracted the $16,778 of employer health premiums from wages and used a $30,000 standard deduction. It took a $4,400 personal exemption, which Missouri repealed starting in 2018. It deducted 100% of federal tax ($7,339), when Missouri allows only a percentage set by AGI tier (5%, or $431.45, here). Finally it applied a flat 4.7% instead of the bracket schedule per spouse."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Its own inputs (wages net of 401(k) plus interest, minus a $30,000 deduction) come to about $85,000, yet it reported Missouri taxable income of about $102,000. The correct figure is $79,776.80, after the $32,200 standard deduction and the $431.45 federal-tax deduction. It also taxed the total on one schedule instead of splitting it between the spouses."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"AGI ($112,408) and the standard deduction ($32,200) were right. It left out the $431.45 federal income tax deduction (5% of federal liability in the $100k–$125k AGI tier), so taxable income was $80,208 instead of $79,776.80. It applied $256 + 4.7% once to the joint total. Taxing each spouse's share separately uses the low brackets twice and gives $3,388.25."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It put the dependent's wages into a $160,098 AGI, but the engine's joint Missouri AGI is $112,408.25. It used a $30,600 standard deduction instead of $32,200 and took three $2,100 personal exemptions, which Missouri no longer allows. It also applied a flat 4.5% instead of the 2026 schedule per spouse."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It added a separate single return for the dependent ($1,056.06), but the dependent's Missouri AGI is $0 within the joint unit. Its joint figure used 2024 brackets and the 2024 standard deduction instead of the 2026 $32,200 deduction, the $431.45 federal-tax deduction and 2026 brackets."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Its $99,241 total taxable income includes the dependent's wages and subtracts exemptions Missouri has repealed. It used a 4.6% top rate, while the 2026 schedule tops out at 4.7%. Spousal Missouri taxable income alone is $79,776.80, taxed separately on each spouse's share."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Its joint AGI of $95,630 subtracts the two $8,389 employer health premiums from wages, though those are employer-paid and don't reduce wages; the correct AGI is $112,408.25. It also added an $801.81 single return for the dependent, whose Missouri AGI is $0 in the joint unit."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It deducted the full federal tax up to the $10,000/$5,000 caps, but Missouri limits the deduction to a percentage of federal tax that depends on AGI (5%, or $431.45, here). It used a 4.8% rate instead of the 2026 4.7% top rate. It also taxed the dependent on a separate single return, though the dependent has $0 Missouri AGI."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It gave no derivation. $6,055 matches taxing roughly $125k at about 4.7%, which means the dependent's $45,000 was folded into household income with no per-spouse split. The engine taxes only the spouses' $79,776.80, split into $34,743.94 and $45,032.86."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It applied a rough 4.5% rate to ""combined"" household income after deductions, which counts the dependent's wages. It never used the 2026 bracket schedule on each spouse's share of $79,776.80, and it skipped the $431.45 federal-tax deduction."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It applied standard deductions (plural) across multiple units, so it taxed the dependent's $45,000 on a separate return. The engine gives the dependent $0 Missouri AGI, and the joint tax is only $3,388.25 on $79,776.80 split between the spouses."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It gave no derivation. $5,321 is far above the $3,388.25 the spouses owe on $79,776.80 of taxable income, so the answer counts the dependent's $45,000 wages and taxes the total on one schedule."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"$3,421 is $32.75 above the correct $3,388.25. That gap equals leaving out the $431.45 federal-tax deduction (worth about $20 at 4.7%) plus using 2025 bracket thresholds instead of the 2026 schedule published in November 2025 on each spouse's share."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It summed tax across several household tax units, which adds a separate return for the dependent's $45,000. The engine gives the dependent $0 Missouri AGI and taxes only the spouses' $79,776.80, split between them, for $3,388.25."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It gave no derivation. $5,250 is about $1,860 above the correct $3,388.25, which matches adding tax on the dependent's $45,000 wages to the spouses' liability. The engine gives the dependent $0 Missouri AGI."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It started from a $157,408 AGI that includes the dependent's $45,000 wages. It deducted federal tax up to the $10,000 cap, though at the engine's $112,408.25 AGI Missouri allows only 5% ($431.45). It also took a $1,200 dependent deduction that doesn't exist in 2026 Missouri law."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It filed the dependent as a separate single taxpayer with $30,400 of taxable income, but the engine keeps the dependent in the joint unit with $0 Missouri AGI. It used 2024 standard deductions instead of $32,200 and applied a flat 4.7% with no brackets or per-spouse split."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It added a $1,356 single return for the dependent, whose Missouri AGI is $0 in the engine. It also deducted the full $3,000 of student-loan interest instead of $2,500 and skipped the $431.45 federal-tax deduction. It applied a flat 4.7% to the joint total, ignoring the graduated brackets and the per-spouse split."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It claimed the standard deduction wipes out Missouri taxable income, but $112,408.25 minus $32,200 minus $431.45 still leaves $79,776.80. No nonrefundable credit offsets the resulting $3,388.25."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It gave only a rough guess of $3,427, about $39 above the correct $3,388.25. That gap matches leaving out the $431.45 federal-tax deduction and using older bracket thresholds instead of the 2026 schedule on each spouse's share."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It counted the dependent's wages in a $157,598 AGI and subtracted $5,400 of personal/dependent exemptions, which Missouri has repealed. It added a $1,000 health-insurance subtraction and used a 4.5% top rate. The engine taxes only the spouses' $79,776.80, with a 4.7% top rate and a per-spouse split."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Its $124,708 taxable income includes the dependent's $45,000 wages. The engine's figure is $79,776.80, from spousal AGI of $112,408.25 minus the $32,200 standard deduction and the $431.45 federal-tax deduction. It also skipped the per-spouse split of the brackets."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It said AGI is too high for the federal-tax deduction, which only holds if the dependent's $45,000 is included. The spouses' $112,408.25 AGI qualifies for the 5% tier ($431.45), and taxing each spouse's share of $79,776.80 gives $3,388.25."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It subtracted personal exemptions, which Missouri hasn't allowed since 2018, plus a federal-tax deduction larger than the 5% of liability ($431.45) allowed at this AGI. That pushed taxable income about $4,000 below $79,776.80 and the tax down to $3,192.44."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Its $99,041 starts from an AGI that includes the dependent's $45,000 wages and subtracts all three $8,389 employer premiums. It added a $1,000 health-insurance subtraction and dropped the federal-tax deduction, which applies at 5% ($431.45) on the spouses' actual $112,408.25 AGI."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It included only the spouses and the standard deduction, but its federal-tax deduction was far larger than 5% of federal liability. Missouri allows only $431.45 in the $100k–$125k AGI tier. Overstating that deduction by several thousand dollars cut the tax to $3,124 instead of $3,388.25."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It taxed the dependent on a separate return with $28,900 of taxable income, but the dependent's Missouri AGI is $0 in the joint unit. On the joint return it left out the $431.45 federal-tax deduction ($80,208 instead of $79,776.80) and didn't tax each spouse's share separately."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It subtracted both $8,389 employer health premiums from wages, cutting Missouri AGI to about $95,630. That shifted the federal-tax deduction into the 15% tier ($1,653.90 instead of $431.45). It then taxed $61,776.10 on one schedule instead of splitting $79,776.80 between the spouses."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It subtracted only the standard deduction, skipped the $431.45 federal-tax deduction, and applied the rate schedule once to the joint total. Missouri splits $79,776.80 into $34,743.94 and $45,032.86 and taxes each share separately, which gives $3,388.25."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It gave the dependent a separate $36,478 return, but the dependent's Missouri AGI is $0 in the joint unit. Its couple taxable income of $95,365 is about $15,600 above $79,776.80, so it took too small a standard deduction. It also used a 4.8% top rate instead of 4.7%."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Its $95,808 MFJ taxable income subtracts only about $16,100, roughly a single filer's standard deduction, instead of the $32,200 MFJ amount. It also skipped the federal-tax deduction and added a $1,555 single return for the dependent, whose Missouri AGI is $0."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It added a $1,196 single return for the dependent, who has $0 Missouri AGI in the engine. It taxed the joint $80,035 on one schedule using old bracket thresholds. The correct approach deducts $431.45 of federal tax to reach $79,776.80 and taxes each spouse's share separately."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It used the old 4.95% top rate instead of the 2026 4.7% rate. It added a $1,354 separate return for the dependent, whose Missouri AGI is $0. It also skipped the federal-tax deduction and the per-spouse split of the joint taxable income."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Its joint figure ($3,227) is close to the correct $3,388.25. But it added $1,047 for a separate single return for the dependent, whom the engine keeps in the joint unit with $0 Missouri AGI and no separate tax."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It used outdated or invented rules: a $13,000/$29,900 standard deduction, a 35% federal-tax deduction (the correct tier is 5%, or $431.45), $6,000 of repealed exemptions, and a 5.3% rate with old brackets. The 2026 schedule tops out at 4.7% and is applied to each spouse's share of $79,776.80."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Its $161,656 AGI adds the dependent's $45,000 wages and leaves out the spouses' $4,058 of 401(k) deferrals. That inflated AGI eliminated the 5% federal-tax deduction ($431.45). It then taxed $129,456 on one schedule instead of each spouse's share of $79,776.80."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It reported $0 with no reasoning. The spouses' Missouri taxable income of $79,776.80 yields $3,388.25 when taxed on each spouse's share, and no nonrefundable credit eliminates it."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It deducted federal tax up to the $10,000 cap, cutting taxable income to about $72,100, though Missouri allows only 5% of federal liability ($431.45) at this AGI. It then applied a flat 4.7% with no brackets. The two errors nearly cancel, but $3,390 still misses the correct $3,388.25 from per-spouse taxation of $79,776.80."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It added $1,251 for a separate return on the dependent's $28,900, but the dependent's Missouri AGI is $0 in the joint unit. On the joint return it skipped the $431.45 federal-tax deduction ($80,208 instead of $79,776.80) and taxed the total on one schedule, not per spouse."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Its $157,408 AGI includes the dependent's $45,000 wages, and it subtracted three $1,200 exemptions that Missouri law doesn't provide. The engine taxes only the spouses' $79,776.80 (after the $431.45 federal-tax deduction), split into separately taxed shares."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It counted the dependent's wages, ignored 401(k), IRA and student-loan reductions, and used a $26,600 standard deduction and a 4.95% rate. Its own 4.95% arithmetic gave $6,809, yet it reported an unexplained $11,145.20. The correct figure is $3,388.25 on $79,776.80 split between the spouses."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It started from a federal taxable income of about $124,942 that includes the dependent's wages, and used a 4.5% top rate. The engine taxes Missouri taxable income of $79,776.80 for the spouses only, at the 2026 4.7%-top schedule applied to each spouse's share."
us,scenario_095,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model incorrectly included the full $14,022 of Social Security in AGI and then applied an age-65 single-filer standard deduction. Social Security is not taxable at this provisional-income level, and the surviving-spouse filing-status deduction eliminates the resulting $15,286.89 AGI."
us,scenario_095,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The model correctly reached approximately $15,286 of AGI but treated the head as a single filer and applied a $9,800 deduction. The surviving-spouse filing status provides the larger applicable standard deduction, reducing taxable income to zero."
us,scenario_095,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model correctly concluded that none of the Social Security is taxable, but then retained it in its $29,308 AGI and computed taxable income from that inflated figure. Excluding the nontaxable Social Security produces $15,286.89 of AGI, which the surviving-spouse standard deduction fully offsets."
@@ -7947,29 +8201,30 @@ us,scenario_095,snap,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model i
us,scenario_095,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied an incorrect 200%-of-FPL broad-based categorical eligibility threshold and then invented a $95 monthly New Jersey minimum SNAP benefit. The household’s $29,605 income exceeds the applicable gross-income limit, and the minimum allotment applies only to an otherwise eligible household."
us,scenario_095,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model labeled the household’s countable income “very low” without reconciling that claim with the listed $29,605 annual income. That income exceeds the applicable one-person gross-income limit, so the $500 asset balance cannot establish eligibility and the correct allotment calculation yields $0."
us,scenario_095,snap,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model incorrectly treated $2,467 in monthly gross income as below New Jersey’s applicable broad-based categorical eligibility limit. Because the household fails the gross-income screen, it is ineligible and cannot receive the $24 monthly minimum allotment, which is reserved for otherwise eligible households."
-us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly excluded Social Security and the $11,385 401(k) under the pension exclusion, leaving $4,198. It then subtracted $2,000 of exemptions and taxed $2,198 at 1.4% to get $31. It missed NJ's filing threshold ($10,000 single / $20,000 qualifying widow(er)): NJ income of $4,198 falls below it, so the tax is zero."
-us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied the pension exclusion, a medical deduction and only a $1,000 exemption, then taxed $3,109.66 at 1.4% to get $44. It never applied NJ's filing threshold. With only $4,198 of NJ income left after the exclusion, below the $10,000/$20,000 threshold, the tax is zero."
-us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model started from federal AGI and never applied NJ's age-62+ pension exclusion to the $11,385 401(k) distribution, so it taxed $13,092 at 1.4%. After that exclusion, NJ income is $4,198. That is below NJ's filing threshold, so NJ tax is zero."
-us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly reduced NJ income to $4,198 of self-employment income. It then subtracted $2,000 of exemptions and applied 1.4% to get $30.77. It missed NJ's no-tax filing threshold ($10,000 single / $20,000 qualifying widow(er)), which brings liability at this income level to zero."
-us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly applied the pension exclusion and then took exemptions and a medical deduction, taxing $2,009.66 at 1.4%. It never checked NJ's filing threshold. NJ income of $4,198 after the exclusion is under $10,000/$20,000, so there is no NJ tax."
-us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly left only $4,198 of NJ income after the pension exclusion, then taxed $2,198 after exemptions at 1.4%. It missed that NJ charges no tax when gross income is at or below the filing threshold ($10,000 single / $20,000 qualifying widow(er)), so the answer is $0."
-us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model fully excluded the 401(k) and then taxed $2,198 at 1.4% to get $30.77. It skipped NJ's gross-income filing threshold. The $4,198 of remaining NJ income falls far below that threshold, so liability is zero."
-us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly excluded Social Security and the retirement distribution, then applied $2,000 of exemptions and 1.4% to get $30.77. It never applied NJ's no-tax threshold ($10,000 single / $20,000 qualifying widow(er)), which zeroes tax on $4,198 of NJ income."
-us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model excluded the 401(k) and then taxed roughly $3,110–$3,198 at 1.4% to get about $44, taking only a $1,000 exemption. It ignored NJ's filing threshold. With $4,198 of NJ income, which is below $10,000/$20,000, the household owes no NJ tax."
-us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly reduced NJ income to $4,198, then subtracted exemptions and excess medical expenses and taxed the rest at 1.4% to get $26. It missed NJ's filing-threshold rule: income at or below $10,000 (single) or $20,000 (qualifying widow(er)) carries zero NJ tax."
-us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied the retirement exclusion, exemptions and a medical deduction and taxed the remaining self-employment income to get $28.14. It never applied NJ's filing threshold, which brings tax to zero because NJ income of $4,198 is below $10,000/$20,000."
-us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model invoked a low-income tax reduction but still reported $18.46. NJ's actual low-income rule is a full exemption: when NJ gross income is at or below the filing threshold ($10,000 single / $20,000 qualifying widow(er)), tax is zero. This household's $4,198 of NJ income qualifies."
-us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly excluded the 401(k) and then taxed $2,198 after exemptions at 1.4% to get $31. It never applied NJ's no-tax filing threshold. NJ income of $4,198 falls below that threshold, so liability is zero."
-us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model excluded Social Security and the retirement distribution, then taxed the remaining business income after exemptions and medical expenses to get $29.54. It missed NJ's filing threshold ($10,000 single / $20,000 qualifying widow(er)), which zeroes tax on $4,198 of NJ income."
-us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly arrived at $4,198 of NJ gross income, then subtracted medical expenses and exemptions and taxed $1,882 at 1.4%. Because $4,198 is below NJ's filing threshold, NJ imposes no tax at all and the answer is $0."
-us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly found NJ gross income of $4,198, then ran it through exemptions, the medical deduction and the 1.4% bracket to get $26. It ignored the rule that NJ gross income at or below the filing threshold ($10,000 single / $20,000 qualifying widow(er)) owes zero tax."
-us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly identified NJ gross income as $4,198 but computed $26.35 by taxing $1,881.96 at 1.4%. It skipped NJ's no-tax filing threshold: gross income of $4,198 is below $10,000/$20,000, so liability is zero."
-us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model started from federal AGI and applied only a $1,000 exemption. It then used a 1.75% rate instead of NJ's 1.4% first bracket, giving $51. It also missed that NJ income of $4,198 after the pension exclusion is below NJ's filing threshold, so the tax is zero."
-us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly applied the retirement exclusion, exemptions and a medical deduction, then taxed about $2,010 at 1.4% to get $28. It never applied NJ's filing threshold. The $4,198 of NJ income after the exclusion is below $10,000/$20,000, so tax is zero."
-us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no value or explanation for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so it produced no usable answer. The correct derivation gives $0 because NJ income of $4,198 after the pension exclusion is below NJ's filing threshold."
-us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model subtracted half of self-employment tax, which NJ does not allow. It also used a $1,000 'standard deduction', though NJ has no standard deduction, and taxed $2,901 at 1.4% to get $41. It missed NJ's filing threshold, which zeroes tax on $4,198 of NJ income."
-us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly isolated $4,198 of self-employment income after the exclusions, then taxed $2,198 after exemptions at 1.4% to get $30.77. It missed NJ's no-tax filing threshold ($10,000 single / $20,000 qualifying widow(er)), so the tax should be $0."
-us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model capped the retirement exclusion at $10,000, but NJ's age-62+ pension exclusion covers the full $11,385 distribution. It then taxed $3,394.66 at 1.4%. It also ignored NJ's filing threshold: NJ income after the full exclusion is $4,198, below $10,000/$20,000, so tax is zero."
+us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Correctly reduced NJ gross income to $4,198 by excluding Social Security and the 401(k) under the pension exclusion. It then taxed $2,198 at 1.4% and never applied NJ's low-income rule, which eliminates tax when NJ gross income is at or below $10,000 ($20,000 for surviving spouse). The correct liability is $0."
+us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Taxed $3,109.66 at 1.4%, and allowed only the $1,000 personal exemption while omitting the $1,000 age-65 exemption. The decisive error is skipping NJ's gross-income threshold: $4,198 of post-exclusion NJ gross income is under $10,000, so no tax is due."
+us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Started from federal AGI and never applied NJ's 62+ pension exclusion to the $11,385 401(k) distribution, so it taxed $13,092 at 1.4%. It also missed that NJ gross income below the $10,000/$20,000 filing threshold carries zero tax. Even its unexcluded $15,583 is under the $20,000 surviving-spouse threshold."
+us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Correctly isolated $4,198 of NJ gross income, then applied $2,000 of exemptions and the 1.4% rate. It ignored NJ's rule that a filer with NJ gross income at or below $10,000 ($20,000 for surviving spouse) owes no tax, so the answer is $0, not $30.77."
+us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied the pension exclusion, exemptions, and medical deduction, then taxed $2,009.66 at 1.4%. It missed NJ's low-income exemption: post-exclusion NJ gross income of $4,198 is under the $10,000 threshold, so tax is zero."
+us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Reduced NJ gross income to $4,198 and taxed $2,198 after exemptions at 1.4%. It never applied the NJ gross-income filing threshold ($10,000 single, $20,000 surviving spouse), below which NJ income tax is zero."
+us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"After the full pension exclusion, it computed $30.77 on $2,198 of taxable income and skipped NJ's low-income rule. Because NJ gross income of $4,198 is at or below $10,000, NJ imposes no tax."
+us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied the 1.4% bracket to $2,198 of taxable self-employment income without checking NJ's gross-income threshold. NJ gross income of $4,198 is below the $10,000/$20,000 threshold, so the tax is $0."
+us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied only the $1,000 personal exemption, dropped the $1,000 age-65 exemption, and taxed about $3,110 at 1.4%. The controlling miss is NJ's low-income exemption: with NJ gross income at $4,198, under $10,000, no NJ tax is owed."
+us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Correctly excluded Social Security and the 401(k), applied exemptions and the medical deduction, and taxed the remainder at 1.4%. It never applied NJ's rule zeroing tax when NJ gross income ($4,198) is at or below the $10,000 ($20,000 surviving-spouse) threshold."
+us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Taxed the residual self-employment income after exemptions and the medical deduction, which yields $28.14. It missed that NJ gross income of $4,198 falls under the $10,000 low-income threshold, so NJ tax is $0."
+us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Invoked a 'low-income tax reduction' but treated it as a partial cut that left $18.46. NJ's low-income rule is a full exemption: any filer with NJ gross income at or below $10,000 ($20,000 surviving spouse) owes zero tax, and this filer's $4,198 qualifies."
+us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Excluded the 401(k), applied $2,000 of exemptions, and taxed $2,198 at 1.4% to get $31. It skipped NJ's gross-income threshold test, under which $4,198 of NJ gross income produces no tax."
+us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Computed a positive tax of $29.54 on the remaining business income after exemptions and medical deductions. NJ income tax is zero for filers whose NJ gross income is at or below $10,000 ($20,000 surviving spouse), and this household's NJ gross income is $4,198."
+us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Correctly set NJ gross income at $4,198, then subtracted medical expenses and exemptions and taxed $1,882 at 1.4%. Having reached a $4,198 NJ gross income, it failed to apply the rule that NJ gross income at or below $10,000 owes zero tax."
+us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Identified NJ gross income as $4,198 but still computed tax on $1,882 of taxable income. NJ exempts filers whose gross income is at or below $10,000 ($20,000 for surviving spouse), so the tax is $0."
+us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Correctly found NJ gross income of $4,198, then applied exemptions and the medical deduction and taxed $1,881.96 at 1.4%. It ignored NJ's low-income exemption, which sets tax to zero when NJ gross income is at or below $10,000."
+us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Started from federal AGI, applied a 1.75% rate instead of NJ's 1.4% bottom bracket, and omitted the age-65 exemption. Most importantly, it missed that NJ gross income below the $10,000/$20,000 threshold owes no tax, so the answer is $0."
+us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied the full retirement exclusion, exemptions, and medical deduction, then taxed about $2,010 at 1.4%. It never applied NJ's gross-income threshold: NJ gross income of $4,198 after exclusion, and even $15,583 before it, is below the $20,000 surviving-spouse threshold, so tax is zero."
+us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no value or reasoning for this output. The correct answer is $0, because NJ gross income of $4,198 after excluding Social Security and the 401(k) is below NJ's no-tax threshold."
+us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Subtracted half of SE tax, which NJ does not allow, applied only a $1,000 exemption, and taxed $2,901 at 1.4%. The decisive miss is NJ's low-income rule: NJ gross income of $4,198 is under $10,000, so no NJ tax is due."
+us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Taxed $2,198 at 1.4% after exemptions. It ignored that NJ income tax is zero whenever NJ gross income, here $4,198, is at or below the $10,000 ($20,000 surviving-spouse) filing threshold."
+us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Correctly excluded Social Security and the pension distribution, then taxed $2,198 at 1.4%. It omitted NJ's low-income exemption, under which $4,198 of NJ gross income carries no tax."
+us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Capped the retirement exclusion at an outdated $10,000 instead of fully excluding the $11,385 under the current exclusion, then taxed $3,394.66 at 1.4%. It also missed the gross-income threshold: total NJ income of $15,583 is under the $20,000 surviving-spouse threshold, and the post-exclusion $4,198 is under $10,000, so tax is zero."
us,scenario_095,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Counted the NJ ANCHOR homeowner benefit as a $1,500 refundable income tax credit. ANCHOR is a separate property-tax relief payment, not part of the NJ-1040 refundable credits (NJ EITC, NJ Child Tax Credit, property tax credit). A mortgage balance is not property tax paid, and unlisted property taxes are $0. The model also skipped the NJ EITC, which phases out to $0 at this household's AGI of about $15,286."
us,scenario_095,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Correctly found the age-65+ childless NJ EITC pathway and the $298.45 phase-in amount (7.65% × $3,901 net SE earnings), but then took 40% of that without applying the phase-out. The phase-out uses the greater of AGI or earned income, and AGI is about $15,286 because it includes the $11,385 401(k) distribution. With the non-joint threshold of about $11k, the reduction of 7.65% × (AGI − threshold) exceeds $298.45, so the hypothetical federal credit and the NJ EITC are both $0."
us,scenario_095,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Applied 40% to the phase-in amount alone ($298.45 = 7.65% × $3,901 of earnings after the deductible half of SE tax) and never ran the phase-out. The phase-out runs on AGI of about $15,286, which includes the $11,385 401(k) distribution. Because that distribution alone is above the roughly $11k non-joint threshold, the reduction exceeds the phase-in amount and the hypothetical federal credit, and therefore the NJ EITC, is $0."
@@ -7984,7 +8239,8 @@ us,scenario_098,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,categorical_eli
us,scenario_098,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model converted old age, asserted low countable income, and assets into automatic Medicaid eligibility without identifying a qualifying pathway. Passing age and resource tests is not enough: the person fails HBI eligibility overall, receives no SSI, and matches no Medicaid category."
us,scenario_098,head_medicaid_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model supplied no parseable value or explanation for head_medicaid_eligible, violating the required output contract."
us,scenario_098,head_medicaid_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated a purportedly low countable MAGI as establishing aged, blind, or disabled Medicaid eligibility. MAGI at 2.20× FPL is relevant only after assignment to a MAGI category, while this person matches no category and fails HBI eligibility overall."
-us,scenario_098,head_medicare_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
+us,scenario_098,head_medicare_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no value and no explanation for head_medicare_eligible, so there was nothing to parse. Applying the age-65 rule to an 80-year-old head gives 1."
+us,scenario_098,head_medicare_eligible,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model's explanation correctly says the head is eligible because age 80 is over the Medicare threshold of 65. It then submitted value = 0, which contradicts its own conclusion. This is an answer-encoding error: its reasoning supports a value of 1."
us,scenario_098,head_wic_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_098,local_income_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_098,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
@@ -8016,146 +8272,152 @@ us,scenario_099,child2_wic_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligi
us,scenario_099,child2_wic_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated the under-five age requirement as the complete WIC eligibility test. Child 2 satisfies the categorical age rule, but household income of approximately $159,676 exceeds the 185%-of-poverty income limit, making the child ineligible."
us,scenario_099,child2_wic_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model inferred eligibility solely from child 2's age and never applied WIC's household-income test. The household's approximately $159,676 annual income is above the applicable 185%-of-poverty limit, so the categorical age condition does not produce eligibility."
us,scenario_099,child2_wic_eligible,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model supplied no output for child2_wic_eligible, violating the required submission contract. It therefore never reported the result produced by applying the WIC income limit: value 0."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It used a 20% CDCC rate ($1,200) instead of the OBBBA 32% rate ($1,920). It also deducted the $1,575 auto loan interest and the $144 IRA contributions, and used a $32,600 standard deduction instead of $32,200. Its own arithmetic came to $10,965, but it submitted an unrelated $12,103."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It got the $32,200 standard deduction, the $4,400 CTC, and the $1,920 CDCC right. However, it left out the $2,000 OBBBA charitable deduction for non-itemizers, so taxable income came out at $127,422 instead of $125,529.30, about $417 too much tax. It also deducted the $144 IRA contributions, which the active-participant phaseout disallows."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It did not subtract the $3,088 traditional 401(k) deferrals or the $3,000 capital loss from wages, and it used the 2024 $29,200 standard deduction instead of $32,200. It then applied an invented $3,174 nonrefundable CTC and no CDCC, instead of the $4,400 CTC plus $1,920 CDCC."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It gave a rough estimate with no bracket calculation. Its $6,900 implies about $10,100 in credits or extra deductions, far more than the correct $6,320 in nonrefundable credits ($4,400 CTC + $1,920 CDCC) against $17,031.48 of tax."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used pre-OBBBA parameters: a $2,000-per-child CTC instead of $2,200, a 20% CDCC rate instead of 32%, and a $31,500 standard deduction instead of $32,200. It also left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction and taxed the qualified dividends at 0% instead of 15%."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,other,False,"Its reasoning ended at $12,421, but it submitted $18,962. Even that reasoning counted the $128 of qualified dividends twice and used a $2,000 CTC, a 20% CDCC rate, and a $31,500 standard deduction, and it left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It gave the CDCC as roughly $0 instead of 32% × $6,000 = $1,920, and used a $4,000 CTC instead of $4,400. It also overstated tax at $19,650 on about $127,200 of taxable income (the correct brackets give about $17,500) and left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted $1,575 of auto loan interest, which does not qualify, and left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction. It also deducted the $144 IRA contributions despite the active-participant phaseout. Together these left taxable income at $125,847 instead of $125,529.30, which accounts for the $70 overstatement."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It wrongly treated only $300 per child ($600 total) of the CTC as nonrefundable. In fact the full $4,400 CTC offsets income tax liability before any refundable portion. It also used a 20% CDCC rate instead of 32%, a $30,000 standard deduction, and 2025 brackets."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,other,False,"It estimated about $19,900 of tax before credits and then subtracted credits, yet submitted $24,500 by citing AMT add-backs that do not apply to a standard-deduction filer. It also used a $30,300 standard deduction, a $2,000 CTC, and a 20% CDCC rate."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It used a 20% CDCC rate ($1,200) instead of the OBBBA rate of 32% at $159,729 AGI ($1,920). It also deducted $1,575 of auto loan interest where it should have taken the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $540 short-term gain but ignored the $7,018 long-term loss, so it lost the $3,000 capital loss deduction. It used a $30,900 standard deduction and limited the nonrefundable CTC to $600 instead of applying the full $4,400. It also used a 20% CDCC rate instead of 32%."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied pre-TCJA law with $5,061 personal exemptions, itemized deductions, and a phased-down $1,000 CTC. In fact OBBBA keeps the $32,200 standard deduction, no exemptions, and a $2,200 CTC. It also subtracted the employer-paid ESI premiums from wages, which understated AGI at $134,987."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It subtracted the employer ESI premiums as Section 125 exclusions, took $21,200 of personal exemptions, and itemized under expired-TCJA rules. The correct approach is the $32,200 standard deduction plus the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction. It also used a $2,000 CTC and a 20% CDCC rate instead of $4,400 and 32%."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $30,700 standard deduction instead of $32,200, a $4,000 CTC instead of $4,400, and a 20% CDCC rate instead of 32%. It also left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired in 2026 and applied $20,200 of personal exemptions, itemized deductions, and a $1,000-per-child CTC. OBBBA made the $32,200 standard deduction and the $2,200 CTC permanent, and it also missed the 32% CDCC rate."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $164,481 leaves out the $3,000 net capital loss deduction, and it never applied the $4,400 CTC and $1,920 CDCC nonrefundable credits. Its $17,822 is essentially tax before credits."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset law with $21,200 of personal exemptions, itemized deductions, and a phased-down $700 CTC, instead of OBBBA's $32,200 standard deduction and $2,200-per-child CTC. It also subtracted the employer ESI premiums from wages, giving an AGI of $135,169."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It computed pre-TCJA tax with $20,200 of personal exemptions, itemized deductions, and a $750 phased-out CTC. Under OBBBA the household takes the $32,200 standard deduction and gets the full $4,400 CTC. Its AGI of about $135,000 also wrongly removed the employer ESI premiums from wages."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It gave no derivation. Its $11,463 is about $750 above the correct figure, which matches using the old 20% CDCC rate ($1,200) instead of the 32% OBBBA rate ($1,920) at $159,729 AGI."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation. Its $11,105 is $394 above the correct figure, which matches taxing the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction at 22% (about $440). That deduction brings taxable income down to $125,529.30."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said it used itemized deductions and personal exemptions, which is pre-TCJA law. For 2026, OBBBA allows no personal exemptions and gives this household the $32,200 standard deduction plus the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, with a $2,200-per-child CTC."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation. Its $10,817 is $106 above the correct figure, which means it overstated taxable income by about $480 at the 22% rate. Correct taxable income is $125,529.30: AGI of $159,729.30 less the $32,200 standard deduction and the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It invented a $15,600 nonrefundable CTC instead of $4,400 and limited the CDCC to one child's $3,000 at 20% instead of $6,000 at 32%. It also claimed a $1,404 Saver's Credit, even though $159,729 AGI is far above that credit's income limit. Its deduction figures contradict each other ($30,000 vs. $18,000)."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It limited the nonrefundable CTC to $800, although the full $4,400 offsets income tax first. It used a 20% CDCC rate instead of 32% and left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It gave no computation. Its $17,278 is roughly the tax before any credits, so it effectively did not subtract the $4,400 CTC and $1,920 CDCC from the $17,031.48 of regular tax."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It gave no computation. Its $14,696 is consistent with subtracting only about $2,300 of credits from tax before credits, instead of the full $6,320 ($4,400 CTC plus $1,920 CDCC)."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It used a 20% CDCC rate ($1,200) instead of the OBBBA 32% rate ($1,920). It also left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, so taxable income was $127,566 instead of $125,529.30. These two errors account for the roughly $1,170 overstatement."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It applied a $1,200 CDCC at the old 20% rate instead of $1,920 at the OBBBA rate of 32% for $159,729 joint AGI. That understates nonrefundable credits by $720."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It used a 20% CDCC rate ($1,200) instead of 32% ($1,920). It also left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, so taxable income was $127,528 instead of $125,529.30."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the pre-OBBBA $2,000-per-child CTC ($4,000 instead of $4,400) and a 20% CDCC rate ($1,200 instead of $1,920). It also relied on itemized deductions instead of the $32,200 standard deduction plus the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It used a 20% CDCC rate ($1,200) instead of 32% ($1,920) and left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction. It also overstated regular tax at about $18,360, when the 2026 brackets give about $17,470 on its own taxable income."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It used a 20% CDCC rate ($1,200) instead of 32% ($1,920). It also left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, giving $127,384 of taxable income instead of $125,529.30."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It got AGI, both deductions, and the CTC right but computed the CDCC as 30% ($1,800) instead of 32% ($1,920). For a joint return, the rate drops 1 point per $4,000 of AGI over $150,000, not per $2,000. That makes the $9,729 excess a 3-point reduction, not 5."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It gave a rough $14,000 guess with no bracket or credit calculation. That implies only about $3,000 of credits, far short of the $4,400 CTC plus $1,920 CDCC against $17,031.48 of tax."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied restored pre-TCJA law with personal exemptions, 10/15/25% brackets, and a $1,000 CTC fully phased out, so it allowed no CTC. Under OBBBA the household takes the $32,200 standard deduction and $2,000 charitable deduction and gets a $4,400 CTC and 32% CDCC."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA sunset and applied $21,200 of exemptions, itemized deductions, and 10/15/25% brackets, treating the CTC as fully phased out. OBBBA keeps the $32,200 standard deduction and a $2,200-per-child CTC with a $400,000 phaseout, and the CDCC rate is 32%."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied post-TCJA-expiration law with $5,400 exemptions, itemizing, and restored brackets, and treated the CTC as phased out. Under OBBBA the household uses the $32,200 standard deduction plus the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction and claims a $4,400 CTC and $1,920 CDCC."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used TCJA-sunset rules: 10/15/25% brackets, exemptions, and a $751 phased-down CTC. It also took AGI as $134,987 by subtracting the employer ESI premiums from wages. The correct AGI is $159,729.30, with the $32,200 standard deduction and a $4,400 CTC."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It used a 20% CDCC rate ($1,200) instead of the OBBBA 32% rate ($1,920). It also left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, which lowers taxable income to $125,529.30."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was no answer to score."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was no answer to score."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed charitable and other deductions wipe out the tax. In fact the household takes the $32,200 standard deduction plus only a $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, leaving $125,529.30 of taxable income and $17,031.48 of tax. The $6,320 of nonrefundable credits leaves $10,711.48, not $0."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It used a 20% CDCC rate ($1,200) instead of 32% ($1,920). It also left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, so taxable income was $127,566 instead of $125,529.30."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It used a 20% CDCC rate ($1,200) instead of 32% ($1,920) and left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction. It also applied 2025 bracket thresholds ($2,385 + $8,772), which overstated tax at $17,852."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,other,False,"Its reasoning reached $11,730 but it submitted $24,711.50, which nothing in its work supports. That reasoning also deducted the full $6,478 capital loss instead of the $3,000 limit, and used a $2,000 CTC and a 20% CDCC rate."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It never applied the $4,400 CTC as a nonrefundable credit and subtracted only a $1,200 CDCC instead of $1,920. It also invented a $4,160 educator deduction, left out the $3,000 capital loss deduction, and used a $29,994 standard deduction instead of $32,200."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Its own work reached $10,965, but it submitted $12,103 with no derivation behind the change. Within that work it took the CDCC at the old 20% rate ($1,200) instead of OBBBA's 32% ($1,920). It also deducted $1,575 of auto-loan interest for a vehicle not shown to qualify, deducted the $144 IRA contributions despite the active-participant phaseout, and used a $32,600 standard deduction instead of $32,200."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the correct $32,200 standard deduction, $4,400 CTC and 32% CDCC, but left out OBBBA's $2,000 charitable deduction for non-itemizing joint filers, so taxable income was about $1,900 too high. It also deducted $144 of traditional IRA contributions, although both spouses are active 401(k) participants with joint AGI above the 2026 deductibility phaseout range."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It built AGI of $165,502 without excluding the $3,088 of traditional 401(k) deferrals or taking the $3,000 net capital loss deduction. It used the 2024 $29,200 standard deduction and left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction. It then subtracted a made-up $3,174 'nonrefundable CTC' instead of the full $4,400 CTC, and dropped the $1,920 CDCC entirely."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"It gave a rough $6,900 with no bracket calculation. The correct path is taxable income of $125,529 (AGI $159,729 minus the $32,200 standard deduction and the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction), tax of $17,031, then minus $4,400 CTC and $1,920 CDCC. Its answer understates the liability by about $3,800, which matches an underestimate of the pre-credit bracket tax."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It used pre-OBBBA values throughout: a $2,000-per-child CTC instead of $2,200, a 20% CDCC instead of OBBBA's 32% rate at $159,729 joint AGI, a $31,500 standard deduction instead of $32,200, and no $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction. It also taxed the $128 of qualified dividends at 0% instead of 15% and deducted the IRA contributions despite the active-participant phaseout."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,other,False,"Its own work reached $12,421, but it submitted $18,962, an unexplained figure higher than its own pre-credit tax. The work itself counted the $128 of qualified dividends twice in total income, used the $31,500 standard deduction instead of $32,200, left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, and took the CTC at $2,000 per child and the CDCC at 20% instead of $2,200 and 32%."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It put bracket tax at about $19,650 on roughly $127,200 of taxable income, where 2026 joint brackets give about $17,400. It credited only $4,000 of CTC instead of $4,400 and set the CDCC to about $0 instead of $1,920 (32% of the $6,000 expense cap). It also left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took a $1,575 auto-loan interest deduction for a vehicle not shown to be a qualifying new U.S.-assembled car, and left out OBBBA's $2,000 charitable deduction for non-itemizing joint filers. It also deducted $144 of IRA contributions, explicitly skipping the active-participant phaseout that removes the deduction at about $159,700 joint AGI. Together these left taxable income $318 too high."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It treated only $300 per child ($600) of the CTC as nonrefundable, misreading the $1,700 ACTC refundability cap. With $16,942 of tax, the whole CTC ($4,400 under OBBBA) offsets tax as a nonrefundable credit. It also used pre-OBBBA values ($30,000 standard deduction, 2025 brackets, 20% CDCC, $2,000-per-child CTC) and left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,other,False,"It estimated about $19,900 of pre-credit tax, then reported $24,500 by adding an unexplained 'AMT add-back' instead of subtracting credits. The household takes the standard deduction, so no itemized-deduction AMT adjustment applies. The correct step subtracts $6,320 of nonrefundable CTC and CDCC from $17,031 of tax."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It used the old 20% CDCC rate ($1,200) instead of 32% ($1,920). Under OBBBA, the rate falls from 35% by one point for each $4,000 of joint AGI above $150,000. It also took a $1,575 auto-loan interest deduction in place of the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction that applies here."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $540 short-term gain but ignored the $7,018 long-term loss, so it never took the $3,000 net capital loss deduction and overstated AGI at $163,306. It also used a $30,900 standard deduction, left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, capped the nonrefundable CTC at $600 instead of the full $4,400, and applied a 20% CDCC rate instead of 32%."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset law (personal exemptions, pre-TCJA brackets, a $1,000-per-child CTC phased down to $750), but OBBBA made the TCJA rates, the $32,200 standard deduction and the $2,200 CTC permanent for 2026. It also subtracted employer-paid insurance premiums from wages, cutting AGI to $134,987 instead of $159,729. Its closeness to the reference is a coincidence."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset law, with $21,200 of personal exemptions and a $1,000-per-child CTC, although OBBBA kept the TCJA framework for 2026: no exemptions, a $32,200 standard deduction and a $2,200-per-child CTC. It also took employer-paid ESI premiums out of AGI ($135,069 instead of $159,729) and applied a 20% CDCC rate instead of 32%."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It used a $30,700 standard deduction instead of $32,200 and left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction. It then took the CTC at $2,000 per child instead of $2,200 and applied the old 20% CDCC rate instead of OBBBA's 32% rate at $159,729 joint AGI."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It explicitly assumed the TCJA had expired, using $20,200 of personal exemptions, itemized deductions and a $1,000-per-child CTC. OBBBA made the TCJA framework permanent, so 2026 has no exemptions, a $32,200 standard deduction plus a $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, and a $2,200-per-child CTC. It also applied a 20% CDCC rate instead of 32%."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Its AGI of $164,481 leaves out the $3,000 net capital loss deduction. Its $17,822 answer subtracts no nonrefundable credits (neither the $4,400 CTC nor the $1,920 CDCC), so it is essentially tax before credits."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It explicitly applied TCJA-sunset law, with $21,200 of personal exemptions and a pre-TCJA CTC phased down to $700. OBBBA kept the TCJA rates, the $32,200 standard deduction and the $2,200-per-child CTC for 2026. It also took employer-paid premiums out of AGI ($135,169 instead of $159,729)."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It computed 'pre-TCJA' tax with $20,200 of personal exemptions and a phased-down $750 CTC, but OBBBA made the TCJA framework permanent: $32,200 standard deduction, no exemptions, and a $2,200-per-child CTC with a $400,000 phaseout. It also understated AGI at about $135,000 by subtracting employer-paid insurance premiums."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It gave $11,463 with no derivation, $752 above the correct $17,031 of tax minus the $4,400 CTC and $1,920 CDCC. The gap matches using the old 20% CDCC ($1,200) instead of OBBBA's 32% rate, which understates the credit by $720."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave $11,105 with no derivation, $394 above the correct result. The gap matches leaving out OBBBA's $2,000 charitable deduction for non-itemizing joint filers, which is worth $440 at the 22% bracket, while otherwise following the $32,200 standard deduction, $4,400 CTC and $1,920 CDCC path."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It says it used itemized deductions and personal exemptions, which is the TCJA-sunset regime. OBBBA permanently repealed personal exemptions and set the 2026 joint standard deduction at $32,200, which together with the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction exceeds this household's itemizable amounts. That wrong framework produced $9,877 instead of $17,031 tax minus $6,320 of credits."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,other,False,"It gave $10,817 with no derivation, $106 above the correct path: $159,729 AGI, $32,200 standard deduction, $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, $17,031 tax, minus $4,400 CTC and $1,920 CDCC. The gap matches understating deductions by about $480 at the 22% bracket, or understating the CDCC by about $106."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It gave $14,256 with no figures, $3,545 above the correct result. The correct path subtracts $6,320 of nonrefundable credits ($4,400 CTC plus a $1,920 CDCC at 32%) from $17,031 of tax. The model's number implies it netted only about $2,800 of credits."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It skipped the 401(k) exclusion and the $3,000 capital loss limit, and cited both $30,000 and $18,000 standard deductions in the same calculation. It invented a $15,600 CTC instead of $4,400 and limited the CDCC to one child at 20% instead of $6,000 at 32%. It also claimed a $1,404 saver's credit, although joint AGI of about $160,000 is far above the saver's credit income limit."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It capped the nonrefundable CTC at $800, but the entire $4,400 CTC offsets tax when liability exceeds it. It also applied the old 20% CDCC rate instead of OBBBA's 32% and left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Its $17,278 is essentially the pre-credit tax of $17,031. It never subtracted the $4,400 CTC or the $1,920 CDCC, both of which fully offset liability as nonrefundable credits."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It gave $14,696 with no figures, about $3,985 above the correct result. That implies it subtracted only about $2,300 of nonrefundable credits instead of the full $6,320 ($4,400 CTC plus $1,920 CDCC) from $17,031 of tax."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It left out OBBBA's $2,000 charitable deduction for non-itemizing joint filers, so taxable income was $127,566 instead of $125,529. It also used the old 20% CDCC rate ($1,200) instead of 32% ($1,920), the rate that results from the one-point drop per $4,000 of joint AGI above $150,000."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It applied the old 20% CDCC rate ($1,200) instead of OBBBA's 32% rate ($1,920) at $159,729 joint AGI. With the $4,400 CTC correct, this $720 credit shortfall accounts for its overstatement."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Its taxable income of $127,528 leaves out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction for joint filers. It also took the CDCC at the old 20% rate ($1,200) instead of OBBBA's 32% ($1,920)."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It itemized, although the household's itemizable amounts fall below the $32,200 standard deduction, which also brings the separate $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction. It then took the CTC at $2,000 per child instead of $2,200 and the CDCC at 20% instead of 32%."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction and applied the old 20% CDCC rate ($1,200) instead of 32% ($1,920). Its implied regular tax of about $18,360 is also too high for its own taxable income of about $127,500, which 2026 joint brackets tax at about $17,480."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Its taxable income of $127,384 reflects deducting $144 of IRA contributions despite the active-participant phaseout and leaving out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction. It also took the CDCC at the old 20% rate ($1,200) instead of OBBBA's 32% ($1,920)."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It got taxable income and the $4,400 CTC right, but computed the CDCC at 30% ($1,800) instead of 32% ($1,920). It stepped the rate down one point per $2,000 of AGI above $150,000, which is the non-joint step; joint filers lose one point per $4,000, so the $9,729 excess means 3 steps and a 32% rate."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,other,False,"It gave a round $14,000 with no calculation, about $3,300 above the correct result. The correct path is $17,031 of tax on $125,529 of taxable income, minus the $4,400 CTC and the $1,920 CDCC."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied 'restored 2017-style' law, with $21,200 of personal exemptions and a CTC fully phased out above $110,000. OBBBA made the TCJA framework permanent, so 2026 has a $32,200 standard deduction plus a $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction and a $2,200-per-child CTC with a $400,000 phaseout. It also applied a 20% CDCC rate instead of 32%."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA had expired, using a $16,600 standard deduction, $21,200 of exemptions, 10/15/25% brackets and a $1,000 CTC phased out above $110,000. OBBBA kept the TCJA brackets, the $32,200 standard deduction and the $2,200-per-child CTC for 2026. It also applied a 20% CDCC rate instead of 32%."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA had expired, using four $5,400 exemptions, itemized deductions, 10/15/25% brackets and a CTC phased out to zero. OBBBA kept the TCJA framework for 2026: a $32,200 standard deduction plus a $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, and a $2,200-per-child CTC that is unreduced at $159,729 AGI. It also applied a 20% CDCC rate instead of 32%."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used pre-TCJA 10/15/25% brackets and a CTC phased down to $751, but OBBBA kept the TCJA brackets and a full $2,200-per-child CTC for 2026. It also understated AGI at $134,987 by subtracting employer-paid insurance premiums, and applied a 20% CDCC rate instead of 32%."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It used the $32,200 standard deduction but left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction for joint filers. It also took the CDCC at the old 20% rate ($1,200) instead of OBBBA's 32% ($1,920)."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No value or explanation was returned for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there is no answer to score."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No value or explanation was returned for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there is no answer to score."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed charitable deductions and credits wipe out the tax. In fact the household's itemizable amounts fall below the $32,200 standard deduction, and only the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction applies on top of it. That leaves $125,529 of taxable income and $17,031 of tax, which $6,320 of credits reduces to $10,711, not zero."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted an $8,060 overtime deduction for the spouse, who is not listed as paid hourly and so has no FLSA overtime premium; the Head, who is hourly, works only 40 hours. It also left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction and took the CDCC at 20% instead of 32%."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Its taxable income of $127,566 leaves out OBBBA's $2,000 charitable deduction for non-itemizing joint filers. It also used the old 20% CDCC rate ($1,200) instead of 32% ($1,920)."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used 2025 bracket thresholds ($2,385 + $8,772), producing $17,852 of tax on $127,384 instead of 2026 values. It deducted $144 of IRA contributions despite the active-participant phaseout, left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, and applied a 20% CDCC rate instead of 32%."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,other,False,"Its own work reached $11,730, but it submitted $24,711.50 with no derivation. The work itself deducted the full $7,018 long-term loss instead of applying the $3,000 net capital loss limit, used a $32,600 standard deduction, and took the CTC at $2,000 per child and the CDCC at 20%."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It invented a $4,160 educator expense deduction, skipped the $3,000 capital loss deduction, and used a $29,994 standard deduction. It then subtracted only a $1,200 CDCC, leaving out the $4,400 CTC entirely and using 20% instead of the 32% CDCC rate."
us,scenario_099,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Its own reasoning computed pre-credit federal tax of about $17,200 and stated that the $4,000 CTC reduces it to about $13,200, which under §24(d) leaves zero credit unused by the liability limitation, then abandoned that conclusion and reported $1,200 as an unexplained residual. It applied only the earned-income prong (15% × ($165,000 − $2,500) = $24,375) and never the controlling ceiling that the ACTC cannot exceed the CTC disallowed by tax liability. It also used the pre-OBBBA $2,000 per-child credit rather than the 2026 $2,200."
us,scenario_099,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It reported the statutory per-child refundable cap ($1,700 × 2 = $3,400) as an automatic refund for any filer with earnings above the $2,500 floor, skipping §24(d)'s requirement that the ACTC equals only the CTC remaining after the credit is applied against tax liability. With roughly $17,400 of federal income tax before credits, the full $4,400 of 2026 CTC is absorbed nonrefundably, so the refundable amount is $0. It also used the 2025 $1,700 cap instead of the 2026 indexed figure."
us,scenario_099,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It correctly identified the OBBBA 2026 $2,200 per-child CTC and the $1,800 per-child refundable cap, then treated that cap as a guaranteed refund because earnings exceed the $2,500 threshold and AGI is under the $400,000 phase-out. The refundable portion is the lesser of the earned-income formula, the per-child cap, and the CTC left over after offsetting tax; on about $127,000 of taxable income the roughly $17,400 tax consumes all $4,400 of CTC nonrefundably, leaving $0."
us,scenario_099,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No value or explanation was returned for federal_refundable_credits, so the model performed no substantive computation to evaluate. The correct derivation gives $0: about $17,400 of pre-credit federal tax fully absorbs the $4,400 CTC under the §24(d) liability limitation, and $159,676 of income is far past the two-child MFJ EITC phase-out."
us,scenario_099,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No value or explanation was returned for federal_refundable_credits, so no substantive reasoning exists to fault. The correct derivation gives $0: the roughly $17,400 of federal tax before credits leaves no CTC unused for the ACTC, and EITC is zero at $159,676 of income."
us,scenario_099,federal_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It invented a ""$300 Other Dependent Credit portion"" for two children aged 9 and 4 who are qualifying children; the §24(h)(4) other-dependent credit is $500, applies only to dependents who are not qualifying children, and is wholly nonrefundable, so it can never enter federal_refundable_credits. Its own explanation states that pre-credit tax absorbs the nonrefundable credits and no ACTC remains — a derivation that yields $0 — yet it submitted $600."
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model compared about $166,694 of income with the federal 130% free-meal cutoff (about $41,800) and stopped there. It did not apply California's universal school meals program, which gives free meals to the 9-year-old K-12 student whatever the household's income."
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model treated being over 130% FPL with no categorical eligibility as the end of the analysis. It missed that California's universal free school meals program sets the tier to FREE for every enrolled K-12 student without any income test.
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied the federal 130% FPL income test and also cited assets, even though school meals have no asset test. It did not recognize that California's universal school meals program gives free meals to the household's K-12 child regardless of income or assets."
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model ruled the household out on an income limit. In California, free school meals are universal for enrolled K-12 students and have no income limit, so the 9-year-old receives free meals."
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied an FPL income test, and it misstated the free-meal cutoff as 185% (that is the reduced-price cutoff; free is 130%). It also ignored California's universal school meals program, which makes the K-12 child eligible for free meals regardless of income."
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used only the federal 130% FPL free-meal test. It missed that California's universal school meals program overrides that test and gives free meals to every enrolled K-12 student, including this 9-year-old."
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model concluded 'no' because income was above 130% FPL and there was no categorical eligibility. It never applied California's universal free school meals program, which gives the FREE tier without any income or categorical test."
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model ruled the household ineligible because income was above 130% FPL. It missed that California's universal school meals program gives free meals to all K-12 students regardless of income.
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied the federal NSLP 130% FPL threshold (about $42,900) as the only route to free meals. It overlooked California's universal school meals program, which makes the 9-year-old eligible regardless of income."
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model compared income with the federal 130%/185% poverty-line thresholds and stopped there. It did not account for California's universal school meals program, which gives free meals to the K-12 child without any income test."
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model applied the federal 130% FPL free-meal threshold to income of about $165k. It missed that California's universal school meals program makes free meals available to every enrolled K-12 student regardless of income.
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used only the federal 130% FPL free-meal limit. It ignored California's universal school meals program, which gives the household's K-12 child free meals regardless of income."
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model's whole test was income above 130% FPL. It missed that California's universal free school meals program sets the tier to FREE for enrolled K-12 students without any income test.
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model denied free meals because income was above 130% FPL. In California, school meals are universal, so the 9-year-old K-12 student receives free meals regardless of income."
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied the federal 130% FPL free-meal test. It did not apply California's universal school meals program, which overrides that test for every enrolled K-12 student."
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model ruled the household out on an income threshold. California's universal school meals program has no income threshold, so the K-12 child receives free meals."
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model applied the federal 130% FPL free-meal test. It missed that California's universal school meals program makes the household's K-12 child eligible for free meals regardless of income.
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated an income threshold as decisive. In California, free school meals are universal for enrolled K-12 students and have no income test."
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model ruled the household ineligible on an income threshold. It ignored California's universal school meals program, which gives free meals to the 9-year-old K-12 student regardless of income."
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model applied the federal 130% poverty-guideline test. It missed that California's universal school meals program overrides that test and gives free meals to all enrolled K-12 students.
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model ruled the household out on an income threshold. California's universal school meals program gives free meals to the K-12 child without any income test.
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model compared AGI of about $156,588 with 130% FPL. It never applied California's universal school meals program, which makes the K-12 child eligible for free meals regardless of income."
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model compared roughly $160,000 of income with a federal 130% limit of about $43,000. It missed that California's universal school meals program gives free meals to every enrolled K-12 student regardless of income."
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model ruled the household ineligible on income thresholds. California's universal school meals program makes the household's K-12 child eligible for free meals regardless of income.
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model assumed wage income above federal thresholds rules out free meals. It overlooked California's universal school meals program, which sets the tier to FREE for enrolled K-12 students without any income test."
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model applied the federal 130% poverty limit and the categorical-eligibility test. It missed that California's universal school meals program gives free meals to the 9-year-old K-12 student regardless of income or categorical status.
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model applied an income threshold for free meals. It missed that California's universal school meals program gives free meals to all enrolled K-12 students with no income test.
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model ruled the household out on an income threshold. California's universal school meals program gives the K-12 child free meals regardless of income.
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied only the federal free-meal income threshold. It ignored California's universal school meals program, which overrides that threshold for every enrolled K-12 student."
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model treated high income as disqualifying. California's universal school meals program gives free meals to enrolled K-12 students regardless of income.
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model applied the federal 130% FPL test and the categorical-eligibility test. It missed that California's universal school meals program gives the household's K-12 child free meals regardless of either.
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model checked only the federal 130% FPL limit and SNAP/TANF/Medicaid direct certification. It did not apply California's universal school meals program, which makes every enrolled K-12 student eligible for free meals."
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model compared income with a federal 130% FPL cutoff of about $43,000. It missed that California's universal school meals program gives free meals to the 9-year-old K-12 student regardless of income."
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied the federal 130% FPL test and the categorical-eligibility test (SNAP, TANF, foster care). It overlooked that California's universal school meals program makes the K-12 child eligible for free meals without either test."
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no value or explanation for free_school_meals_eligible, so its answer could not be parsed. The correct answer is 1, because California's universal school meals program covers the household's 9-year-old K-12 student."
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model ruled the household out on income limits. California's universal school meals program gives free meals to all enrolled K-12 students with no income limit.
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied the federal 130% poverty-guideline free-meal limit. It ignored California's universal school meals program, which gives the household's K-12 child free meals regardless of income."
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model compared about $160k of income with a federal 130% FPL limit of about $43k. It missed that California's universal school meals program sets the tier to FREE for every enrolled K-12 student regardless of income.
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model applied the federal 130% FPL threshold even though it noted the household was in California. It missed that California's universal school meals program gives free meals to the K-12 child regardless of income.
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model ruled the household ineligible on an income threshold. California's universal school meals program has no income test, so the 9-year-old K-12 student receives free meals."
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model compared roughly $166,694 of income with the federal 130%/185% FPL NSLP cutoffs and stopped there. It never applied California Universal Meals, which makes the 9-year-old K-12 child eligible for free meals regardless of income."
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated the 130% FPL income test and categorical eligibility as the only routes to free meals. It missed California's universal free school meals program, which gives free meals to the K-12 child whatever the household's 5.03 FPG ratio."
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used the federal 130% FPL test and also cited asset limits, which school meals do not have. It never recognized that California Universal Meals makes every enrolled K-12 student eligible for free meals, so the household qualifies."
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model ruled the household ineligible because income is above the free-meal limit. California's universal free school meals program removes the income test for K-12 students, so the 9-year-old receives free meals."
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied an income test and gave the wrong figure for it: 185% FPL is the reduced-price cutoff, while free meals use 130%. It never applied California Universal Meals, which provides free meals to the K-12 child regardless of income."
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated the 130% FPL federal income test as decisive. California's universal free school meals program supersedes that test for enrolled K-12 students, so the household qualifies."
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model considered only the 130% FPL test and categorical eligibility. It missed the third pathway, California's universal school meals program, which gives the 9-year-old K-12 student free meals."
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model answered from the federal 130% FPL cutoff alone. It ignored California Universal Meals, which provides free meals to all K-12 students regardless of household income."
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied the NSLP 130% FPL test (about $42,900 for a family of four). It never accounted for California's universal free school meals program, under which the K-12 child gets free meals at any income."
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model compared income with the federal free and reduced-price thresholds and reversed their dollar labels. More importantly, it never applied California Universal Meals, which makes the K-12 child eligible for free meals regardless of income."
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model judged eligibility only against the 130% FPL federal threshold. California's universal free school meals program overrides that threshold for enrolled K-12 students.
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model relied on the 130% FPL free-meal limit. It missed that California provides free school meals to every K-12 student under its universal meals program, so the household qualifies."
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied only the federal income test above 130% FPL. It ignored California Universal Meals, which makes the K-12 child eligible for free meals regardless of income."
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model concluded there is no free meal support because income exceeds 130% FPL. It never applied California's universal free school meals program, which covers the enrolled 9-year-old."
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used the federal 130% FPL cutoff as the only route to eligibility. It missed California Universal Meals, which provides free meals to all K-12 students regardless of income."
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied a generic income threshold and stopped. California's universal free school meals program removes the income test, so the K-12 child receives free meals."
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated the 130% FPL federal test as decisive. It overlooked California Universal Meals, which makes every enrolled K-12 student eligible for free meals regardless of household income."
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model ruled the household out on an income threshold. California's universal free school meals program supersedes income limits for K-12 students, so the household qualifies."
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied only an income eligibility threshold. It missed that California provides free meals to all K-12 students under its universal meals program, which covers the 9-year-old."
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used the 130% FPL federal guideline. It never applied California Universal Meals, which grants free meals to the K-12 child regardless of the household's 5.03 FPG ratio."
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model treated the income threshold as the only test. California's universal free school meals program makes every enrolled K-12 student eligible for free meals regardless of income.
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model mentioned California universal meals but still answered from the federal 130% FPL test. PolicyEngine models the state universal program and sets the tier to FREE, so the K-12 child receives free meals regardless of income."
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model compared an AGI of about $156,588 with 130% FPL and concluded the household was ineligible. It missed California Universal Meals, which provides free meals to all K-12 students without an income test."
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied the roughly $43,000 (130% FPL) free-meal cutoff. It never recognized California's universal free school meals program, under which the enrolled 9-year-old gets free meals regardless of income."
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model relied on federal income thresholds. It missed California Universal Meals, which makes the K-12 child eligible for free meals regardless of household income."
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model assumed income above the thresholds rules out free meals. California's universal free school meals program gives every enrolled K-12 student free meals, so PolicyEngine returns positive support."
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model checked only the federal 130% FPL limit and categorical eligibility. It missed California's universal free school meals program, which PolicyEngine uses to set the tier to FREE for the K-12 child."
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied only the income threshold. California Universal Meals overrides that threshold for K-12 students, so PolicyEngine returns positive free-meal support."
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used the federal free-meal income threshold. It ignored California's universal free school meals program, which covers the enrolled 9-year-old regardless of income."
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated the federal free-meal income threshold as controlling. In California, the universal free school meals program supersedes it, and PolicyEngine assigns the FREE tier."
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model concluded that high income disqualifies the household. California's universal free school meals program provides free meals to all K-12 students at any income.
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied the 130% FPL test and categorical eligibility only. It missed California Universal Meals, which gives the K-12 child free meals worth $1,130.96 per year in PolicyEngine."
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model checked the 130% FPL test and categorical certification through SNAP, TANF and Medicaid. It never applied California's universal free school meals program, which makes the enrolled K-12 student eligible regardless of income."
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used the roughly $43,000 (130% FPL) federal cutoff. California Universal Meals removes the income test for K-12 students, so the household qualifies for free meals."
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied the 130% FPL test and categorical pathways only. It missed California's universal free school meals program, which PolicyEngine uses to grant the FREE tier to the K-12 child."
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no value or explanation for free_school_meals_eligible, so its answer could not be parsed. The correct answer is 1, because California's universal free school meals program covers the enrolled 9-year-old."
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied federal free-meal income limits. It ignored California Universal Meals, which provides free meals to all K-12 students regardless of income."
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model checked only the 130% FPL test and SNAP/TANF categorical eligibility. It missed California's universal free school meals program, which makes the K-12 child eligible at any income."
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model used the federal 130% FPL free-meal limit. California Universal Meals supersedes that limit and gives the enrolled 9-year-old free meals.
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model compared about $160,000 of income with the roughly $43,000 (130% FPL) cutoff. It never applied California's universal free school meals program, which PolicyEngine uses to assign the FREE tier."
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model named California but applied only the federal 130% FPL threshold. It missed that California's universal meals program provides free school meals to every K-12 student regardless of income.
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model applied only the income threshold. California's universal free school meals program gives the enrolled K-12 child free meals regardless of household income.
us,scenario_099,head_chip_eligible,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_099,head_medicaid_eligible,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_099,head_medicare_eligible,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_099,head_wic_eligible,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_099,local_income_tax,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied CA SDI at the 2025 rate of 1.2% ($1,980) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($2,145). Its own work then summed to $14,602.50, but it submitted $14,118, which nothing in the reasoning supports."
-us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Counted only federal FICA ($10,230 SS + $2,392.50 Medicare). It left out California's mandatory employee SDI of 1.3% on $165,000 ($2,145), even though the prompt explicitly includes mandatory state employee payroll taxes."
-us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Wrongly stated that California has no mandatory state employee payroll tax, so it dropped the 1.3% uncapped CA SDI contribution ($2,145) and reported FICA alone ($12,622.50)."
-us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Said there is no mandatory CA state payroll tax and left out the 1.3% CA SDI ($2,145). It also misadded its own FICA components: $10,230 + $2,393 is $12,623, not the $12,242 it submitted."
-us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used the 2025 CA SDI rate of 1.2% ($1,980) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($2,145). It then submitted $13,197.50, which does not match its own recomputed total of $14,602.50."
-us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Recognized CA SDI but then dropped it, treating the output as federal FICA only. It submitted $12,622.50 without the mandatory 1.3% SDI ($2,145), and the 1.1% rate it had considered was also outdated."
-us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Left out California's mandatory employee SDI (1.3% × $165,000 = $2,145) and truncated Medicare to $2,392. It reported only $12,622 of federal FICA."
-us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Correctly included uncapped CA SDI but used the 2024 rate of 1.1% ($1,815) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($2,145), which left the total $330 short."
-us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Went back and forth between treating CA SDI as voluntary and applying it at 1.1%, then submitted $12,903.50, which matches neither calculation. The correct addition is mandatory SDI at 1.3% of $165,000, or $2,145."
-us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied CA SDI at the outdated 1.1% rate ($1,815) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($2,145)."
-us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"Subtracted $24,597 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums from wages and used $140,403 as the FICA and SDI base instead of the full $165,000 of gross wages. It also applied SDI at 1.1% instead of 1.3%."
-us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"Cut the payroll wage base to $140,403 by subtracting ESI premiums, even though employee SS, Medicare, and SDI apply to the full $165,000 of gross wages. It also used the outdated 1.1% SDI rate instead of 1.3%."
-us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied CA SDI at the 2025 rate of 1.2% ($1,980) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($2,145)."
-us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied CA SDI at the 2024 rate of 1.1% ($1,815) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($2,145)."
-us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Computed only federal Social Security and Medicare and left out California's mandatory employee SDI (1.3% × $165,000 = $2,145)."
-us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"Subtracted $24,597 of ESI premiums from gross wages and taxed only $140,403, when employee FICA and SDI apply to the full $165,000. It also used the outdated 1.1% SDI rate instead of 1.3%."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Used a 1.2% CA SDI rate ($1,980) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($2,145). Then it submitted $14,118, which does not even match its own $14,602.50 total."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Counted only federal FICA ($12,622.50). It left out California's mandatory employee SDI of 1.3% on $165,000 ($2,145), which the output definition explicitly includes."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Said California has no mandatory employee payroll tax and so left out CA SDI. SDI is 1.3% of all wages in 2026, which adds $2,145 to the $12,622.50 of FICA."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Wrongly said there is no mandatory CA state payroll tax and left out the $2,145 of SDI (1.3% of $165,000). It also misadded its own FICA figures, reporting $12,242 instead of $12,622.50."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied CA SDI at 1.2% ($1,980) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($2,145). It then submitted $13,197.50, which contradicts its own recomputed $14,602.50."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Calculated CA SDI at an outdated 1.1% rate, then dropped it entirely and reported federal FICA only ($12,622.50). The correct answer includes SDI at 1.3% ($2,145)."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Reported only Social Security and Medicare. It left out California's mandatory 1.3% employee SDI ($2,145) and also truncated Medicare to $2,392."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Correctly treated CA SDI as uncapped and mandatory but used 1.1% instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3%. That made SDI $1,815 instead of $2,145, an understatement of $330."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Wrongly called CA SDI voluntary. Its intermediate SDI figure used 1.1%, and it then submitted an unexplained $12,903.50. The correct SDI is 1.3% of $165,000, or $2,145, on top of $12,622.50 of FICA."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied CA SDI at about 1.1% ($1,815) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($2,145), so the payroll tax total is $330 too low."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"Subtracted the $24,597 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums from wages and taxed only $140,403. FICA and SDI should apply to the full $165,000 of gross wages. It also used a 1.1% SDI rate instead of 1.3%."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"Reduced the FICA and SDI wage base by the $24,597 of ESI premiums, to $140,403, when the full $165,000 of gross wages is taxable. It also used a 1.1% SDI rate instead of 1.3%."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used a 1.2% CA SDI rate ($1,980) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($2,145)."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used a 1.1% CA SDI rate ($1,815) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($2,145)."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Included only Social Security and Medicare. It left out California's mandatory employee SDI of 1.3% on $165,000 ($2,145)."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"Subtracted $24,597 of ESI premiums from gross wages, leaving a $140,403 base for FICA and SDI, when the full $165,000 is taxable. It also applied 1.1% SDI instead of 1.3%."
us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied CA SDI at 1.1% ($1,815) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($2,145)."
-us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Counted only Social Security and Medicare and left out the mandatory 1.3% CA SDI ($2,145). Its $12,963 does not even match 7.65% × $165,000 = $12,622.50."
-us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Included CA SDI but understated it badly. On top of the $12,622.50 of full FICA, its $13,280 implies only $657.50 of SDI, versus the correct 1.3% × $165,000 = $2,145."
-us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"Its $12,425.67 equals 8.85% (FICA plus 1.2% SDI) × $140,403. It shrank the wage base by subtracting ESI premiums and used the 2025 SDI rate. The correct calculation is 7.65% FICA plus 1.3% SDI on the full $165,000."
-us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Included CA SDI at a rate well below the 2026 1.3% rate. Its $14,103 implies about $1,480 of SDI (about 0.9%) on top of $12,622.50 of FICA, instead of $2,145."
-us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Left out California's mandatory employee SDI (1.3% × $165,000 = $2,145). It also miscomputed Social Security by applying 6.2% to wage-base figures instead of actual wages ($10,230), and ended at an unsupported $12,632.40."
-us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Correctly applied uncapped CA SDI to gross wages but used the 2025 rate of 1.2% ($1,980) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($2,145)."
-us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Treated the household as subject to employee FICA only and left out California's mandatory 1.3% SDI ($2,145). It also truncated FICA to $12,622."
-us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Counted only FICA and left out the mandatory 1.3% CA SDI ($2,145). Its $13,577 does not match its own FICA method, which gives 7.65% × $165,000 = $12,622.50."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Counted only Social Security and Medicare and left out CA SDI ($2,145 at 1.3%). Its $12,963 also does not match the correct FICA total of $12,622.50, so the FICA arithmetic is wrong as well."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Said it included CA SDI, but $13,280 implies only about $657 of SDI on top of $12,622.50 of FICA. The correct SDI is 1.3% of $165,000, or $2,145."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"Its $12,425.67 equals 8.85% (7.65% FICA plus 1.2% SDI) of $140,403. So it removed the $24,597 of ESI premiums from the wage base, which should be the full $165,000, and it used a 1.2% SDI rate instead of 1.3%."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"$14,103 implies about $1,480 of CA SDI (roughly 0.9% of wages) on top of $12,622.50 of FICA. The 2026 SDI rate of 1.3% gives $2,145."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied a 1.1% CA SDI rate ($1,815) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($2,145)."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Left out CA SDI entirely. Its Social Security figures were wrong: the wages are under the wage base, so the tax is simply 6.2% × $165,000 = $10,230. It ended with $12,632.40 instead of $12,622.50 FICA plus $2,145 SDI."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Correctly treated CA SDI as mandatory and uncapped but used 1.2% ($1,980) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($2,145)."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Treated the payroll tax as federal FICA only and left out California's mandatory 1.3% employee SDI ($2,145)."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Counted FICA only, leaving out the $2,145 of CA SDI. Its FICA figure of $13,577 is also wrong, since 7.65% of $165,000 is $12,622.50."
us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Estimated CA SDI at 1.2% ($1,980) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($2,145)."
-us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used an approximate 1.2% CA SDI rate instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3%. Its submitted $14,312.40 implies only $1,689.90 of SDI, below even its own 1.2% figure, versus the correct $2,145."
-us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Estimated CA SDI at 1.2% ($1,980) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($2,145)."
-us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used about $1,980 of CA SDI, which is the 2025 1.2% rate, instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% on $165,000 ($2,145)."
-us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Counted only employee Social Security and Medicare and left out California's mandatory employee SDI (1.3% × $165,000 = $2,145)."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Stated an SDI rate of about 1.2% but submitted $14,312.40, which implies only about $1,690 of SDI. Applying the 2026 rate of 1.3% to $165,000 gives $2,145."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used a 1.2% CA SDI rate ($1,980) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($2,145)."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used about 1.2% for CA SDI ($1,980) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($2,145)."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Counted only Social Security and Medicare and left out California's mandatory 1.3% employee SDI ($2,145)."
us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied CA SDI at 1.1% ($1,815) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($2,145)."
-us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied mandatory CA SDI at the 2025 rate of 1.2% ($1,980) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($2,145)."
-us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied uncapped CA SDI at 1.2% ($1,980) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($2,145)."
-us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"Subtracted $24,597 of ESI premiums and taxed only $140,403 of FICA wages instead of the full $165,000. It also left out California's mandatory 1.3% employee SDI ($2,145) entirely."
-us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied CA SDI at the 2025 rate of 1.2% ($1,980) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($2,145)."
-us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Gave no payroll_tax value or reasoning. The expected answer is $10,230 SS + $2,392.50 Medicare + $2,145 CA SDI = $14,767.50."
-us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Gave no payroll_tax value or reasoning. The expected answer is $10,230 SS + $2,392.50 Medicare + $2,145 CA SDI = $14,767.50."
-us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"Correctly computed per-earner FICA of $6,502.50 and $6,120 ($12,622.50 total) but submitted $25,290, roughly double that. It also left out the mandatory 1.3% CA SDI ($2,145)."
-us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied CA employee SDI at 1.2% ($1,980) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($2,145)."
-us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Wrongly concluded that no employee-side state payroll tax applies. It left out California's mandatory SDI at 1.3% of $165,000 ($2,145)."
-us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Acknowledged that the prompt includes mandatory CA SDI but still submitted FICA alone ($12,622.50). It also assumed an outdated 1.1% rate with a wage cap, where the 2026 rule is 1.3% uncapped ($2,145)."
-us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,other,False,"Applied CA SDI only to the head's $85,000 and ignored the spouse's $80,000. It also miscomputed even that: 1.2% × $85,000 is $1,020, not $472.20. The correct SDI is 1.3% × $165,000 = $2,145."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used a 1.2% CA SDI rate ($1,980) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($2,145)."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used a 1.2% CA SDI rate ($1,980) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($2,145)."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"Removed $24,597 of ESI premiums from FICA wages instead of taxing the full $165,000 of gross wages. It also left out California's mandatory 1.3% employee SDI ($2,145)."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used a 1.2% CA SDI rate ($1,980) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($2,145)."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No payroll_tax value or explanation was returned, so there is no answer to score. The correct total is $12,622.50 FICA plus $2,145 CA SDI."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No payroll_tax value or explanation was returned, so there is no answer to score. The correct total is $12,622.50 FICA plus $2,145 CA SDI."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,minimax-m3,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"Correctly computed $6,502.50 + $6,120 = $12,622.50 of employee FICA, then submitted $25,290, roughly double, as if the employer share were included. It also left out CA SDI ($2,145)."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used about 1.2% for CA SDI ($1,980) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($2,145)."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied CA SDI at 1.2% ($1,980) instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% ($2,145)."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Said no employee-side state payroll tax applies and left out California's mandatory SDI. SDI is 1.3% of $165,000, or $2,145, on top of $12,622.50 of FICA."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Acknowledged that CA SDI is mandatory and included in the definition, then dropped it and reported FICA only. Its SDI estimate also used an outdated 1.1% rate with a wage cap, instead of the 2026 rate of 1.3% with no cap ($2,145)."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied CA SDI to the head's wages only and got the arithmetic wrong: 1.2% of $85,000 is $1,020, not $472.20. It left out the spouse's SDI. The correct SDI is 1.3% of the combined $165,000, or $2,145."
us,scenario_099,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_099,self_employment_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_099,self_employment_tax,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
@@ -8165,52 +8427,54 @@ us,scenario_099,spouse_medicaid_eligible,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_
us,scenario_099,spouse_medicare_eligible,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_099,spouse_wic_eligible,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_099,ssi,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It reached the correct taxable income of about $138,791 but overstated 2026 MFJ bracket tax at about $6,940 instead of $5,871.48. It then wrote $6,940 − $1,256 ≈ $5,684 and still submitted $6,222, a figure that does not match its own subtraction of exemption credits."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed a ~$4,406 medical deduction by counting the $2,500 'other health insurance premiums' on top of the $2,500 premiums-excluding-Part-B figure, which already includes them. That inflated medical costs to $16,400, but actual out-of-pocket medical of $11,400 is below the 7.5% floor (~$12,005). It also took the $144 IRA deduction, which is phased out for active plan participants at this income, so taxable income came out ~$134,241 instead of $138,792."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used an outdated $4,754 standard deduction instead of the $11,412 MFJ amount and never itemized the $21,275 of property tax and charity. It also deducted unreimbursed employee expenses above the line. It then subtracted an invented $146 'child tax credit' and an educator 'benefit' instead of the $1,256 personal and dependent exemption credits."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the standard deduction, giving roughly $150,000 of taxable income, instead of itemizing the $21,275 of real estate taxes and charity, which yields $138,792. Its $4,200 is a rough guess that is not tied to bracket tax of $5,871.48 less $1,256 of exemption credits."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It got itemized deductions right and reached a net of about $4,680. It then raised the answer to $5,959 'for SDI', but CA SDI is an employee payroll tax and is not part of state income tax before refundable credits. It also overstated exemption credits (~$1,520 vs $1,256) and bracket tax (~$6,200 vs $5,871)."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It said 401(k) deferrals were already netted out but then used gross wages of $165,000, failing to subtract the $3,088 traditional 401(k) deferrals. That put CA AGI at $163,010 and taxable income at $141,735. It also treated income as reaching the 9.3% bracket and overstated bracket tax at ~$7,973 vs the correct $5,871.48."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Taxable income of ~$138,000 was right, but it overstated MFJ bracket tax at ~$7,700 instead of $5,871.48. It also mis-added its own exemption credits (2×$150 + 2×$500 is $1,300, not $450), subtracting only $450 instead of the $1,256 of exemption credits."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It took the $144 IRA deduction, which is fully phased out for active plan participants at ~$160k MAGI. Its projected 2026 bracket tax (~$5,729) was about $140 below the correct $5,871.48. It also overstated exemption credits at $1,288 vs $1,256, so the result was ~$175 too low."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its CA AGI ($160,066) and taxable income ($138,791) were correct. However, it applied a ~$450 credit to each of the four people, $1,800 in total, instead of ~$153 per personal exemption and ~$475 per dependent ($1,256). That overstated exemption credits by ~$544 and drove the answer below the correct figure."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It capped real estate taxes at the federal $10,000 SALT limit, which California does not apply, and ended up with ~$150,000 of taxable income instead of $138,792. It also said exemption credits should be subtracted but left the $6,800 unchanged, so the $1,256 of exemption credits was never applied."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added a medical deduction above the 7.5% floor, but that deduction exists only because it counted the $2,500 'other health insurance premiums' twice per adult. Actual out-of-pocket medical of $11,400 is below the ~$12,005 floor, so there is no medical deduction. As a result, taxable income was ~$134k instead of $138,792."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its CA AGI of $163,306 is ~$3,240 too high, consistent with not excluding the $3,088 traditional 401(k) deferrals. It added a $2,752 medical deduction even though out-of-pocket medical of $11,400 is below the 7.5% floor. It also used only ~$1,000 of exemption credits instead of $1,256."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its taxable income of $112,436 implies CA AGI of about $135k, consistent with subtracting the $24,597 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums from wages, although gross wages remain fully taxable. It also added the $1,263 of unreimbursed employee expenses to itemized deductions, but those fall below the 2% AGI floor (~$3,201)."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its taxable income of $107,524 implies CA AGI of about $135k, consistent with excluding the $24,597 of ESI premiums from wages. It also inflated itemized deductions to $27,545 with non-allowable medical and employee-expense items. The correct figures are CA AGI of $160,066.80, itemized deductions of $21,274.50, and taxable income of $138,792.30."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its CA AGI ($160,066) was correct, but it claimed a $4,395.05 medical deduction by counting both the $2,500 premiums-excluding-Part-B and the $2,500 'other health insurance premiums' for each adult. True out-of-pocket medical of $11,400 is below the 7.5% floor, so taxable income is $138,792, not $134,396."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It subtracted only ~$1,180 of exemption credits instead of $1,256 (2 personal at ~$153 plus 2 dependent at ~$475). Its implied bracket tax of ~$5,845 also falls short of $5,871.48, leaving the answer $50 high."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave no computation, and its $7,845 is ~$3,230 above the correct figure. That amount exceeds even the bracket tax on $138,792 of taxable income ($5,871.48), so it both overstated bracket tax and omitted the $1,256 of exemption credits."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its CA AGI of $135,169 is ~$24.9k too low, consistent with excluding the $24,597 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums from taxable wages. Its itemized deductions of $26,138 include non-allowable medical and employee-expense amounts. It also used only ~$600 of exemption credits instead of $1,256."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $2,570 is ~$2,045 below the correct figure, consistent with understating taxable income by roughly $25k, for example by excluding ESI premiums from wages or adding medical and employee-expense deductions. The correct base is $138,792.30, giving $5,871.48 of bracket tax less $1,256 of exemption credits."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,other,False,"It gave no derivation. Its $8,725 exceeds the bracket tax on even the standard-deduction taxable income (~$148.7k), so it ignored the $21,275 of itemized deductions and the $1,256 of exemption credits and overstated the bracket schedule. The correct figure is $5,871.48 of tax on $138,792.30, less $1,256."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave no derivation, and its $4,128 is ~$487 below the correct figure. That gap corresponds to an extra ~$5–6k deduction (such as a medical deduction from double-counted premiums) or an understated 2026 bracket tax. The correct figure is $5,871.48 of tax on $138,792.30 of taxable income, less $1,256 of exemption credits."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave no derivation, and its $4,056 is ~$559 below the correct figure. That gap is consistent with extra itemized deductions beyond property tax and charity, or an understated bracket tax, instead of $5,871.48 of bracket tax on $138,792.30 less $1,256 of exemption credits."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave no derivation, and its $5,245 is ~$630 above the correct figure. That gap is consistent with overstated bracket tax or exemption credits well below $1,256. The correct result is $5,871.48 of tax on $138,792.30 of taxable income less $1,256 of exemption credits."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a non-existent $6,566 MFJ standard deduction instead of $11,412 and wrongly concluded that itemized deductions did not exceed it, when $21,275 does. It treated the $338 educator expense as a dollar-for-dollar credit, although California disallows that deduction entirely. It also omitted the $1,256 of exemption credits and then submitted $3,202.96, a figure inconsistent with its own $5,559."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the ~$11,500 standard deduction instead of itemizing the $21,275 of real estate taxes and charity, giving ~$149k of taxable income. It used only ~$620 of exemption credits instead of $1,256. It also applied a $240 CA dependent care credit, which is unavailable because California limits that credit to AGI of $100,000 or less."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,other,False,"It gave no computation, and its $6,713 is ~$2,100 above the correct figure. That result is consistent with using the standard deduction instead of the $21,275 of itemized deductions and omitting most of the $1,256 of exemption credits. The correct figure is $5,871.48 of tax on $138,792.30, less $1,256."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave no computation, and its $4,931 is ~$316 above the correct figure. That is consistent with an overstated 2026 bracket tax or understated exemption credits, versus $5,871.48 of tax on $138,792.30 less $1,256 of credits."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reduced CA AGI to $134,323 by excluding 'health-premium' amounts and taking IRA deductions, but the ESI premiums do not reduce gross wages and the IRA deduction is phased out. It then subtracted exemptions as deductions to reach $101,811, although California gives exemptions as credits. Its $6,882 is also far above the bracket tax on its own taxable-income figure."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the CA standard deduction ($11,412) instead of itemizing the $21,275 of real estate taxes ($8,654) and charity ($12,621). That overstated taxable income by about $9,860 and produced ~$5,489 instead of $4,615."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its CA AGI ($160,066) and itemized deductions were right, but its bracket and credit estimate came out ~$233 low. Either its bracket tax was below $5,871.48 on $138,792 of taxable income or its exemption credits exceeded $1,256."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave only a summary, and its $4,250 is ~$365 below the correct figure. That gap reflects understated 2026 bracket tax or excess deductions or credits beyond the $21,275 of itemized deductions and $1,256 of exemption credits."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It itemized charity and property taxes correctly, but its $5,138 is ~$523 high. That means it overstated bracket tax relative to $5,871.48 on $138,792 or used exemption credits well below the $1,256 for two personal and two dependent credits."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It took the $144 IRA deduction, which is phased out for active plan participants at this income, giving taxable income of $138,647 instead of $138,792. Its approximate bracket and exemption-credit amounts left it $49 below the correct figure."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,other,False,"It guessed ~$4.5k from '~165k income' without computing CA AGI, itemized deductions, bracket tax, or exemption credits. The correct path is $138,792.30 of taxable income, $5,871.48 of tax, and $1,256 of credits."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used federal AGI ($159,728) as CA AGI without adding back the $337.50 educator deduction that California disallows, which understated taxable income. It also overstated exemption credits at ~$1,290 vs $1,256, leaving the answer ~$15 low."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its AGI and taxable income ($138,791) were correct, but its 2026 MFJ bracket tax of ~$5,743 was ~$128 below the correct $5,871.48 because its estimated bracket thresholds were too high. It also used ~$1,246 of exemption credits instead of $1,256."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its CA AGI of $159,766 was ~$300 short of $160,066.80, so taxable income was $138,491 instead of $138,792. Its estimated 2026 bracket tax and exemption credits then came out ~$165 too low on top of that, giving $4,427."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It understated taxable income at $110,811 instead of $138,792, consistent with excluding ESI premiums or over-deducting. It also claimed no nonrefundable credits apply at this income, although the $1,256 personal and dependent exemption credits apply in full because CA's phase-out starts at a much higher AGI."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It reached taxable income of ~$138,491 and bracket tax near $5,866 but subtracted only $576 of exemption credits. The correct amount is $1,256: two personal credits of ~$153 each plus two dependent credits of ~$475 each."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there is no answer to evaluate."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there is no answer to evaluate."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"It reported $0 even though a joint household with $160,066.80 of CA AGI and $138,792.30 of taxable income owes $5,871.48 of bracket tax. Exemption credits are only $1,256, so the liability is $4,615.48."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used ~$149,000 of taxable income, which implies the standard deduction instead of itemizing the $21,275 of real estate taxes and charity. It also applied a ~$240 CA dependent care credit, which California denies above $100,000 AGI, and used ~$1,190 of exemption credits instead of $1,256."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It claimed California requires the standard deduction when the federal standard deduction is taken. In fact, California lets filers itemize on Schedule CA independently, and the $21,275 of real estate tax and charity exceeds the $11,412 standard deduction. It also kept the federal educator deduction, which California adds back, so taxable income came out ~$147.8k instead of $138,792."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It built AGI from gross wages without the $3,088 traditional 401(k) exclusion and applied the full $6,478 capital loss instead of the $3,000 cap. It deducted the educator expense, which California disallows. It also stated that no nonrefundable credits apply, omitting the $1,256 of exemption credits, and understated bracket tax on $138k at ~$4,302 instead of ~$5,870."
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a fictitious $34,000 standard deduction instead of itemizing $21,274.50 against CA AGI of $160,066.80, and computed $8,100 of tax on $130,894, about $2,860 above the $5,239.62 bracket tax at that income. It applied a renter's credit that is unavailable at this AGI and omitted the $1,256 of exemption credits."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It reached the correct $138,791 taxable income but put the 2026 MFJ bracket tax at about $6,940 instead of $5,871. It also reported $6,222, which does not match its own figure of $6,940 minus the $1,256 exemption credits ($5,684)."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added a medical deduction of about $4,406, but out-of-pocket medical costs (about $10,000 once OTC items and double-counted premiums are removed) do not exceed 7.5% of CA AGI ($12,005). That cut taxable income to $134,241 instead of $138,792, so the result came out too low."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a made-up $4,754 standard deduction instead of itemizing $21,275 (real estate tax plus charity) and deducted the $1,263 unreimbursed employee expenses, which fall below the 2% floor. It also treated the educator expense as a tax credit, invented a child tax credit, and never applied the $1,256 personal and dependent exemption credits."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed about $150,000 taxable income after the standard deduction, but itemized deductions of $21,275 exceed the $11,412 standard deduction, giving $138,792. It also counted exemption credits only for the two dependents and never computed the actual bracket tax."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,other,False,"It deducted the educator expense, which California disallows. It then dropped its own estimate of about $4,680 and inflated the answer to $5,959 by 'adjusting for SDI', a payroll tax that is not part of state income tax before refundable credits."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It started from $165,000 wages without subtracting the $3,088 401(k) deferrals, which inflated CA AGI to about $163,010. It then put bracket tax at about $7,973 on $141,735, when 2026 MFJ brackets give $5,871 on the correct $138,792 (all within the 8% bracket)."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It overstated CA MFJ bracket tax at about $7,700 instead of $5,871 on $138,792 of taxable income. It also subtracted only $450 of exemption credits, even though the amounts it listed sum to about $1,300 (the correct total is $1,256)."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It subtracted a $144 traditional IRA deduction, which is fully phased out because both spouses are active 401(k) participants with MAGI near $160,000. It also underestimated bracket tax at $5,729 instead of $5,871 and overstated exemption credits at $1,288 instead of $1,256."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It reached the correct $138,791 taxable income but used $450 for every exemption credit, totaling $1,800. The personal exemption credit is only about $153 per filer, so the correct total is 2×$153 + 2×$475 = $1,256. That error, plus a slightly understated bracket tax of $5,989, pushed its answer below $4,615."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied a federal-style $10,000 SALT cap and put taxable income at about $150,000 instead of $138,792. It then said it subtracted exemption credits but left the result at $6,800, so the $1,256 credit reduction was never actually applied."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added a medical deduction above the 7.5% floor, but deductible out-of-pocket medical costs do not exceed 7.5% of the $160,067 CA AGI. That brought itemized deductions to about $25,700 instead of $21,275 and understated taxable income at about $134,000."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It overstated CA AGI at $163,306 by not subtracting the $3,088 401(k) deferrals, and it added a $2,752 medical deduction that does not clear the 7.5% floor. It also used only about $1,000 of exemption credits instead of $1,256."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $112,436 taxable income implies AGI of about $135,000, which means it subtracted the roughly $24,600 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums from wages; the correct CA AGI is $160,067. It also added unreimbursed employee expenses to itemized deductions even though they fall below the 2% floor."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $107,524 taxable income implies it excluded the roughly $24,600 of ESI premiums from AGI. It also inflated itemized deductions to $27,545 with medical and employee-expense items below their floors. The correct figures are $21,275 itemized and $138,792 taxable."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It had the correct $160,066 CA AGI but added a $4,395 medical deduction. Out-of-pocket medical expenses do not exceed 7.5% of AGI ($12,005), so itemized deductions are $21,275 and taxable income is $138,792, not $134,396."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It subtracted about $1,180 of personal and dependent exemption credits instead of the correct $1,256 (2×$153 + 2×$475). Its implied bracket tax of about $5,845 is also below the correct $5,871."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,other,False,"With no shown work, its $7,845 is higher than even the $5,871 pre-credit bracket tax on $138,792. That is consistent with skipping the $21,275 itemized deductions and the 401(k) exclusion, and with never subtracting the $1,256 exemption credits."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It cut CA AGI to $135,169 by treating the roughly $24,600 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums as excluded from wages; the correct CA AGI is $160,067. It also inflated itemized deductions to about $26,138 and subtracted only about $600 of exemption credits instead of $1,256."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $2,570 implies taxable income near $100,000. That is consistent with subtracting ESI premiums from wages and/or adding medical deductions below the 7.5% floor, instead of using CA AGI of $160,067 less $21,275 itemized deductions."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,other,False,"It gave no computation, and $8,725 exceeds the $5,871 pre-credit bracket tax on the correct $138,792 by about $2,850. That is consistent with ignoring the itemized deductions, overstating rates, and omitting the $1,256 exemption credits."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"With no shown work, its $4,128 is about $487 too low. That is consistent with an extra deduction of roughly $5,000–$6,000, such as medical expenses that fall below the 7.5% floor, on top of the correct $21,275 of real estate tax and charity."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $4,056 is about $559 below the correct figure. That is consistent with roughly $7,000 of extra itemized deductions (below-floor medical or employee business expenses) on top of the $21,275 of real estate taxes and charitable gifts."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $5,245 matches the correct $5,871 bracket tax minus only about $626 of exemption credits. The full credit is $1,256: $153 per filer and $475 per dependent."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,other,False,"Its $5,892 is essentially the pre-credit bracket tax ($5,871), so it never subtracted the $1,256 personal and dependent exemption credits. It also counted unreimbursed business expenses that fall below the 2% floor and cited renter's and childcare credits that are unavailable at this AGI."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $6,566 standard deduction and said the charitable gifts did not exceed it. In fact real estate taxes plus charity total $21,275, well above the $11,412 MFJ standard deduction. It also treated the educator expense as a credit, omitted the exemption credits, and reported $3,202.96, which does not match its own $5,559."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the roughly $11,500 standard deduction instead of itemizing $21,275, which overstated taxable income at about $149,000. It used only about $620 of exemption credits instead of $1,256, and it claimed a $240 CA dependent care credit that is unavailable above $100,000 of AGI."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,other,False,"Its $6,713 roughly equals the bracket tax on about $148,650 (CA AGI less only the $11,412 standard deduction) with no exemption credits subtracted. The correct calculation itemizes $21,275 and subtracts $1,256 of credits."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"Its $4,931 is $316 too high. It is consistent with subtracting only about $940 of exemption credits from the $5,871 bracket tax, instead of the full $1,256 (2×$153 personal + 2×$475 dependent)."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It excluded health premiums from CA AGI, reaching $134,323 instead of $160,067, and treated exemptions as deductions from income when California applies them as credits. Its $6,882 also does not follow from its own $101,811 taxable income."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the California standard deduction even though real estate taxes ($8,654) plus charity ($12,621) total $21,275, well above the $11,412 standard deduction. That overstated taxable income by about $9,860 and the resulting tax by roughly $800."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the correct AGI and itemized deductions but implicitly put bracket tax at about $5,638 instead of $5,871 on $138,792. Its projected 2026 MFJ bracket thresholds were indexed too high."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $4,250 implies a pre-credit tax of about $5,506 against the correct $5,871. That is consistent with an extra ~$4,400 deduction, such as below-floor medical expenses, or under-indexed brackets on top of the $138,792 taxable base."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It itemized charity and property taxes correctly, but its $5,138 implies a pre-credit tax of about $6,394 if the full $1,256 exemption credits were applied. The correct 2026 MFJ bracket tax on $138,792 is $5,871."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It subtracted a $144 IRA deduction, which is fully phased out for active 401(k) participants at this MAGI, giving $138,647 taxable instead of $138,792. Its bracket tax was also slightly too low, leaving $4,566 instead of $4,615."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,other,False,"It eyeballed about $4,500 on '~165k income' without computing CA AGI ($160,067), itemized deductions ($21,275), bracket tax ($5,871) or the $1,256 exemption credits."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It started from federal AGI of about $159,728 without adding back the $338 educator expense, which California disallows. It also overstated exemption credits at about $1,290 instead of $1,256."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It reached the correct $138,791 taxable income but put tentative tax at $5,743 instead of $5,871 because its projected 2026 MFJ brackets were too wide. It also used $1,246 of exemption credits instead of $1,256."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used CA AGI of $159,766 without the full educator-expense add-back, giving taxable income of $138,491. It also underestimated 2026 MFJ bracket tax, ending at $4,427 instead of $4,615."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It understated taxable income at $110,811, which implies it excluded ESI premiums or other non-deductible items from AGI; the correct taxable income is $138,792. It also said no nonrefundable credits apply, omitting the $1,256 personal and dependent exemption credits, which are not phased out at this income."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its pre-credit tax of about $5,866 is close to correct, but it subtracted only $576 of exemption credits. That undercounts the two $475 dependent exemption credits plus the two $153 personal credits, which total $1,256."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It submitted no value for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so nothing could be scored against $4,615.48."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It submitted no value for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so nothing could be scored against $4,615.48."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"It reported zero California tax, yet $138,792 of taxable income produces $5,871 of bracket tax. The $1,256 exemption credits leave $4,615 owed."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It omitted the $338 educator-expense add-back, which put taxable income at $138,491, and overstated bracket tax at about $6,001. It also subtracted only about $632 of exemption credits instead of $1,256."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used about $149,000 of taxable income, implying the standard deduction instead of the larger $21,275 itemized deduction. It also claimed a $240 CA dependent care credit, which is unavailable at federal AGI above $100,000."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It wrongly assumed California requires the standard deduction because the federal standard deduction was claimed. California lets this household itemize $21,275 regardless of the federal choice, so its taxable income of $147,800 should have been $138,792. It also subtracted a phased-out IRA deduction and skipped the educator add-back."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the full $6,478 capital loss instead of the $3,000 cap, skipped the $3,088 401(k) exclusion, and deducted the $338 educator expense, which California disallows. It also said no nonrefundable credits apply, omitting the $1,256 exemption credits, and its $4,301.50 is not the bracket tax on its own $138,063."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It invented a $34,000 standard deduction, when the 2026 CA MFJ standard deduction is $11,412 and itemizing $21,275 is better. It overstated bracket tax at $8,100, omitted the $1,256 exemption credits, and applied a renter's credit the household is ineligible for at this AGI."
us,scenario_099,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_099,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_099,tanf,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
@@ -8244,57 +8508,60 @@ us,scenario_100,child2_head_start_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categ
us,scenario_100,child2_head_start_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model produced no derivation and defaulted the flag to 0 on the ground that eligibility was not affirmatively established, rather than applying Head Start's rules to the stated facts. Those facts decide it: Child 2 at age 5 is within the 3-through-compulsory-school-age band, TANF receipt of $505.41 monthly confers categorical eligibility on all household members, and the $1,875.40 AGI is far under the three-person poverty threshold — its 0 is consistent only with a blanket no-evidence-so-no rule applied to eligibility outputs."
us,scenario_100,child2_head_start_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model applied a truncated Head Start age band that excludes 5-year-olds, when the program covers ages 3 through compulsory school age and PolicyEngine treats ages 3 to 5 as preschool Head Start age (Early Head Start covers under 3, and Child 1 at 6 is the one above the band). The age screen short-circuited its answer before the household's TANF receipt of $505.41 monthly and its $1,875.40 AGI against the three-person poverty guideline could establish eligibility."
us,scenario_100,child2_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model failed to apply Montana's YOUNG_CHILD Medicaid category to the 5-year-old dependent. At a MAGI income level of 0.07 times FPL, child2 satisfies the category's income test and is Medicaid eligible."
-us,scenario_100,child2_wic_eligible,claude-fable-5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model stated the correct under-5 limit and then claimed that age 5 'falls within the eligible year' and is treated as the child category. WIC's child category ends at the 5th birthday, so a 5-year-old is categorically ineligible. The model also presumed nutritional risk and an income pass, but neither matters because the age test fails."
-us,scenario_100,child2_wic_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model treated WIC's child range as 'ages 0-5' inclusive of age 5. The child category actually stops at the 5th birthday, so Child 2 is categorically ineligible. The model also invented an asset test that WIC doesn't have and counted 4 household members instead of 3, but the age error alone makes the answer wrong."
-us,scenario_100,child2_wic_eligible,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model called Child 2, age 5, 'under the WIC age limit of 5', which contradicts itself. A child who is 5 has reached the cutoff, so the strict under-5 test for WIC's child category fails and the child is ineligible."
-us,scenario_100,child2_wic_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,age_disability,False,The model correctly noted that at age 5 the child has reached the 5th birthday and ages out of WIC. It then overrode that with an invented 'typical interpretation' that keeps age 5 eligible and answered 1. The correct conclusion is that Child 2 fails the categorical age test and is ineligible.
-us,scenario_100,child2_wic_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model said a 5-year-old 'still qualifies categorically as a child' because certification periods carry over. The child category is defined as under age 5, so a child who is already 5 is outside every WIC category. Meeting the 185% FPL income test doesn't change that."
-us,scenario_100,child2_wic_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model described age 5 as 'under age 5 cutoff', which is an incorrect comparison. Under WIC's strict under-5 test, Child 2 is outside the child category, so passing the income test doesn't make them eligible."
-us,scenario_100,child2_wic_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model asserted that age 5 is within WIC's child age range. The range ends at the 5th birthday, so Child 2 is categorically ineligible no matter how low the household's income is."
-us,scenario_100,child2_wic_eligible,inkling,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model checked only the 185% FPL income test and treated age 5 as meeting WIC's categorical requirement. WIC covers children only until their 5th birthday, so Child 2 is ineligible."
-us,scenario_100,child2_wic_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model's answer for child2_wic_eligible was missing, with no value and no explanation, so there is nothing to score. The correct answer is 0 because Child 2 is age 5 and has aged out of WIC's under-5 child category."
-us,scenario_100,child2_wic_eligible,minimax-m3,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model said age 5 is 'within WIC's age limit of under 5', which contradicts itself. A 5-year-old fails the strict under-5 child category test and is ineligible despite the household's low income."
-us,scenario_100,child2_wic_eligible,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model read WIC as covering 'children up to age 5' inclusive and counted the 5-year-old as eligible. The child category ends at the 5th birthday, so Child 2 is categorically ineligible."
-us,scenario_100,child2_wic_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model placed age 5 within WIC's child age range. That range is under 5, so Child 2 fails the categorical test and is ineligible even though income is within limits."
-us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the full $5,915 of wages as earned income, but the $3,859 of traditional 401(k) deferrals is excluded from gross income and doesn't count. Correct earned income is $2,055.72, which gives $822.29 EITC and $0 ACTC. It then submitted $6,425, which doesn't even match its own $2,878 calculation."
-us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It computed EITC on $5,915 of gross wages without first removing the $3,859 of excluded 401(k) deferrals. It then added a made-up $834 refundable CTC. Earned income of $2,055.72 is below the $2,500 ACTC floor, so the only credit is EITC of $822.29."
-us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It claimed no refundable credits even though the head has two qualifying children and positive earned income. Earned income of $2,055.72 (wages minus 401(k) deferrals) earns the 40% phase-in EITC of $822.29."
-us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It said pre-tax 401(k) deferrals still count as EITC earned income. They don't: §32(c)(2) counts only compensation includible in gross income, so earned income is $2,055.72. That makes the EITC $822.29 and the ACTC $0, not its $1,906 + $512 mix."
-us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated wages as earned income without removing the $3,859 of excluded 401(k) deferrals. Its ad hoc $2,330 combines an EITC and an ACTC that both rest on $5,915. With earned income of $2,055.72, the ACTC is $0 and the EITC is $822.29."
-us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $710 FLSA overtime premium on top of gross wages that already include it, and never removed the $3,859 of 401(k) deferrals from earned income. Correct earned income is $2,055.72, which gives $822.29 EITC and $0 ACTC."
-us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It said traditional 401(k) deferrals reduce AGI but not EITC earned income. That's wrong: excluded elective deferrals are not earned income under §32(c)(2), so earned income is $2,055.72. That gives $822.29 EITC and $0 ACTC, since earned income is below $2,500."
-us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It based EITC and ACTC on $5,915 of gross wages instead of $2,055.72 of earned income after the 401(k) exclusion. It then dropped its own $2,878 figure and submitted an invented $6,295 'table' amount."
-us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deliberately computed EITC on the full $5,915 of wages and missed that the $3,859 of traditional 401(k) deferrals is not earned income. Correct earned income of $2,055.72 gives $822.29 EITC and no ACTC."
-us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It double-counted the $710 overtime premium, which is already inside the $5,915 of wages, to get $6,625. It also never removed the $3,859 of 401(k) deferrals. Correct earned income is $2,055.72, which gives $822.29 EITC and $0 ACTC."
-us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $928 equals wages minus the 401(k) deferrals minus both $564 health insurance premiums. Those premiums are not pre-tax payroll exclusions, so only the $3,859 of 401(k) deferrals comes out. Correct earned income is $2,055.72, giving $822.29 EITC."
-us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used $5,915 of gross wages as earned income and ignored the exclusion of $3,859 of traditional 401(k) deferrals. Correct earned income of $2,055.72 gives $822.29 EITC and $0 ACTC."
-us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It computed EITC on $5,915 instead of $2,055.72 after removing excluded 401(k) deferrals. It also applied a $3,000 ACTC threshold, but the threshold is $2,500. Earned income is under either threshold, so ACTC is $0 and the total is $822.29."
-us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It assumed the household gets the full maximum EITC plus refundable CTC. At $2,055.72 of earned income the EITC is still in the 40% phase-in, so it is $822.29. Earned income below $2,500 means no refundable CTC."
-us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated insurance premiums as pre-tax deductions that reduce earned income to zero. Only the $3,859 of traditional 401(k) deferrals is excluded, leaving $2,055.72 of earned income and an $822.29 phase-in EITC."
-us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It wrongly said pre-tax health insurance premiums reduce earned income to $0. The $20,644 of ESI premiums is employer-paid and not taken out of the listed wages. Only the 401(k) deferrals come out, leaving $2,055.72 of earned income and $822.29 EITC."
-us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It returned $0 with no computation. The head has two qualifying children and $2,055.72 of earned income after excluding 401(k) deferrals, which earns an $822.29 phase-in EITC."
-us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used $5,915 of gross wages as earned income instead of $2,055.72 net of the excluded 401(k) deferrals. It also applied a $3,000 ACTC threshold instead of $2,500. Correct earned income produces $822.29 EITC and no ACTC."
-us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its explanation works out $2,803.25 from $5,915 of gross wages, yet it submitted 0, which contradicts its own reasoning. Both numbers miss the exclusion of the $3,859 of 401(k) deferrals: the correct earned income of $2,055.72 gives $822.29 EITC."
-us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It computed EITC on $5,915 instead of $2,055.72 after the traditional 401(k) exclusion. It also assumed a pre-TCJA $3,000 ACTC threshold, but the threshold stays at $2,500. Earned income is below $2,500, so ACTC is $0 and EITC is $822.29."
-us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It made the refundable CTC $1,700 per child regardless of earnings, ignoring the earned-income formula (15% of earned income over $2,500). With $2,055.72 of earned income that formula yields $0. Its $600 EITC guess should be 40% × $2,055.72 = $822.29."
-us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It invented a $1,650 per-child minimum refundable CTC, which doesn't exist; ACTC is limited to 15% of earned income over $2,500. It also used gross wages instead of the $2,055.72 left after excluding 401(k) deferrals. The correct result is $822.29 EITC and $0 ACTC."
-us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It said income is too low for any refundable credit, but the EITC phases in from the first dollar of earned income. $2,055.72 of earned income with two children yields $822.29 at the 40% rate."
-us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It returned $0 and treated low wages as triggering no credits. The EITC phase-in at 40% of $2,055.72 (wages minus 401(k) deferrals) yields $822.29 for a two-child filer."
-us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took $5,915 of gross wages as earned income for both EITC and ACTC and missed the exclusion of $3,859 of traditional 401(k) deferrals. Correct earned income of $2,055.72 gives $822.29 EITC and $0 ACTC."
-us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It based both credits on $5,915 of gross wages instead of $2,055.72 of earned income net of excluded 401(k) deferrals. That earned income gives $822.29 EITC and is below the $2,500 ACTC floor."
-us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used $5,915 as earned income, missing that the $3,859 of traditional 401(k) deferrals is excluded from gross income and therefore from earned income. Correct earned income of $2,055.72 gives $822.29 EITC and no refundable CTC."
-us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It computed EITC and ACTC on $5,915 of gross wages and never removed the $3,859 of 401(k) deferrals. Correct earned income of $2,055.72 gives $822.29 EITC and $0 ACTC."
-us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated $5,915 of gross wages as EITC/ACTC earned income without removing the excluded traditional 401(k) deferrals. Correct earned income is $2,055.72, which gives $822.29 EITC and no ACTC."
-us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used $5,915 of wages as earned income, but the $3,859 of 401(k) elective deferrals is excluded from gross income and doesn't count. Correct earned income of $2,055.72 gives $822.29 EITC and $0 ACTC."
-us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It wrongly said the phase-in amount is zero. The EITC phase-in is 40% of positive earned income, and $2,055.72 of earned income with two children yields $822.29."
-us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It computed EITC on $5,915 instead of $2,055.72 after the 401(k) exclusion. It also used a $3,000 ACTC threshold instead of $2,500. Correct earned income produces $822.29 EITC and $0 ACTC."
-us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It explicitly used gross earned income of $5,915 and missed that traditional 401(k) deferrals are excluded from EITC/ACTC earned income. Correct earned income of $2,055.72 gives $822.29 EITC and no ACTC."
-us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly removed the 401(k) deferrals, but it also subtracted the $180 traditional IRA contribution from earned income. An IRA contribution is an above-the-line deduction and doesn't reduce earned income. Earned income is $2,055.72, so EITC is $822.29, not $750."
-us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used $5,915 of gross wages for both credits instead of $2,055.72 of earned income net of excluded 401(k) deferrals. The correct base gives $822.29 EITC and $0 ACTC."
-us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Its explanation estimates roughly $6,500 EITC and $2,300 ACTC, yet it submitted 0. Both are wrong: earned income after excluding 401(k) deferrals is $2,055.72, so the EITC is in phase-in at $822.29 and ACTC is $0."
-us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It applied the ACTC earned-income formula (15% over $2,500) once per child, but that amount is a household-level limit. It also used gross wages instead of $2,055.72 of earned income after the 401(k) exclusion. Correct earned income gives $822.29 EITC and $0 ACTC."
-us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It treated the CTC as refundable up to $1,800 per child no matter what the household earned, ignoring the 15%-over-$2,500 earned-income limit. It also replaced its own $2,366 EITC with an unsupported $3,730. With $2,055.72 of earned income, the only credit is $822.29 of EITC."
-us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It wrongly said the EITC and refundable CTC are capped by tax liability, but refundable credits don't depend on tax owed. The EITC is 40% of $2,055.72 of earned income (wages minus 401(k) deferrals), or $822.29."
+us,scenario_100,child2_wic_eligible,claude-fable-5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model said age 5 'falls within the eligible year for children up to their 5th birthday.' That contradicts the rule it cited: a child aged 5 has already reached the 5th birthday and has left the WIC child category, which requires age under 5. The 185% FPL income test and presumed nutritional risk don't matter once categorical eligibility fails."
+us,scenario_100,child2_wic_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model used an inclusive '0-5 years old' range for WIC, but the child category ends at the 5th birthday, so a 5-year-old is not categorically eligible. It also counted a 4-person household and discussed WIC asset limits, which do not exist. Neither error matters, because the age test alone makes Child 2 ineligible."
+us,scenario_100,child2_wic_eligible,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model called a 5-year-old 'under the WIC age limit of 5,' which is wrong: age 5 is not under 5. WIC's child category requires age below 5, so Child 2 fails categorical eligibility whatever the household income."
+us,scenario_100,child2_wic_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model correctly noted that at age 5 the child 'has reached 5th birthday and ages out,' then answered eligible anyway under a 'typical interpretation.' The WIC child category requires age under 5, so Child 2 is not eligible, and very low income cannot make up for the missing categorical eligibility."
+us,scenario_100,child2_wic_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model said a 5-year-old 'still qualifies categorically,' relying on the certification-period carryover. PolicyEngine's WIC child category requires age under 5, and the model invented a certification extension the household facts don't support. At age 5, Child 2 is in no WIC category and is ineligible."
+us,scenario_100,child2_wic_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model called age 5 'under age 5 cutoff,' which is wrong: 5 is not below 5. WIC child eligibility ends at the 5th birthday, so Child 2 fails the categorical test, and passing the 185% FPL income test doesn't change that."
+us,scenario_100,child2_wic_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model said age 5 is 'within the child WIC age range,' but that range is age 1 to under 5. Child 2 has aged out and is not categorically eligible, whatever the income."
+us,scenario_100,child2_wic_eligible,inkling,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model checked only the 185% FPL income test and assumed a 5-year-old is categorically eligible. WIC's child category requires age under 5, so Child 2, at age 5, is ineligible."
+us,scenario_100,child2_wic_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no usable value or explanation for child2_wic_eligible. The correct derivation yields 0, because Child 2 is 5 and WIC's child category requires age under 5."
+us,scenario_100,child2_wic_eligible,minimax-m3,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model said age 5 is 'within WIC's age limit of under 5,' which contradicts itself: a 5-year-old is not under 5. Child 2 falls outside the WIC child category, so meeting the income threshold doesn't matter."
+us,scenario_100,child2_wic_eligible,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model used a WIC child age range of 'up to 6,' but the actual limit is the 5th birthday, meaning age under 5. Child 2, at 5, is not categorically eligible."
+us,scenario_100,child2_wic_eligible,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model read 'children up to age 5' as including 5-year-olds. WIC eligibility ends at the 5th birthday, so the child category requires age under 5. Child 2 is excluded on age, regardless of the very low $5,915 income."
+us,scenario_100,child2_wic_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model placed age 5 'within WIC child age range,' but the range stops at the 5th birthday, so only children under 5 qualify. Child 2 fails categorical eligibility, and the income test doesn't affect the result."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used the full $5,915 in gross wages as earned income and never subtracted the $3,859 traditional 401(k) deferral, which gave an EITC of $2,366 and a refundable CTC of $512. It then submitted $6,425, which doesn't match even its own $2,878 total. Correct earned income of $2,055.72 gives an EITC of $822.29 and a refundable CTC of $0."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied the 40% phase-in to $5,915 instead of $2,055.72, because it did not remove the excluded 401(k) deferral from earned income. It also added an $834 refundable CTC 'approximation' that contradicts its own 15% calculation. With the correct earned income, the refundable CTC is $0 and the EITC is $822.29."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Claimed without basis that no EITC applies, even though there are two qualifying children and positive earned income. The 40% phase-in on $2,055.72 of earned income gives an $822.29 EITC."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Explicitly asserted that pre-tax 401(k) deferrals still count as EITC earned income. They don't: earned income includes only wages that are in gross income, so it is $2,055.72, not $5,915. This also gave a spurious $512 refundable CTC, when 15% of earned income above $2,500 is $0. Its unexplained $1,906 EITC figure also doesn't follow from its own inputs."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used $5,915 as earned income for both the EITC and the refundable CTC without excluding the $3,859 traditional 401(k) deferral, then arbitrarily adjusted the result to $2,330. Correct earned income of $2,055.72 gives an EITC of $822.29 and a refundable CTC of $0."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Added the $710 FLSA overtime premium on top of wages, but gross wages already include overtime. It also kept the $3,859 401(k) deferral in earned income, which inflated the EITC to $2,905 and produced a $512 refundable CTC. Earned income is $2,055.72, so the EITC is $822.29 and the refundable CTC is $0."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Explicitly stated that the traditional 401(k) deferral reduces AGI but not EITC earned income. In fact, deferrals excluded from gross income are not earned income, so earned income is $2,055.72. Using $5,915 gave an EITC of $2,366 and a refundable CTC of $512, instead of $822.29 and $0."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Said EITC earned income 'uses pre-deduction wages' of $5,915, ignoring that 401(k) deferrals are excluded from earned income. It then submitted $6,295, which no rule supports and which doesn't match its own $2,878 subtotal. Correct earned income of $2,055.72 gives $822.29."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Computed the EITC and the refundable CTC on full wages of $5,915 instead of excluding the $3,859 traditional 401(k) deferral. Correct earned income of $2,055.72 gives an EITC of $822.29, and the refundable CTC is $0 because earned income is below $2,500."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Double-counted the $710 overtime premium, using $6,625 of earned income even though the stated gross wages already include overtime. It also failed to exclude the $3,859 traditional 401(k) deferral. Correct earned income is $2,055.72, so the EITC is $822.29 and the refundable CTC is $0."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Correctly removed the 401(k) deferral, but also subtracted both $564 health-premium amounts as if they were pre-tax payroll deductions, leaving $928 of earned income. Those premiums are not excluded from wages. Earned income is $2,055.72, so the EITC is $822.29 rather than $371."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used gross wages of $5,915 as earned income without excluding the $3,859 traditional 401(k) deferral. That inflated the EITC to $2,366 and created a $512.25 refundable CTC, instead of $822.29 and $0."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used $5,915 instead of $2,055.72 as earned income because it ignored the excluded 401(k) deferral. It also applied a $3,000 refundable-CTC threshold on the theory that the law reverted to pre-TCJA rules, but the $2,500 threshold remains in 2026. Correctly computed, the EITC is $822.29 and the refundable CTC is $0."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Asserted the household gets the 'full' EITC, ignoring that $2,055.72 of earned income sits deep in the 40% phase-in range. The phase-in gives only $822.29, and the refundable CTC is $0 because earned income is below $2,500."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Wrongly treated the $20,644 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums as pre-tax deductions that reduce wages to $0. Only the $3,859 traditional 401(k) deferral is excluded, which leaves $2,055.72 of earned income and an $822.29 EITC."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Claimed pre-tax health insurance premiums reduce earned income to $0, but no premiums are excluded from the head's wages. Only the $3,859 401(k) deferral is excluded, which leaves $2,055.72 of earned income and an $822.29 EITC."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Returned $0 with no reasoning, missing that a head of household with two qualifying children and $2,055.72 of earned income receives a 40% phase-in EITC of $822.29."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used $5,915 as earned income instead of $2,055.72, failing to exclude the traditional 401(k) deferral. It also used a $3,000 refundable-CTC threshold instead of $2,500. Correctly computed, the EITC is $822.29 and the refundable CTC is $0."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Submitted $0, which contradicts its own explanation ending 'value = 2803.25'. That intended figure is also wrong: it rests on $5,915 of earned income with the 401(k) deferral left in and a $3,000 refundable-CTC threshold. Correct earned income of $2,055.72 gives $822.29."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Computed the EITC on $5,915 without excluding the $3,859 traditional 401(k) deferral. It also applied a pre-TCJA $3,000 refundable-CTC threshold, although $2,500 applies in 2026. Correct earned income of $2,055.72 gives an $822.29 EITC and a $0 refundable CTC."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used $5,915 of earned income for both credits instead of $2,055.72 after excluding the 401(k) deferral. This produced a $2,366 EITC and a $512.25 refundable CTC instead of $822.29 and $0."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Made the refundable CTC the full $1,700 per child and ignored the 15%-of-earned-income-above-$2,500 limit, which gives $0 here. It also guessed a $600 EITC instead of applying the 40% phase-in to $2,055.72 of earned income, which gives $822.29."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Invented a $1,650 per-child minimum refundable CTC, but the refundable CTC is strictly limited to 15% of earned income above $2,500, which is $0 here. It also used $5,915 rather than $2,055.72 as EITC earned income, because it didn't exclude the 401(k) deferral."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Claimed income is too low for any refundable credit, but low earned income is exactly the EITC phase-in range. With two qualifying children, 40% × $2,055.72 = $822.29."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Returned $0 on the theory that low wages trigger no refundable credits, missing the two-child EITC phase-in. That phase-in gives 40% × $2,055.72 = $822.29."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Treated all $5,915 of wages as earned income, ignoring that the $3,859 traditional 401(k) deferral is excluded from gross income and so from earned income. Correct earned income of $2,055.72 gives an EITC of $822.29 and a refundable CTC of $0."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Based both credits on $5,915 of earned income without removing the $3,859 traditional 401(k) deferral. Earned income is $2,055.72, which gives an $822.29 EITC and no refundable CTC because it is below $2,500."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used $5,915 of earnings for the EITC and the refundable CTC instead of $2,055.72 after the excluded 401(k) deferral. This overstated the EITC by $1,543.71 and created a $512.25 refundable CTC that should be $0."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Computed a $2,366 EITC and a $512 refundable CTC from gross wages of $5,915, failing to exclude the $3,859 traditional 401(k) deferral from earned income. Correct earned income of $2,055.72 gives $822.29 in total."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Treated $5,915 as EITC and refundable-CTC earned income even though $3,859 of it is a traditional 401(k) deferral excluded from gross income. Earned income of $2,055.72 gives an EITC of $822.29 and a refundable CTC of $0."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied the 40% EITC rate and the 15% refundable-CTC formula to $5,915 of wages instead of $2,055.72 of earned income after the 401(k) exclusion. The correct result is an $822.29 EITC and a $0 refundable CTC."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Claimed the phase-in amount is zero, but with two qualifying children and $2,055.72 of earned income the 40% EITC phase-in gives $822.29."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used $5,915 of earned income without excluding the $3,859 traditional 401(k) deferral. It also used a $3,000 refundable-CTC threshold instead of the $2,500 that applies in 2026. Earned income of $2,055.72 gives an $822.29 EITC and a $0 refundable CTC."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Explicitly used 'gross earned income' of $5,915. EITC earned income excludes the $3,859 traditional 401(k) deferral, which leaves $2,055.72: an $822.29 EITC and a $0 refundable CTC."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Correctly excluded the 401(k) deferral and correctly set the refundable CTC to $0, but also subtracted the $180 traditional IRA contribution from earned income. That contribution is an above-the-line AGI adjustment and does not reduce EITC earned income. Earned income is $2,055.72, not $1,876, so the EITC is $822.29, not $750."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Computed the EITC and the refundable CTC from $5,915 of wages without removing the $3,859 traditional 401(k) deferral, which is not earned income. Correct earned income of $2,055.72 gives an EITC of $822.29 and a refundable CTC of $0."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Its reasoning estimated a roughly $6,500 EITC and a $2,300 refundable CTC, which ignores the 40% phase-in and the 15% earnings formula, yet it submitted $0 anyway. EITC eligibility has no asset test that would zero it out at these asset levels. The phase-in on $2,055.72 of earned income gives $822.29."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used $5,915 as earned income for both credits, failing to exclude the $3,859 traditional 401(k) deferral. Earned income of $2,055.72 gives an $822.29 EITC and a $0 refundable CTC."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Applied the 15%-of-earnings-above-$2,500 refundable-CTC formula separately to each child and doubled it to $1,024.50, but that formula is a single household-level limit. It also kept the $3,859 401(k) deferral in earned income. Correct earned income of $2,055.72 gives a $0 refundable CTC and an $822.29 EITC."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Treated the refundable CTC as $1,800 per child regardless of earnings, ignoring the 15%-of-earned-income-above-$2,500 limit, which gives $0 here. It also switched to an unexplained $3,730 EITC. The 40% phase-in on $2,055.72 of earned income gives $822.29."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Claimed the refundable credits are capped by tax liability, but the EITC is fully refundable and is not limited by liability. It equals 40% × $2,055.72 of earned income, which is $822.29."
us,scenario_100,free_school_meals_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model asserted ineligibility with no derivation, never applying either free-tier pathway: SNAP receipt of $8,625.89 categorically confers free meals, and countable income of $11,979.68 (wages $5,914.72 plus TANF $6,064.96) is 44% of the three-person federal poverty guideline, far below the 130% free threshold. Its 0 is consistent with treating SNAP/TANF as absent because receipt is not a listed input fact, even though both are derived outputs of this same household. The income test alone settles it: the $5,915 of wages is about 22% of the poverty guideline, so the household lands in the free tier with two school-age children (ages 6 and 5) generating $7.15 per child per school day, $2,261.92 annually."
us,scenario_100,free_school_meals_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model gave a circular non-answer — that the benchmark does not indicate positive free-meal support — instead of computing the free-tier tests, so it applied neither SNAP categorical eligibility ($8,625.89 of SNAP automatically confers free meals) nor the 130%-of-poverty income test, which the household passes at 44% FPG on countable income of $11,979.68. Montana has no universal free-meals policy, so the tier turns entirely on those two tests, both of which this household clears. The correct derivation pays $7.15 per school day for each of the two school-age children (ages 6 and 5) for $2,261.92 annually; the model's 0 corresponds to no test being run at all."
us,scenario_100,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It put 138% FPL for a household of three at about $3,627, when the real figure is about $36,000. That is roughly a tenfold error, and it led the model to conclude that $5,915 exceeded the limit, when $5,915 is only 7% of FPL. It also applied an asset test to the $2,800 in bank assets, but MAGI-category Medicaid (parent/caretaker or expansion adult) has no resource test."
@@ -8317,54 +8584,56 @@ us,scenario_100,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,other,False,"The model identi
us,scenario_100,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"The model computed both components correctly ($5,915 × 0.062 = $366.73 and $5,915 × 0.0145 = $85.78, totaling $452.51) and then discarded that result, submitting $477 on the invented rationale of 'rounding to annual benchmark.' No rounding, annualization, or state payroll-tax add-on applies here; the answer its own arithmetic supports is $452.48."
us,scenario_100,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated income below 185% of the poverty guideline as sufficient for reduced-price meals and ignored that income at or below 130% qualifies for free meals. At 44% of the guideline, reinforced by categorical eligibility, the household receives the mutually exclusive FREE tier rather than reduced-price support."
us,scenario_100,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model incorrectly asserted that $5,915 was above 130% of the poverty guideline for a four-person household, even though the engine ratio is 44%. It therefore placed the household in the 130%-185% reduced-price band instead of the FREE tier, while also overlooking categorical eligibility for free meals."
-us,scenario_100,snap,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model counted only the $493/month in wages and left out the roughly $505/month of non-wage benefit income that brings SNAP gross income to $998.31. It also subtracted a $94 medical deduction, giving $89 net income. Taking no utility-allowance shelter deduction matches the record's r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua correction, which gives $691 net and $577/month; the frozen reference's $237.09 net includes the defect-based $453.64 shelter deduction. It then applied $785 to all 12 months and miscomputed $758×12 as $9,046."
-us,scenario_100,snap,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model built net income from wages alone ($5,915/yr) and missed the roughly $505/month of unearned benefit income in SNAP gross income. It took a $1,124/yr medical deduction and no shelter deduction, giving $86.67/month net and $9,108. Taking no utility-allowance shelter deduction matches the record's r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua correction, which gives $691 net and $577/month; the frozen reference's $237.09 net includes the defect-based $453.64 shelter deduction."
-us,scenario_100,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model concluded the household was eligible but never computed a benefit, and gave an arbitrary 'conservative' $1,908. The record's r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua correction gives $691 net, a rounded $208 contribution and $577/month ($6,924/year), using the FY2026 $785 maximum held all year. The excluded frozen reference's $8,625.89 includes the defect-based shelter deduction and projected FY2027 October–December parameters."
-us,scenario_100,snap,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model returned $0 even though the household passes every test: gross income is 45% of FPG, the $2,800 in assets is within limits, and TANF non-cash categorical eligibility applies. The record's r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua correction gives $691 net income and $577/month; about $714/month is the frozen reference's January–September amount, which includes the defect-based shelter deduction."
-us,scenario_100,snap,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model computed net income from wages alone, double-counted the $564 premium in a $141 medical deduction, and got a near-zero net income ($29) and $9,108. It then arbitrarily cut that to $7,320. It never added the roughly $505/month of non-wage income. Taking no utility-allowance shelter deduction matches the record's r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua correction, which gives $691 net and $577/month; the frozen reference's $237.09 net includes the defect-based $453.64 shelter deduction."
-us,scenario_100,snap,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model's net income of about $194/month counts wages only and leaves out the roughly $505/month of non-wage benefit income. Taking no utility-allowance shelter deduction matches the record's r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua correction, which gives $691 net and $577/month. It used a $766 maximum allotment instead of the FY2026 $785 held for all 12 months; $802.60 is the frozen engine's October–December projection. It then made an unexplained cut from $8,496 to $8,316."
-us,scenario_100,snap,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model assumed net income was just wages less the earned income and standard deductions, leaving out the roughly $505/month of non-wage income. Taking no utility-allowance shelter deduction matches the record's r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua correction, which gives $691 net, a $208 contribution and $577/month. Its $8,300 is below its own wages-only formula; holding the FY2026 $785 maximum for all 12 months matches c_snap_hold_fy2026, whereas the frozen reference's $71.10 contribution and October–December $802.60 maximum reflect the shelter defect and engine projection."
-us,scenario_100,snap,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model's net income of $92 uses $493 of wages only, plus a $94 medical deduction that PolicyEngine does not apply. It left out the roughly $505/month of non-wage income. Taking no utility-allowance shelter deduction matches the record's r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua correction, which gives $691 net and a $208 contribution rather than its approximately $27.60; the frozen reference's $237.09 net and $71.10 contribution include the defect-based shelter deduction."
-us,scenario_100,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated wages as the only income and subtracted a $93.67 medical deduction, getting $72.67 net. Taking no utility-allowance shelter deduction matches the record's r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua correction, which gives $691 net and $577/month; $237.09 is the frozen reference's defect-based net. It also used a $228 standard deduction instead of $209 and a flat $784 maximum for all 12 months."
-us,scenario_100,snap,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model counted the $20,644 employer-sponsored premium as a deductible out-of-pocket medical expense to drive net income to zero, and it left out the roughly $505/month of non-wage income. Its $13,700 is even higher than its own $766×12 = $9,192 maximum, which is an arithmetic error."
-us,scenario_100,snap,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model assumed net income of $0–50/month from wages alone plus a medical deduction. It missed the roughly $505/month of non-wage benefit income. Taking no utility-allowance shelter deduction matches the record's r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua correction, which gives $691 net and a $208 monthly contribution; the frozen reference's $237.09 net and $71.10 contribution include the defect-based $453.64 shelter deduction."
-us,scenario_100,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model added the $710 overtime premium on top of $5,915 in wages, even though overtime is already included in gross wages. It double-counted the $564 premium in a medical deduction, left out the roughly $505/month of non-wage income, and used a $797 maximum, giving $120 net income. Taking no utility-allowance shelter deduction matches the record's r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua correction, which gives $691 net; $237.09 is the frozen reference's defect-based net."
-us,scenario_100,snap,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model included estimated TANF income ($458.54/month) with wages and obtained $602.21 net income. Taking no utility-allowance shelter deduction matches the record's r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua correction, which gives $691 net and $577/month; the frozen reference's $237.09 net includes the defect-based $453.64 shelter deduction. It also used a $768 maximum allotment instead of $785."
-us,scenario_100,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model counted only $335/month of TANF instead of the roughly $505/month of non-wage income and used a $198 standard deduction instead of $209. It added a $140.67 medical deduction (double-counting the premium) and used a $768 maximum. Taking no utility-allowance shelter deduction matches the record's r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua correction; the frozen reference's $453.64 shelter deduction comes from that defect. Its explanation's $7,808.48 also contradicts the $9,037.20 it submitted."
-us,scenario_100,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,The model's $136.67 net income uses wages only with a $204 standard deduction and a $53.67 medical deduction. It left out the roughly $505/month of non-wage income and used an $805 maximum instead of the FY2026 $785 held for all 12 months. Taking no utility-allowance shelter deduction matches the record's r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua correction; the frozen reference's $453.64 shelter deduction comes from that defect.
-us,scenario_100,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model counted only wages and subtracted a $140 medical deduction that double-counts the $564 premium, getting $54 net. It missed the roughly $505/month of non-wage income. Taking no utility-allowance shelter deduction matches the record's r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua correction, which gives $691 net and a $208 contribution; the frozen reference's $237.09 net and $71.10 contribution include the defect-based $453.64 shelter deduction."
-us,scenario_100,snap,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,The model assumed a near-maximum benefit (~$784/month) without counting the roughly $505/month of non-wage income. The record's r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua correction gives $691 net income and a $208 monthly contribution; the frozen reference's $237.09 net and $71.10 contribution include the defect-based shelter deduction.
-us,scenario_100,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model said the household was near the maximum allotment but submitted $6,128 (~$511/month), well below the $785 maximum, with no supporting calculation. The record's r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua correction gives $691 net, a rounded $208 contribution and $577/month, with the FY2026 $785 maximum held all year. The frozen reference's approximately $714 and $733.60 monthly amounts include the shelter defect and projected FY2027 October–December parameters."
-us,scenario_100,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model included TANF as unearned income and took no utility-allowance shelter deduction, as the record's r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua correction does. That correction gives $691 net and $577/month; $237.09 is the frozen reference's net, which includes the defect-based $453.64 shelter deduction. It also used a $768 maximum instead of $785, giving $7,257."
-us,scenario_100,snap,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model claimed the household fails income and resource limits. Gross income is only 45% of FPG, the $2,800 in assets is within limits, and TANF non-cash categorical eligibility applies, so SNAP is positive under the record's stated-facts correction: $577/month after correcting r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua; about $714/month is the frozen reference's January–September amount, which includes the defect-based shelter deduction."
-us,scenario_100,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model based net income on $492.92 of wages alone with a medical deduction. It left out the roughly $505/month of non-wage income. Taking no utility-allowance shelter deduction matches the record's r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua correction, which gives $691 net and $6,924/year; the frozen reference's $237.09 net includes the defect-based $453.64 shelter deduction, and the model's $9,036 is above both annual comparisons."
-us,scenario_100,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model gave a near-maximum benefit with no income calculation and left out the roughly $505/month of non-wage income. The record's r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua correction gives $691 net and a $208 contribution; $237.09 is the frozen reference's net, which includes the defect-based shelter deduction. Its submitted $9,216 also contradicts the $9,072 in its explanation."
-us,scenario_100,snap,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model calculated net income of $97 from wages only, using a $204 standard deduction and a medical deduction. It left out the roughly $505/month of non-wage income and used a $768 maximum instead of the FY2026 $785 held for all 12 months. Taking no utility-allowance shelter deduction matches the record's r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua correction; the frozen reference's $453.64 shelter deduction and $802.60 October–December maximum come from the defect and engine projection."
-us,scenario_100,snap,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model treated the $20,644 employer-sponsored premium as a deductible out-of-pocket medical cost to zero out net income, and ignored the roughly $505/month of non-wage income. It also used an $800 maximum for all 12 months, whereas the $785 maximum applies through September."
-us,scenario_100,snap,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,The model's $179.34 net income uses wages only and omits non-wage benefit income (~$505/month). Taking no utility-allowance shelter deduction matches the record's r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua correction; the frozen reference's $453.64 shelter deduction comes from that defect. It used an $800 maximum for every month instead of the FY2026 $785 held all year under c_snap_hold_fy2026; $802.60 is the frozen engine's October–December projection.
-us,scenario_100,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model's $12,588 works out to $1,049/month, which is above the 3-person maximum allotment of $785. It also never subtracted the $71.10 contribution from $237.09 of net income."
-us,scenario_100,snap,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model set SNAP to zero because no rent was listed. SNAP does not require shelter costs, and the household is eligible through low income and TANF non-cash categorical eligibility, with $691 net income and $577/month under the record's r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua correction; $237.09 net and about $714/month are the frozen reference's January–September figures, which include the defect-based shelter deduction."
-us,scenario_100,snap,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model assumed medical and premium expenses wiped out countable income and paid the full $767/month. PolicyEngine counts about $505/month of non-wage income and applies no medical deduction, so net income is $237.09 and the contribution is $71.10."
-us,scenario_100,snap,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,The model paid the full $785×12 maximum on the assumption of zero net income. It left out the roughly $505/month of non-wage income. The record's r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua correction gives $691 net and a $208 monthly contribution; the frozen reference's $237.09 net and $71.10 contribution include the defect-based shelter deduction.
-us,scenario_100,snap,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model used medical premiums and expenses to zero out net income and paid the $785×12 maximum. PolicyEngine applies no medical deduction and counts about $505/month of non-wage income, leaving $237.09 net and a $71.10 monthly contribution."
-us,scenario_100,snap,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model counted benefit income as SSI, although the record has SSI at $0 and roughly $505/month of TANF. Taking no utility-allowance shelter deduction matches the record's r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua correction, which gives $691 net and $577/month. Its approximately $533/month is below that comparison; the frozen reference's approximately $714/month includes the defect-based shelter deduction."
-us,scenario_100,snap,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,The model claimed insurance and medical expenses eliminate net income and paid the $785×12 maximum. It left out the roughly $505/month of non-wage income. The record's r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua correction gives $691 net and a $208 monthly contribution; the frozen reference's $237.09 net and $71.10 contribution include the defect-based shelter deduction.
-us,scenario_100,snap,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model computed a single $710.92 monthly amount from wages alone with no shelter deduction and multiplied it by 12. Holding the FY2026 schedule all year matches c_snap_hold_fy2026, and taking no utility-allowance shelter deduction matches the record's r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua correction. With roughly $505/month of TANF counted, that correction gives $691 net, a $208 contribution and $577/month. The frozen reference's $237.09 net, $71.10 contribution and October–December $733.60 benefit on a $802.60 maximum reflect the shelter defect and engine projection."
-us,scenario_100,snap,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model included estimated TANF cash income and applied only the earned income and standard deductions, as the record's r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua correction does. That correction gives $691 net, a $208 contribution and $577/month, below its $618/month; the frozen reference's $237.09 net and approximately $714/month include the defect-based $453.64 shelter deduction."
-us,scenario_100,snap,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model explicitly set the shelter deduction to zero while counting TANF income, as the record's r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua correction does. That correction gives $691 net, a $208 contribution and $577/month, below its approximately $647/month; the frozen reference's $713.90 ($785 − $71.10) includes the defect-based $453.64 shelter deduction."
-us,scenario_100,snap,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model returned $0 without any calculation. The household is income-, asset- and categorically eligible under the record's stated-facts reading, whose r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua correction gives $691 net and $577/month; $237.09 net and about $714/month are the frozen reference's January–September figures, which include the defect-based shelter deduction."
-us,scenario_100,snap,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,The model's $668/year net income counts wages only and uses a $198 standard deduction plus a medical deduction that double-counts the $564 premium. It left out the roughly $505/month of non-wage income and used a $766 maximum instead of $785. Taking no utility-allowance shelter deduction matches the record's r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua correction; the frozen reference's $453.64 shelter deduction comes from that defect.
-us,scenario_100,snap,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model asserted net income of $0 and paid $766×12. It ignored the roughly $505/month of non-wage income and used $766 instead of $785. The record's r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua correction subtracts the $209 standard and $98.58 earned income deductions but no utility-allowance shelter deduction, giving $691 net and a $208 contribution; the frozen reference's $237.09 net includes the defect-based $453.64 shelter deduction."
-us,scenario_100,snap,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model built net income ($536/year) from wages alone with a $1,688 medical deduction that counts the $564 premium twice. It left out the roughly $505/month of non-wage income and used a $787/month maximum. Taking no utility-allowance shelter deduction matches the record's r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua correction; the frozen reference's $453.64 shelter deduction comes from that defect."
-us,scenario_100,snap,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model reported $805, a single monthly allotment, instead of the annual total. It also assumed zero net income, ignoring the roughly $505/month of non-wage income. The record's r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua correction gives $691 net and a $208 contribution; the frozen reference's $237.09 net and $71.10 contribution include the defect-based shelter deduction."
-us,scenario_100,snap,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model's net income of about $50/month uses $493 of wages and a medical deduction. It left out the roughly $505/month of non-wage income. Taking no utility-allowance shelter deduction matches the record's r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua correction, which gives $691 net and $577/month; the frozen reference's $237.09 net and about $714/month include the defect-based $453.64 shelter deduction."
-us,scenario_100,snap,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no SNAP value and no explanation, so there was no usable answer to compare with the excluded frozen reference's $8,625.89 annual value."
-us,scenario_100,snap,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model assumed premiums and medical expenses zero out net income and paid the $785×12 maximum. PolicyEngine counts about $505/month of non-wage income and applies no medical deduction, so net income is $237.09 and the contribution is $71.10/month."
-us,scenario_100,snap,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model's $393 net income subtracts only the earned income deduction, not the standard deduction. It then subtracted roughly the full net income from a $766 maximum instead of 30% of it, giving about $377/month. The record's r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua correction gives $691 net and a rounded $208 contribution, so its monthly figure is $785 − $208 = $577; about $714 is the frozen reference's January–September figure, which includes the defect-based shelter deduction."
-us,scenario_100,snap,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model's $97 net income is wages less the earned income, standard, and medical deductions. It left out the roughly $505/month of non-wage income, giving a contribution of about $29. Taking no utility-allowance shelter deduction matches the record's r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua correction, which gives $691 net and a $208 contribution; $71.10 is the frozen reference's contribution, which includes the defect-based $453.64 shelter deduction."
-us,scenario_100,snap,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model claimed a $182/month medical deduction from $2,608/yr of costs. That double-counts the $564 premium and includes Child 2's $500, though Child 2 is not elderly or disabled. Combined with leaving out the roughly $505/month of non-wage income, this drove net income to $3. The record's r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua correction gives $691 net and $577/month; $237.09 is the frozen reference's net, which includes the defect-based shelter deduction."
-us,scenario_100,snap,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model added the $710 overtime premium on top of wages that already include it. Its $12,444 is above its own $766×12 = $9,192 maximum, an arithmetic error, and it never computed the $71.10 contribution from $237.09 net income."
-us,scenario_100,snap,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The model claimed resources exceed SNAP limits. The $2,800 bank balance is within the limit and the household is categorically eligible through TANF non-cash status, so SNAP is positive under the record's stated-facts correction: $577/month after correcting r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua; about $714/month is the frozen reference's January–September amount, which includes the defect-based shelter deduction."
+us,scenario_100,snap,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Left the household's ~$505/month TANF benefit out of gross income and skipped the $453.64 utility-based excess shelter deduction. It also applied a $94 excess medical deduction, but the head receives no disability benefit, so the household is not elderly/disabled for SNAP. Its net income of $89 is far below the reference's $237.09, so it used $785 × 12 with a contribution that was too small."
+us,scenario_100,snap,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Left out the ~$505/month TANF unearned income and the $453.64 excess shelter deduction. It also claimed a $1,124/year excess medical deduction that does not apply because the head receives no disability-based benefit. Its net income of $1,040/year ($87/month) is well below the reference's $237.09/month, and it also used a flat $785 for all 12 months."
+us,scenario_100,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Correctly concluded the household is eligible but never calculated a benefit, and submitted an arbitrary 'conservative' $1,908. The correct calculation is $785 minus 30% of $237.09 net income, or $713.90/month for January–September, with higher October–December amounts."
+us,scenario_100,snap,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Returned $0 even though the household passes every test: gross income is 45% of the poverty guideline, it is categorically eligible through TANF, and its $2,800 in assets is within limits. With $237.09 net income, the household gets about $714–$734 a month."
+us,scenario_100,snap,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Counted the $564 premium twice inside a $141 excess medical deduction that does not apply (the head receives no disability benefit), and left out the ~$505/month TANF income and the $453.64 shelter deduction. It then cut its own $9,108 result to $7,320 for no stated reason."
+us,scenario_100,snap,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Calculated net income from wages only and used an outdated $766 maximum allotment instead of $785/$802.60. It left out the ~$505/month TANF income and the $453.64 excess shelter deduction, then lowered $8,496 to $8,316 without any calculation."
+us,scenario_100,snap,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Rough estimate from wages, the 20% earned-income deduction and the standard deduction only, with no TANF income and no excess shelter deduction. It also never applied the higher October–December FY2027 allotment, so its $8,300 does not match the reference's $713.90 × 9 + $733.60 × 3."
+us,scenario_100,snap,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,Applied a $94 disabled-member excess medical deduction that does not apply (the head receives no disability benefit) and left out the ~$505/month TANF income and the $453.64 excess shelter deduction. Its net income was $92 instead of $237.09.
+us,scenario_100,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Used a $228 standard deduction (the actual figure is $209) and applied a $93.67 excess medical deduction that does not apply because the head receives no disability benefit. It also left out the ~$505/month TANF income and the $453.64 excess shelter deduction, which gave net income of $72.67 instead of $237.09, then used $784 for all 12 months."
+us,scenario_100,snap,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Treated the $20,644 employer-sponsored insurance premium as a deductible medical expense to bring net income to zero. It then annualized a $766 monthly maximum to $13,700, which is more than 12 times even the $785 three-person maximum ($9,420)."
+us,scenario_100,snap,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Applied a disabled-member medical deduction that does not apply and left out the ~$505/month TANF unearned income. That put net income at $0–$50 instead of $237.09 and the benefit near the maximum, rather than a $71.10 monthly contribution."
+us,scenario_100,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Added the $710 overtime premium on top of wages, although gross wages already include overtime. It also applied a $100.67 medical deduction that does not apply and used a $797 maximum, while leaving out the ~$505/month TANF income and the $453.64 excess shelter deduction."
+us,scenario_100,snap,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Correctly counted TANF as unearned income but left out the $453.64 excess shelter deduction based on the utility allowance. It also applied a medical deduction that does not apply and used a $768 maximum, so net income came to $602 instead of $237.09 and the benefit was too low."
+us,scenario_100,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Its reasoning counted TANF but left out the $453.64 excess shelter deduction. It also applied a $140.67 medical deduction that does not apply and used a $198 standard deduction and a $768 maximum, arriving at $7,808.48. The submitted $9,037.20 contradicts its own working."
+us,scenario_100,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Left out the ~$505/month TANF income and the $453.64 shelter deduction, and applied a $53.67 medical deduction for a head who receives no disability benefit. It also used an $805 maximum for all 12 months, so net income was $136.67 instead of $237.09."
+us,scenario_100,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Applied a $140/month excess medical deduction, counting the $564 premium twice, even though the head is not SNAP-disabled. It also left out the ~$505/month TANF income and the shelter deduction, which pushed net income down to $54 instead of $237.09."
+us,scenario_100,snap,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Gave a near-maximum $9,408 with no deduction calculation, which assumes almost zero net income. In fact, TANF unearned income and the shelter deduction leave $237.09 net income and a $71.10 monthly contribution."
+us,scenario_100,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Said the household gets 'near the maximum' allotment but submitted $6,128 (about $511/month), which contradicts its own claim. The correct calculation is $785 minus $71.10, or $713.90/month for January–September, and about $733.60 for October–December."
+us,scenario_100,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Counted TANF as unearned income but left out the $453.64 excess shelter deduction based on the utility allowance. It also applied a medical deduction that does not apply and used a $768 maximum, so its net income was too high and the benefit too low ($604.75/month)."
+us,scenario_100,snap,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Wrongly concluded the household fails the income or resource limits. Gross income is 45% of the poverty guideline, the $2,800 in assets is within limits, and TANF-based categorical eligibility applies."
+us,scenario_100,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,Applied a disabled-member medical deduction that does not apply (the head receives no disability benefit) and left out the ~$505/month TANF unearned income and the $453.64 excess shelter deduction. That understated net income and gave about $753/month for all 12 months.
+us,scenario_100,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Submitted $9,216 ($768 × 12), which implies zero net income and an outdated maximum allotment. Its explanation even states a different value, $9,072. It ignored the ~$505/month TANF income that leaves $237.09 net income after deductions."
+us,scenario_100,snap,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Used a $204 standard deduction (the actual figure is $209) and applied a medical deduction for a head who is not SNAP-disabled. It left out the ~$505/month TANF income and the $453.64 shelter deduction and used a $768 maximum, so net income was $97 instead of $237.09."
+us,scenario_100,snap,gemini-4-argon,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Set net income to $0 by applying a medical deduction that does not apply, and left out the ~$505/month TANF income. It then used an outdated $768 maximum × 12, instead of $785 minus a $71.10 contribution (plus higher October–December amounts)."
+us,scenario_100,snap,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Treated the $20,644 employer-sponsored insurance premium as a deductible out-of-pocket medical expense for a head who is not SNAP-disabled, bringing net income to $0. It also ignored TANF income and applied an $800 maximum for all 12 months."
+us,scenario_100,snap,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Calculated net income from wages only ($179.34) and left out both the ~$505/month TANF income and the $453.64 shelter deduction, which together give the reference's $237.09. It also applied an $800 maximum for all 12 months instead of $785 for January–September."
+us,scenario_100,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Submitted $12,588 ($1,049/month), which exceeds the three-person maximum allotment of $785/month. It also ignored the $71.10 monthly contribution from $237.09 net income."
+us,scenario_100,snap,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Treated the absence of listed rent or utilities as making SNAP zero. Benefits do not depend on reported shelter costs: the household is eligible, and PolicyEngine still applies a utility-allowance-based shelter deduction."
+us,scenario_100,snap,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Assumed the head's medical and premium costs bring net income to zero, but the head receives no disability benefit, so no excess medical deduction applies. It also ignored TANF income and used an outdated $767 maximum."
+us,scenario_100,snap,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Gave the full $785 × 12 maximum, assuming zero net income. After deductions, wages plus ~$505/month of TANF leave $237.09 net income and a $71.10 monthly contribution."
+us,scenario_100,snap,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Used disabled-member medical deductions to bring net income to zero and paid the $785 × 12 maximum. The head is not SNAP-disabled (no disability benefit), so no medical deduction applies, and TANF income leaves $237.09 net."
+us,scenario_100,snap,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Counted SSI income, which the head does not receive because $2,800 in bank assets exceeds the SSI resource limit, and did not apply the $453.64 excess shelter deduction. That overstated net income and produced a ~$533/month benefit."
+us,scenario_100,snap,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Assumed the disabled head's insurance and medical expenses wipe out net income. No excess medical deduction applies to a head with no disability benefit, and TANF income leaves $237.09 net, so the benefit is not the $785 × 12 maximum."
+us,scenario_100,snap,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,Applied the $785 FY2026 maximum to all 12 months and multiplied $710.92 by 12. It missed the higher FY2027 allotments for October–December 2026 (about $733.60/month). It also explicitly ruled out any shelter deduction and did not count TANF income.
+us,scenario_100,snap,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Counted estimated TANF as unearned income but applied no excess shelter deduction. The utility-allowance-based shelter deduction of $453.64 cuts net income to $237.09, so its $618/month benefit is too low."
+us,scenario_100,snap,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Included TANF income but explicitly applied no shelter deduction, missing the $453.64 excess shelter deduction. It also applied a disabled-head medical deduction that does not apply because the head receives no disability benefit."
+us,scenario_100,snap,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Returned $0 with no calculation. The household is eligible: gross income is 45% of the poverty guideline, it is categorically eligible through TANF, and its assets are within limits, giving about $714–$734/month."
+us,scenario_100,snap,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Used a $198 standard deduction and an outdated $766 maximum, and applied an excess medical deduction for a head who is not SNAP-disabled. It left out the ~$505/month TANF income and the $453.64 shelter deduction, so net income was $56/month instead of $237.09."
+us,scenario_100,snap,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,Brought net income to $0 with an excess medical deduction that does not apply and ignored TANF income. It then paid an outdated $766 × 12 maximum instead of $785 minus a $71.10 contribution.
+us,scenario_100,snap,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Applied a $1,688/year excess medical deduction (counting the $564 premium twice) for a head who receives no disability benefit, and left out the ~$505/month TANF income and the $453.64 shelter deduction. Net income came to $536/year instead of $237.09/month."
+us,scenario_100,snap,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Reported a single monthly maximum allotment ($805) instead of an annual amount. It also set net income to zero with a medical deduction that does not apply, instead of summing twelve monthly benefits of about $714–$734."
+us,scenario_100,snap,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,Applied a disabled-member medical deduction that does not apply and left out the ~$505/month TANF unearned income. That put net income near $50 instead of $237.09 and overstated the monthly benefit at $774.
+us,scenario_100,snap,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No SNAP value or explanation was returned, so there was no answer to score."
+us,scenario_100,snap,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Assumed the head's premiums and medical expenses are deductible and bring net income to zero. The head is not SNAP-disabled (no disability benefit), so there is no medical deduction, and TANF income leaves $237.09 net, not a $785 × 12 maximum."
+us,scenario_100,snap,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Never subtracted the standard deduction, and then subtracted the full $393 net income from the maximum allotment instead of 30% of it, giving about $377/month. The benefit formula is maximum allotment minus 0.3 × net income."
+us,scenario_100,snap,muse-spark-1.3,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Used a $768 maximum allotment instead of $785 for FY2026 and $802.60 for October–December. It also calculated net income ($190) from wages only, without the TANF income or the $453.64 shelter deduction."
+us,scenario_100,snap,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Applied a disabled-member excess medical deduction for a head who receives no disability benefit and left out the ~$505/month TANF income. Net income came to $97 instead of $237.09, and it used $785 for all 12 months."
+us,scenario_100,snap,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Applied a $182/month medical deduction that included the child's expenses and counted the premium twice, for a head who is not SNAP-disabled. It also left out TANF income, which brought net income to $3 instead of $237.09."
+us,scenario_100,snap,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Double-counted the $710 overtime premium, which is already included in gross wages. Its $12,444 exceeds 12 times its own $766 maximum ($9,192), which no SNAP calculation can produce."
+us,scenario_100,snap,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"Claimed resources exceed SNAP limits, but $2,800 in bank assets is within limits and TANF-based categorical eligibility applies. The household gets about $714–$734/month."
us,scenario_100,ssi,claude-fable-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated the head's generic disability fact as satisfying SSI's categorical disability requirement and proceeded directly to the earned-income calculation. PolicyEngine's SSI-specific aged/blind/disabled indicator is false for the head, so no SSI benefit-rate or income-exclusion calculation applies; its submitted value also contradicts its own stated $9,480 calculation."
us,scenario_100,ssi,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model equated the head's generic disability status with SSI categorical eligibility. The head's SSI-specific aged/blind/disabled indicator is false, so the earned-income reduction it applied is irrelevant and SSI is zero."
us,scenario_100,ssi,gpt-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model assumed the head was an SSI-qualified disabled adult and subtracted countable earnings from a federal benefit maximum. The head fails SSI's aged, blind, or qualifying-disabled criterion, so the calculation stops before income exclusions or the federal benefit rate are applied."
@@ -8374,141 +8643,147 @@ us,scenario_100,ssi,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The
us,scenario_100,ssi,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model supplied no SSI value or explanation, violating the required structured-output contract."
us,scenario_100,ssi,ox-alpha,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model assumed the 46-year-old head's generic disability status met SSI's qualifying-disability test and then calculated countable wages. The SSI-specific categorical indicator is false, so the head is ineligible regardless of the wage calculation; neither child qualifies either."
us,scenario_100,ssi,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated the generic disability input as SSI categorical eligibility and therefore performed an income-reduction calculation that should never occur. It also added the separately listed overtime premium to annual gross wages and invented an IRWE adjustment despite instructions not to infer unlisted expenses, but categorical ineligibility alone makes SSI zero."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a 10% Montana match rate instead of the 2026 rate of 20%. It switched between earned-income figures of $2,056 and $2,646, and its final $265 doesn't follow from any of its own figures. The correct path is 20% × (40% × $2,055.72 = $822.29) = $164.46."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model got the federal EITC about right at roughly $822 by excluding the 401(k) deferral. However, it applied the outdated 10% Montana match instead of the 2026 rate of 20%, which cut the credit in half to $82.24 instead of $164.46."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed Montana has no income-based refundable credit and pointed to the household being below the filing threshold. But Montana's refundable EITC equals 20% of the federal EITC and pays out with no tax liability, so this filer gets 20% × $822.29 = $164.46."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model gave no refundable credit and offered no reasoning. It missed the refundable Montana EITC, which is 20% of the $822.29 federal EITC that a head of household with two children and $2,055.72 of earned income receives, or $164.46."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied a 10% Montana match instead of 20%. It also figured the federal EITC on $5,915 of gross wages without removing the $3,859 traditional 401(k) deferral, getting $2,366 instead of $822.29. Then it reported $297, which doesn't match even its own $237 result."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model recognized that the federal EITC is positive and that Montana provides a state EITC, but it still entered zero as a 'conservative' estimate. Montana's EITC is refundable, and 20% of the $822.29 federal EITC is $164.46."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated the Montana EITC as nonrefundable and zeroed it out because the household has no tax liability. The credit is refundable and pays 20% of the $822.29 federal EITC, or $164.46."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly started from a federal EITC of about $822 that excludes the 401(k) deferral. It then applied a 10% Montana match instead of the 2026 rate of 20%, getting $82.24 instead of $164.46."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a 10% Montana match instead of 20%. It also figured the federal EITC as 40% of $5,915 in gross wages, even though it noted the $3,859 traditional 401(k) deferral and should have used the remaining $2,055.72 of taxable wages, which gives $822.29."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said the Montana EITC is nonrefundable and reported zero. The credit is refundable at 20% of the federal EITC, which gives $164.46 on the $822.29 federal credit."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the outdated 10% Montana match to a $2,366 federal EITC. That federal figure is 40% of gross wages, with no exclusion for the $3,859 traditional 401(k) deferral. The correct figure is 20% × $822.29 = $164.46."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a 12% Montana match instead of 20%. It also used a $2,650 federal EITC instead of $822.29, which is 40% of the $2,055.72 left after the 401(k) deferral."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied a 10% Montana match instead of 20%, and it understated the federal EITC at $371. The federal credit is 40% × $2,055.72 = $822.29, so the Montana credit is $164.46."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the old 3% Montana EITC rate to an $822.40 federal EITC and submitted $24.67. The 2026 rate is 20%, which gives $164.46. Its explanation also added a $1,200 child credit that isn't part of the computed Montana refundable credits for this household."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model asserted that no Montana refundable credit applies. It missed the refundable Montana EITC of 20% of the $822.29 federal EITC, which is $164.46."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied a 10% match instead of 20%, and it used a $2,366 federal EITC, which is 40% of gross wages with the $3,859 traditional 401(k) deferral left in. The federal credit should be $822.29."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model reported no state refundable credits. It overlooked Montana's refundable EITC, which is 20% of the $822.29 federal EITC, or $164.46."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed Montana has no refundable EITC and that the filer has zero earned income. The filer has $2,055.72 of earned income after the 401(k) deferral, which produces an $822.29 federal EITC and a refundable Montana EITC of 20% of that, or $164.46."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model set the federal EITC to $0. A head of household with two qualifying children and $2,055.72 of earned income is in the 40% phase-in range and gets $822.29. That carries through to a $164.46 Montana EITC."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model gave zero without reasoning. It missed the refundable Montana EITC of 20% × $822.29 = $164.46.
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the correct 20% Montana rate but based it on a $2,366 federal EITC, which is 40% of gross wages. It didn't exclude the $3,859 traditional 401(k) deferral from earned income, which leaves $2,055.72 and an $822.29 federal credit."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's explanation applied the old 3% Montana rate to a $2,366 federal EITC that leaves the 401(k) deferral in earned income, giving $70.98. It then submitted $0, which contradicts its own explanation. The correct figure is 20% × $822.29 = $164.46."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed PolicyEngine doesn't model Montana refundable credits. PolicyEngine computes a refundable Montana EITC of 20% of the federal EITC, which is $164.46 here."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model wrongly said Montana has no individual income tax. Montana does tax income, and it provides a refundable EITC of 20% of the $822.29 federal EITC, or $164.46."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the old 3% Montana EITC rate instead of 20%. It also used a $2,366 federal EITC that leaves the $3,859 traditional 401(k) deferral in earned income, instead of $822.29."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model found no refundable Montana credits. It missed the refundable Montana EITC of 20% × $822.29 = $164.46 that this low-earning parent of two receives.
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model assumed low income meant no refundable Montana credit. Low positive earnings with two children is exactly the case that produces a federal EITC, and Montana refunds 20% of it, or $164.46."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied a 10% match instead of 20%, and it badly overstated the federal EITC at $4,207. The federal credit is only 40% of $2,055.72 in earned income after the 401(k) deferral, or $822.29."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a 10% match instead of 20%. It also used a $2,366 federal EITC computed on gross wages, when the $3,859 traditional 401(k) deferral should have been excluded from earned income to give $822.29."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,other,False,"The model added a $1,200 young-child credit that isn't part of the computed Montana refundable credits for this household. Its EITC also used the outdated 10% rate on a $2,366 federal EITC that leaves the 401(k) deferral in. The only refundable credit is the EITC: 20% × $822.29 = $164.46."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,other,False,"The model added a $1,200 young-child credit that isn't among the computed Montana refundable credits for this household. Its EITC also used 10% of a $2,366 federal EITC, instead of 20% of the $822.29 federal EITC that excludes the 401(k) deferral."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,other,False,"The model added an $1,800 Montana child tax credit that isn't part of the computed refundable credits. It also applied the correct 20% rate to a $2,366 federal EITC that didn't exclude the $3,859 traditional 401(k) deferral, instead of to $822.29."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the correct 20% Montana rate but applied it to a $2,366 federal EITC figured on gross wages. The $3,859 traditional 401(k) deferral comes out of EITC earned income, so the federal credit is $822.29 and the Montana credit is $164.46."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model asserted that no Montana refundable credits apply. It missed the refundable Montana EITC of 20% × $822.29 = $164.46.
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed Montana has no state EITC. Montana provides a refundable EITC of 20% of the federal EITC, which is $164.46 here."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed Montana has no state EITC and only checked elderly and property-tax credits. Montana's refundable EITC of 20% of the $822.29 federal EITC applies, giving $164.46."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model ruled out the elderly homeowner/renter credit, then wrongly said Montana has no state EITC. The refundable Montana EITC is 20% × $822.29 = $164.46."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model said no Montana refundable credits apply. It missed the refundable Montana EITC of 20% × $822.29 = $164.46.
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,other,False,"The model added a $1,200 refundable child credit that isn't part of the computed Montana refundable credits. It also applied a 10% rate to a roughly $750 federal EITC instead of 20% of $822.29."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed Montana offers no refundable state EITC. Montana's EITC is refundable at 20% of the federal EITC, giving $164.46 for this filer."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied a 10% match instead of 20%, and it used a $2,366 federal EITC based on gross wages. That figure leaves the $3,859 traditional 401(k) deferral in earned income instead of the correct $822.29."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model wrongly said Montana has no state income tax. Montana has an income tax and a refundable EITC of 20% of the federal EITC, which is $164.46 here."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated Montana's earned income credit as nonrefundable and reported zero. The credit is refundable at 20% of the $822.29 federal EITC, or $164.46."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied a 10% match instead of 20%, and it used a $2,366 federal EITC figured on gross wages. It didn't remove the $3,859 traditional 401(k) deferral, which leaves $2,055.72 of earned income and an $822.29 federal credit."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed Montana has no earned income tax credit. Montana provides a refundable EITC of 20% of the federal EITC, which is $164.46 here."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model said no Montana refundable credits apply. It missed the refundable Montana EITC of 20% × $822.29 = $164.46.
-us,scenario_100,tanf,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly found the family eligible with about $220 of countable income, then reversed itself and submitted $0, claiming earnings exceed the standard. Its own numbers ($588–$633 standard minus $220) give a positive benefit. The correct $725 standard less $219.69 gives about $505/month."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,The model assumed Montana TANF is not modeled and returned $0. PolicyEngine does model it: about $725/month less $219.69 of countable earnings is roughly $505/month for this eligible family of three.
-us,scenario_100,tanf,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"The model used a $2,000 asset limit and a household of 4 (there are 3 people), and compared gross wages to the income limit without the disregard. Montana's resource limit is $3,000, so $2,800 passes. After the $200 + 25% disregard, countable income of $219.69 is far below the ~$725 payment standard."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model returned $0 because no TANF receipt was listed, but the prompt says to assume program take-up. The family qualifies for about $725 − $219.69 ≈ $505/month."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"The model returned $0, saying asset and vehicle limits were met and no application was indicated. Take-up is assumed, $2,800 is under the $3,000 limit, the vehicle is excluded, and $219.69 of countable earnings leaves about $505/month under the ~$725 standard."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's $595/month is roughly a full maximum grant based on the old ~$588 standard; it never subtracted the $219.69 of countable earnings. The correct figure is the ~$725 standard minus $219.69, about $505/month."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,claude-opus-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model assumed PolicyEngine gives no Montana TANF for this family. Countable earnings of $219.69/month (after the $200 + 25% disregard) are well under the ~$725 standard, so the benefit is about $505/month."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the disregard correctly ($219.69 countable) but rounded the payment standard to $730 instead of PolicyEngine's ~$725. That gives $510/month ($6,120/year) instead of $505.41/month ($6,064.96/year)."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"The model used a $1,000 liquid-asset limit and found $2,800 disqualifying. Montana's TANF resource limit is $3,000, so the family passes and gets about $725 − $219.69 ≈ $505/month."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a made-up $327/month maximum grant and a 20%-style disregard. PolicyEngine's three-person standard is about $725, and subtracting $219.69 of countable earnings (after the $200 + 25% disregard) gives about $505/month, not $327."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,The model assumed Montana TANF is not modeled and returned $0. The engine pays about $505/month: the ~$725 standard minus $219.69 of countable earnings.
-us,scenario_100,tanf,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"The model counted the $1,981 vehicle toward resources to reach $4,781. The vehicle is excluded, leaving $2,800, which is under the $3,000 limit, so the family gets about $505/month."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a $605 standard and disregarded 50% of earnings above $200 ($146.46 countable). Montana disregards only 25% of the remainder, so countable earnings are $219.69, and the standard is about $725, giving about $505/month."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model computed a positive benefit ($4,023.75) but submitted $0. Its computation also used a $555 standard instead of PolicyEngine's ~$725; with $219.69 countable, the benefit is about $505/month."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a $500 standard and a 50% disregard of earnings above $200. The correct inputs are a ~$725 standard and a 25% disregard ($219.69 countable), which give about $505/month."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the $200 + 25% disregard correctly but used an outdated $588 three-person standard. PolicyEngine's 2026 standard is about $725, so the benefit is about $505/month, not $368."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said the household fails Montana's requirements without naming a test. It passes all of them: $2,800 of assets is under $3,000, and $219.69 of countable earnings is under the ~$725 standard, giving about $505/month."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"The model assumed the head gets SSI and that SSI blocks TANF. SSI is $0 because $2,800 of bank assets exceeds the $2,000 SSI resource limit, so the family gets the full TANF calculation of about $505/month."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's $5,298 equals $588 − $146.46: an outdated $588 standard plus a 50% disregard. Montana disregards 25% of earnings above $200 ($219.69 countable) against a ~$725 standard, which gives about $505/month."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model gave $0 with no reasoning. The family is eligible, and the ~$725 standard minus $219.69 of countable earnings gives about $505/month ($6,064.96/year)."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's $5,298.48 equals ($588 − $146.46) × 12: an outdated $588 standard and a 50% disregard. The correct calculation is the ~$725 standard minus $219.69, using the 25% disregard."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's explanation says the family qualifies for $4,824, but it submitted $0. Even $4,824 ($402/month) is short of the correct ~$725 − $219.69 ≈ $505/month."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model claimed Montana TANF is not modeled in PolicyEngine. It is modeled, and this family gets about $505/month (~$725 standard less $219.69 of countable earnings)."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model added the $710 overtime premium on top of wages that already include overtime, then compared unreduced income to the standard without the $200 + 25% disregard. Countable earnings are $219.69/month, well under the ~$725 standard, and no work-hours test removes the benefit."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,glm-5.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,The model assumed PolicyEngine pays no Montana TANF here. The engine gives about $505/month: the ~$725 standard minus $219.69 of countable earnings.
-us,scenario_100,tanf,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model returned $0 because TANF receipt wasn't indicated, ignoring the instruction to assume take-up. The eligible family gets about $725 − $219.69 ≈ $505/month."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said there were no TANF triggers, but a parent with two children under 18, low earnings, and $2,800 of assets meets Montana's categorical, income, and resource tests. With take-up assumed, the benefit is about $505/month."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model estimated $150 of countable income, which reflects a 50% disregard, and a $588 standard. Montana disregards only 25% of earnings above $200, giving $219.69 countable, and the 2026 standard is about $725, so the benefit is about $505/month."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's $359.50/month comes from a too-low three-person standard (around $588). PolicyEngine's 2026 standard is about $725, and minus $219.69 of countable earnings that gives about $505/month."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's $4,419.75 is ($588 − $219.69) × 12: the disregard is right but the standard is an outdated $588. PolicyEngine uses about $725, giving $6,064.96/year."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"The model counted SSI income that does not exist: the head's $2,800 of bank assets exceeds the $2,000 SSI resource limit, so SSI is $0. With only $219.69 of countable earnings against the ~$725 standard, TANF is about $505/month."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The method is right (disregard to $219.69 countable, subtracted from the three-person standard), but the model used a rounded $725 standard. PolicyEngine's uprated 2026 standard is slightly higher (≈$725.10), so the annual total came out $1.21 short of $6,064.96."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's $5,298 matches an outdated $588 standard with a 50% disregard ($146.46 countable). The correct inputs are a 25% disregard ($219.69 countable) and a ~$725 standard, giving about $505/month."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's $368.25/month comes from an outdated $588 standard. PolicyEngine's 2026 three-person standard is about $725, and minus $219.69 that gives about $505/month."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied the $200 + 25% disregard and the asset test correctly but used an outdated $588 standard. The ~$725 2026 standard is what gives $6,064.96/year."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model did no TANF calculation and defaulted to $0. The family is eligible, and the ~$725 standard minus $219.69 of countable earnings gives about $505/month."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used an outdated $588 three-person standard. With the correct ~$725 standard and the same $219.69 countable income, the benefit is about $505/month, not $368."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used an outdated $588 standard. PolicyEngine's 2026 standard is about $725, so subtracting $219.69 of countable income gives about $505/month."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The disregard, resource, and work logic are correct, but the model used an outdated $588 standard instead of the ~$725 2026 standard. That understates the benefit by about $137/month."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model used a $675 three-person maximum instead of PolicyEngine's ~$725 standard. That gives $455/month instead of about $505.41/month.
-us,scenario_100,tanf,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used an outdated $588 maximum grant. With the ~$725 2026 standard and $219.69 of countable earnings, the benefit is about $505/month ($6,064.96/year)."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No TANF value or explanation was returned, so nothing could be parsed for this output."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The resource test and $219.69 of countable earnings are correct, but the model used an outdated $588 standard. PolicyEngine's ~$725 standard gives about $505/month."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model assumed Montana TANF pays only $50–$200/month and that earnings wipe it out. The three-person standard is about $725, and countable earnings after the $200 + 25% disregard are only $219.69, leaving about $505/month."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model's $368/month comes from an outdated $588 standard. PolicyEngine's ~$725 2026 standard minus $219.69 gives about $505/month.
-us,scenario_100,tanf,ox-alpha,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"The model counted about $780/month of SSI as unearned income. SSI is $0 because the head's $2,800 of bank assets exceeds the $2,000 SSI resource limit, so the only countable income is $219.69 of earnings against the ~$725 standard."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model added the $710 overtime premium to wages that already include it, and compared gross annual income to the limit without the $200 + 25% disregard. Countable income is $219.69/month, well below the ~$725 standard."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model said income was too high without applying the disregard. $492.92/month of wages reduces to $219.69 of countable income, well under the ~$725 three-person standard, so the benefit is about $505/month."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $1,400 auto loan interest as a qualified vehicle loan deduction. The household facts never say the loan is for a new, U.S.-assembled vehicle, so no deduction applies and taxable income is $85,030. It then submitted $12,064, which matches neither of its own computed figures ($13,111 or $13,058)."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its brackets and standard deduction were correct, but it subtracted a $1,000 auto loan interest deduction. The loan is not shown to be a qualifying new, U.S.-assembled vehicle loan, so the deduction is $0. It also applied the phaseout to the interest itself rather than to the $10,000 cap. Removing the deduction gives $85,030 of taxable income and $13,418.60 in tax."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted the $700 of nontaxable veterans benefits in AGI and used the 2024 standard deduction of $14,600 instead of the 2026 amount of $16,100. It also skipped the 22% bracket entirely. Its submitted $11,435 does not even match its own $10,637.50 calculation."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted health premiums from wages as if they were pre-tax, but wages are given as gross and nothing marks the premiums as pre-tax. It also used approximate brackets instead of the 2026 thresholds. The correct path is $85,030 of taxable income and $13,418.60 in tax, while it submitted $13,900."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly computed taxable income of $85,030 and tax of $13,418.60. It then submitted $14,716 with an unexplained 'rounding to bracket estimates' adjustment that contradicts its own correct arithmetic."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"It reached $85,030 of taxable income and tax of about $13,419 using the correct 2026 brackets. It then replaced that figure with an unexplained $13,876."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the full $1,400 auto loan interest as a qualified vehicle loan interest deduction. That deduction requires a loan for a new, U.S.-assembled vehicle, which is not among the facts, so it is $0. Its taxable income of $83,630 is therefore $1,400 too low, which understates the tax by $308."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used $15,750 (the 2025 OBBBA standard deduction) instead of the 2026 amount of $16,100. It also invented 2026 bracket thresholds of $12,300 and $49,950 instead of $12,400 and $50,400, which produced $13,543."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It had the right $85,030 of taxable income but used wrong bracket thresholds ($12,150 and $49,400 instead of $12,400 and $50,400), giving $13,523.60. It then submitted an unrelated $13,322."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted about $1,174 of auto loan interest as a qualified vehicle loan deduction. The loan is not shown to be for a new, U.S.-assembled vehicle, so the deduction is $0. That cut taxable income from $85,030 to $83,856 and understated the tax at $13,160."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,600 standard deduction instead of $16,100, and bracket thresholds of $12,175 and $49,550 instead of $12,400 and $50,400. That inflated taxable income to $85,530 and the tax to $13,618."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted $3,840 of health premiums from wages, which double-counts the same $1,920 premium and treats it as a pre-tax exclusion the facts never establish. It also used a $15,400 standard deduction and $12,200/$49,700 brackets instead of $16,100 and $12,400/$50,400."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied pre-TCJA 2026 law with an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,300 personal exemption and 15%/25% brackets. OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent, so the correct inputs are a $16,100 standard deduction, no exemption and 10/12/22% brackets."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,350 standard deduction instead of $16,100, and bracket thresholds of $12,200 and $49,575 instead of $12,400 and $50,400. That gave taxable income of $85,780 and tax of $13,670.10."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA sunset and used an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,300 personal exemption and 15%/25% brackets. OBBBA made the TCJA permanent, so the 2026 standard deduction is $16,100 under 10/12/22% brackets. It also subtracted $1,920 of premiums as pre-tax without any basis in the facts."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $1,870 capital loss, which reduces AGI to $101,130. It also used a $15,300 standard deduction instead of $16,100, which inflated taxable income to $87,700 instead of $85,030."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its AGI of $101,130 was correct, but it never applied the 2026 $16,100 standard deduction and brackets ($12,400/$50,400) explicitly. Its $15,400 guess overstates the correct $13,418.60 by about $1,981."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a post-TCJA-expiration regime with an $8,250 standard deduction, a $5,300 personal exemption and 10/15/25% brackets. OBBBA made the TCJA permanent, so the correct inputs are a $16,100 standard deduction and 10/12/22% brackets."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave no bracket computation and assumed a standard deduction of about $15,000. Correctly applying the $16,100 deduction to $101,130 of AGI and the 2026 brackets gives $13,418.60, so its $11,102 understates the tax by about $2,317."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied expired-TCJA law: an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,300 exemption, and 10/15/25% brackets with outdated $11,000/$44,700 thresholds. OBBBA kept the $16,100 standard deduction and 10/12/22% brackets."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the TCJA-sunset $8,300 standard deduction plus a $5,300 personal exemption, producing $87,530 of taxable income at pre-TCJA rates. Under OBBBA the deduction is $16,100 with no exemption, which gives $85,030 at 10/12/22%."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the pre-OBBBA 2025 standard deduction of $15,000 and the 2025 bracket thresholds of $11,925 and $48,475. The 2026 values are $16,100 and $12,400/$50,400."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It estimated the standard deduction at $15,450 instead of $16,100, and the bracket thresholds at about $12,283 and $49,929 instead of $12,400 and $50,400. That overstated the tax at $13,611.04."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its brackets ($12,400 and $50,400) were correct, but it used a $15,800 standard deduction instead of the 2026 amount of $16,100. That leaves $300 too much taxable income and overstates the tax by $66, at $13,484.60."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the tax-exempt private pension as taxable income and described the capital loss as net taxable gains. AGI is just $103,000 minus $1,870, or $101,130, which gives $85,030 of taxable income after the $16,100 standard deduction. Its $14,498 overstates the tax."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed an itemized medical-expense benefit, but the $2,520 of premiums and medical costs falls well below the 7.5%-of-AGI floor of $7,585, so the standard deduction applies. Its $9,587 is far below the $13,418.60 that $85,030 of taxable income produces."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA would sunset and claimed a standard deduction plus a personal exemption, giving about $87,380 of taxable income. OBBBA made permanent the $16,100 standard deduction with no exemption and the 10/12/22% brackets."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted a phased-down $1,000 qualified auto loan interest deduction. The household facts never establish a new, U.S.-assembled vehicle loan, so the deduction is $0 and taxable income stays at $85,030. The extra deduction understated the tax by $220."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took a $1,000 auto loan interest deduction after the phaseout. The loan is not shown to be for a qualifying new, U.S.-assembled vehicle, so no deduction applies. That reduced taxable income to $84,030 instead of $85,030."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,300 standard deduction instead of the 2026 amount of $16,100, giving $85,830 of taxable income. Its projected brackets were also off, which produced $13,774."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA would sunset and applied an $8,400 standard deduction, a $5,300 exemption and 10/15/25% brackets. OBBBA kept the $16,100 standard deduction and 10/12/22% brackets for 2026."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 $15,000 standard deduction and the 2025 bracket thresholds of $11,925 and $48,475. The 2026 OBBBA values are $16,100 and $12,400/$50,400."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $85,030 of taxable income was correct, but it used bracket thresholds of $12,200 and $49,575 instead of the 2026 values of $12,400 and $50,400. That overstated the tax by $86.50."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied reverted pre-TCJA law with an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,300 exemption and 15%/25% brackets. OBBBA made the TCJA permanent, so the 2026 standard deduction is $16,100 under 10/12/22% brackets."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $85,030 of taxable income was correct, but its bracket arithmetic gave $13,426 instead of $1,240 + $4,560 + 22% × $34,630 = $13,418.60. That means it used thresholds slightly different from the 2026 values of $12,400 and $50,400."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value and no explanation for this output, so there was no answer to score."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted a $1,174 auto loan interest deduction. The loan is not shown to be for a new, U.S.-assembled vehicle, so the deduction is $0. It also applied the 20% phaseout to the interest rather than to the $10,000 cap. Without the deduction, taxable income is $85,030 and tax is $13,418.60."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"It acknowledged that the 2026 brackets leave a positive tax, then submitted $0 anyway. With $85,030 of taxable income and no nonrefundable credits, the tax is $13,418.60."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $85,030 of taxable income was correct, but it reported $13,487 instead of $1,240 + $4,560 + $7,618.60 = $13,418.60. That means it used wrong 2026 bracket thresholds instead of $12,400 and $50,400."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,750 standard deduction instead of $16,100, and $12,150/$49,000 thresholds instead of $12,400/$50,400, which gave $13,641. It then submitted an unrelated $14,827."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It wrongly netted the capital loss against the tax-exempt pension instead of deducting it from wages, and used a $13,600 deduction instead of $16,100. It applied 12% to all income above $12,400 with no 22% bracket. It then subtracted employee payroll tax as if it were a nonrefundable credit, which no rule allows."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied a 10% Montana EITC rate instead of the 2026 rate of 20%. It also switched among earned-income figures ($2,646, $2,056) instead of settling on $2,055.72, which is wages net of the 401(k) deferral. Its final $265 matches none of its own intermediate figures. The correct figure is 20% × $822.29 = $164.46."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly put the federal EITC at about $822 by removing the 401(k) deferral from earned income. It then applied the old 10% Montana EITC rate instead of the 2026 rate of 20%, which halved the credit to $82.24 instead of $164.46."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Montana has no earned income tax credit. In fact Montana has a refundable state EITC equal to 20% of the federal EITC in 2026. On the $822.29 federal EITC from $2,055.72 of earned income with two children, that is $164.46. Low income does not block a refundable credit."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model gave no reasoning and reported $0, which means it left out Montana's refundable EITC. That credit is 20% of the $822.29 federal EITC, or $164.46."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model computed the federal EITC on gross wages ($2,366) without excluding the $3,859 traditional 401(k) deferral, so it missed the correct earned income of $2,055.72 and EITC of $822.29. It applied 10% instead of Montana's 2026 rate of 20%. It then reported $297, which does not match its own $237 figure."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model acknowledged that a positive federal EITC and a Montana EITC apply, but it entered $0 as a 'conservative' choice. Montana's refundable EITC equals 20% of the $822.29 federal EITC, or $164.46."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated the Montana EITC as nonrefundable and zeroed it because the household has no tax liability. The Montana EITC is refundable and pays 20% of the $822.29 federal EITC, or $164.46, regardless of liability."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly put the federal EITC at about $822 by removing the 401(k) deferral from earned income. It then applied the old 10% Montana EITC rate instead of the 2026 rate of 20%, which gave $82.24 instead of $164.46."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used gross wages of $5,915 as EITC earned income, even though it noted the 401(k) reduces wages to $2,056. Traditional 401(k) deferrals are excluded from earned income, so the federal EITC is $822.29, not $2,366. It also applied 10% instead of Montana's 2026 rate of 20%."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said the Montana EITC is nonrefundable. It is refundable and pays 20% of the $822.29 federal EITC, or $164.46, even with zero state liability."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied 10% instead of Montana's 2026 rate of 20%. It also based the federal EITC on gross wages ($2,366) instead of $2,055.72, which is wages net of the excluded $3,859 traditional 401(k) deferral and gives a federal EITC of $822.29."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a 12% Montana EITC rate instead of the 2026 rate of 20%. It also used a federal EITC of $2,650 instead of $822.29, which is 40% of the $2,055.72 left after excluding the 401(k) deferral from wages."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied 10% instead of Montana's 2026 rate of 20%. It also used a federal EITC of $371 instead of $822.29, which is 40% of $2,055.72 of earned income for a filer with two children."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used Montana's old 3% EITC rate instead of the 2026 rate of 20% on the roughly $822 federal EITC. It also added a $1,200 Montana child tax credit that is not among this household's refundable credits. The correct total is $164.46, all of it EITC."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no Montana refundable credits apply, which overlooks the refundable Montana EITC. That credit is 20% of the $822.29 federal EITC, or $164.46."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied 10% instead of Montana's 2026 rate of 20%. It also based the federal EITC on gross wages ($2,366) without excluding the $3,859 traditional 401(k) deferral, which leaves earned income of $2,055.72 and a federal EITC of $822.29."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no Montana refundable credits apply and missed the refundable Montana EITC. That credit is 20% of the $822.29 federal EITC, or $164.46."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed Montana has no refundable EITC and treated the head as having zero earned income. Montana's refundable EITC pays 20% of the federal EITC, and the head has $2,055.72 of earned income after the 401(k) exclusion, which gives a federal EITC of $822.29 and a Montana EITC of $164.46."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model set the federal EITC to $0. A filer with two qualifying children and $2,055.72 of earned income is in the 40% phase-in range and gets $822.29. Montana's refundable EITC of 20% of that is $164.46."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model gave no reasoning and reported $0, which leaves out Montana's refundable EITC. That credit is 20% of the $822.29 federal EITC, or $164.46."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the correct 20% Montana rate but based the federal EITC on gross wages ($2,366). The $3,859 traditional 401(k) deferral is excluded from earned income, so earned income is $2,055.72, the federal EITC is $822.29, and the Montana credit is $164.46."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model's explanation applies Montana's old 3% rate to a gross-wage federal EITC of $2,366 to get $70.98, but it submitted $0. The correct steps are a 20% rate on the $822.29 federal EITC, which uses earned income net of the 401(k) deferral, giving $164.46."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed PolicyEngine does not model Montana refundable credits. PolicyEngine computes the refundable Montana EITC as 20% of the federal EITC, which here is $164.46."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied 10% instead of Montana's 2026 rate of 20%. It also based the federal EITC on gross wages ($2,366) instead of $2,055.72 net of the excluded 401(k) deferral, which gives a federal EITC of $822.29."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed Montana has no state individual income tax, which is false. Montana levies an income tax and pays a refundable EITC of 20% of the federal EITC, which is $164.46 here."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used Montana's outdated 3% EITC rate instead of the 2026 rate of 20%. It also built the federal EITC on gross wages ($2,366) instead of the $2,055.72 left after excluding the 401(k) deferral, which gives a federal EITC of $822.29."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model found no Montana refundable credits and missed the refundable state EITC. That credit is 20% of the $822.29 federal EITC, or $164.46."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model assumed no positive Montana refundable credit for this low-income filer. Low earned income with two children produces a federal EITC of $822.29, and Montana refunds 20% of it, or $164.46."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model put the federal EITC at $4,207, which is far above 40% of the $2,055.72 earned income after the 401(k) exclusion; the correct figure is $822.29. It also applied 10% instead of Montana's 2026 rate of 20%."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied 10% instead of Montana's 2026 rate of 20%. It also used a gross-wage federal EITC of $2,366 instead of $822.29, which comes from earned income net of the $3,859 traditional 401(k) deferral."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model added a $1,200 Montana young-child credit that is not part of this household's refundable credits, which consist only of the Montana EITC. It also computed that EITC as 10% of a gross-wage federal EITC of $2,366 instead of 20% of the $822.29 federal EITC."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model added a $1,200 Montana young-child credit that is not part of this household's refundable credits. It also used a 10% rate on a gross-wage federal EITC of $2,366 instead of 20% of $822.29, the federal EITC based on earned income net of the 401(k) deferral."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model added $1,800 of Montana child tax credit for both children, which is not part of this household's refundable credits. It also took 20% of a gross-wage federal EITC of $2,366 instead of 20% of $822.29, the federal EITC after excluding the $3,859 traditional 401(k) deferral from earned income."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the correct 20% Montana rate but based the federal EITC on $5,915 of gross wages. Traditional 401(k) deferrals are excluded from earned income, so earned income is $2,055.72, the federal EITC is $822.29, and the Montana credit is $164.46."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no Montana refundable credits apply and missed the refundable Montana EITC. That credit is 20% of the $822.29 federal EITC, or $164.46."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed Montana has no state EITC. Montana has a refundable EITC equal to 20% of the federal EITC in 2026, which is $164.46 here."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed Montana has no state EITC and looked only at property-tax credits. Montana's refundable EITC pays 20% of the $822.29 federal EITC, or $164.46."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly ruled out the elderly homeowner/renter credit but wrongly claimed Montana has no state EITC. Montana's refundable EITC equals 20% of the $822.29 federal EITC, or $164.46."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no Montana refundable credits apply and missed the refundable Montana EITC. That credit is 20% of the $822.29 federal EITC, or $164.46."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model added a $1,200 Montana child tax credit that is not part of this household's refundable credits. It also applied 10% to a federal EITC of about $750 instead of 20% to the $822.29 federal EITC."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed Montana has no state EITC. Montana's refundable EITC pays 20% of the $822.29 federal EITC, or $164.46, with no rent or property-tax facts needed."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied 10% instead of Montana's 2026 rate of 20%. It also used a gross-wage federal EITC of $2,366 instead of $822.29, which comes from earned income of $2,055.72 after excluding the 401(k) deferral."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed Montana has no state income tax, which is false. Montana has an income tax with a refundable EITC of 20% of the federal EITC, which is $164.46 here."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied 10% instead of Montana's 2026 rate of 20%. It also based the federal EITC on gross wages ($2,366) instead of $2,055.72 net of the excluded 401(k) deferral, which gives a federal EITC of $822.29."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated Montana's earned income credit as nonrefundable. It is refundable and pays 20% of the $822.29 federal EITC, or $164.46, even with zero liability."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied 10% instead of Montana's 2026 rate of 20%. It also used a gross-wage federal EITC of $2,366 instead of $822.29, which comes from earned income net of the $3,859 traditional 401(k) deferral."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed Montana has no earned income tax credit. Montana's refundable EITC equals 20% of the federal EITC, which is $164.46 on the household's $822.29 federal EITC."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no Montana refundable credits apply and missed the refundable Montana EITC. That credit is 20% of the $822.29 federal EITC, or $164.46."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its own reasoning found eligibility and a benefit of about $368/month, but it then switched to $0 by asserting that income exceeded the standard after disregards. Countable earnings are only $219.69/month against a payment standard of about $725, which leaves about $505/month."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It assumed Montana TANF is not modeled. In fact the program is modeled and pays about $725 minus $219.69 in countable earnings, roughly $505/month, or $6,064.96 a year."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"It counted the household as 4 people instead of 3, claimed that $5,915 of wages exceeds the income limit, and applied a $2,000 asset limit. Montana's TANF resource limit is $3,000, so $2,800 passes. Countable income of $219.69/month is well below the roughly $725 payment standard."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated TANF as payable only if receipt was listed, but the prompt says to assume take-up. The eligible 3-person unit receives the roughly $725 standard minus $219.69 in countable earnings, which is $6,064.96 a year."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It defaulted to $0 by citing vague work-requirement and asset concerns. Montana excludes the vehicle, the $2,800 in bank assets is under the $3,000 limit, and $219.69 of countable earnings leaves about $505/month payable."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $595/month (about $7,140 a year) does not actually subtract the $219.69 of countable earnings left after the $200 plus 25% disregard. The correct figure is a payment standard of about $725 minus $219.69, or about $505/month."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,claude-opus-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It asserted that PolicyEngine gives no Montana TANF benefit. The household meets the $3,000 resource test, and $219.69 of countable earnings against a standard of about $725 yields $6,064.96 a year."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its disregard math ($219.69 countable) was right, but it used an estimated $730 payment standard instead of the engine's roughly $725.10 and rounded to $510/month. That gives $6,120 instead of $6,064.96."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"It applied a $1,000 liquid-asset limit. Montana's TANF resource limit is $3,000, so the $2,800 bank balance passes and the household receives about $505/month."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $327/month maximum grant, far below Montana's 2026 three-person payment standard of about $725. It also never subtracted the $219.69 of countable earnings, so its $3,924 is wrong on both the standard and the income offset."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It assumed Montana TANF is not modeled. The engine computes eligibility and pays about $725 minus $219.69 in countable earnings each month, or $6,064.96 a year."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"It added the $1,981 vehicle to the bank balance as a countable resource. Montana TANF excludes the vehicle, so countable resources are $2,800, which is under the $3,000 limit."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $605 payment standard and a $200 plus 50% disregard. Montana uses about $725 and a $200 plus 25% disregard, which puts countable income at $219.69, not $146.46."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It submitted $0, which contradicts its own explanation of $4,023.75. That $4,023.75 also relied on a $555 payment standard instead of the roughly $725 three-person standard, even though its $219.69 countable-income figure was correct."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $500 payment standard and a 50% disregard of earnings above $200. The correct inputs are a standard of about $725 and a 25% disregard, giving $219.69 of countable income and about $505/month."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its disregard math was correct ($220 countable), but it used an outdated $588 three-person payment standard instead of the 2026 figure of about $725. That understates the benefit by about $137/month."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It denied eligibility without stating any rule. The 3-person unit passes the $3,000 resource test, and countable earnings of $219.69/month leave about $505/month under the roughly $725 standard."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It assumed SSI receipt, but the head's $2,800 bank balance exceeds SSI's $2,000 resource limit, so there is no SSI. TANF is payable to the 3-person unit at about $505/month."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a $200 plus 50% disregard, giving $146.46 countable, against a $588 standard. Montana uses a 25% remainder disregard ($219.69 countable) and a 2026 standard of about $725."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It output $0 with no reasoning. The household passes the resource test, and the roughly $725 standard minus $219.69 of countable earnings gives $6,064.96 a year."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $5,298.48 matches a $588 standard minus a $200 plus 50% disregard. The engine uses a standard of about $725 and a 25% remainder disregard, which gives $219.69 countable."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It submitted $0 even though its own explanation found the household eligible with a $4,824 benefit. That $402/month also understates the correct roughly $725 standard minus $219.69 countable earnings, which is about $505/month."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It claimed Montana TANF is not modeled in PolicyEngine. The engine computes a $6,064.96 benefit from the roughly $725 three-person standard minus $219.69 of countable earnings."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $511/month implies a payment standard of about $730.69 against $219.69 of countable earnings. The engine's three-person standard is about $725.10, so the model overstates the benefit by $67 a year."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It added the $710 FLSA overtime premium on top of wages that already include overtime, then claimed countable income exceeds the standard. After the $200 plus 25% disregard, countable earnings are only $219.69/month, well under the roughly $725 standard."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,glm-5.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It asserted that Montana TANF produces no positive benefit in PolicyEngine. The household is eligible and receives about $725 minus $219.69 each month, or $6,064.96 a year."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,It required TANF to be listed as payable instead of assuming take-up. The 3-person unit meets the income and resource tests and is owed about $505/month.
+us,scenario_100,tanf,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated the lack of an explicit TANF trigger as ineligibility. Two dependent children plus low earnings and $2,800 in resources qualify the household for about $505/month."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $150 countable income reflects a 50% remainder disregard, and its $438 grant implies a payment standard of about $588. Montana uses a 25% disregard ($219.69 countable) and a standard of about $725."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $359.50/month implies a payment standard of about $579 net of $219.69 countable earnings. The 2026 three-person standard is about $725, which gives about $505/month."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $4,419.75 is the outdated $588 three-person payment standard minus $219.69 of countable earnings. The engine's 2026 standard is about $725/month."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,other,False,"It counted SSI income that does not exist: the head's $2,800 bank balance exceeds SSI's $2,000 resource limit. With only $219.69 of countable earnings, TANF pays about $505/month."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its method was right ($200 plus 25% disregard, $2,636.25 of annual countable earnings, vehicle excluded), but it used a whole-dollar $725.00 standard. The engine's standard is about $725.10/month, so the model came out $1.21 short a year."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $5,298 matches a $588 standard minus a $200 plus 50% disregard ($146.46 countable). The engine uses a standard of about $725 and a 25% remainder disregard ($219.69 countable)."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly computed $219.69 of countable earnings, but subtracted them from an outdated $588 payment standard instead of the 2026 three-person standard of about $725."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly applied the $200 plus 25% disregard and the asset test, but explicitly used a $588 payment standard instead of the roughly $725 2026 three-person standard. That understates the benefit by about $1,645 a year."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It never computed TANF and defaulted to $0. The eligible 3-person unit receives the roughly $725 standard minus $219.69 of countable earnings, which is $6,064.96 a year."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,It used an outdated $588 payment standard instead of the roughly $725 2026 three-person standard. Its $220 countable income was correct.
+us,scenario_100,tanf,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It subtracted $220 of countable earnings from a $588 standard, but Montana's 2026 three-person standard is about $725, which gives about $505/month."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its disregard math ($219.6875) and resource test were right, but it used a $588 payment standard instead of the 2026 standard of about $725.10."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $675 maximum grant instead of the roughly $725 three-person standard, which understates the monthly benefit by about $50."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,It applied the correct $200 plus 25% disregard but used an outdated $588 maximum grant instead of the 2026 standard of about $725.
+us,scenario_100,tanf,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It submitted no TANF value or explanation, so the answer was missing."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its countable earnings ($219.6875) and resource test were right, but it used a $588 three-person grant instead of the 2026 standard of about $725.10."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed Montana TANF pays only $50–$200/month and that earnings wipe it out. The three-person standard is about $725, and countable earnings after the $200 plus 25% disregard are only $219.69, leaving about $505/month."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $434/month implies a payment standard of about $654 against $219.69 of countable earnings. The engine's 2026 three-person standard is about $725, which gives about $505/month."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $368/month reflects a $588 payment standard minus $220 of countable earnings. The correct 2026 standard is about $725, which gives about $505/month."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,ox-alpha,llm_error,other,False,"It counted about $780/month of SSI as unearned income, but the head's $2,800 bank balance exceeds SSI's $2,000 resource limit, so SSI is $0. With only $219.69 of countable earnings, TANF pays about $505/month."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It double-counted the $710 overtime premium, which is already in gross wages, and compared gross annual income to the standard without applying the $200 plus 25% earned-income disregard. Countable income is only $219.69/month against a standard of about $725."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It declared income too high, ignoring the $200 plus 25% earned-income disregard. That disregard cuts countable earnings to $219.69/month, well under the roughly $725 three-person payment standard."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted $1,400 of auto loan interest as qualified vehicle-loan interest, but no fact establishes a qualifying new, U.S.-assembled vehicle loan. It then swapped in 2025-style bracket thresholds ($12,525/$50,900), and its final $12,064 matches none of its own computations. The correct result is taxable income of $85,030 taxed at 2026 brackets of $12,400/$50,400, giving $13,418.60."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted a $1,000 qualified auto-loan-interest deduction (after phaseout) on top of the $16,100 standard deduction, lowering taxable income to $84,030. The household's auto loan interest is not qualified passenger-vehicle loan interest under the OBBBA deduction, so taxable income stays at $85,030 and tax is $13,418.60."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It wrongly added the $700 of nontaxable veterans benefits to AGI and used the 2024 standard deduction of $14,600 instead of the 2026 amount of $16,100. It also taxed everything above $11,600 at 12%, skipping the 22% bracket, and then reported $11,435, which does not match its own figure."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It subtracted health premiums from wages as pre-tax, but the listed gross wages carry no such pre-tax exclusion. Its rough 'approximate 2026 brackets' estimate of $13,900 overstates the correct tax of 1,240 + 4,560 + 22% × 34,630 = $13,418.60 on $85,030 of taxable income."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,other,False,"Its own reasoning computed exactly $13,418.60 from $85,030 of taxable income at the 2026 brackets. It then threw that result away and reported an unexplained $14,716 as 'rounding to bracket estimates'."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly derived taxable income of $85,030 and tax of about $13,419 under the 2026 brackets. It then replaced that figure with an unsupported $13,876, citing 'bracket thresholds' it never stated."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted the full $1,400 of auto loan interest as OBBBA qualified vehicle-loan interest, cutting taxable income to $83,630. The facts never establish a qualifying new, U.S.-assembled vehicle loan, so no such deduction applies. Taxable income is $85,030 and tax is $13,418.60."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 OBBBA standard deduction of $15,750 instead of the 2026 amount of $16,100. It also used guessed brackets ($12,300/$49,950) instead of the actual 2026 thresholds of $12,400/$50,400. The result is taxable income of $85,380 and tax of $13,543 rather than $85,030 and $13,418.60."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It reached the correct taxable income of $85,030 but used wrong bracket thresholds ($12,150/$49,400) instead of $12,400/$50,400, getting $13,523.60. It then reported an unexplained $13,322."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took a $1,174 qualified auto-loan-interest deduction, lowering taxable income to $83,856. The household's auto loan interest is not qualified vehicle-loan interest under the OBBBA provision, so taxable income is $85,030 and tax is $13,418.60."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,600 standard deduction instead of the 2026 single amount of $16,100. It also used bracket thresholds of $12,175/$49,550 instead of $12,400/$50,400, which inflated taxable income to $85,530 and tax to $13,618."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted the same $1,920 premium twice and subtracted $3,840 as pre-tax health premiums, although the listed gross wages carry no pre-tax exclusion. It also used a $15,400 standard deduction instead of $16,100 and wrong bracket thresholds. The correct figures are taxable income of $85,030 and tax of $13,418.60."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA sunset and applied a pre-TCJA $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,300 personal exemption, and 15%/25% brackets. OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent, so 2026 uses the $16,100 standard deduction, no exemption, and 10/12/22% brackets, giving $13,418.60."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,350 standard deduction instead of the 2026 amount of $16,100. It also used bracket thresholds of $12,200/$49,575 instead of $12,400/$50,400, producing $85,780 of taxable income and $13,670.10 of tax."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA sunset and applied an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,300 personal exemption, and 15%/25% brackets, even though OBBBA kept the TCJA structure with a $16,100 standard deduction for 2026. It also subtracted the $1,920 premium from wages as pre-tax, which the facts do not support."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $1,870 capital loss, which is deductible against ordinary income under the $3,000 limit. It also used a $15,300 standard deduction instead of $16,100, so it taxed $87,700 instead of $85,030."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got AGI right at $101,130 but never applied the 2026 $16,100 standard deduction and the $12,400/$50,400 bracket thresholds. Its unsupported $15,400 overstates the correct $13,418.60 by about $2,000, which is consistent with too small a deduction or a higher rate schedule."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied 'post-TCJA expiration' rules: an $8,250 standard deduction, a $5,300 personal exemption, and 10/15/25% brackets. OBBBA made the TCJA rates permanent, so 2026 uses the $16,100 standard deduction and 10/12/22% brackets, giving $13,418.60."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It never carried out a bracket calculation and reported $11,102. Correctly, $85,030 of taxable income (AGI $101,130 minus the $16,100 standard deduction) taxed at the 2026 brackets gives $13,418.60, so its figure understates tax by about $2,300."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA provisions expire in 2026 and used an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,300 exemption, and 10/15/25% brackets. OBBBA kept the TCJA rates with a $16,100 standard deduction, which gives $13,418.60."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a pre-TCJA $8,300 standard deduction and a $5,300 personal exemption on the assumption that TCJA sunsets. OBBBA made the $16,100 standard deduction and 10/12/22% brackets permanent for 2026, so taxable income is $85,030 and tax is $13,418.60."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the pre-OBBBA 2025 standard deduction of $15,000 and the 2025 bracket thresholds ($11,925/$48,475). It should have used the 2026 values of $16,100 and $12,400/$50,400, so it overstated taxable income at $86,130."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $1,400 of auto loan interest as a deduction, lowering taxable income to $83,630. That interest is not qualified passenger-vehicle loan interest under OBBBA because no qualifying new, U.S.-assembled vehicle loan is established, so taxable income is $85,030 and tax is $13,418.60."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It inflation-guessed a $15,450 standard deduction and brackets of $12,283/$49,929. The actual 2026 OBBBA values are a $16,100 deduction and $12,400/$50,400 thresholds, so its tax came out at $13,611.04."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the correct 2026 brackets but a $15,800 standard deduction instead of $16,100. The extra $300 of taxable income at 22% adds $66, which turns $13,418.60 into $13,484.60."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the $2,308 tax-exempt private pension as taxable and assumed net capital gains, when the $1,870 long-term capital loss actually reduces AGI to $101,130. Both errors inflated taxable income above the correct $85,030."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed itemized medical effects, but $2,520 of medical costs falls far below the 7.5%-of-AGI floor of about $7,585. Total itemized deductions of about $1,871 are well under the $16,100 standard deduction. Its $9,587 understates the correct $13,418.60 on $85,030 of taxable income."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied 'scheduled' pre-OBBBA 2026 law with a personal exemption and a pre-TCJA standard deduction, leaving about $87,380 taxable under higher rates. OBBBA made the $16,100 standard deduction and 10/12/22% brackets permanent, giving $85,030 of taxable income and $13,418.60 of tax."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted a phased-down qualified auto-loan-interest deduction of $1,000, lowering taxable income to $84,030. The household's auto loan interest does not qualify for the OBBBA vehicle-loan interest deduction, so taxable income is $85,030 and tax is $13,418.60."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted $1,000 of auto loan interest after phaseout on top of the $16,100 standard deduction. That interest is not qualified passenger-vehicle loan interest, so taxable income stays at $85,030 and tax is $13,418.60."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,300 standard deduction instead of the 2026 OBBBA amount of $16,100, and 'projected' brackets instead of $12,400/$50,400. This inflated taxable income to $85,830 and tax to $13,774."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the 2026 TCJA sunset and applied an $8,400 standard deduction, a $5,300 exemption, and 10/15/25% brackets. OBBBA kept the TCJA rates and a $16,100 standard deduction, giving $13,418.60."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 pre-OBBBA $15,000 standard deduction and the 2025 brackets ($11,925/$48,475) instead of the 2026 values of $16,100 and $12,400/$50,400, so it taxed $86,130 instead of $85,030."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It reached the correct taxable income of $85,030 but used bracket thresholds of $12,200/$49,575 instead of the 2026 values of $12,400/$50,400. That moved too much income into the 22% bracket and produced $13,505.10."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied 'reverted TCJA' law with an $8,300 standard deduction, a $5,300 exemption, and 10/15/25% brackets. OBBBA made the $16,100 standard deduction and 10/12/22% brackets permanent for 2026, so the correct tax is $13,418.60."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It reached the correct taxable income of $85,030 but misapplied the bracket arithmetic and reported $13,426. The exact 2026 computation is $1,240 + $4,560 + 22% × $34,630 = $13,418.60."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no value or explanation for this variable, so its response could not be scored."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took a $1,174 auto-loan-interest deduction (after phaseout), lowering taxable income to $83,856. The household's auto loan interest is not qualified vehicle-loan interest under OBBBA, so taxable income is $85,030 and tax is $13,418.60."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"Its own reasoning says the wages leave positive tax after the standard deduction, yet it reported $0, wrongly treating refundable-credit mechanisms as wiping out the liability. With no nonrefundable credits available, tax before refundable credits is $13,418.60."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 OBBBA standard deduction of $15,750 instead of the 2026 amount of $16,100, giving taxable income of $85,380 instead of $85,030. Its tax of $13,560 also reflects inexact bracket thresholds."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It reached the correct taxable income of $85,030 but reported $13,487 instead of $1,240 + $4,560 + $7,618.60 = $13,418.60. That overstatement is consistent with bracket thresholds lower than the 2026 values of $12,400/$50,400."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,750 standard deduction and guessed brackets ($12,150/$49,000), computing $13,641. It then reported an unexplained $14,827 that matches none of its own figures."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $13,600 pre-TCJA-style deduction and ignored the $1,870 capital loss deduction. It also taxed all income above $12,400 at 12%, skipping the 22% bracket, and then subtracted employee payroll tax as a fictitious nonrefundable credit."
us,scenario_101,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_101,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly computed $6,386 Social Security plus $1,493.50 Medicare = $7,879.50. It then submitted $8,149.50, citing a made-up 'adjustment for wage base cap and rounding.' The cap does not bind at $103,000 of wages, so no adjustment applies and the submitted value contradicts its own arithmetic."
us,scenario_101,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"Its components ($6,386 Social Security plus about $1,494 Medicare) add to $7,879.50, but it submitted $8,803. That figure does not follow from any of the components it listed, so this is an addition error. No extra payroll tax applies in Texas."
@@ -8592,33 +8867,34 @@ us,scenario_102,spouse_medicare_eligible,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,age_disability,Fa
us,scenario_102,spouse_medicare_eligible,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model used a disability-based Medicare rule keyed only to the disability flag. That pathway requires 24 months of SSDI entitlement, and the spouse receives no SSDI. At age 26 with no SSDI history and no ESRD/ALS, the spouse fails every Medicare pathway, so the answer should have been 0."
us,scenario_102,spouse_medicare_eligible,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model called on the 'modeled disability-based Medicare pathway' but treated the disability flag alone as satisfying it. That pathway turns on 24 months of SSDI receipt, and the spouse's SSDI is $0. The 26-year-old spouse is therefore not Medicare eligible."
us,scenario_102,spouse_medicare_eligible,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model stated the rule as 'age 65 or disabled,' which drops the requirement that the disability pathway runs through 24 months of SSDI entitlement (or ESRD/ALS). The spouse is 26 and receives no SSDI, so neither condition is met and eligibility is 0."
-us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly reached $61,701 × 3.99% ≈ $2,462. It then dropped that result for a 4.25% rate applied to an unexplained '$64,830 alternative base,' which produced $2,755. Its own reasoning gives no support for either the rate or the base."
-us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed North Carolina has no state income tax. North Carolina has a flat personal income tax, 3.99% in 2026, on federal AGI minus the $25,500 joint standard deduction. That is $61,701 × 3.99% = $2,461.87, not $0."
-us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied personal exemptions, which North Carolina does not have. Its $2,700 matches roughly 4.25% on about $63,500 rather than the correct 3.99% on $61,701 (AGI $87,201 minus the $25,500 joint standard deduction)."
-us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The base was right ($61,701), but the model used a 4.25% rate instead of the 3.99% rate for 2026, giving $2,622. It then submitted $2,587, which its own arithmetic does not support."
-us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,other,False,"The reasoning correctly computed $61,701 × 3.99% = $2,462. The model then submitted $3,389, a number that no step of its reasoning produces."
-us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model first reached $61,700 × 3.99% ≈ $2,462. It then replaced that with a guessed 'PolicyEngine parameters' value of $2,792, which equals 4.25% on $65,701, so it brought in both the old 4.25% rate and the outdated $21,500 joint deduction."
-us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used $21,500 as the joint standard deduction, but North Carolina's has been $25,500 since 2022. It also used a 4.25% rate instead of the 2026 rate of 3.99%, so it taxed $65,701 at 4.25% rather than $61,701 at 3.99%."
-us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used 4.25% instead of the 2026 rate of 3.99% and got $2,622 on the correct $61,701 base. It then inflated that to $3,846 with unspecified 'adjustments' that its reasoning never supports."
-us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a $30,000 joint standard deduction, which is a federal-style figure, instead of North Carolina's $25,500. It also used a 4.0% rate instead of 3.99%, so it taxed $57,201 rather than $61,701."
-us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the spouse's $7,989 employer insurance premium from wages and started from an AGI of $79,212. The stated gross wages already put federal and NC AGI at $87,201, so this understated taxable income by $7,989. The rate (3.99%) and the deduction ($25,500) were right."
-us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used 4.25% instead of the 2026 rate of 3.99%. Its $3,717 equals 4.25% on about $87,459, which means it effectively skipped the $25,500 joint standard deduction that brings taxable income down to $61,701."
-us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model treated the $7,989 employer insurance premium as a pre-tax reduction of wages and used an AGI of $79,212 instead of $87,201. That gave $53,712 of taxable income instead of $61,701, though the 3.99% rate and $25,500 deduction were correct."
-us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model started from an AGI of $79,212, which wrongly removes the $7,989 employer insurance premium from the stated gross wages. AGI is $87,201, and taxable income is $61,701, not $53,712."
-us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used 4.25% instead of 3.99%. Its $3,387.25 equals 4.25% on $79,700, which means it left out the $25,500 joint standard deduction and also took the insurance premium out of income. The correct base is $61,701."
-us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the spouse's $7,989 employer insurance premium from income and started from an AGI of $79,212 instead of $87,201. That understated taxable income by $7,989 even though it used the correct 3.99% rate and $25,500 deduction."
-us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model gave no derivation. Its $2,551 matches roughly 4.25% on about $60,000 rather than the flat 3.99% on $61,701 ($87,201 AGI minus the $25,500 joint standard deduction), so it used the wrong rate for North Carolina."
-us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model concluded the household owes no North Carolina tax. With $87,201 of AGI and a $25,500 standard deduction, $61,701 is taxable at North Carolina's flat 3.99% rate and there are no offsetting nonrefundable credits, so the tax is $2,461.87."
-us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used $79,212 of state income, which removes the spouse's $7,989 employer insurance premium from the stated gross wages. NC taxable income starts from an AGI of $87,201, so taxable income is $61,701, not $53,712."
-us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model explicitly applied a 'pre-tax insurance exclusion' of the $7,989 employer insurance premium, which reduced AGI to $79,212. The stated gross wages are already the AGI wage amount, so taxable income is $61,701 and the tax is $2,461.87."
-us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model started from an AGI of $79,212, which wrongly removes the $7,989 employer insurance premium from wages, when AGI is $87,201. With the correct 3.99% rate and $25,500 deduction, taxable income is $61,701, not $53,712."
-us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model gave no workings. Its roughly $2,800 matches 4.25% applied after the outdated $21,500 joint deduction ($65,701 × 4.25%) rather than 3.99% on $61,701."
-us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model projected an inflation-adjusted $26,400 joint standard deduction, but North Carolina's is fixed in statute at $25,500 and is not indexed. It also used a 4% rate instead of 3.99%."
-us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied no North Carolina standard deduction, even though the $25,500 joint deduction applies. It also subtracted the $7,989 employer insurance premium to get $79,212 and used 4% instead of 3.99%."
-us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no value or explanation for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was nothing to score against the $2,461.87 result."
-us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a 4.25% rate instead of the 2026 rate of 3.99% and an invented $23,400 joint standard deduction instead of North Carolina's $25,500. It therefore taxed $63,801 instead of $61,701."
-us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a 4.5% rate (the 2023 rate) instead of the 2026 rate of 3.99%. It also used a $23,850 joint standard deduction instead of North Carolina's $25,500, so it taxed $63,351 at 4.5%."
-us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model subtracted a $30,000 'federal standard deduction' instead of North Carolina's own $25,500 joint deduction. It also used an invented 4.49% rate instead of 3.99%, which gave $57,201 of taxable income instead of $61,701."
+us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly computed $61,701 × 3.99% ≈ $2,462. It then dropped that result, switched to a 4.25% rate on a made-up $64,830 base, and submitted $2,755. The 3.99% rate on the $61,701 base is the correct 2026 calculation."
+us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed North Carolina has no state income tax. In fact NC taxes income at a flat 3.99% in 2026, and this couple owes $61,701 × 3.99% = $2,461.87 after the $25,500 MFJ standard deduction."
+us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model cited NC personal exemptions, which NC does not have. Its $2,700 implies a rate of about 4.25% or more rather than the 2026 rate of 3.99%. The correct figure is $61,701 × 3.99% = $2,461.87."
+us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the correct $61,701 taxable income but applied a 4.25% rate instead of the 2026 rate of 3.99%. That gave $2,622, and the model then submitted a different, unexplained $2,587."
+us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,other,False,"The model's reasoning correctly reached $61,701 × 3.99% = $2,462, but it submitted $3,389, which no step in its reasoning produces. The submitted value contradicts its own correct calculation."
+us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly computed about $2,462 at 3.99% on $61,700, then replaced it with $2,792. That number equals 4.25% × $65,701, which uses a wrong rate and the old $21,500 deduction."
+us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the outdated $21,500 MFJ standard deduction instead of $25,500 and a 4.25% rate instead of the 2026 rate of 3.99%. The result was 4.25% × $65,701 = $2,792.29."
+us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the correct $61,701 taxable income but a 4.25% rate instead of 3.99%, giving $2,622. It then raised that to an unexplained $3,846. At 3.99% the tax is $2,461.87."
+us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a $30,000 standard deduction, which is the federal MFJ figure, instead of NC's $25,500. It also used a 4.0% rate instead of 3.99%, applying it to $57,201 instead of $61,701."
+us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the spouse's $7,989 employer-sponsored insurance premium from wages, giving an AGI of $79,212. The correct AGI is the full $87,201, so the right base is $61,701 at 3.99%, not $53,712."
+us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"$3,717 is 4.25% of about $87,500, so the model taxed roughly the whole AGI at the wrong rate. It skipped the $25,500 MFJ standard deduction and used 4.25% instead of the 2026 rate of 3.99%."
+us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used an AGI of $79,212, which wrongly removes the $7,989 employer-sponsored insurance premium from the $87,201 of wages and self-employment income. The correct NC taxable income is $61,701, so the tax is $2,461.87."
+us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model started from an AGI of $79,212 by deducting the spouse's $7,989 employer-sponsored insurance premium, which the engine does not exclude from wages. The correct AGI is $87,201, giving taxable income of $61,701 at 3.99%."
+us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"$3,387.25 is 4.25% of about $79,700, so the model left out the $25,500 MFJ standard deduction and used 4.25% instead of 3.99%. The correct calculation is $61,701 × 3.99% = $2,461.87."
+us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model reduced AGI to $79,212 by subtracting the $7,989 employer-sponsored insurance premium. The correct AGI is the full $87,201, so the right base is $61,701 at 3.99%, not $53,712."
+us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model gave no derivation for $2,551, which is $89 above the correct $61,701 × 3.99% = $2,461.87. That gap matches a rate above 3.99% (4.25% on about $60,000) rather than the 2026 flat rate."
+us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model concluded there was no positive NC liability. In fact $87,201 of AGI minus the $25,500 MFJ standard deduction leaves $61,701 of taxable income, which is taxed at 3.99% for $2,461.87."
+us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used $79,212 of state income by subtracting the $7,989 employer-sponsored insurance premium from wages. The correct AGI is $87,201, giving taxable income of $61,701 and a tax of $2,461.87."
+us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied a 'pre-tax insurance exclusion' that removed the $7,989 employer-sponsored insurance premium from wages, which shrank the base to $53,712. The correct AGI is $87,201 and the taxable income is $61,701 at 3.99%."
+us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used an AGI of $79,212, which wrongly nets the spouse's $7,989 employer-sponsored insurance premium out of wages. The correct base is $87,201 − $25,500 = $61,701, taxed at 3.99%."
+us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model gave no derivation for about $2,800, which matches 4.25% × $65,700 (the old $21,500 deduction at an outdated rate). The correct calculation is $61,701 × 3.99% = $2,461.87."
+us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a 'projected' $26,400 standard deduction, but the NC MFJ deduction is $25,500. It also used a 4% rate instead of 3.99%, applying it to $60,801 instead of $61,701."
+us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model said no standard deduction applied, used an AGI of $79,212 that wrongly subtracts the $7,989 employer-sponsored insurance premium, and used 4% instead of 3.99%. The correct calculation subtracts the $25,500 MFJ standard deduction from $87,201 and taxes $61,701 at 3.99%."
+us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no value or explanation for this output, so there was nothing to score. The correct calculation is ($87,201 − $25,500) × 3.99% = $2,461.87."
+us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a $23,400 MFJ standard deduction instead of $25,500 and a 4.25% rate instead of the 2026 rate of 3.99%. The result was 4.25% × $63,801 = $2,712."
+us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used about $26,500 for the MFJ standard deduction instead of $25,500 and a 4% rate instead of 3.99%. The result was 4% × $60,701 rather than 3.99% × $61,701."
+us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the outdated 4.5% rate instead of the 2026 rate of 3.99% and a $23,850 MFJ deduction instead of $25,500. The result was 4.5% × $63,351 = $2,850.80."
+us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model subtracted the $30,000 federal standard deduction instead of NC's $25,500 MFJ deduction and used a made-up 4.49% rate instead of 3.99%."
us,scenario_102,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_104,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model invented automatic eligibility through New York’s medically needy spend-down pathway after its own income calculation exceeded the aged/disabled limit. PolicyEngine assigns no Medicaid category, so neither age nor the existence of a spend-down program converts this household into an eligible Medicaid case."
us,scenario_104,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated age 72 plus Social Security below an approximate aged/disabled threshold as sufficient and categorically removed all $20,520 of veterans benefits from its income test. The applicable category determination yields NONE, with no SSI-based or other aged pathway establishing eligibility."
@@ -8693,109 +8969,114 @@ us,scenario_108,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"The model correc
us,scenario_108,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no payroll_tax value and no reasoning, so there was no answer to score. The correct derivation is 7.65% employee FICA on $7,656 of wages, which gives $585.68."
us,scenario_108,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_108,self_employment_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_108,snap,claude-fable-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied the 100% FPL net income test and called the household ineligible. It never recognized that Wisconsin BBCE (200% FPL gross limit, which $2,582 passes) makes the household categorically eligible, so the net income test does not apply and the one-person household gets the $24/month minimum allotment ($288/year)."
-us,scenario_108,snap,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Concluded ineligibility because net income of about $2,214 exceeds 100% FPL. It missed Wisconsin's BBCE pathway, which waives the net income test for a household under 200% FPL gross, and the guaranteed $24/month minimum allotment for categorically eligible one-person households."
-us,scenario_108,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied a 130% FPL limit, which does not apply to this elderly/disabled household under Wisconsin's 200% FPL BBCE threshold. That test produced $0, but categorical eligibility guarantees the $24/month minimum allotment ($288/year)."
-us,scenario_108,snap,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Gave $0 without any benefit computation. It ignored that the household is categorically eligible through Wisconsin BBCE, so even though 30% of net income exceeds the maximum allotment, the one-person household receives the $24/month minimum ($288/year)."
-us,scenario_108,snap,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Correctly worked out that the formula benefit is negative and that a minimum benefit applies, but it used the FY2025 $23 minimum instead of the FY2026 $24 (8% of the $298 maximum allotment). It then abandoned that result and submitted an unsupported $2,227, not the $288 the minimum-benefit logic produces."
-us,scenario_108,snap,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Its reasoning failed the household on the 100% FPL net income test without recognizing Wisconsin BBCE categorical eligibility, which guarantees the $24/month minimum. It then submitted $2,376, a figure its own reasoning does not support, instead of $288."
-us,scenario_108,snap,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used the FY2025 $23/month minimum allotment instead of the FY2026 $24 (8% of the $298 one-person maximum), giving $276 instead of $288. It also overstated the medical deduction ($465/month instead of about $32), when the minimum actually applies because of BBCE categorical eligibility, not because deductions shrink net income."
-us,scenario_108,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Stated outright that Wisconsin has no broad-based categorical eligibility, which is false: WI FoodShare uses BBCE with a 200% FPL gross limit. That error led it to apply the net income test and answer $0 instead of the $24/month minimum for a categorically eligible one-person household."
-us,scenario_108,snap,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Invented a net income of about $1,700 and a $164/month benefit, but $600 rent is below half of adjusted income, so there is no excess shelter deduction. Net income stays about $2,036, the contribution of about $611 exceeds the $298 maximum, and only the $24 categorical-eligibility minimum applies ($288/year)."
-us,scenario_108,snap,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied only the 100% FPL net income test and declared the household ineligible. It missed that Wisconsin BBCE makes the household categorically eligible (gross under 200% FPL), which removes the net test and guarantees the $24/month minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_108,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Failed the household on the 100% FPL net income limit. It did not apply Wisconsin BBCE categorical eligibility, under which the net test is waived and a one-person household receives the $24/month minimum allotment ($288/year)."
-us,scenario_108,snap,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,Correctly found that the formula benefit is negative but floored it at $0. It omitted the minimum-benefit rule: categorically eligible one- and two-person households receive 8% of the one-person maximum ($24/month in FY2026).
-us,scenario_108,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,Correctly found that 30% of net income exceeds the one-person maximum allotment but set the benefit to zero. It skipped the minimum allotment ($24/month) guaranteed to categorically eligible one-person households under Wisconsin BBCE.
-us,scenario_108,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Treated the 100% FPL net income test as decisive. Wisconsin BBCE confers categorical eligibility (gross income under 200% FPL), which bypasses that test and yields the $24/month minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_108,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Treated $2,581.83 gross income as over the limits, but it is under Wisconsin's 200% FPL BBCE limit ($2,608.33). It also floored the negative formula benefit at $0 instead of applying the $24/month minimum for categorically eligible one-person households."
-us,scenario_108,snap,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Asserted the household is over the income limit, ignoring that gross income is under Wisconsin's 200% FPL BBCE threshold. Categorical eligibility guarantees the $24/month minimum allotment ($288/year)."
-us,scenario_108,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Claimed gross and net income exceed SNAP limits. Under Wisconsin BBCE the gross limit is 200% FPL ($2,608.33, which $2,581.83 passes) and the net test is waived, so the one-person household receives the $24/month minimum."
-us,scenario_108,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Correctly identified Wisconsin's 200% FPL BBCE pathway and the minimum benefit, but it used the FY2025 $23 minimum instead of the FY2026 $24 (8% of the $298 one-person maximum allotment). That gives $276 instead of $288."
-us,scenario_108,snap,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Returned $0 without applying the minimum-benefit rule. As a BBCE categorically eligible one-person household in Wisconsin, it receives $24/month even though the formula benefit is negative."
-us,scenario_108,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Claimed $2,581.83 gross income exceeds the SNAP limits, but it falls under Wisconsin's 200% FPL BBCE limit. It also floored the negative benefit at $0 instead of paying the $24/month categorical-eligibility minimum."
-us,scenario_108,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Treated net income above the threshold as disqualifying. Wisconsin BBCE categorical eligibility waives the net income test, and the one-person household receives the $24/month minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_108,snap,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Correctly found that 30% of net income exceeds the maximum allotment, then stopped at $0. Categorically eligible one-person households receive the minimum allotment of 8% of the maximum ($24/month in FY2026)."
-us,scenario_108,snap,glm-5.2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Computed a negative formula benefit (about $300 minus $659) and floored it at $0. It omitted the minimum allotment for categorically eligible one-person households, which is $24/month under Wisconsin BBCE."
-us,scenario_108,snap,glm-5.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied a 100% FPL net income limit and a capped shelter deduction, which does not apply to an elderly/disabled household. It missed that Wisconsin BBCE categorical eligibility waives the net test and guarantees the $24/month minimum."
-us,scenario_108,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Asserted eligibility with a $1,172 benefit without computing it. Net income of about $2,036 makes the 30% contribution (about $611) exceed the $298 maximum, so the categorically eligible household receives only the $24/month minimum ($288/year)."
-us,scenario_108,snap,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Defaulted to $0 without running the eligibility pathway. The household is categorically eligible through Wisconsin BBCE (gross under 200% FPL), so the one-person household receives the $24/month minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_108,snap,gpt-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Correctly found that no positive formula allotment results after deductions, but set SNAP to zero. Categorically eligible one- and two-person households get the minimum allotment, which is $24/month in FY2026."
-us,scenario_108,snap,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Produced $103/month by overstating deductions. Rent of $600 is below half of adjusted income, so there is no shelter deduction, net income stays about $2,036, and the formula benefit is negative. Only the $24/month BBCE minimum applies."
-us,scenario_108,snap,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,Applied the elderly/disabled net income limit and declared the household ineligible. Wisconsin BBCE categorical eligibility (gross under 200% FPL) waives that limit and guarantees the $24/month minimum allotment.
-us,scenario_108,snap,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Failed the household on the elderly/disabled net income limit. It missed that Wisconsin BBCE makes the household categorically eligible, which bypasses the net test and yields the $24/month minimum."
-us,scenario_108,snap,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Treated net income above the SNAP net limit as disqualifying. Under Wisconsin BBCE the household is categorically eligible, so the net test does not apply and the one-person minimum of $24/month is paid."
-us,scenario_108,snap,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Correctly concluded that net income is too high for a positive formula allotment, but floored the benefit at $0. It omitted the $24/month minimum allotment guaranteed to categorically eligible one-person households."
-us,scenario_108,snap,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Asserted the household is over the income limits. Wisconsin BBCE (200% FPL gross) makes it categorically eligible, and a one-person categorically eligible household receives the $24/month minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_108,snap,grok-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Compared net income to 100% FPL and returned $0. Wisconsin BBCE categorical eligibility waives the net income test, and the minimum allotment of $24/month applies ($288/year)."
-us,scenario_108,snap,grok-4.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,Correctly waived the gross test for an elderly/disabled household but then applied the 100% FPL net test. It missed that Wisconsin BBCE categorical eligibility removes the net test and guarantees the $24/month minimum.
-us,scenario_108,snap,grok-4.7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Treated the one-person net income limit as binding. Under Wisconsin BBCE the household is categorically eligible (gross under 200% FPL), so it bypasses the net limit and receives the $24/month minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_108,snap,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Calculated net income of about $2,218 against a $1,305 net limit and declared ineligibility. It missed Wisconsin's BBCE categorical eligibility, which waives the net test and pays the $24/month minimum to one-person households."
-us,scenario_108,snap,inkling,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Failed the household on the 100% FPL net income test. Wisconsin BBCE confers categorical eligibility at gross income under 200% FPL, so the net test is waived and the $24/month minimum allotment applies."
-us,scenario_108,snap,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied the 100% FPL net income limit as disqualifying. Wisconsin BBCE categorical eligibility removes that test, and the one-person household receives the $24/month minimum allotment ($288/year)."
-us,scenario_108,snap,kimi-k3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Correctly found that the roughly $664 contribution exceeds the maximum allotment, but floored the benefit at $0. Categorically eligible one-person households receive a minimum allotment of 8% of the maximum ($24/month in FY2026)."
-us,scenario_108,snap,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Applied a 130% FPL gross limit, which does not apply, and a net limit of about $1,180. Wisconsin BBCE uses a 200% FPL gross limit ($2,608.33) and waives the net test, so the household is categorically eligible for the $24/month minimum."
-us,scenario_108,snap,muse-wonder,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Treated net income above the one-person limit as disqualifying. Wisconsin BBCE makes the household categorically eligible, so the net limit does not apply and the $24/month minimum allotment is paid."
-us,scenario_108,snap,ox-alpha,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Used a 165% FPL gross limit (about $2,150), but Wisconsin's BBCE gross limit is 200% FPL ($2,608.33), which the $2,581.83 income passes. The household is categorically eligible for the $24/month minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_108,snap,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Noted at one point that 'SNAP would be minimum' when the contribution exceeds the maximum, but then concluded $0. It never applied the categorical-eligibility minimum of 8% of the FY2026 one-person maximum ($24/month), and it used an outdated $292 maximum."
-us,scenario_108,snap,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Asserted countable income exceeds the SNAP limit. Wisconsin BBCE categorical eligibility (gross under 200% FPL) waives the net income limit, and the one-person household receives the $24/month minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_108,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used Wisconsin income of $18,048 by counting the $10,392 survivor benefits as taxable. The engine's taxable base is only the $7,656 in wages, which the $13,940 standard deduction fully absorbs, so tax is $0. The model also left out the nonrefundable renter school property tax credit (about $173 on $7,200 of rent), which alone more than cancels its $134.33."
-us,scenario_108,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model taxed an $18,048 base that wrongly includes the $10,392 survivor benefits. It also skipped the $700 Wisconsin personal exemption and never applied the nonrefundable renter school property tax credit (about $173 on $7,200 of rent). With wages of $7,656 as the only taxable income, the standard deduction leaves $0 tax, not $161.71."
-us,scenario_108,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model counted the $10,392 survivor benefits in a Wisconsin AGI of $18,048 and taxed the leftover $4,548 at 3.5%. The engine's Wisconsin base after the Social Security exemption is only the $7,656 in wages, which falls below the standard deduction. The renter school property tax credit (about $173 on $7,200 of rent) would also have wiped out the $159."
-us,scenario_108,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model counted the $10,392 survivor benefits in its $18,048 Wisconsin AGI, which inflated pre-credit tax enough that $70 was left after the renter school property tax credit. Wisconsin taxable income is only the $7,656 in wages. The standard deduction and exemptions reduce that to $0, so there is no tax before credits."
-us,scenario_108,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model treated the $10,392 survivor benefits as taxable, giving $18,048 of income, and used a $1,400 personal exemption instead of Wisconsin's $700 plus $250 for age 65+. It never applied the renter school property tax credit (about $173 on $7,200 of rent). With only $7,656 in taxable wages, the standard deduction leaves $0 tax, not $146.45."
-us,scenario_108,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model explicitly taxed the survivor-benefit income alongside wages. The engine's Wisconsin base is only the $7,656 in wages after Social Security is exempted, and the standard deduction fully covers it. The model also ignored the nonrefundable renter school property tax credit on $7,200 of rent, which more than offsets its $144.13."
-us,scenario_108,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's $3,538 of Wisconsin taxable income only works if the $10,392 survivor benefits are counted as taxable. With just $7,656 of taxable wages, the standard deduction and exemptions leave $0. The model also never subtracted the renter school property tax credit (about $173), which exceeds its $124 by itself."
-us,scenario_108,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model included the $10,392 survivor benefits in its $18,048 Wisconsin AGI and stated outright that there were no nonrefundable state credits. Wisconsin's school property tax credit for renters applies here: 12% of 20–25% of the $7,200 rent comes to roughly $173–$216. Together with the correct wage-only base of $7,656, tax before refundable credits is $0, not $150."
-us,scenario_108,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no value or reasoning for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was no answer to score against the $0 reference."
-us,scenario_108,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model taxed wages plus the $10,392 survivor income, leaving $2,680 taxable at 3.5%. The engine's Wisconsin base is only the $7,656 in wages, which is below the standard deduction, so tax is $0. The model also skipped the renter school property tax credit, which by itself cancels the $94."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It counted the $10,392 survivor benefits and got $30,982 of household income. It then guessed $636 with no formula behind it, using 25% of rent capped at $1,460. The correct inputs are $20,590 of income (wages plus Social Security) and $1,440 of property taxes (20% of rent), giving 0.8 × ($1,440 − 8.785% × $12,530) = $271.39."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It added the separate $10,392 survivor benefits to homestead household income ($30,982) and declared the household over the $24,680 limit. Household income is only wages plus Social Security, $20,590, which qualifies for a $271.39 homestead credit."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It computed the correct $20,590 of income but said the Wisconsin Homestead Credit is not a refundable income tax credit. It is refundable and is claimed on the state return, and at $20,590 of income and $1,440 of property taxes accrued it pays $271.39."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It assumed a refundable credit needs Wisconsin tax liability to offset and never considered the Homestead Credit. That credit is paid regardless of liability: $271.39 at $20,590 of income and $1,440 of property taxes accrued."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It used the correct $1,440 for property taxes accrued, but built household income backwards. It left out Social Security, which counts, and included the $10,392 survivor benefits, which do not, getting $18,048 instead of $20,590. It then guessed $300 instead of applying 0.8 × ($1,440 − 8.785% × ($20,590 − $8,060)) = $271.39."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It added the $10,392 survivor benefits to wages and Social Security to get $30,982, above the $24,680 limit. Homestead household income is $20,590 (wages plus Social Security), which yields a $271.39 credit."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"Its income figure of about $18,000 means it dropped Social Security and kept the survivor benefits, and it guessed $371 without the formula. Household income is $20,590 (wages plus Social Security), and the credit is 0.8 × ($1,440 − 8.785% × $12,530) = $271.39."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It included the $10,392 survivor benefits in homestead household income ($30,982) and wrongly found the household over the $24,680 limit. The correct $20,590 (wages plus Social Security) produces a $271.39 credit."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It added the separate $10,392 survivor benefits to homestead household income to reach $30,982 and denied the credit. Household income is only wages plus Social Security, $20,590, which is under the $24,680 ceiling and yields $271.39."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It named the Homestead Credit but dismissed it without running the computation, assuming only EITC-type credits could apply. An 85-year-old disabled renter with $20,590 of household income and $1,440 of property taxes accrued gets $271.39."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It used the correct $20,590 of income but took 25% of rent ($1,800, capped at $1,460) instead of PolicyEngine's 20% ($1,440). It also used an outdated $8,000 threshold and 8.65% rate instead of $8,060 and 8.785%. With the right figures, 0.8 × ($1,440 − 0.08785 × $12,530) = $271.39, not $297."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It said household income was above the Homestead Credit limit, which only happens if the $10,392 survivor benefits are added. Homestead income is wages plus Social Security, $20,590, which qualifies for $271.39."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It counted the $10,392 survivor benefits in homestead income ($30,982) and denied the credit. The correct $20,590 (wages plus Social Security) is under the limit and gives $271.39."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It said household income exceeds the Homestead Credit limit, which only follows from including the $10,392 survivor benefits. Homestead household income is $20,590 (wages plus Social Security), which yields a $271.39 credit."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It gave a bare 'no qualifying credits' and never evaluated the refundable Wisconsin Homestead Credit. At $20,590 of household income and $1,440 of property taxes accrued, that credit is $271.39."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It put homestead income at $30,982 by adding the $10,392 survivor benefits on top of wages and Social Security. The correct figure is $20,590, under the $24,680 ceiling, giving a $271.39 credit."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It denied all Wisconsin refundable credits without evaluating the Homestead Credit, for which this 85-year-old disabled renter qualifies. With $20,590 of household income and $1,440 of property taxes accrued, the credit is $271.39."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It included the $10,392 survivor benefits in household income ($30,982) and found the household ineligible. Homestead income is $20,590 (wages plus Social Security), which produces $271.39."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It counted the separate $10,392 survivor benefits, got $30,982, and compared that with the $24,680 limit. The correct homestead income is $20,590, which qualifies for a $271.39 credit."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It declared the head ineligible for the Homestead Credit without any income test. With $20,590 of household income (under $24,680) and $1,440 of property taxes accrued, the credit is $271.39."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It added the $10,392 survivor benefits to household income ($30,982) and denied the credit for exceeding $24,680. Homestead income is only wages plus Social Security, $20,590, which yields $271.39."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It said household income exceeds the Homestead limit, which requires counting the $10,392 survivor benefits. The correct $20,590 (wages plus Social Security) gives 0.8 × ($1,440 − 8.785% × $12,530) = $271.39."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It placed household income above the $24,680 Homestead limit by including the $10,392 survivor benefits. Homestead income is $20,590 (wages plus Social Security), which produces a $271.39 credit."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It used $30,982 of household income, which includes the $10,392 survivor benefits, and denied the Homestead Credit. Correct homestead income is $20,590, which qualifies for $271.39."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It treated the $10,392 survivor benefits as countable pension income, reached about $30,982, and denied the credit. Homestead household income is only wages plus Social Security, $20,590, which yields $271.39."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It said no Wisconsin refundable credit was triggered, overlooking the Homestead Credit for a renter aged 62 or older. At $20,590 of household income and $1,440 of property taxes accrued, it pays $271.39."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It looked only for EITC-type refundable credits and never evaluated the Wisconsin Homestead Credit. That credit is $271.39 at $20,590 of household income and $1,440 of property taxes accrued."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It included the listed survivor benefits in homestead household income and found the household over the limit. Household income is $20,590 (wages plus Social Security), under $24,680, which gives a $271.39 credit."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It concluded no refundable credit applies to an elderly filer without children, ignoring the Homestead Credit. That credit exists specifically for low-income elderly renters and pays $271.39 here."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It said income was above the homestead limit, which only follows from adding the $10,392 survivor benefits. Homestead household income is $20,590 (wages plus Social Security), which produces $271.39."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It found no refundable credit eligibility and skipped the Homestead Credit, which an 85-year-old disabled renter qualifies for. With $20,590 of income and $1,440 of property taxes accrued, the credit is $271.39."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It counted the $10,392 survivor benefits to reach $30,982 and also used a wrong $24,480 ceiling. Homestead income is $20,590 (wages plus Social Security), under the $24,680 limit, which yields $271.39."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It said household income exceeds the homestead limit, which comes from counting the $10,392 survivor benefits. Correct homestead income is $20,590, which gives 0.8 × ($1,440 − 8.785% × $12,530) = $271.39."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It put total household income over the homestead limit by including the $10,392 survivor benefits. Homestead income is wages plus Social Security, $20,590, which qualifies for $271.39."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It treated the household as over the homestead limit by counting the separate survivor benefits. Homestead household income is $20,590, under $24,680, which yields a $271.39 credit."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It gave a bare 'no credits qualify' and never evaluated the Wisconsin Homestead Credit. With $20,590 of household income and $1,440 of property taxes accrued, that credit is $271.39."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It included the $10,392 survivor benefits in household income (about $30,982) and denied the Homestead Credit. Correct homestead income is $20,590 (wages plus Social Security), which gives $271.39."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It added both the Social Security and the separate $10,392 survivor benefits to get about $30,982, above the limit. Homestead income is only wages plus Social Security, $20,590, which yields $271.39."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It explicitly counted the other survivor benefits along with wages and Social Security, pushing income over the homestead limit. Household income is $20,590, which qualifies for 0.8 × ($1,440 − 8.785% × $12,530) = $271.39."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It treated the $10,392 survivor benefits as part of AGI plus Social Security ($30,982) and also used a made-up $26,500 limit. Homestead income is $20,590, under the $24,680 ceiling, which yields $271.39."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It checked only the Wisconsin EITC and said no other refundable credits are claimed, missing the Homestead Credit. The engine assumes take-up, and the credit is $271.39 at $20,590 of income and $1,440 of property taxes accrued."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It gave no usable value or explanation for state_refundable_credits. The correct derivation is a Homestead Credit of 0.8 × ($1,440 − 8.785% × ($20,590 − $8,060)) = $271.39."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It correctly identified the Homestead Credit as refundable but used a broad household income of about $30,982 that includes the $10,392 survivor benefits. Homestead income is $20,590 (wages plus Social Security), which produces $271.39."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It assumed refundable credits require Wisconsin tax liability. The Homestead Credit is paid without any liability: $271.39 at $20,590 of household income and $1,440 of property taxes accrued."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It said household income exceeds the homestead limit, which requires counting the $10,392 survivor benefits. Correct homestead income is $20,590 (wages plus Social Security), which gives $271.39."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It explicitly added the other survivor benefits to wages and Social Security ($30,982) and denied the credit. Homestead household income is $20,590, under $24,680, which yields $271.39."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It summed wages, Social Security survivor benefits and the separate $10,392 survivor benefits to get $30,982 and denied the credit. Homestead income is only $7,656 + $12,934 = $20,590, which gives 0.8 × ($1,440 − 8.785% × $12,530) = $271.39."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"It tied Wisconsin refundable credits to qualifying children and ignored the Homestead Credit, which needs no children. An 85-year-old renter with $20,590 of household income gets $271.39."
+us,scenario_108,snap,claude-fable-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It ruled the household ineligible because net income ($2,217) is above the 100% FPL net limit. It never checked Wisconsin's BBCE: gross income of $2,582 is under 200% FPL, so the household is categorically eligible, the net test is waived, and the $24/month minimum allotment applies ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_108,snap,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the elderly/disabled 100% FPL net income test and concluded ineligibility. Under Wisconsin's BBCE (200% FPL gross), the household is categorically eligible, so the net test does not apply and the one-person household gets the $24 monthly minimum, $288 a year."
+us,scenario_108,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It compared income to 130% FPL, but that test does not apply here: the household has an elderly/disabled member and qualifies through Wisconsin's 200% FPL BBCE. As a categorically eligible one-person household it gets the $24/month minimum allotment ($288/yr), not $0."
+us,scenario_108,snap,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It answered $0 without any derivation. It missed that the household is categorically eligible under Wisconsin's 200% FPL BBCE, so even though 30% of net income exceeds the maximum allotment, the one-person household gets the $24 monthly minimum, $288 a year."
+us,scenario_108,snap,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly found the formula benefit negative and identified the minimum benefit for 1–2 person households. It then dropped that result for a made-up $2,227, and it also used the outdated $23 minimum instead of the 2026 $24 minimum, which gives $288 a year."
+us,scenario_108,snap,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Its reasoning concluded the household fails the 100% FPL net income test and is ineligible, but it submitted $2,376 anyway, a number unrelated to its own work. It also missed that Wisconsin's 200% FPL BBCE waives the net test, so the correct result is the $24/month minimum, $288 a year."
+us,scenario_108,snap,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly arrived at the minimum benefit for a one-person household but used the FY2025 minimum of $23/month ($276). The 2026 minimum allotment is $24/month, which gives $288 a year."
+us,scenario_108,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly stated that Wisconsin has no broad-based categorical eligibility, then failed the household on the 100% FPL net test. Wisconsin's BBCE uses a 200% FPL gross limit, which $2,582 passes, so the net test is waived and the $24 monthly minimum applies ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_108,snap,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It made up a net income of about $1,700 and an excess shelter deduction, but $600 rent is less than half of adjusted income, so the shelter deduction is $0 and net income is about $2,036. With 30% of net ($611) above the $298 maximum, the categorically eligible household gets only the $24 minimum ($288/yr), not $164 a month."
+us,scenario_108,snap,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated the 100% FPL net income test as decisive and ruled the household ineligible. Gross income is under Wisconsin's 200% FPL BBCE limit, so the household is categorically eligible, the net test is waived, and it gets the $24 monthly minimum, $288 a year."
+us,scenario_108,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It failed the household on the 100% FPL net income test. Wisconsin's BBCE (gross income under 200% FPL) makes the household categorically eligible, so the net test does not apply and the one-person minimum allotment of $24/month ($288/yr) is paid."
+us,scenario_108,snap,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It stopped at the negative formula result (maximum allotment minus 30% of net income) and answered $0. A categorically eligible 1–2 person household is guaranteed the minimum allotment, $24/month or $288 a year, and this household qualifies through Wisconsin's BBCE."
+us,scenario_108,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It correctly found that 30% of net income exceeds the one-person maximum allotment but set the benefit to zero. It skipped the minimum allotment, which pays categorically eligible one-person households (Wisconsin BBCE) $24/month, $288 a year."
+us,scenario_108,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the 100% FPL net income test for elderly/disabled households. Wisconsin's 200% FPL BBCE makes the household categorically eligible, which waives that test and gives the $24 monthly minimum, $288 a year."
+us,scenario_108,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It claimed gross income exceeds the limits, but $2,581.83 is under Wisconsin's 200% FPL BBCE threshold ($2,608). It also treated a negative formula benefit as $0 instead of applying the $24/month minimum allotment for one-person households ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_108,snap,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It declared income over the eligibility threshold without checking Wisconsin's 200% FPL BBCE gross limit, which the household passes. Categorical eligibility waives the net test, and the one-person household gets the $24 monthly minimum, $288 a year."
+us,scenario_108,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It said both gross and net income exceed SNAP limits. Gross income of $2,582 is under Wisconsin's 200% FPL BBCE limit, so the household is categorically eligible, the net limit is waived, and the $24/month minimum applies ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_108,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly identified Wisconsin's 200% FPL BBCE and the minimum benefit but used the outdated $23/month figure ($276). The 2026 minimum allotment is $24/month, which gives $288 a year."
+us,scenario_108,snap,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It asserted a zero benefit without derivation. It missed that the household is categorically eligible under Wisconsin's 200% FPL BBCE, which guarantees a one-person household the $24/month minimum allotment, $288 a year."
+us,scenario_108,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It said gross income of $2,581.83 exceeds SNAP limits, but that is under Wisconsin's 200% FPL BBCE threshold of $2,608.33. It also reduced the benefit to $0 instead of applying the $24 monthly minimum allotment ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_108,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied a net income threshold that does not bind a household categorically eligible through Wisconsin's BBCE. That household gets at least the $24/month minimum allotment for one person, $288 a year."
+us,scenario_108,snap,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It correctly found that 30% of net income exceeds the maximum allotment but answered $0. The minimum allotment of $24/month applies to categorically eligible 1–2 person households, so the benefit is $288 a year."
+us,scenario_108,snap,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the net income limit and answered $0. Wisconsin's 200% FPL BBCE makes the household categorically eligible, which waives the net test and entitles it to the $24/month minimum allotment even though the formula benefit is negative ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_108,snap,glm-5.2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It computed maximum allotment minus 30% of net income as negative and set SNAP to $0. It omitted the minimum allotment rule, under which a categorically eligible one-person household (Wisconsin BBCE) receives $24/month, $288 a year."
+us,scenario_108,snap,glm-5.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied a 100% FPL net income limit and wrongly mentioned a capped shelter deduction, even though shelter costs are uncapped for elderly/disabled households. It missed that Wisconsin's BBCE makes the household categorically eligible, so it gets the $24 monthly minimum, $288 a year."
+us,scenario_108,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It submitted $1,172 (about $98/month) without any computation. Net income is about $2,036, so 30% of it ($611) exceeds the $298 maximum, and the only benefit is the $24/month minimum, $288 a year."
+us,scenario_108,snap,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It defaulted to $0 without working the eligibility rules. Gross income is under Wisconsin's 200% FPL BBCE limit, so the household is categorically eligible and receives the $24/month minimum allotment for one person, $288 a year."
+us,scenario_108,snap,gpt-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It concluded that income is too high to produce a positive allotment and answered $0. It ignored the minimum allotment guaranteed to categorically eligible one-person households under Wisconsin's BBCE: $24/month, $288 a year."
+us,scenario_108,snap,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $103/month figure assumes net income low enough for a positive formula benefit. But $600 rent is less than half of adjusted income, so the shelter deduction is $0 and net income is about $2,036, which makes the formula negative and leaves only the $24 minimum ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_108,snap,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the one-person elderly/disabled net income limit and answered $0. Wisconsin's 200% FPL BBCE makes the household categorically eligible, so the net limit is waived and the $24/month minimum applies, $288 a year."
+us,scenario_108,snap,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It failed the household on the elderly/disabled net income limit. Under Wisconsin's BBCE (gross income under 200% FPL), that test does not apply, and the categorically eligible one-person household gets the $24 monthly minimum, $288 a year."
+us,scenario_108,snap,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated the net income limit as disqualifying. Wisconsin's BBCE makes the household categorically eligible, which waives that limit and gives the $24/month minimum allotment, $288 a year."
+us,scenario_108,snap,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It concluded that net income is too high for any allotment. It skipped the minimum allotment, which pays categorically eligible one-person households (Wisconsin's 200% FPL BBCE) $24/month, $288 a year."
+us,scenario_108,snap,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It said income exceeds SNAP limits without checking Wisconsin's 200% FPL BBCE gross limit, which the household passes. Categorical eligibility guarantees the $24/month minimum allotment, $288 a year."
+us,scenario_108,snap,grok-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It compared net income to 100% FPL and answered $0. Wisconsin's BBCE waives the net test for this household, whose gross income is under 200% FPL, and the one-person minimum allotment of $24/month gives $288 a year."
+us,scenario_108,snap,grok-4.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It recognized the waived gross test but still failed the household on the 100% FPL net test. Categorical eligibility under Wisconsin's 200% FPL BBCE waives the net test too, so the household gets the $24 monthly minimum, $288 a year."
+us,scenario_108,snap,grok-4.7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the one-person net income limit and answered $0. It missed Wisconsin's BBCE categorical eligibility, under which the net limit does not apply and the $24/month minimum allotment is paid, $288 a year."
+us,scenario_108,snap,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It failed the household because net income (about $2,218) exceeds the 100% FPL limit (about $1,305). Wisconsin's BBCE (gross income $2,582 is under 200% FPL) waives the net test, so the household gets the $24/month minimum, $288 a year."
+us,scenario_108,snap,inkling,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It ruled the household ineligible because net income of about $2,225 exceeds 100% FPL. Categorical eligibility through Wisconsin's 200% FPL BBCE removes the net test, and the one-person minimum allotment of $24/month applies ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_108,snap,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied the 100% FPL net income limit and answered $0. It missed that Wisconsin's BBCE makes the household categorically eligible, which waives that limit and gives the $24 monthly minimum allotment, $288 a year."
+us,scenario_108,snap,kimi-k3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It correctly found that 30% of net income exceeds the one-person maximum allotment but set the benefit to $0. Because the household is categorically eligible through Wisconsin's BBCE, it receives the $24/month minimum allotment, $288 a year."
+us,scenario_108,snap,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied a 130% FPL gross income test, which does not apply to an elderly/disabled household, and it skipped the earned income deduction. Gross income is under Wisconsin's 200% FPL BBCE limit, so the household is categorically eligible and receives the $24/month minimum ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_108,snap,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It failed the household on the 100% FPL net income test. Wisconsin's BBCE (gross income under 200% FPL) makes it categorically eligible, so the net test is waived and the one-person minimum allotment of $24/month applies, $288 a year."
+us,scenario_108,snap,muse-wonder,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated the one-person net income limit as disqualifying. Under Wisconsin's BBCE that limit does not apply, and the categorically eligible household gets the $24 monthly minimum, $288 a year."
+us,scenario_108,snap,ox-alpha,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It applied a 165% FPL gross income test, which is the separate-household rule for elderly people who cannot prepare meals and is irrelevant here. Wisconsin's BBCE gross limit is 200% FPL ($2,608), which the $2,582 income passes, giving the $24/month minimum allotment ($288/yr)."
+us,scenario_108,snap,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It invented a $400 utility allowance that the facts do not support and cycled through several standard deductions. It then set SNAP to $0 even after noting that the benefit 'would be minimum': a categorically eligible one-person household gets the $24/month minimum allotment, $288 a year."
+us,scenario_108,snap,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It said countable income exceeds the SNAP limit without checking Wisconsin's 200% FPL BBCE gross limit, which the household passes. Categorical eligibility guarantees the $24/month minimum allotment for one person, $288 a year."
+us,scenario_108,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Started Wisconsin income at $18,048 by counting the $10,392 survivor benefit as taxable. That benefit does not enter Wisconsin taxable income for this 85-year-old, so only $7,656 of wages remains. Its own $13,940 standard deduction already wipes out $7,656, which gives $0 instead of $134.33 at 3.5%."
+us,scenario_108,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used federal AGI of $18,048 as the Wisconsin base, which wrongly includes the $10,392 survivor benefit. Wisconsin taxable income is only the $7,656 of wages, which is below its own $13,480 deduction figure. Taxable income is therefore $0, not $4,568 taxed at 3.54%."
+us,scenario_108,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Applied the sliding-scale standard deduction to an AGI of $18,048 that includes the $10,392 survivor benefit, leaving about $4,548 taxable. Without the survivor benefit, Wisconsin income is $7,656 of wages. The near-maximum single standard deduction fully offsets that, so tax is $0."
+us,scenario_108,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Counted the $10,392 survivor benefit in Wisconsin AGI ($18,048), so tax was still left over after the renter's school property tax credit. Wisconsin taxable income is only the $7,656 of wages, which the standard deduction and exemptions eliminate. Pre-credit tax is already $0, so no credit is needed to reach $0."
+us,scenario_108,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Made two errors. First, it counted the $10,392 survivor benefit as Wisconsin-taxable, giving $18,048 of income instead of $7,656 of wages. Second, it used the qualifying-surviving-spouse standard deduction, but that status requires a dependent child, so the head files single. The single standard deduction is larger and fully covers the $7,656 of wages, so tax is $0."
+us,scenario_108,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Explicitly taxed the survivor-benefit income along with the wages, which produced $144.13. Only the $7,656 of wages is Wisconsin taxable income, and it falls below the single standard deduction plus the personal and age exemptions. Liability is $0."
+us,scenario_108,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $3,538 of taxable income only works if the $10,392 survivor benefit is added to wages, giving $18,048. Wisconsin taxable income for this household is just the $7,656 of wages, and the standard deduction and exemptions offset all of it. Tax is $0, not $124."
+us,scenario_108,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Set Wisconsin AGI at $18,048 by including the survivor benefit, then applied a phased-down $13,817 standard deduction, leaving $4,231 taxable. With the survivor benefit excluded, Wisconsin income is $7,656 of wages. That is below the phaseout threshold and below the full standard deduction, so tax is $0."
+us,scenario_108,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Gave no value or explanation for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits. The correct answer is $0, because the household's Wisconsin taxable income of $7,656 in wages is fully offset by the single standard deduction and exemptions."
+us,scenario_108,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Treated the $10,392 survivor benefit as a taxable pension in Wisconsin AGI ($18,048), which left about $2,900 taxable after deductions. Without it, Wisconsin income is $7,656 of wages. The roughly $14,000 standard deduction it cites already exceeds that, so tax is $0."
+us,scenario_108,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Taxed the survivor income along with wages after exempting only Social Security, which left about $2,680 taxable. Wisconsin taxable income is only the $7,656 of wages. The standard deduction plus the $700 personal exemption reduce it to zero, so tax is $0."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model first decided that the $30,982 income (including the $10,392 non-Social-Security survivor benefits) was over the limit, then guessed $636 anyway. It also used 25% of rent capped at $1,460 instead of 20% of rent ($1,440). With income of $20,590, the formula gives 0.8 × ($1,440 − 8.785% × $12,530) = $271.39."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model added the $10,392 non-Social-Security survivor benefits to homestead household income, getting $30,982 and ruling the household ineligible. PolicyEngine counts only wages and Social Security ($20,590), which is under the $24,680 limit, so the credit is $271.39."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model got household income right at $20,590 but wrongly decided the Wisconsin homestead credit is not a refundable income tax credit. The credit is claimed on the state return and is refundable: 0.8 × ($1,440 − 8.785% × ($20,590 − $8,060)) = $271.39."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model reasoned that refundable credits need tax liability to offset, and it ignored the homestead credit. The homestead credit is paid regardless of tax liability. This 85-year-old disabled renter with $20,590 of household income gets $271.39."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model left out Social Security ($12,934), which PolicyEngine counts, and included the $10,392 non-Social-Security survivor benefits, which it does not count. That gave about $18,048 of income instead of $20,590, and the model then guessed $300 instead of applying 0.8 × ($1,440 − 8.785% × ($20,590 − $8,060)) = $271.39."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model added the $10,392 non-Social-Security survivor benefits to homestead household income, totaling $30,982, which is over $24,680. PolicyEngine's homestead income is $20,590 (wages plus Social Security), which qualifies for a $271.39 credit."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model's income of about $18,000 means it counted wages plus the $10,392 survivor benefits and left out Social Security. PolicyEngine counts wages plus Social Security ($20,590). The model also did not apply the exact formula 0.8 × ($1,440 − 8.785% × ($20,590 − $8,060)) = $271.39, and ended up at $371."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted the $10,392 non-Social-Security survivor benefits in homestead household income ($30,982), which put it over the $24,680 limit. Wages plus Social Security alone are $20,590, which qualifies for $271.39."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model added the $10,392 other survivor benefits to homestead household income, getting $30,982, and set the credit to $0. PolicyEngine's homestead income is $20,590, which gives a $271.39 credit."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model dismissed the homestead credit as not producing a modeled refundable state credit and looked only at the child-based earned income credit. The homestead credit is refundable and pays this elderly, disabled renter $271.39 on $20,590 of household income."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model got income right at $20,590 but used 25% of rent capped at $1,460 instead of 20% of rent ($1,440). It also used an 8.65% phase-out rate above $8,000 instead of 8.785% above $8,060. The correct figure is 0.8 × ($1,440 − 0.08785 × $12,530) = $271.39, not $297."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said income is above the homestead limit, which only holds if the $10,392 non-Social-Security survivor benefits are counted. PolicyEngine's homestead income is $20,590, under $24,680, which gives $271.39."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model used $30,982 of homestead income by including the $10,392 non-Social-Security survivor benefits. Homestead income is wages plus Social Security, $20,590, which qualifies for $271.39."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said income exceeds the homestead limit, which reflects counting the $10,392 survivor benefits. Only wages and Social Security ($20,590) count, which is under $24,680, so the credit is $271.39."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model gave no reasoning and missed the refundable homestead credit. That credit equals 0.8 × ($1,440 − 8.785% × ($20,590 − $8,060)) = $271.39 for this 85-year-old renter."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model's $30,982 includes the $10,392 non-Social-Security survivor benefits. PolicyEngine's homestead income is $20,590 (wages plus Social Security), which is under the $24,680 threshold and gives $271.39."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied no specific Wisconsin credit test and missed the refundable homestead credit. That credit pays $271.39 for $1,440 of rent-based property tax and $20,590 of household income."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted the $10,392 non-Social-Security survivor benefits, reaching $30,982 of household income. Wages plus Social Security alone are $20,590, under the limit, so the credit is $271.39."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model added the $10,392 survivor benefits to homestead income ($30,982 versus the $24,680 limit). PolicyEngine counts $20,590 and pays a $271.39 homestead credit."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said the head is ineligible for the homestead credit without applying the income test. With homestead income of $20,590 (wages plus Social Security), the head qualifies for $271.39."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model's $30,982 homestead income includes the $10,392 non-Social-Security survivor benefits. Only $20,590 counts, which is under $24,680, so the credit is $271.39."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said income exceeds the homestead limit, which only follows from counting the $10,392 survivor benefits. Homestead income is $20,590 and the credit is $271.39."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said income exceeds the $24,680 limit, which requires counting the $10,392 non-Social-Security survivor benefits. Wages plus Social Security total $20,590, which gives a $271.39 homestead credit."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model included the $10,392 survivor benefits to get $30,982. PolicyEngine's homestead income is $20,590, which qualifies for 0.8 × ($1,440 − 8.785% × $12,530) = $271.39."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model used $30,982 of homestead income including the $10,392 non-Social-Security survivor benefits. Homestead income is $20,590, under the limit, so the credit is $271.39."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted the $10,392 survivor benefits as pension income, putting homestead income at about $30,982. PolicyEngine counts only wages and Social Security ($20,590) and pays $271.39."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model missed the refundable homestead credit, which this 85-year-old disabled renter gets: 0.8 × ($1,440 − 8.785% × ($20,590 − $8,060)) = $271.39."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model looked only for EITC-type credits and missed the refundable homestead credit, which pays $271.39 on $7,200 of rent and $20,590 of household income."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model included the $10,392 non-Social-Security survivor benefits in homestead household income, which put it over the limit. Wages plus Social Security total $20,590, which qualifies for $271.39."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,The model assumed refundable Wisconsin credits require qualifying children and missed the homestead credit. That credit is available to claimants aged 62 or older or disabled and pays $271.39 here.
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said income is above the homestead limit, which requires counting the $10,392 survivor benefits. Homestead income is $20,590 (wages plus Social Security), which gives $271.39."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model saw no refundable credit for a one-adult household and missed the homestead credit. That credit pays $271.39 to this elderly, disabled renter with $20,590 of household income."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted the $10,392 non-Social-Security survivor benefits to reach $30,982 and also misstated the ceiling as $24,480. Homestead income is $20,590, under the limit, so the credit is $271.39."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said income exceeds the homestead limit, which reflects including the $10,392 survivor benefits. PolicyEngine's homestead income is $20,590, which gives $271.39."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model's finding that income exceeds the homestead limit depends on counting the $10,392 non-Social-Security survivor benefits. Only wages and Social Security ($20,590) count, which gives a $271.39 credit."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model included the $10,392 survivor benefits in homestead income and ruled the household over the limit. With $20,590 of household income, the credit is 0.8 × ($1,440 − 8.785% × $12,530) = $271.39."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model missed the refundable homestead credit, which pays $271.39 for $1,440 of rent-based property tax (20% of $7,200) and $20,590 of household income."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model used $30,982 of homestead income by adding the $10,392 non-Social-Security survivor benefits. Homestead income is $20,590, which is under the limit, so the credit is $271.39."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted both Social Security and the separate $10,392 survivor benefits, reaching $30,982. PolicyEngine counts only wages and Social Security ($20,590) and pays $271.39."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model added the $10,392 other survivor benefits to homestead household income. Without them, income is $20,590, under $24,680, and the credit is $271.39."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated the $10,392 survivor benefits as part of AGI, getting $30,982 of homestead income. PolicyEngine's homestead income is $20,590, under even the model's own ~$26,500 limit, and the credit is $271.39."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model checked only the Wisconsin EITC and missed the refundable homestead credit, which pays $271.39 to this 85-year-old renter with $20,590 of household income."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,No value or explanation was returned for state_refundable_credits. The expected answer is the $271.39 Wisconsin homestead credit.
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model used a broad household income of $30,982 that includes the $10,392 non-Social-Security survivor benefits. PolicyEngine counts $20,590 and pays a $271.39 homestead credit."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,The model assumed refundable credits require state tax liability. The homestead credit is paid regardless of liability and comes to $271.39 here.
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model said income is too high for the homestead credit, which follows from counting the $10,392 survivor benefits. Homestead income is $20,590, which gives $271.39."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model's finding that income exceeds the homestead limit depends on including the $10,392 non-Social-Security survivor benefits. Wages plus Social Security total $20,590, which gives a $271.39 credit."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model explicitly added the $10,392 other survivor benefits to get $30,982. PolicyEngine's homestead income is $20,590 and the credit is 0.8 × ($1,440 − 8.785% × ($20,590 − $8,060)) = $271.39."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model added the $10,392 survivor benefits to wages and Social Security, getting $30,982, which is over $24,680. Only $20,590 counts, which qualifies for $271.39."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,"The model tied Wisconsin refundable credits to qualifying children and missed the homestead credit, which pays $271.39 to this elderly, disabled renter."
us,scenario_109,child1_chip_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model checked only CHIP's age and upper-income limits and treated satisfying them as sufficient. It omitted the prior Medicaid screen: the age-9 child qualifies for Florida Medicaid in the OLDER_CHILD category, which makes the child ineligible for CHIP."
us,scenario_109,child1_chip_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model calculated MAGI and compared it only with CHIP's upper-income limit. It failed to test the lower Medicaid eligibility pathway first; at this income, the age-9 child is Medicaid-eligible in Florida and therefore excluded from CHIP."
us,scenario_109,child1_chip_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model recognized that CHIP applies between Medicaid and CHIP income limits but incorrectly placed this household in that interval. The age-9 child remains within Florida's Medicaid limit for the OLDER_CHILD category, so the child never enters the CHIP coverage band."
@@ -8834,48 +9115,50 @@ us,scenario_109,child3_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_elig
us,scenario_109,child3_medicaid_eligible,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model correctly identified the infant category and computed income at roughly 0.79 FPL against a ~200% FPL Florida infant limit, then reversed its own conclusion by imposing a Florida asset test and requiring Medicaid expansion or confirmed enrollment. MAGI-based children's categories carry no asset or resource test, non-expansion status restricts only the adult expansion group, and CHIP is residual coverage for children who fail Medicaid rather than a substitute for it — so the infant category grants eligibility, and the question asked for eligibility rather than enrollment."
us,scenario_109,child3_wic_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated the absence of an explicitly listed WIC status as disqualifying instead of computing eligibility from the supplied facts. The age-zero child satisfies WIC's child category, and the five-person household's income is below the 185%-of-poverty income limit, so the correct eligibility output is Yes."
us,scenario_109,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used an overstated projected standard deduction, incorrectly concluded taxable income and pre-credit tax were zero, and then subtracted an invented $284 of “unused” CTC. The correct computation produces income tax that uses $2,792.91 of the $6,600 CTC as a nonrefundable offset, while the remaining $3,807.09 is refundable; unused nonrefundable credits never make this output negative."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly worked out EITC $8,231 plus ACTC $3,807, for a total of about $12,038. It then rounded the final answer to $12,000 instead of reporting the computed amount."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It denied the EITC on the grounds that income was above a ~$50,162 phase-out endpoint, even though the $27,881 earned income is below that figure and is actually on the plateau for the full $8,231 maximum. It also worked out an ACTC of about $3,878 but then submitted an unexplained $2,500 and left out the EITC entirely."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated $30,000 of self-employment income as if it did not count as earned income, so it returned $0. Net SE earnings after the half-SE-tax deduction ($27,881) are earned income, which qualifies the household for the $8,231 EITC and a $3,807.09 refundable CTC."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,other,False,"Its own working reached EITC $8,231 + ACTC $3,807 = $12,038. It then discarded that result and submitted an unsupported $10,379."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 three-child EITC maximum of $8,046 instead of the 2026 maximum of $8,231. It computed the ACTC on $27,705 without subtracting half of SE tax, then swapped in an unexplained $4,416 instead of the correct 15% × ($27,880.57 − $2,500) = $3,807.09."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It placed the household in the EITC phase-out and cut the credit to $5,035, but married-filing-jointly earned income of about $27,881 is below the phase-out start, so the full $8,231 applies. It also based the ACTC on gross $30,000 ($4,125) instead of earned income net of half SE tax ($3,807.09)."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It used a married-filing-jointly phase-out start of about $26,511–$27,174 (the actual MFJ threshold is above $30,000) and wrongly reduced the EITC to about $7,469. It also based the ACTC on gross $30,000 ($4,125) and then submitted $7,594, which drops $4,000 from its own $11,594 total. The correct figures are the full $8,231 EITC plus $3,807.09 ACTC on $27,880.57 of earned income."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It reduced the EITC to about $3,015, even though $27,881 of earned income is on the three-child plateau and earns the full $8,231. It also set the ACTC at the full $5,100 cap and ignored its own correct 15% × (earned income − $2,500) limit of $3,807."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the ACTC 15% formula to gross $30,000 ($4,125) instead of earned income net of the half-SE-tax deduction ($27,880.57), which gives $3,807.09. It also used an EITC maximum of $8,215 instead of $8,231."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an EITC of $8,026 instead of the 2026 three-child maximum of $8,231. It also used a $3,000 refundable CTC ($1,000 per child) instead of the post-OBBBA 15% × ($27,880.57 − $2,500) = $3,807.09."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its ACTC of $3,807 is correct, but it overstated the 2026 three-child EITC maximum as $8,261 when the correct figure is $8,231."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It computed the ACTC on gross $30,000 ($4,125) instead of earned income net of half SE tax ($27,880.57 → $3,807.09). It also overstated the 2026 EITC maximum as $8,290 instead of $8,231."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the expired pre-TCJA $1,000-per-child refundable CTC ($3,000). Under 2026 law the ACTC is 15% × ($27,880.57 − $2,500) = $3,807.09, within a $1,700-per-child cap. It also overstated the EITC maximum as $8,290 instead of $8,231."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It cut the EITC to $3,588 as if the household were deep in the phase-out, but married-filing-jointly earned income of about $27,881 earns the full $8,231. It also understated the ACTC at $1,674 instead of 15% × ($27,880.57 − $2,500) = $3,807.09."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $1,000-per-child ACTC ($3,000) as if TCJA had expired, instead of the 2026 earned-income-based ACTC of $3,807.09. It also used an EITC maximum of $8,250 instead of $8,231."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It treated the ACTC as $1,000 per child ($3,000) under expired pre-TCJA rules, instead of 15% × ($27,880.57 − $2,500) = $3,807.09. It also used an EITC maximum of $8,240 instead of $8,231."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,other,False,"It gave no computation. The correct total is the full $8,231 three-child EITC plus a $3,807.09 ACTC, and its $7,502 is consistent with reporting roughly one partially phased-out credit and leaving out most of the other."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $1,000-per-child ACTC ($3,000) instead of the 2026 formula amount of 15% × ($27,880.57 − $2,500) = $3,807.09. It also used an EITC of $8,219 instead of $8,231."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $11,046 matches the 2025 EITC maximum ($8,046) plus a $1,000-per-child ACTC ($3,000). The correct inputs are the 2026 maximum of $8,231 and the earned-income-based ACTC of $3,807.09."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It treated the refundable CTC as $1,000 per child ($3,000) instead of 15% × ($27,880.57 − $2,500) = $3,807.09. It also used an EITC maximum of $8,207 instead of $8,231."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an EITC maximum of $8,025.75 instead of the 2026 three-child maximum of $8,231. It also computed the ACTC on net SE earnings of $27,705 without subtracting the $2,119.43 SE-tax deduction, which gives $3,780.75 instead of $3,807.09."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted half of SE tax from the already-reduced $27,705 (92.35% of SE income) instead of from $30,000, which understated earned income at $25,586 rather than $27,880.57. That led to an ACTC of $3,463 instead of $3,807.09, and it also used an EITC of $8,042 instead of $8,231."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Its $13,400 matches the full EITC plus the full $1,700-per-child ACTC cap ($5,100). It ignored the earned-income limit that holds the ACTC to 15% × ($27,880.57 − $2,500) = $3,807.09."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It returned $0 because no wages were listed, but self-employment income is earned income for both the EITC and the ACTC. With $27,880.57 of earned income the household receives the $8,231 EITC plus a $3,807.09 ACTC."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its EITC of $8,231 is correct, but it used the expired pre-TCJA $1,000-per-child ACTC ($3,000). Under 2026 law the ACTC is 15% × ($27,880.57 − $2,500) = $3,807.09, within a $1,700-per-child cap."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its EITC of $8,231 is correct, but it applied the 15% ACTC formula to gross $30,000 ($4,125). Earned income for self-employment is net of the deductible half of SE tax ($27,880.57), so the ACTC is $3,807.09."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its EITC of $8,231 is correct, but it based the ACTC on $27,705 of net SE earnings (92.35% of income) instead of $30,000 minus half of SE tax ($27,880.57). That gives $3,781 instead of $3,807.09."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its EITC of $8,231 is correct, but it computed the ACTC as 15% of gross $30,000 over $2,500 ($4,125). It did not first subtract the deductible half of SE tax, which brings earned income to $27,880.57 and the ACTC to $3,807.09."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its EITC of $8,231 is correct, but it used gross $30,000 as earned income for the ACTC ($4,125). It should have used $30,000 minus the $2,119.43 half-SE-tax deduction, which gives $3,807.09."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its ACTC of $3,807.09 is correct, but it overstated the 2026 three-child EITC maximum as $8,427 instead of $8,231."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It reported no refundable credits, overlooking that $30,000 of self-employment income is earned income. That earned income qualifies the family of three children for the full $8,231 EITC and a $3,807.09 ACTC."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed TCJA had expired, so it used a $1,000-per-child CTC, a $3,000 earnings threshold and a $3,000 ACTC. For 2026 the $2,500 threshold and $1,700-per-child refundable cap apply, which gives $3,807.09. It also used an EITC of $8,226 instead of $8,231."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used post-TCJA-expiration rules ($1,000 per child, $3,000 threshold) to get a $3,000 ACTC. Under the 2026 rules the ACTC is 15% × ($27,880.57 − $2,500) = $3,807.09. It also used an EITC maximum of $8,247 instead of $8,231."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its EITC of $8,231 is correct, but it assumed TCJA had expired and capped the ACTC at $1,000 per child ($3,000). Under the 2026 rules the $2,500 threshold and $1,700-per-child cap apply, which gives 15% × $25,380.57 = $3,807.09."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the expired-TCJA $1,000-per-child refundable CTC with a $3,000 threshold ($3,000 total) instead of the 2026 ACTC of $3,807.09. It also used an EITC of $8,245 instead of $8,231."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its ACTC of $3,807 is correct, but it overstated the 2026 three-child EITC maximum as about $8,271 instead of $8,231."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,other,False,"It gave no reasoning. The correct total is the full $8,231 EITC (earned income of $27,880.57 is on the plateau) plus a $3,807.09 ACTC. Its $6,695 is about $5,343 short, which matches a wrongly phased-out EITC with most of the ACTC left out."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It said the phase-out starts around $29,600, which is above earned income, yet still cut the EITC to $3,588 instead of the full $8,231. It then dropped most of the ACTC from its final $4,288, despite earning a $3,807.09 refundable CTC under the 15%-over-$2,500 formula."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 EITC maximum of $8,046 instead of the 2026 figure of $8,231. It also computed the ACTC on gross $30,000 ($4,125) instead of earned income net of half SE tax ($27,880.57), which gives $3,807.09."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It refunded the full $1,700-per-child cap ($5,100), ignoring the binding 15% × ($27,880.57 − $2,500) = $3,807.09 earned-income limit. It also phased out the EITC from a ~$24,000 start, which is not the joint-filer threshold, instead of awarding the full $8,231 to a joint filer with $27,881 of earned income."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It applied an understated MFJ phase-out start (~$24,000–$25,500) and cut the EITC to $5,475, but the household's $27,881 of earned income is below the joint phase-out start and earns the full $8,231. It also based the ACTC on gross $30,000 ($4,125) instead of $27,880.57 ($3,807.09)."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated the CTC as entirely nonrefundable and left out the $3,807.09 Additional CTC, which with zero tax liability equals 15% of earned income over $2,500. It also used the 2025 EITC maximum of $8,046 instead of $8,231."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly computed EITC $8,231 + ACTC $3,807 = $12,038. It then rounded the total to $12,000 instead of reporting the computed amount."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It claimed the household's income exceeds the EITC phase-out range, but $27,881 of earned income is on the three-child MFJ plateau, so the full $8,231 EITC applies. It also discarded its own 15%-over-$2,500 ACTC computation and substituted an arbitrary $2,500 instead of 15% × ($27,880.57 − $2,500) = $3,807."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It did not treat $30,000 of self-employment income as earned income for EITC and ACTC, so it zeroed out both credits. Net SE income minus half the SE tax ($27,880.57) qualifies for the $8,231 EITC and a $3,807 ACTC."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,other,False,"Its reasoning reached the correct total of $8,231 EITC + $3,807 ACTC = $12,038. It then submitted an unsupported 'estimated' $10,379 that contradicts its own arithmetic."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 EITC maximum of $8,046 instead of the 2026 three-child maximum of $8,231. It also replaced its own $3,781 ACTC (already understated because it used $27,705 instead of $27,880.57) with an arbitrary $4,416."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It placed $30,000 in the EITC phase-out and arrived at about $5,035, but earned income of $27,880.57 is on the plateau, so the full $8,231 applies. It also computed the ACTC on gross $30,000 ($4,125) instead of SE income minus half the SE tax ($3,807)."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It applied an EITC phase-out using a ~$26,511–$27,174 threshold to gross $30,000. The 2026 MFJ phase-out starts above $27,880.57, so the full $8,231 applies. It also used gross $30,000 for the ACTC ($4,125 instead of $3,807) and then dropped a digit, submitting $7,594 instead of its own $11,594."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It put the three-child EITC at about $3,015 despite earned income of $27,881 sitting on the $8,231 plateau. Its ACTC description ignored that the 15% earned-income limit ($3,807) binds below the $5,100 cap."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It computed the ACTC as 15% of gross $30,000 above $2,500 ($4,125). Earned income for the ACTC is SE income minus half the SE tax ($27,880.57), which gives $3,807.09. It also used an EITC maximum of $8,215 instead of $8,231."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $1,000-per-child refundable CTC ($3,000), as though TCJA had expired. Under 2026 law the ACTC is the lesser of $1,700 per child and 15% of earned income over $2,500, which gives $3,807. It also understated the EITC at $8,026 instead of $8,231."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its ACTC of $3,807 was correct, but it overstated the 2026 three-child EITC maximum as $8,261 instead of $8,231."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It computed the ACTC on gross $30,000 ($4,125) instead of earned income net of half the SE tax ($27,880.57 → $3,807). It also overstated the EITC maximum as $8,290 instead of $8,231."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a pre-TCJA $1,000-per-child ACTC ($3,000). The 2026 refundable CTC is 15% × ($27,880.57 − $2,500) = $3,807, under the $1,700-per-child cap. It also overstated the EITC as $8,290 instead of $8,231."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It reported an EITC of $3,588 and an ACTC of $1,674. With $27,880.57 of earned income, the household is on the three-child EITC plateau ($8,231), and the 15%-over-$2,500 formula gives a $3,807 ACTC."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $1,000-per-child ACTC ($3,000) instead of the 2026 formula, 15% × ($27,880.57 − $2,500) = $3,807. It also put the EITC maximum at $8,250 instead of $8,231."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It capped the ACTC at a $1,000-per-child maximum ($3,000) instead of applying the $1,700 cap and the 15%-over-$2,500 earned-income limit, which gives $3,807. It also used an EITC of $8,240 instead of $8,231."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It gave no computation, and its $7,502 is below the $8,231 plateau EITC alone. That is consistent with applying a phase-out to the EITC and/or omitting the $3,807 ACTC, both of which apply in full at $27,880.57 of earned income."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $1,000-per-child refundable CTC ($3,000) instead of the 2026 ACTC of 15% × ($27,880.57 − $2,500) = $3,807. It also used an EITC of $8,219 instead of $8,231."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $11,046 matches the 2025 EITC maximum ($8,046) plus a $1,000-per-child ACTC ($3,000). It missed both the 2026 three-child EITC maximum of $8,231 and the 2026 ACTC of 15% × ($27,880.57 − $2,500) = $3,807."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $1,000-per-child ACTC ($3,000) instead of the 2026 15%-over-$2,500 amount of $3,807, which is under the $1,700 cap. It also used an EITC of $8,207 instead of $8,231."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly computed the ACTC as $3,807.08 but used an EITC of $8,104 instead of the 2026 three-child plateau maximum of $8,231."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took earned income as net SE earnings ($27,705 = 92.35% of $30,000). Earned income is SE income minus the deductible half of SE tax ($27,880.57), so its ACTC was $3,780.75 instead of $3,807.09. It also used an EITC of $8,025.75 instead of $8,231."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It double-reduced earned income by subtracting half the SE tax from the already-reduced $27,705 net SE earnings, giving $25,586 instead of $27,880.57. This cut the ACTC to $3,463 instead of $3,807, and it also used an EITC of $8,042 instead of $8,231."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,other,False,"It submitted an unsupported $13,400 without computing either credit. The correct total is the $8,231 plateau EITC plus an ACTC limited to 15% × ($27,880.57 − $2,500) = $3,807."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated the lack of wages as ruling out EITC and ACTC. Net self-employment income ($30,000 minus half the SE tax) is earned income that qualifies for the $8,231 EITC and a $3,807 ACTC."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly used the $8,231 EITC but set the ACTC at $1,000 per child ($3,000). The 2026 ACTC is the lesser of $1,700 per child and 15% × ($27,880.57 − $2,500) = $3,807."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the ACTC formula to gross $30,000 ($4,125). Earned income for the ACTC is SE income minus half the SE tax ($27,880.57), which gives $3,807.09."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It based the ACTC on net SE earnings of $27,705 (92.35% of $30,000), giving $3,781. Earned income is $30,000 minus half the SE tax ($27,880.57), which gives $3,807.09."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It computed the ACTC as 15% of gross $30,000 above $2,500 ($4,125) without subtracting the deductible half of SE tax from earned income. That subtraction gives $27,880.57 and an ACTC of $3,807.09."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used gross $30,000 as earned income for the ACTC ($4,125) instead of $30,000 minus the $2,119.43 half-SE-tax deduction, which gives $3,807.09."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its ACTC of $3,807.09 was correct, but it overstated the 2026 three-child EITC maximum as $8,427 instead of $8,231."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It computed no EITC or ACTC, ignoring that $30,000 of self-employment income is earned income. That income qualifies the three-child MFJ household for the $8,231 plateau EITC and a $3,807 ACTC."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed TCJA expired and used a $1,000-per-child CTC with a $3,000 earnings floor. Under 2026 law the ACTC is the lesser of $1,700 per child and 15% × ($27,880.57 − $2,500) = $3,807. It also used an EITC of $8,226 instead of $8,231."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed a post-TCJA-expiration $1,000-per-child ACTC ($3,000) instead of the 2026 $1,700 cap with the 15%-over-$2,500 limit, which gives $3,807. It also overstated the EITC as $8,247 instead of $8,231."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly used the $8,231 EITC but treated TCJA as expired and set the ACTC at $1,000 per child ($3,000). The 2026 ACTC is 15% × ($27,880.57 − $2,500) = $3,807, under the $1,700-per-child cap."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used pre-TCJA ACTC parameters ($1,000 per child, $3,000 earnings floor), giving $3,000 instead of the 2026 amount of $3,807. It also used an EITC of $8,245 instead of $8,231."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its ACTC of $3,807 was correct, but it overstated the 2026 three-child EITC maximum as $8,271 instead of $8,231."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It gave no reasoning, and its $6,695 is below the $8,231 plateau EITC alone. That is consistent with phasing out an EITC that is not in phase-out at $27,880.57 of earned income and/or dropping the $3,807 ACTC."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It applied an EITC phase-out starting around $29,600 to gross $30,000 and reduced the EITC to $3,588, when earned income of $27,880.57 receives the full $8,231. It also took the ACTC as the $5,100 cap instead of the binding 15% earned-income limit of $3,807, then submitted $4,288, which matches none of its components."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It placed $30,000 in the EITC phase-out ($7,668), but earned income net of half the SE tax ($27,880.57) is on the $8,231 plateau. It also computed the ACTC on gross $30,000 ($4,125 instead of $3,807)."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It computed the ACTC on gross $30,000 ($4,125) instead of earned income net of half the SE tax, which gives $3,807. It also used the 2025 EITC maximum of $8,046 instead of the 2026 figure of $8,231."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It set the ACTC at the full $1,700 × 3 = $5,100 cap, but the 15% × ($27,880.57 − $2,500) earned-income limit binds at $3,807. It also phased the EITC out from a ~$24,000 threshold, though the household is on the $8,231 plateau, and its submitted total does not match its own $12,514 sum."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It applied an EITC phase-out from a ~$24,000–$25,500 threshold and then substituted an arbitrary $5,475. The 2026 MFJ phase-out starts above $27,880.57, so the full $8,231 applies. It also computed the ACTC on gross $30,000 ($4,125 instead of $3,807)."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated the CTC as having no refundable portion, but with zero tax liability the household receives an ACTC of 15% × ($27,880.57 − $2,500) = $3,807. It also used the 2025 EITC maximum of $8,046 instead of $8,231."
us,scenario_109,free_school_meals_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model asserted ineligibility without running either qualifying pathway: SNAP receipt of $8,020.55 confers categorical free-meal status by itself, and the household's $30,000 income is 78% of the 2026 five-person federal poverty guideline, far below the 130% free-meal threshold. Its bare 0 is consistent with demanding an explicit school-enrollment fact instead of deriving two K-12 students from the stated ages of 9 and 6, and Florida has no universal free-meal program that would make the answer turn on state policy."
us,scenario_109,free_school_meals_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated school-meal eligibility as an unlisted fact to be zeroed out under the 'treat unlisted household facts as false' instruction, so it never applied the SNAP categorical qualifier or the 130% poverty-guideline income test. Ages 9 and 6 establish two children in K-12, the household's $8,020.55 SNAP benefit is a standalone categorical pathway to free meals, and $30,000 is 78% of the five-person poverty guideline — each route independently yields the FREE tier and $2,261.92 of annual support."
us,scenario_109,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model incorrectly treated Florida as offering Medicaid expansion to low-income adults and therefore used low MAGI as sufficient for eligibility. Florida has no expansion pathway for this age-30 head, and the head fits no other categorical pathway, producing medicaid_category NONE and ineligibility."
@@ -8889,49 +9172,51 @@ us,scenario_109,self_employment_tax,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,other,False,"The mode
us,scenario_109,self_employment_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"The model set up 30000 × 0.9235 × 0.153 correctly but evaluated it as 4234 when the product is 4238.87, understating the tax by $4.87 — its number implies a net-earnings base of $27,673 instead of $27,705. It then compounded the confusion with an irrelevant Additional Medicare Tax digression and a stray discarded figure of 2793 before committing to the miscomputed 4234."
us,scenario_109,self_employment_tax,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,other,False,"The model named the correct base (92.35% of $30,000) and the correct combined 15.3% Social Security and Medicare rate, but reported the product as $4,241 when $27,705 × 0.153 = $4,238.87, which rounds to $4,239. The $2.13 overstatement is a multiplication slip presented as a rounding, equivalent to using a net-earnings base of $27,719."
us,scenario_109,self_employment_tax,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"The model computed every component correctly — $27,705 net earnings, 12.4% Social Security of $3,435.42, 2.9% Medicare of $803.45 — and stated the total as approximately $4,238, then submitted $4,233, contradicting its own arithmetic by $5. Its own component figures sum to $4,238.87, so the submitted value is a transcription error rather than a rule or base mistake."
-us,scenario_109,snap,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used outdated parameters: a ~$225 standard deduction and a $1,158 maximum allotment, instead of the FY2026 values of $261 and $1,183. Its own math gave about $626 a month. It then cut the answer to $3,768 ($314/month) by citing unspecified payroll/SE adjustments, which SNAP does not deduct from self-employment income with no listed costs."
-us,scenario_109,snap,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"All of its parameters were correct ($1,739 net income, $1,183 maximum). However, it multiplied the unrounded $661.30 monthly benefit by 12 to get $7,936. SNAP rounds the 30% contribution up to $522, which makes the monthly benefit a whole $661, so the annual total is $7,932."
-us,scenario_109,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It subtracted half of the SE tax from countable income, which SNAP does not allow. It also used a made-up $1,316 maximum allotment instead of $1,183. Its final $244 a month does not even follow from its own numbers: $1,316 minus 30% of $1,830 is about $767."
-us,scenario_109,snap,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave $0 even though the household passes every test. Gross income of $2,500 a month is well under the limit, net income of $1,739 is under 100% FPL, and $900 in assets is under the limit. The correct benefit is $1,183 − $522 = $661 a month."
-us,scenario_109,snap,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $1,613 maximum allotment for five people, far above the actual FY2026 figure of $1,183. It also used a $240 standard deduction instead of $261. That inflated the benefit to about $1,085 a month instead of $661."
-us,scenario_109,snap,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It cut self-employment income by 7.65% for SE tax, which SNAP does not deduct, and used a $217 standard deduction instead of $261. It also applied a shelter deduction even though $800 rent is below half of adjusted income ($869.50). Its $11,436 result is about $953 a month, which does not match its own ~$717 monthly estimate."
-us,scenario_109,snap,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It claimed an excess shelter deduction, but $800 rent is below half of the $1,739 adjusted income, so none applies. Its $424 monthly benefit implies a contribution of about $759 against the $1,183 maximum. That would mean net income above the $2,500 gross income, so the deductions were not actually applied. The correct net income is $1,739, which gives $661 a month."
-us,scenario_109,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It guessed a $1,017 maximum allotment and a $228 standard deduction. The FY2026 values for five people are $1,183 and $261. That produced $485 a month instead of $661."
-us,scenario_109,snap,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It counted six people instead of five and reduced SE income by an SE-tax factor. It then said net income was over the limit, which contradicts its own figures showing income well below both limits. The correct result is a $661 monthly benefit."
-us,scenario_109,snap,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the correct $1,739 net income and $1,183 maximum. However, it annualized the unrounded $661.30 to get $7,936. SNAP rounds the contribution up to $522 and pays a whole $661 a month, which is $7,932 a year."
-us,scenario_109,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $350 standard deduction instead of the FY2026 five-person value of $261, and a $1,185 maximum instead of $1,183. That understated net income ($1,650 vs $1,739) and overstated the benefit ($690 vs $661 a month)."
-us,scenario_109,snap,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $232 standard deduction instead of $261, which overstated net income ($1,768 vs $1,739) and the contribution ($530 vs $522). It also used a $1,184 maximum instead of $1,183. The result was $654 a month instead of $661."
-us,scenario_109,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $244 standard deduction and a $1,158 maximum allotment instead of the FY2026 values of $261 and $1,183. That gave $631 a month instead of $661."
-us,scenario_109,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its maximum allotment ($1,183) was correct, but it used a $250 standard deduction instead of $261. That made net income $1,750 and the contribution $525, giving $658 a month instead of $661."
-us,scenario_109,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used net income of $1,750, which reflects a $250 standard deduction instead of $261. Its $695 monthly benefit also implies a maximum allotment of about $1,220 instead of $1,183, so the benefit was overstated."
-us,scenario_109,snap,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave no computation. Its $9,180 ($765 a month) implies either a maximum allotment well above $1,183 or net income far below the correct $1,739. With the 20% earned income deduction and $261 standard deduction, and no shelter deduction, the benefit is $661 a month."
-us,scenario_109,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied an excess shelter deduction, but $800 rent is below half of the $1,739 adjusted income ($869.50), so the deduction is zero. Its $786 a month implies net income of about $1,323 instead of $1,739."
-us,scenario_109,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $250 standard deduction instead of $261, giving net income of $1,750. Its $665 a month also implies a maximum allotment of about $1,190 instead of $1,183. Both errors push the benefit above the correct $661."
-us,scenario_109,snap,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave $0 with no computation, even though the household passes the gross income, net income and asset tests. The correct result is $1,183 minus a $522 contribution, or $661 a month."
-us,scenario_109,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It treated the $800 rent as producing a deduction. The excess shelter deduction is only the amount of shelter costs above half of adjusted income ($869.50), which here is zero. Its $752.50 a month overstates the correct $661."
-us,scenario_109,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave no computation, and $8,784 ($732 a month) is not a whole-dollar result of the FY2026 rules. With $1,739 net income and a $1,183 maximum, the benefit is $661 a month. Its number implies an inflated maximum allotment or understated net income."
-us,scenario_109,snap,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave no computation. Its $675 a month exceeds the correct $1,183 − $522 = $661, so it used too high a maximum allotment or too large a deduction instead of the $261 standard deduction and $500 earned income deduction."
-us,scenario_109,snap,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used FY2025-level values: a $236 standard deduction and a $1,155 maximum allotment, instead of the FY2026 values of $261 and $1,183. It also annualized the unrounded $625.80. The result was $7,509.60 instead of $7,932."
-us,scenario_109,snap,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $258 standard deduction and a $1,180 maximum allotment instead of $261 and $1,183. That gave about $657 a month instead of $661."
-us,scenario_109,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It described the household as having very low net income and high shelter costs. In fact net income is $1,739 and rent is below half of adjusted income, so there is no shelter deduction. Its $5,816 ($485 a month) does not follow from the $1,183 maximum minus the $522 contribution, which is $661."
-us,scenario_109,snap,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed no take-up and returned $0, but the prompt says to assume program take-up. The household is eligible for $661 a month."
-us,scenario_109,snap,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $659 a month is $2 below the correct $661. It used a slightly wrong standard deduction or maximum allotment instead of the FY2026 values of $261 and $1,183, which give a $522 contribution."
-us,scenario_109,snap,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $659 a month is $2 below the correct $661. That reflects a parameter slightly off from the FY2026 $261 standard deduction and $1,183 maximum allotment, which give net income of $1,739 and a contribution of $522."
-us,scenario_109,snap,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its parameters were correct, but it computed 12 × $661.30 = $7,935.60. SNAP rounds the contribution up to $522, which makes the monthly benefit a whole $661, so the annual total is $7,932."
-us,scenario_109,snap,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $8,045 equals about $670.42 a month, which is neither a whole-dollar allotment nor consistent with the FY2026 rules. A $261 standard deduction and $1,183 maximum give $661 a month."
-us,scenario_109,snap,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It derived $661.30 a month correctly but did not round to a whole dollar before annualizing. SNAP pays $661 a month after rounding the contribution up to $522, which is $7,932 a year, not $7,935.60."
-us,scenario_109,snap,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said income and assets exceed SNAP limits, but they do not. Gross income of $2,500 a month is far below 130% FPL (about $4,079 for five), net income of $1,739 is below 100% FPL, and $900 in assets is under the limit. The correct benefit is $661 a month."
-us,scenario_109,snap,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It projected a $1,213 maximum allotment instead of the actual FY2026 $1,183, and a standard deduction of about $256 instead of $261. That overstated the benefit at $690 a month instead of $661."
-us,scenario_109,snap,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a maximum allotment of about $1,190 instead of $1,183. Its net income of about $1,740 was close to the correct $1,739, so the benefit came out at $668 a month instead of $661."
-us,scenario_109,snap,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $254 standard deduction and a $1,158 maximum allotment instead of the FY2026 values of $261 and $1,183. It also computed the benefit on an annual basis without whole-dollar monthly rounding, giving $7,610.40."
-us,scenario_109,snap,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $1,189 maximum allotment instead of $1,183 and a $254 standard deduction instead of $261. It also made a subtraction error: $2,000 − $254 is $1,746, not $1,740. The result was $667 a month instead of $661."
-us,scenario_109,snap,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a ~$250 standard deduction instead of $261 and a ~$1,190 maximum allotment instead of $1,183. That gave $665 a month instead of $661."
-us,scenario_109,snap,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It projected a $300 monthly standard deduction instead of $261 and a $1,220 maximum allotment instead of $1,183. That understated net income ($1,700) and overstated the benefit ($710 vs $661 a month)."
-us,scenario_109,snap,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied an excess shelter deduction and treated net income as about $0. In fact rent is below half of adjusted income, so there is no shelter deduction and net income is $1,739. It also used a $1,151 maximum instead of $1,183, and its $489 monthly result does not follow from its own premises."
-us,scenario_109,snap,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $1,158 maximum allotment instead of the FY2026 $1,183. Its $1,704 net income implies a standard deduction of about $296 instead of $261. The result was $647 a month instead of $661."
-us,scenario_109,snap,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its reasoning added a ~$400 Florida standard utility allowance even though no utility costs are listed, and used a $306 standard deduction instead of $261. That created a shelter deduction that does not exist. The $7,920 it submitted (and the $9,400 in its reasoning) both miss $661 a month, which is $7,932 a year."
-us,scenario_109,snap,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It treated the household as getting a near-maximum benefit with a $962 cap. The FY2026 maximum for five is $1,183, and net income of $1,739 requires a $522 contribution. The correct benefit is $661 a month, not $962."
-us,scenario_109,snap,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a four-person household instead of five and treated countable net income as zero. Net income after the $500 earned income and $261 standard deductions is $1,739, which reduces the $1,183 five-person maximum to $661 a month."
+us,scenario_109,snap,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used outdated parameters ($225 standard deduction, $1,158 max allotment) and got about $626/month. It then dropped that result and cut the benefit to $3,768 for unspecified 'payroll/SE adjustments', but SNAP counts gross self-employment income less business costs and gives no deduction for SE tax. The correct calculation is $1,183 − 30%×$1,739 (rounded up to $522) = $661/month."
+us,scenario_109,snap,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the right inputs ($261 standard deduction, $1,739 net income, $1,183 max) but kept the unrounded $661.30/month. SNAP rounds the 30% expected contribution up to the next whole dollar ($521.70 → $522), which makes the benefit $661/month and $7,932/year, not $7,936."
+us,scenario_109,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It took half of SE tax off gross income (SNAP allows no such deduction) and used a $1,316 max allotment instead of $1,183. Its final $244/month does not follow even from its own figures. Correctly, net income is $2,500 − $500 − $261 = $1,739, and the benefit is $1,183 − $522 = $661/month."
+us,scenario_109,snap,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It wrongly treated the household as ineligible. Gross income of $2,500/month is far below 130% of the five-person poverty line (about $4,079/month), net income of $1,739 is below 100% of FPL, and $900 in assets passes the asset test. The benefit is $661/month."
+us,scenario_109,snap,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It guessed the five-person max allotment at about $1,613/month instead of the FY2026 figure of $1,183, and used a $240 standard deduction instead of $261. That overstated the benefit at $1,085/month instead of $661."
+us,scenario_109,snap,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It cut SE income by 7.65% for SE tax, which SNAP does not do, and applied an excess shelter deduction even though $800 rent is less than half of the $1,739 adjusted income ($869.50). That pushed the benefit far above the correct $661/month ($1,183 − $522)."
+us,scenario_109,snap,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It claimed an excess shelter deduction applies from the $9,600 rent, but $800/month is below half of the $1,739 adjusted income, so the deduction is zero. Its $424/month does not follow from the correct net income: $1,183 − 30%×$1,739 (rounded to $522) = $661/month."
+us,scenario_109,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It projected the five-person max allotment at $1,017 from a wrong FY2025 base, when the FY2026 figure is $1,183. It also used the $228 standard deduction instead of $261 for a five-person household, which gave $485/month instead of $661."
+us,scenario_109,snap,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It counted six members when the household has five, and took SE tax off income. It then concluded net income exceeds the limit even though its own numbers pass both tests. Net income is $1,739, far below the five-person 100% FPL limit of $3,137.50, so the benefit is $661/month."
+us,scenario_109,snap,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the right $261 standard deduction, $1,739 net income and $1,183 max, but annualized the unrounded $661.30. SNAP rounds the 30% contribution up to $522, so the benefit is $661/month and $7,932/year."
+us,scenario_109,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $350 standard deduction instead of the FY2026 five-person figure of $261, and a $1,185 max instead of $1,183. That understated net income at $1,650 instead of $1,739 and overstated the benefit at $690/month instead of $661."
+us,scenario_109,snap,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $232 standard deduction instead of $261, overstating net income at $1,768 instead of $1,739. It also used a $1,184 max instead of $1,183 and rounded the contribution down instead of up, which gave $654/month instead of $661."
+us,scenario_109,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the FY2025 five-person max allotment of $1,158 instead of the FY2026 figure of $1,183, and a $244 standard deduction instead of $261. That gave $631/month instead of $661."
+us,scenario_109,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It had the right $1,183 max but used a $250 standard deduction instead of $261. That understated net income at $1,750 instead of $1,739, raised the contribution to $525 instead of $522, and gave $658/month instead of $661."
+us,scenario_109,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used net income of $1,750 (understated standard deduction) and a $695/month benefit, which implies a max allotment of about $1,220 instead of $1,183. The correct benefit is $1,183 − 30%×$1,739 (rounded to $522) = $661."
+us,scenario_109,snap,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $765/month is about $104 too high, which matches removing about $347 more from net income, as an invented shelter/utility deduction would. Rent of $800 is below half of $1,739 and no utility costs are listed, so there is no excess shelter deduction and the benefit is $661/month."
+us,scenario_109,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied an excess shelter deduction, which pushed the benefit to $786/month. Rent of $800 is less than half of the $1,739 adjusted income and no utility expenses are listed (so no Florida SUA), so the shelter deduction is $0 and the benefit is $661/month."
+us,scenario_109,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a standard deduction of about $250 instead of $261 (net $1,750 instead of $1,739). Its $665/month implies a max allotment of about $1,190 instead of $1,183, so it overstated the correct $661/month."
+us,scenario_109,snap,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It returned $0 without computing anything, treating an eligible household as ineligible. Gross income of $2,500/month passes the 130% FPL test, net income is $1,739, and the benefit is $1,183 − $522 = $661/month."
+us,scenario_109,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It treated the $800 rent as a deduction, but only shelter costs above half of adjusted income are deductible. Since $800 < $869.50, the excess shelter deduction is $0, net income stays at $1,739, and the benefit is $661/month, not about $752."
+us,scenario_109,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $732/month is $71 too high, which matches taking about $237 extra off net income through a shelter deduction that does not exist here. Rent of $800 is below half of $1,739, so net income is $1,739 and the benefit is $661/month."
+us,scenario_109,snap,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $675/month is $14 above the correct $661, which matches an overstated max allotment (about $1,197 instead of $1,183) or an overstated standard deduction. The correct calculation is $1,183 − 30%×($2,500 − $500 − $261), with the contribution rounded up to $522."
+us,scenario_109,snap,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used $299, the FY2026 standard deduction for households of 6 or more, instead of $261 for five people. That understated net income at $1,701 instead of $1,739 and gave $672/month instead of $661."
+us,scenario_109,snap,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $236 standard deduction instead of $261 and a $1,155 max allotment instead of $1,183. It also kept the unrounded contribution, which gave $625.80/month instead of $661."
+us,scenario_109,snap,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It approximated the standard deduction at $258 instead of $261 and the max allotment at $1,180 instead of $1,183. That gave $657/month instead of $661 ($1,183 − $522)."
+us,scenario_109,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It described the household as having very low net income and high shelter costs, but net income is $1,739 and the $800 rent produces no excess shelter deduction. Its $484.67/month is well below the correct $1,183 − $522 = $661/month."
+us,scenario_109,snap,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed no take-up and returned $0, ignoring the instruction to assume program take-up. The household passes every test and receives $661/month."
+us,scenario_109,snap,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It reached $659/month instead of $661, which matches a slightly understated max allotment or a standard deduction other than $261. The correct inputs are net income of $1,739, a contribution rounded up to $522, and a $1,183 max."
+us,scenario_109,snap,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It stated $659/month instead of $661, so it used slightly wrong FY2026 parameters. The correct figures are a $261 standard deduction, a $1,183 max allotment, and a 30% contribution of $522 (rounded up from $521.70)."
+us,scenario_109,snap,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the right parameters ($261 standard deduction, $1,739 net income, $1,183 max) but annualized $661.30/month. SNAP rounds the expected contribution up to the whole dollar ($522), so the benefit is $661/month and $7,932/year."
+us,scenario_109,snap,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $8,045 per year is about $670/month, roughly $9 too high, and not a whole-dollar monthly benefit. That matches an understated standard deduction or overstated max allotment, against the correct $1,183 − $522 = $661/month."
+us,scenario_109,snap,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It computed $661.30/month from the right inputs but did not round the 30% contribution ($521.70) up to $522. That left it at $7,935.60 instead of $661 × 12 = $7,932."
+us,scenario_109,snap,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It claimed income and assets exceed SNAP limits, but $2,500/month is well under 130% FPL for five (about $4,079), net income of $1,739 is under 100% FPL, and $900 in assets passes the asset test. The benefit is $661/month."
+us,scenario_109,snap,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It projected a $1,213 max allotment instead of the FY2026 five-person figure of $1,183, and used net income of $1,744 instead of $1,739. That gave $690/month instead of $661."
+us,scenario_109,snap,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a max allotment of about $1,190 instead of $1,183, with net income of about $1,740. That gave $668/month instead of $661 ($1,183 − $522)."
+us,scenario_109,snap,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used FY2025 parameters, a $254 standard deduction and a $1,158 max allotment, instead of the FY2026 figures of $261 and $1,183. It also skipped monthly contribution rounding, which gave $7,610.40 instead of $7,932."
+us,scenario_109,snap,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the FY2025 standard deduction of $254 instead of $261 and a $1,189 max instead of $1,183. That gave $667/month instead of $661."
+us,scenario_109,snap,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a standard deduction of about $250 instead of $261 and a max allotment of about $1,190 instead of $1,183. That gave $665/month instead of $661."
+us,scenario_109,snap,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $300/month standard deduction instead of $261 and projected a $1,220 max allotment instead of $1,183. That gave $710/month instead of $661."
+us,scenario_109,snap,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It claimed an excess shelter deduction drives net income to about $0, but $800 rent is below half of the $1,739 adjusted income, so there is no shelter deduction. Its $489/month and $1,151 max are both wrong; the correct benefit is $1,183 − $522 = $661/month."
+us,scenario_109,snap,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the FY2025 max allotment of $1,158 instead of the FY2026 figure of $1,183, and a standard deduction giving $1,742 net instead of $1,739. It also skipped contribution rounding, which gave $635.40/month instead of $661."
+us,scenario_109,snap,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the FY2025 max allotment of $1,158 instead of $1,183 and an overstated standard deduction of about $296 (net $1,704 instead of $1,739). That gave $647/month instead of $661."
+us,scenario_109,snap,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its explanation added a roughly $400 Florida utility allowance to rent and produced a $356 excess shelter deduction, but no utility expenses are listed, so no SUA applies and the $800 rent alone is below half of adjusted income. It also used a $306 standard deduction instead of $261. The explanation reaches $9,400, contradicting the submitted $7,920 ($660/month); the correct benefit is $661/month."
+us,scenario_109,snap,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave the full maximum allotment as if net income were zero, and used $962 instead of the FY2026 five-person max of $1,183. Net income is $1,739, which reduces the benefit by $522 to $661/month."
+us,scenario_109,snap,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It treated the unit as four people instead of five ($998 max instead of $1,183) and assumed net income was zero. After the earned income and standard deductions, net income is still $1,739, so the benefit is $1,183 − $522 = $661/month."
us,scenario_109,spouse_medicaid_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model invented a federal minimum Medicaid pathway for any household member with no individual income and few assets. Florida requires this nondisabled adult to satisfy a covered category, and Medicaid MAGI eligibility uses household income rather than treating the spouse’s unlisted personal income as an isolated $0 eligibility base."
us,scenario_109,spouse_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model correctly calculated that household income exceeds Florida’s parent/caretaker limit and explicitly concluded that the spouse is not eligible, but then submitted value 1. No alternative Medicaid category applies to reverse its own eligibility analysis."
us,scenario_109,spouse_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model improperly converted the presence of an infant into pregnancy or postpartum eligibility. An age-zero child does not establish that the spouse is pregnant, postpartum, or the child’s mother, and caretaker status alone fails because household income exceeds Florida’s parent/caretaker threshold."
@@ -8945,52 +9230,54 @@ us,scenario_109,spouse_wic_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,categorical_eligib
us,scenario_109,spouse_wic_eligible,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model assumed the spouse was the postpartum mother of the infant. Because postpartum status is not listed, it is false under the prompt, leaving the spouse outside every adult WIC category."
us,scenario_109,spouse_wic_eligible,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model inferred postpartum or breastfeeding status from the spouse's age and the infant's presence. Neither fact establishes the spouse's own qualifying status, and the prompt explicitly makes those unlisted statuses false."
us,scenario_109,spouse_wic_eligible,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model inferred recent postpartum status or current breastfeeding from the existence of a zero-year-old child. Those personal statuses were unlisted and therefore false, so the spouse fails categorical eligibility before the income threshold affects the result."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its own working reached $25,841, using the right AGI, standard deduction and brackets, but it submitted $21,120, a figure with no support in its reasoning. Its computed figure also leaves out the 2026 non-itemizer charitable deduction for the $387 of cash gifts, which brings taxable income down to $153,455 and the tax to $25,748."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,000 standard deduction instead of the 2026 figure of $16,100, deducted the $198 traditional IRA even though the deduction is phased out for an active plan participant at this income, and put ordinary tax at $21,009 using outdated brackets. It then subtracted an invented $1,300 of nonrefundable credits, although none apply, and it never took the $387 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,missing_output,False,"It submitted 0 as a placeholder without computing anything, even though its own reasoning said the tax is substantial. The correct calculation is AGI $169,943, minus the $16,100 standard deduction and the $387 charitable deduction, giving $19,615 of ordinary tax plus $6,133 at 15%, or $25,748."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used guessed bracket thresholds ($12,150/$49,400/$105,450) rather than the 2026 single thresholds of $12,400/$50,400/$105,700, which pushed ordinary tax up to $19,818. It also left out the $387 non-itemizer cash charitable deduction, which brings ordinary taxable income down to $112,572."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It allowed the $198 traditional IRA deduction even though the active-participant phaseout eliminates it at about $170k of MAGI. It also set the top of the 22% bracket at about $107,500 instead of $105,700 and never applied the $387 non-itemizer charitable deduction. These errors happened to offset and landed near $25,758."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"It counted the preferential-rate tax twice, adding $6,133 on top of a $26,150 figure that already included it, for $30,150. It also took the phased-out $198 IRA deduction and missed the $387 non-itemizer charitable deduction. The correct total is $19,615 ordinary tax plus $6,133 at 15%."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It made up a $10,400 qualified-overtime deduction from the hourly rate and weekly hours, although no overtime compensation is reported. It also deducted the phased-out $198 IRA contribution and left out the $387 non-itemizer charitable deduction. Together these brought taxable income down to $143,245 instead of $153,455."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used $15,750, the 2025 standard deduction, instead of $16,100 for 2026, and inflated the 2025 brackets itself instead of using $12,400/$50,400/$105,700. It also never applied the $387 non-itemizer cash charitable deduction, so ordinary tax came out at $19,933 rather than $19,615."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the TCJA would revert and itemized $5,331 of unreimbursed employee expenses above the 2% floor, a deduction that has been permanently eliminated. It also used 2025 brackets, and then replaced its own $26,045 result with an unsupported $20,200. The correct calculation uses the $16,100 standard deduction plus the $387 cash charitable deduction."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It got AGI, the $16,100 standard deduction and the 2026 brackets right, but missed the 2026 non-itemizer deduction for the $387 of cash charitable gifts. Ordinary income was therefore taxed on $112,959 instead of $112,572, leaving its answer about $93 too high."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,000 standard deduction instead of $16,100 for 2026 and deducted the $198 IRA contribution, which is phased out for an active participant. It also missed the $387 non-itemizer charitable deduction and applied outdated bracket thresholds, so its ordinary tax came out at $20,174."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied pre-TCJA rules: a $4,850 personal exemption, a $6,800 standard deduction, 2%-floor employee expenses and 10–28% brackets. It also excluded ESI premiums from wages, and its ordinary tax of $32,490 doesn't follow from its own taxable income. Under 2026 law the correct calculation uses the $16,100 standard deduction plus the $387 charitable deduction on AGI of $169,943."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took $6,889 of ESI premiums out of wages and deducted the phased-out $198 IRA contribution. It also applied a $5,450 personal exemption, an $8,650 standard deduction and itemized deductions as if the TCJA had expired. The correct calculation keeps wages at $95,755 and uses the $16,100 standard deduction plus the $387 cash charitable deduction."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the 2026 non-itemizer deduction for the $387 of cash charitable gifts. Taxable income should be $153,455 rather than $153,843, which brings ordinary tax down to $19,615 instead of $19,708."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the TCJA would sunset, so it applied a $5,050 personal exemption and itemized $5,331 of unreimbursed employee expenses above a 2% floor. Neither exists under the permanent 2026 rules, which use the $16,100 standard deduction plus the $387 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,other,False,"Its $19,688 matches only the ordinary-rate tax, which is about $19,600–$19,700. It left out the $6,133 of 15% tax on the $40,884 of qualified dividends and long-term gains, and it did not apply the $387 charitable deduction."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took pre-tax health premiums out of wages and assumed the TCJA had sunset, applying personal exemptions and itemized deductions. Under 2026 law the correct calculation uses wages of $95,755, the $16,100 standard deduction and the $387 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used pre-TCJA rules: a $5,050 personal exemption and an itemized total that includes 2%-floor unreimbursed employee expenses. Both were permanently eliminated, so the correct deductions are the $16,100 standard deduction plus the $387 non-itemizer cash charitable deduction, giving $25,748."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,other,False,"Its $19,679 is roughly just the ordinary-rate tax on about $112.6k of ordinary taxable income. It never added the $6,133 of 15% tax on the $40,884 of qualified dividends and long-term capital gains."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the $6,889 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums out of wages, which gave an AGI of $163,054. The 401(k) deferral is the only reduction to wages, so wages are $95,755 and AGI is $169,943. That lower AGI pulled its tax down to $22,415."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started from an AGI of $163,054 by excluding the $6,889 of ESI premiums from wages, but only the $4,245 traditional 401(k) reduces wages, so AGI is $169,943. That understated taxable income and gave $22,765."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,350 standard deduction instead of $16,100 for 2026 and missed the $387 non-itemizer charitable deduction. As a result it taxed $113,709 of ordinary income instead of $112,572."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a guessed $15,400 standard deduction and 2025 bracket thresholds ($11,925/$48,475/$103,350) instead of the 2026 figures ($16,100; $12,400/$50,400/$105,700). It also never took the $387 non-itemizer cash charitable deduction."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It put the $40,884 of qualified dividends and LTCG in the 0% bracket. Because they stack on top of $112,572 of ordinary income, well above the 0% threshold of about $49,450, all of that income is taxed at 15% ($6,133). It also missed the $387 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,missing_output,False,"Its reasoning says the tax stays positive, yet it submitted 0 without doing any calculation. The correct calculation gives $19,615 of ordinary tax plus $6,133 of 15% preferential tax, or $25,748."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $16,811 is about $8,900 too low. That is consistent with applying medical and itemized deductions that don't beat the standard deduction and with not taxing the $40,884 of preferential income at 15%. The correct calculation uses the $16,100 standard deduction plus the $387 cash charitable deduction, giving $25,748."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the standard deduction but left out the 2026 non-itemizer deduction for the $387 of cash gifts. Taxable income should be $153,455 rather than $153,843, and the tax $25,748 rather than $25,841."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the $387 non-itemizer charitable deduction correctly, but its $25,611 is $137 short, the equivalent of about $570 of extra deductions or bracket error at the 24% rate. With AGI of $169,943, the $16,100 standard deduction and the 2026 brackets, ordinary tax is $19,615.21 and preferential tax is $6,132.56."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It missed the 2026 non-itemizer charitable deduction for the $387 of cash donations, so it taxed $388 too much ordinary income at 24%. That left its answer about $93 above $25,748."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied only the $16,100 standard deduction and skipped the extra 2026 non-itemizer deduction for the $387 of cash charitable gifts. Its $25,840.76 is therefore $92.99 too high."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took $6,889 of ESI premiums out of wages, giving an AGI of $163,054 instead of $169,943. It also claimed an estimated $9,000 qualified-overtime deduction even though no overtime compensation is reported. Only the $16,100 standard deduction and the $387 charitable deduction apply."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the 2026 non-itemizer deduction for the $387 of cash gifts, so taxable income stayed at $153,843 instead of $153,455. That overstated the 24%-bracket tax by about $93."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted $8,400 of qualified overtime even though no overtime compensation is reported, and it left out the $387 non-itemizer charitable deduction. The correct taxable income is $153,455, not $145,443."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the $6,889 of employer-plan premiums out of wages, giving an AGI of $163,054. Only the $4,245 traditional 401(k) reduces wages, so AGI is $169,943 and ordinary taxable income is $112,572 rather than $105,683."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,other,False,"It guessed about $24.5k without doing a calculation, and assumed nonrefundable credits that don't apply to a single filer with no dependents. The correct calculation gives $19,615 of ordinary tax plus $6,133 of 15% preferential tax, or $25,748."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied restored pre-TCJA 2026 rules, including a personal exemption of about $5,300, 2%-floor employee expenses and the old 10/15/25% brackets. The TCJA structure is permanent, so the correct calculation uses the $16,100 standard deduction, the $387 non-itemizer charitable deduction and the 10/12/22/24% brackets."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the TCJA would sunset, applying a $5,300 personal exemption, $5,331 of 2%-floor employee expenses and the 10/15/25% brackets. Under permanent 2026 law the deductions are the $16,100 standard deduction plus the $387 cash charitable deduction, taxed at the 10/12/22/24% rates."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used post-TCJA-expiration rules: a $5,450 personal exemption, itemized deductions that include $5,331 of 2%-floor employee expenses, and the 10/15/25% brackets. The correct calculation uses the permanent $16,100 standard deduction plus the $387 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted the phased-out $198 IRA contribution and applied pre-TCJA rules: a $5,387 personal exemption, 2%-floor miscellaneous deductions and the 10/15/25% brackets. The correct calculation uses AGI of $169,943, the $16,100 standard deduction and the $387 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized $21,146 by adding $5,331 of 2%-floor unreimbursed employee expenses, which are permanently non-deductible, plus an estimated Ohio income tax. Without those, the filer takes the $16,100 standard deduction plus the $387 non-itemizer charitable deduction, giving taxable income of $153,455 rather than $148,797."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It gave no answer or explanation for this variable, so there was nothing to score. The correct value is $19,615.21 of ordinary tax plus $6,132.56 of capital gains tax, or $25,747.77."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed an $8,425.50 phased overtime deduction even though no overtime compensation is reported, and deducted the $198 IRA contribution, which is phased out for an active participant. Those errors cut taxable income to $144,833 instead of $153,455, although it applied the $387 charitable deduction correctly."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,missing_output,False,"It submitted 0 on the strength of a claimed PolicyEngine result it never actually computed. A single filer with AGI of $169,943 and no credits owes $19,615 of ordinary tax plus $6,133 of 15% preferential tax, or $25,748."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the employer health premiums out of wages, giving an AGI of $163,054. Only the $4,245 traditional 401(k) reduces wages, so AGI is $169,943, and with the $16,100 standard deduction plus the $387 charitable deduction the tax is $25,748."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,other,False,"Its own working reached $26,973, but it submitted an unrelated $43,879.20. That working was also off: it left out the $4,245 401(k) deferral and the $18 of STCG, used a $15,750 standard deduction and rough brackets, and omitted the $387 charitable deduction."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reported AGI of $113,617, dropping about $56k of the interest, dividend and capital gains income, so the real AGI is $169,943. It also invented a QBI deduction and $194.77 of nonrefundable credits, although the filer has no qualified business income and no credits."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its own derivation reached $25,841 but it submitted an unrelated $21,120. The derivation also omitted the 2026 non-itemizer cash charitable deduction of $387 on top of the $16,100 standard deduction, which lowers 24%-bracket income by $387."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the pre-OBBBA $15,000 standard deduction instead of $16,100, deducted the $198 traditional IRA even though the deduction is fully phased out for an active participant at $169,943 MAGI, and omitted the $387 non-itemizer charitable deduction. It then invented a $1,300 nonrefundable credit to move from $27,137 to $25,837, but no nonrefundable credits apply."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,missing_output,False,"It never computed the tax and submitted 0 as a placeholder while admitting the liability is substantial. The correct computation gives $19,615 of ordinary tax plus $6,133 of preferential-rate tax, for $25,748."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used outdated bracket thresholds ($12,150/$49,400/$105,450) instead of the 2026 OBBBA values ($12,400/$50,400/$105,700). It also omitted the $387 non-itemizer cash charitable deduction, so its ordinary tax of $19,818 is too high."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted the $198 traditional IRA contribution even though the deduction is fully phased out for an active plan participant at this MAGI. It also set the top of the 22% bracket at $107,500 instead of $105,700 and skipped the $387 non-itemizer charitable deduction. Its errors happened to roughly offset, giving $25,758."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"It counted the $6,133 preferential-rate tax twice: it rounded ordinary tax up to about $20,000, called the total $26,150, then added the capital gains tax again to reach $30,150. The correct total is $19,615 of ordinary tax plus $6,133."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took a $10,400 qualified overtime deduction by imputing overtime pay from 50 hours × $40, but no overtime premium is provided, so the deduction is zero. It also deducted the phased-out $198 IRA contribution and omitted the $387 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,750 standard deduction and guessed inflation-adjusted brackets ($12,150/$49,200/$104,900) instead of the 2026 OBBBA values ($16,100; $12,400/$50,400/$105,700). It also omitted the $387 non-itemizer cash charitable deduction."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized using a 2%-floor miscellaneous deduction for unreimbursed employee expenses, but OBBBA permanently eliminated that deduction. It then discarded its own $26,045 computation and submitted an arbitrary $20,200. The correct path is the $16,100 standard deduction plus the $387 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly applied the $16,100 standard deduction and 2026 brackets but missed the OBBBA non-itemizer cash charitable deduction. That deduction removes another $387 of 24%-bracket income, lowering tax from $25,841 to $25,748."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the outdated $15,000 standard deduction instead of $16,100, deducted the phased-out $198 IRA contribution, and omitted the $387 non-itemizer charitable deduction. Together these overstate taxable income and give $26,306."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset law (a $6,800 standard deduction, a $4,850 personal exemption, 2%-floor miscellaneous itemized deductions and a 28% bracket), but OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent for 2026. It also subtracted ESI premiums from wages and grossly overstated ordinary tax at $32,490."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset law (an $8,650 standard deduction, a $5,450 personal exemption and itemized deductions that include 2%-floor miscellaneous expenses), which OBBBA eliminated. It also subtracted the $6,889 ESI premiums from wages and deducted the phased-out $198 IRA contribution."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reached $25,840.76 using the correct standard deduction and brackets but omitted the 2026 non-itemizer cash charitable deduction. That $387 deduction cuts tax by $92.88 at the 24% rate."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed TCJA had expired, so it itemized with $5,331 of 2%-floor employee business expenses and added a $5,050 personal exemption. OBBBA made the TCJA rules permanent, so neither item exists in 2026 and the standard deduction plus the $387 charitable deduction applies."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,other,False,"Its $19,688 matches only the ordinary-rate tax on about $113k of ordinary income. It dropped the $6,133 of 15% tax on $40,884 of qualified dividends and long-term gains, and it also left out estate income."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It explicitly assumed TCJA sunset provisions (itemized deductions plus personal exemptions) for 2026, but OBBBA made the standard deduction and exemption repeal permanent. It also subtracted the health premiums from wages, even though the ESI premiums are not excluded from wages here."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied pre-TCJA rules: a $5,050 personal exemption and itemized deductions that include 2%-floor unreimbursed employee expenses. Both were eliminated permanently by OBBBA, so the $16,100 standard deduction plus the $387 non-itemizer charitable deduction governs."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,other,False,"Its $19,679 equals roughly the ordinary-rate tax alone (the correct figure is $19,615). It omitted the $6,133 of 15% tax on $40,884 of qualified dividends and long-term capital gains."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $6,889 employer-sponsored insurance premiums from wages, cutting AGI to $163,054, but only the $4,245 traditional 401(k) reduces wages here. It then applied further unexplained deductions that pushed tax below even the AGI-reduced figure of about $24,188."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It built AGI at $163,054 by excluding the $6,889 ESI premiums from wages, when only the 401(k) deferral reduces wages and AGI is $169,943. It then understated tax further to $22,765 with unexplained deductions."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $15,350 standard deduction instead of the 2026 OBBBA $16,100, mis-stated the bracket tax on ordinary income, and omitted the $387 non-itemizer cash charitable deduction."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the $16,100 standard deduction and correct brackets but missed the 2026 non-itemizer cash charitable deduction. That $387 deduction reduces 24%-bracket income and tax by $92.88 from its $25,840.76."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used 2025 bracket thresholds ($11,925/$48,475/$103,350) and a $15,400 standard deduction instead of the 2026 OBBBA values ($12,400/$50,400/$105,700; $16,100). It also omitted the $387 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It placed all $40,884 of qualified dividends and long-term gains in the 0% bracket. Preferential income is stacked on top of $112,572 of ordinary income, which is far above the $49,450 0% threshold, so all of it is taxed at 15% ($6,133). It also missed the $387 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,missing_output,False,"It stated that the tax 'remains positive' yet submitted 0 without computing anything. The correct computation gives $19,615 of ordinary tax plus $6,133 of capital gains tax."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"It submitted an unexplained guess of $16,811 without computing brackets. The correct computation, on taxable income of $153,455, gives $19,615 of ordinary tax plus $6,133 at 15%, so its figure is $8,937 too low."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It computed $25,840.76 using only the $16,100 standard deduction and missed the 2026 non-itemizer cash charitable deduction. That deduction removes another $387 from taxable income, a $92.88 tax reduction at 24%."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly identified the $387 non-itemizer charitable deduction, but its $25,611 is $136.77 below the correct total. That gap equals roughly $570 of extra deduction at 24%, whereas the correct computation applies only $16,100 plus $387 to AGI of $169,943 with no IRA deduction."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied only the $16,100 standard deduction and omitted the OBBBA non-itemizer cash charitable deduction of $387. That leaves taxable income $387 too high and gives $25,841 instead of $25,748."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It missed the 2026 non-itemizer charitable deduction for the $387 of cash gifts, which is allowed in addition to the $16,100 standard deduction. Its $25,840.76 is $92.88 too high."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It excluded the $6,889 ESI premiums from wages, cutting AGI to $163,054, and invented a $9,000 qualified overtime deduction, though no overtime premium is provided so that deduction is zero. Only the $4,245 401(k) deferral reduces wages."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the standard deduction alone and never applied the 2026 non-itemizer cash charitable deduction of $387. Its taxable income is therefore $153,843 instead of $153,455, and its tax is $25,841."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted an imputed $8,400 of qualified overtime, but no overtime premium input exists, so the overtime deduction is zero. It also omitted the $387 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the $6,889 employer-sponsored insurance premiums as a pre-tax wage reduction, lowering AGI to $163,054. Wages are reduced only by the $4,245 traditional 401(k), so AGI is $169,943 and taxable income is $153,455."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,other,False,"It gave a rough $24,500 and cited itemized deductions and 'standard nonrefundable credits', but itemizing loses to the standard deduction here and no nonrefundable credits apply. The correct computation is $19,615 of ordinary tax plus $6,133 at 15%."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired in 2026, applying a personal exemption, 2%-floor employee-expense deductions and pre-TCJA brackets. OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent, so the $16,100 standard deduction, the $387 charitable deduction and the 10/12/22/24% brackets apply."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset law (restored 10/15/25% brackets, a $5,300 personal exemption and 2%-floor miscellaneous deductions), all of which OBBBA permanently repealed for 2026. The correct result uses the $16,100 standard deduction plus the $387 charitable deduction under the 10/12/22/24% brackets."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used post-TCJA-expiration rules (a $5,450 personal exemption, 2%-floor employee expenses and 10/15/25% brackets) even though OBBBA made the TCJA framework permanent. That overstated itemized deductions and misstated the bracket tax."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset law (personal exemption, 2%-floor miscellaneous deductions, 10/15/25% brackets) and deducted the $198 IRA contribution, which is phased out for an active participant at this MAGI. The correct path is the $16,100 standard deduction plus the $387 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized $21,146, including $5,331 of 2%-floor unreimbursed employee expenses. OBBBA permanently eliminated that deduction, which leaves itemized deductions below the standard deduction. With the $16,100 standard deduction plus $387 charitable, taxable income is $153,455, not $148,797."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no value or explanation for this variable, so no answer was available to score."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took an $8,425.50 qualified overtime deduction from an imputed $10,400 premium, but no overtime premium is provided, so the deduction is zero. It also deducted the $198 traditional IRA contribution, which is phased out for an active participant. It correctly included the $387 charitable deduction."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,missing_output,False,"It falsely claimed the engine returned 0 and did no computation. Taxable income of $153,455 yields $19,615 of ordinary tax plus $6,133 of capital gains tax."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $26,360 exceeds even the figure without the charitable deduction ($25,841), so it used outdated standard deduction and bracket parameters instead of the 2026 OBBBA values. It also omitted the $387 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reduced wages by the $6,889 employer health premiums to reach AGI of $163,054, but only the $4,245 traditional 401(k) deferral reduces wages. AGI is $169,943 and taxable income is $153,455."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,other,False,"Its own reasoning reached $26,973, yet it submitted an unrelated $43,879.20. The derivation also failed to subtract the $4,245 traditional 401(k), left out short-term gains, used guessed brackets and missed the $387 charitable deduction."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It understated AGI as $113,617 by dropping most investment income; the correct AGI is $169,943. It also applied a QBI deduction and $194.77 of nonrefundable credits, even though there is no qualified business income and no credit applies."
us,scenario_110,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_110,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"Its own reasoning says employee Social Security and Medicare on $100,000 of wages come to about $7,650, but it submitted 0 anyway. It skipped the final computation and returned a placeholder zero instead of the $6,200 + $1,450 it had already identified."
us,scenario_110,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It treated the $6,889 employer-sponsored insurance premium as a pre-tax cafeteria-plan deduction and cut FICA wages to $93,111. The household facts list no salary reduction, so FICA applies to the full $100,000 of gross wages, giving $6,200 + $1,450 = $7,650."
@@ -9010,54 +9297,56 @@ us,scenario_110,payroll_tax,muse-wonder,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It red
us,scenario_110,payroll_tax,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,other,False,"Its reasoning correctly computed $6,200 Social Security plus $1,450 Medicare = $7,650, but it submitted the unrelated figure $9,351.90. The final value contradicts its own derivation."
us,scenario_110,payroll_tax,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It added a $252.55 Additional Medicare Tax even though the only wages are $100,000, well below the $200,000 single-filer threshold. The 0.9% tax applies only to wages and self-employment income, not investment income, so the correct total is $6,200 + $1,450 = $7,650."
us,scenario_110,self_employment_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its own working reached $4,265.55, but it submitted $5,052 with no derivation behind that number. The working itself was also wrong: it used the old $360.69 base instead of the 2026 $332 base, deducted the $198 IRA contribution even though that deduction is phased out, and used a $1,700 exemption instead of $1,900."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got AGI ($169,943), the $1,900 exemption and taxable income ($168,043) right. It then applied 2.75% only to the amount over $26,050 and left out the $332 base, so it reached $3,905 instead of $332 + $3,904.81 = $4,236.81."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted a $15,000 federal-style standard deduction, but Ohio has no standard deduction and allows only the $1,900 personal exemption. It also deducted the phased-out $198 IRA contribution and guessed a progressive bracket result instead of applying $332 + 2.75% of taxable income over $26,050."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,missing_output,False,"It did no calculation and entered $0, even though Ohio taxable income of $168,043 produces $332 + 2.75% × $141,993 = $4,236.81."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an indexed $27,350 zero bracket and a 3.5% rate above $103,500, but neither applies in 2026; the 2026 rate is a flat 2.75% above $26,050 plus a $332 base. It then dropped its own $4,328 result and entered an arbitrary $2,900."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied 3.5% to all income over $26,050 on top of the old $360.69 base, getting $5,325, then submitted an unexplained $4,517. The 2026 schedule is $332 + 2.75% of the excess, and it also deducted the phased-out $198 IRA contribution."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It subtracted the $954 of tax-exempt interest even though that interest was never in AGI, and used a $2,500 exemption instead of $1,900. Its $3,900 result matches 2.75% of the excess over $26,050 with the $332 base left out."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It deducted the $198 IRA contribution even though that deduction is phased out for a high-income active plan participant, giving AGI of $169,745 instead of $169,943. It also applied 2.75% without the $332 base amount in Ohio's 2026 schedule."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted $10,915 of itemized deductions, but Ohio has no itemized deductions; only the $1,900 personal exemption reduces taxable income. It also applied a 3.5% rate instead of 2.75%, left out the $332 base, and took a $20 exemption credit that only applies when Ohio taxable income is under $30,000."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It invented higher brackets (3.5% and roughly 3.99%) and nonrefundable credits that the household does not qualify for. It also added back the $954 of tax-exempt interest, which does not change Ohio AGI here. Its $3,200 does not follow from the correct $332 + 2.75% × ($168,043 − $26,050) = $4,236.81."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It wrongly assumed there is no personal exemption at this income, but the $1,900 exemption applies above $80,000 of Ohio AGI. It also left out the $332 base and taxed $143,893 at 2.75% instead of computing $332 + 2.75% × $141,993."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used outdated graduated rates (2.765%, 3.302% and 3.688%) instead of the 2026 schedule of $332 + 2.75% above $26,050. It also wrongly treated the exemption as fully phased out instead of subtracting $1,900, and deducted the phased-out IRA contribution."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took $6,889 of employer insurance premiums out of AGI (giving $163,054) and added back $954 of tax-exempt interest. It then applied 2.75% to all income, ignoring both the $26,050 zero bracket and the $1,900 exemption."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $162,856 subtracts both the $6,889 of employer insurance premiums and the phased-out $198 IRA deduction, and it then added back $954 of tax-exempt interest. It also used a 3.5% bracket above $100,000 that no longer applies and left out the $332 base."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the $2,400 exemption for incomes up to $40,000 instead of the $1,900 that applies above $80,000. It also used a made-up three-tier schedule with higher marginal rates instead of $332 + 2.75% of taxable income over $26,050."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $2,500 exemption instead of $1,900 and taxed income above $100,000 at 3.5%, a bracket that no longer applies in 2026. It also left out the $332 base, so it did not compute $332 + 2.75% × ($168,043 − $26,050)."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied unspecified standard deductions, which Ohio does not have, and gave no derivation. Its $2,981 is well below the correct $332 + 2.75% × ($169,943 − $1,900 − $26,050) = $4,236.81."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started from AGI of $163,054, which wrongly subtracts $6,889 of employer insurance premiums from the correct $169,943. It then applied progressive brackets instead of the 2026 schedule of $332 + 2.75% above $26,050, so its result being near the reference is a coincidence."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied progressive brackets with a 3.5% top rate, but 2026 Ohio tax is $332 + 2.75% of taxable income over $26,050. Its $3,850 also does not reflect taxable income of $168,043 after the $1,900 exemption."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave $3,280 with no derivation. The correct calculation is taxable income of $168,043 taxed at $332 + 2.75% × $141,993 = $4,236.81, so its number understates both the base amount and the taxable income."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $4,240.52 is $3.71 above the correct $332 + 2.75% × $141,992.94 = $4,236.81. That gap equals about $135 of extra Ohio taxable income, which fits an exemption smaller than the $1,900 that applies above $80,000 of Ohio AGI."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave $3,986 with no derivation, which fits a plain 2.75% rate on the excess over $26,050 without the $332 base in Ohio's 2026 schedule. The correct tax on $168,043 of taxable income is $4,236.81."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It wrongly claimed there is no personal exemption above $80,000, but a $1,900 exemption applies at that level. It also left out the $332 base, taxing ($169,943 − $26,050) at 2.75% instead of computing $332 + 2.75% × $141,993."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got AGI ($169,943) and the IRA phase-out right but wrongly treated the exemption as fully phased out instead of subtracting $1,900. It also taxed income above $100,000 at 3.5%, a bracket that no longer applies in 2026, and left out the $332 base."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It never subtracted the $1,900 personal exemption and used a 3.5% bracket above $100,000 that no longer applies in 2026. Under the correct schedule, $332 + 2.75% of the $141,993 above $26,050 gives $4,236.81."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,missing_output,False,"It acknowledged the tax was positive but declined to calculate it and entered $0. The full calculation is simple: $168,043 of taxable income gives $332 + 2.75% × $141,993 = $4,236.81."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted itemized amounts such as mortgage interest and charitable gifts, but Ohio does not allow itemized deductions. Its $5,625 implies rates far above Ohio's 2026 schedule of $332 + 2.75% over $26,050."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got AGI ($169,943), the $1,900 exemption and taxable income ($168,043) right. It then taxed only the excess over $26,050 at 2.75% and left out the $332 base, so it reached $3,905 instead of $4,236.81."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $4,418 matches 2.75% from $26,050 to $100,000 plus 3.5% above $100,000 on about $168,000 of taxable income. That 3.5% bracket no longer applies in 2026, and the $332 base was left out."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied 2.75% only to taxable income above the $26,050 zero bracket and left out the $332 base in Ohio's schedule, so it reached $3,905 instead of $4,236.81."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $1,850 exemption instead of $1,900 and, more importantly, left out the $332 base. The correct tax is $332 + 2.75% × ($168,043 − $26,050) = $4,236.81, not 2.75% of the excess alone."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the correct $332 + 2.75% schedule but started from AGI of $163,054, which wrongly subtracts $6,889 of employer insurance premiums. It also added back $954 of tax-exempt interest, so taxable income came out at $162,108 instead of $168,043."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It taxed the full $169,943 without subtracting the $1,900 personal exemption. It also used a 3.5% bracket above $100,000 that no longer applies in 2026 and left out the $332 base."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It skipped the $1,900 personal exemption and applied 2.75% to the excess over $26,050 without the $332 base. The correct figure is $332 + 2.75% × $141,993 = $4,236.81."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the correct $332 + 2.75% schedule and the $1,900 exemption, but its AGI of $163,054 wrongly subtracts $6,889 of employer insurance premiums. Correct AGI is $169,943, giving taxable income of $168,043."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave $3,200 with no derivation, citing credits that this household does not qualify for at this income. The correct tax on $168,043 of taxable income is $332 + 2.75% × $141,993 = $4,236.81."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got taxable income ($168,043) right but applied 2024-style brackets with 3.5% above $100,000 and no $332 base. In 2026 the top bracket is gone, and the schedule is $332 + 2.75% of taxable income over $26,050."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got AGI, the $1,900 exemption and taxable income of $168,043 right. It then applied 2.75% to the excess over $26,050 and left out the $332 base, so it reached $3,905 instead of $4,236.81."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It added back $954 of tax-exempt interest, which does not change Ohio AGI here, and taxed income above $100,000 at 3.5%, a bracket that no longer applies in 2026. It also left out the $332 base."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It deducted the phased-out $198 IRA contribution and used the $2,400 low-income exemption instead of $1,900. It also left out the $332 base, so taxable income and the tax both came out low."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the old schedule, with $2,394 on the first $100,000 (the $360.69 base plus 2.75%) and 3.5% above that. The 2026 schedule is $332 + 2.75% on all taxable income above $26,050, and its exemption was also too large."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,It returned no value and no explanation for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits.
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It deducted the phased-out $198 IRA contribution, left out the $332 base, and subtracted a $20 exemption credit. That credit is only available when Ohio taxable income is under $30,000."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,missing_output,False,"It wrongly claimed the engine returned $0 and did no calculation. Ohio taxable income of $168,043 produces $332 + 2.75% × $141,993 = $4,236.81."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its taxable income of $161,154 comes from AGI of $163,054, which wrongly subtracts $6,889 of employer insurance premiums. It also left out the $332 base, applying only 2.75% to the excess over $26,050."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $1,700 exemption instead of the $1,900 that applies above $80,000 of Ohio AGI. It also left out the $332 base, applying only 2.75% to the excess over $26,050."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It wrongly included $954 of tax-exempt interest in AGI, skipped the $1,900 exemption, and used old 2.765%/3.225% brackets. It then took a $250 exemption credit that does not exist and made an arbitrary further cut down to $3,148.93."
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reported Ohio taxable income of $96,517, which leaves out most of the $74,188 of interest, dividends, capital gains and estate income included in Ohio AGI. Correct taxable income is $168,043, giving $4,236.81."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its reasoning got to $4,265.55 using the 2024 base of $360.69 instead of the 2026 base of $332, and it also subtracted the $198 IRA deduction, which is phased out. It then submitted $5,052, a number its own work does not support. The correct result is $332 + 2.75% × $141,992.94 = $4,236.81."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got AGI ($169,943), the $1,900 exemption and taxable income ($168,043) right. But it charged only 2.75% on income over $26,050 and left out the $332 base amount in the 2026 Ohio schedule, so it came in $332 short."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted a $15,000 federal standard deduction, which Ohio does not allow; Ohio subtracts only the $1,900 personal exemption. It also took the $198 IRA deduction, which is phased out. It then guessed a tax from made-up progressive brackets instead of using $332 + 2.75% over $26,050."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,missing_output,False,"It skipped the calculation and entered $0 as a placeholder, even though it said Ohio taxes this income. Taxable income of $168,042.94 under the 2026 schedule gives $4,236.81."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used indexed thresholds and the 3.5% bracket above about $103,500, which was repealed for 2026, to reach about $4,328. It then cut that to $2,900 without any computation behind it. It also used a $1,850 exemption and took the phased-out IRA deduction."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It charged 3.5% on all income over $26,050 on top of the 2024 base of $360.69 (giving $5,325), when 2026 is $332 + 2.75%. It then submitted $4,517, which does not follow from its work. It also used a $1,850 exemption and subtracted the phased-out $198 IRA deduction."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It took tax-exempt interest out of AGI a second time, used a $2,500 exemption instead of $1,900, and its roughly $3,900 figure matches 2.75% with no $332 base. The correct taxable income is $168,042.94, and adding the $332 base gives $4,236.81."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It subtracted the $198 traditional IRA deduction, which is phased out because of workplace plan coverage and high income, so AGI came out at $169,745. It also charged only 2.75% over $26,050 and left out the $332 base amount."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted $10,915 of federal itemized deductions, which Ohio does not allow, instead of the $1,900 personal exemption. It charged a flat 3.5% over $26,050 instead of $332 + 2.75%, and it took the $20 exemption credit, which is not available at this income."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used made-up 2026 brackets (3.5% up to about $115,300, then about 3.99%) and added back the $954 tax-exempt interest. It then knocked the tax down to $3,200 for retirement and other credits this household does not qualify for. The real 2026 schedule is $332 + 2.75% over $26,050."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed no personal exemption is allowed at this income, but Ohio still gives $1,900 when AGI is over $80,000. It also charged only 2.75% over $26,050 and left out the $332 base amount."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an old multi-bracket schedule (2.765%/3.302%/3.688%) instead of the 2026 schedule of $332 + 2.75% over $26,050. It also wrongly said the exemption is fully phased out, when $1,900 is allowed, and it subtracted the phased-out IRA deduction."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It cut AGI to $163,054 by subtracting the $6,889 employer health premiums, which are not deducted from wages here, and it added back the $954 tax-exempt interest. It then charged 2.75% on the whole amount, with no $26,050 zero bracket, no $332 base and no $1,900 exemption."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It lowered AGI by subtracting the $6,889 employer premiums and the phased-out $198 IRA deduction, and it added back $954 of tax-exempt interest. It also used the repealed 3.5% bracket above $100,000 and left out the $332 base. Its errors partly cancel out, but it lands $36 short of $4,236.81."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $2,400 exemption instead of the $1,900 that applies when AGI is over $80,000. It then applied a three-bracket schedule that is not the 2026 law, when the actual rule is a single tier of $332 + 2.75% over $26,050."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $2,500 exemption instead of $1,900 and applied the repealed 3.5% rate above $100,000. For 2026, all income over $26,050 is taxed at 2.75% on top of a $332 base."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted 'standard deductions', which Ohio does not have; the only reduction is the $1,900 personal exemption. Its $2,981 understates the tax by about $1,256 compared with $332 + 2.75% × ($168,042.94 − $26,050) = $4,236.81."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started from an AGI of $163,054, which wrongly subtracts the $6,889 employer health premiums; the correct AGI is $169,943. Its $4,241 does not come from the 2026 formula of $332 + 2.75% over $26,050 on $168,042.94, and it is close to the reference only because its errors offset."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed brackets topping out at 3.5% and gave a rough $3,850, which is below even 2.75% with no base. The 2026 schedule is $332 + 2.75% over $26,050, which gives $4,236.81 on $168,042.94."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It showed no calculation, and $3,280 is about $957 short of the correct figure. The correct path is $169,942.94 AGI minus the $1,900 exemption, then $332 + 2.75% over $26,050, which gives $4,236.81."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It showed no calculation. Its $4,240.52 is $3.71 too high, which matches using taxable income about $135 above the correct $168,042.94 (AGI of $169,942.94 minus the $1,900 exemption) under the $332 + 2.75% schedule."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It showed no calculation. Its $3,986 matches charging 2.75% over $26,050 on roughly AGI plus tax-exempt interest, with no $1,900 exemption and no $332 base amount."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed no personal exemption is allowed above $80,000, but Ohio's exemption at that level is $1,900, not zero. It also charged only 2.75% over $26,050 and left out the $332 base amount."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got taxable income right at $168,043, but its $4,265.50 includes the 2024 base of $360.69 instead of the 2026 base of $332. That makes it $28.69 too high."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the repealed 3.5% bracket above $100,000, when 2026 taxes everything over $26,050 at 2.75% on top of a $332 base. It also wrongly treated the personal exemption as fully phased out, when $1,900 applies."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2024-style 3.5% bracket above $100,000 instead of the 2026 schedule of $332 + 2.75% over $26,050. It also taxed the full $169,943 without subtracting the $1,900 personal exemption."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,missing_output,False,"It refused to compute and entered $0 even though it said the tax is positive. The household's facts are enough to get $168,042.94 of taxable income and $4,236.81 of tax."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted federal itemized deductions (mortgage interest, charitable gifts), which Ohio does not allow. Its $5,625 is also above anything the 2026 schedule of $332 + 2.75% over $26,050 can produce from this income."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got AGI ($169,943), the $1,900 exemption and taxable income ($168,043) right, but charged only 2.75% over $26,050. Leaving out the $332 base amount made it $332 short."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It showed no calculation. Its $4,418 matches applying the repealed 3.5% bracket above $100,000 to about $168,043 of taxable income, instead of the 2026 schedule of $332 + 2.75% over $26,050."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It charged only 2.75% over $26,050 on $168,043 of taxable income and left out the $332 base amount in the 2026 schedule, so it came in $332 short."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $1,850 exemption instead of the $1,900 that applies when AGI is over $80,000. It also charged only 2.75% over $26,050 and left out the $332 base amount."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the right $332 + 2.75% formula, but its federal AGI of $163,054 wrongly subtracts the $6,889 employer health premiums. It also added back the $954 tax-exempt interest, which Ohio AGI does not include here, so taxable income came out at $162,108 instead of $168,042.94."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the repealed 3.5% bracket above $100,000 to $169,943 and did not subtract the $1,900 personal exemption. The 2026 law is $332 + 2.75% over $26,050."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It taxed the full $169,943 without subtracting the $1,900 personal exemption. It also charged only 2.75% over $26,050 and left out the $332 base amount."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the right $332 + 2.75% schedule and the $1,900 exemption. But it started from an AGI of $163,054, which wrongly subtracts the $6,889 employer health premiums; the correct AGI is $169,942.94."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave $3,200 with no calculation and claimed credits that do not apply. Applying $332 + 2.75% over $26,050 to $168,042.94 of taxable income gives $4,236.81."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got taxable income right at $168,043, but explicitly used 2024-style brackets with 3.5% above $100,000. For 2026 the tax is $332 + 2.75% of everything over $26,050."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got taxable income right at $168,043, but charged only 2.75% over $26,050 and left out the $332 base amount in the 2026 schedule."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It added back the $954 tax-exempt interest, which is not part of Ohio AGI here. It also applied the repealed 3.5% bracket above $100,000 instead of $332 + 2.75% over $26,050."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the phased-out $198 IRA deduction (giving AGI of $169,745) and used a $2,400 exemption instead of $1,900. It also left out the $332 base amount and charged only 2.75% over $26,050."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2024 schedule ($2,394 on the first $100,000 plus 3.5% on the excess). For 2026 the formula is $332 + 2.75% of all income over $26,050."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value and no explanation for this variable, so there was no answer to score."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It subtracted the phased-out $198 IRA deduction and left out the $332 base amount, charging only 2.75% over $26,050. It also took the $20 personal exemption credit, which is not available at this income."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,missing_output,False,"It claimed PolicyEngine returned $0 without calculating anything. This household has $168,042.94 of Ohio taxable income and owes $4,236.81."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied the repealed 3.5% bracket above $100,000 to about $170,000 with no credits, and did not subtract the $1,900 personal exemption. The 2026 law is $332 + 2.75% over $26,050."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its taxable income of $161,154 starts from an AGI that wrongly subtracts the $6,889 employer health premiums. It also charged only 2.75% over $26,050 and left out the $332 base amount."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $1,700 exemption instead of the $1,900 that applies when AGI is over $80,000. It also charged only 2.75% over $26,050 and left out the $332 base amount."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted $954 of tax-exempt interest in AGI, subtracted the phased-out IRA deduction, and skipped the $1,900 exemption. It then used made-up 2.765%/3.225% brackets and a $250 credit, and finally applied an unexplained further reduction."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It shrank taxable income to about $96,517 by subtracting deductions Ohio does not allow. The only reduction from the $169,942.94 AGI is the $1,900 personal exemption, which leaves $168,042.94 taxed at $332 + 2.75% over $26,050."
us,scenario_110,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_111,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model incorrectly treated about $16,600 of Social Security as taxable even though its own stated combined income of $30,940 is below the $32,000 joint-filer threshold, not above the $44,000 upper threshold. It then calculated zero taxable income after the standard deduction but replaced the resulting $0 tax with an unsupported $1,362 estimate."
us,scenario_111,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model incorrectly included $5,405.50 of Social Security in AGI, but still correctly found that the standard deduction reduced taxable income and tax liability to $0. It then submitted $1,400 despite deriving no taxable income and identifying no tax or credit computation that produces that amount."
@@ -9067,15 +9356,16 @@ us,scenario_111,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,categorical_eli
us,scenario_111,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model relied on a spend-down, using SSI-type disregards and medical expenses to bring $43,640 of income under the aged/blind/disabled limit. The only disregard is $20 a month, and the head's medical and OTC expenses total just $1,500 a year. That leaves countable income of about $3,617 a month, far above the categorical aged/blind/disabled limit. Passing the asset test alone does not establish eligibility."
us,scenario_111,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model correctly identified that the household has no wages, then contradicted that reasoning by imposing $1,046.85 of mandatory payroll tax on retirement income. Social Security retirement benefits and taxable IRA distributions are not employee payroll-tax bases, so the absence of employment compensation yields payroll_tax of $0."
us,scenario_111,snap,gpt-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated income below Washington's 200% gross-income screen as categorical eligibility and then awarded the $24 monthly minimum. The household fails the applicable income eligibility determination, so it is ineligible rather than an eligible household whose calculated allotment is raised to the minimum."
-us,scenario_111,spouse_medicaid_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model claimed that disability-based Medicaid is not income-limited and that the spouse has no income to count. Blind/disabled Medicaid is tied to SSI receipt or an SSI-related income test, and the head's $43,640 in Social Security and IRA income is deemed to the spouse. That leaves SSI at $0 and no disability category, and MAGI of 2.02x FPL also fails the 138% expansion limit."
-us,scenario_111,spouse_medicaid_eligible,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model said household income was low relative to the disability Medicaid limit but never compared any numbers. The couple's combined countable income is $43,640, which is far above the SSI couple standard and 2.02x FPL. The spouse gets no SSI and fails both the disability pathway and the 138% FPL adult-expansion test."
-us,scenario_111,spouse_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model correctly found that $43,640 exceeds the 138% FPL expansion limit. It then claimed the spouse qualifies through disability because they have no income of their own, which ignores spousal deeming in the SSI-related pathway. Once the head's income is counted, the spouse's SSI is $0 and no disability-based Medicaid category applies."
-us,scenario_111,spouse_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said the spouse qualifies for disability-related Medicaid because they are blind and disabled but never ran the income test. The SSI-related test counts the couple's combined $43,640 Social Security and IRA income, which exceeds the limit, so SSI is $0. MAGI of 2.02x FPL also exceeds the 138% expansion threshold, which leaves the spouse with no eligibility category."
-us,scenario_111,spouse_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model correctly found that household income exceeds the 138% FPL expansion limit. It then asserted that blindness/disability makes the spouse eligible regardless of income. PolicyEngine's disability pathway requires SSI receipt or passing an SSI-related income test that counts spousal income. The head's $43,640 brings the spouse's SSI to $0, so no category applies."
-us,scenario_111,spouse_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model checked the resource test but then asserted, without any arithmetic, that the head's Social Security and IRA income was low enough for the blind/disabled income limit. The combined $43,640 of countable couple income exceeds the SSI-related couple standard, so the spouse gets $0 SSI. It also equals 2.02x FPL, which fails the 138% expansion limit."
-us,scenario_111,spouse_medicaid_eligible,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model claimed Social Security is not fully counted and that countable income would be low after exclusions. The SSI-related test counts gross Social Security, and Medicaid MAGI adds back non-taxable benefits. Countable couple income is the full $43,640, or 2.02x FPL, which fails both the blind/disabled test and the 133–138% expansion limit."
-us,scenario_111,spouse_medicaid_eligible,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left the non-taxable Social Security out of MAGI and used only $18,240, or 84% FPL. Medicaid MAGI adds back the non-taxable portion of Social Security benefits (42 CFR 435.603(e)). The correct MAGI is therefore $43,640, or 2.02x FPL, which exceeds the 138% adult-expansion limit."
-us,scenario_111,spouse_medicaid_eligible,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used $18,240 as MAGI, leaving out the head's $25,400 Social Security, which Medicaid MAGI adds back. The true MAGI is $43,640, or 2.02x FPL, above the 138% limit. Its blind/disabled fallback treated the spouse as having $0 income, which ignores deeming of the head's income. That deeming brings SSI to $0, so the disability category also fails."
+us,scenario_111,spouse_medicaid_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said blind/disabled Medicaid is not income-limited. In fact, the disability pathway depends on SSI receipt and an SSI-level income test. The couple's $43,640 of Social Security and IRA income counts toward the spouse, which rules out SSI (SSI = 0), and expansion fails at 2.02x FPL, so the spouse has no eligibility category."
+us,scenario_111,spouse_medicaid_eligible,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model called household income low relative to the disability limit but never applied that limit. The couple's $43,640 in countable Social Security and IRA income is far above the SSI couple benefit rate, so SSI = 0 and the disability pathway is closed. MAGI of 2.02x FPL also fails the 138% expansion test."
+us,scenario_111,spouse_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model correctly found that $43,640 exceeds 138% FPL, then wrongly said the spouse qualifies through the disability category because the spouse has no income of their own. Under SSI-related rules for a married couple, the head's Social Security and IRA income count toward the spouse, so SSI = 0 and the disability pathway is unavailable."
+us,scenario_111,spouse_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model assumed the spouse qualifies through Washington's ABD/disability pathway without testing income against any limit. That pathway requires SSI receipt or SSI-level countable income. The couple's $43,640 of fully countable Social Security and IRA income disqualifies the spouse from SSI (SSI = 0), and 2.02x FPL fails the expansion test."
+us,scenario_111,spouse_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model correctly found that household income exceeds 138% FPL, then wrongly said blindness or disability makes the spouse eligible regardless of income. PolicyEngine's disability route depends on SSI receipt, and the couple's $43,640 of countable income produces SSI = 0. A medically needy spend-down does not grant categorical eligibility here, so the category is NONE."
+us,scenario_111,spouse_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model applied only the ABD resource test and simply asserted that countable income was under the limit. The couple's Social Security ($25,400) and IRA ($18,240) income is countable for the spouse after only a $20/month disregard, which is far above the SSI couple standard. That gives SSI = 0, so the blind/disabled pathway fails whatever the resources are."
+us,scenario_111,spouse_medicaid_eligible,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said Social Security is 'not all counted' and assumed countable income was low under ABD rules. For SSI-related Medicaid, Social Security is fully countable unearned income apart from the $20 general disregard, and for MAGI the untaxed portion is added back. The couple's $43,640 therefore rules out SSI and is 2.02x FPL, above the 138% expansion limit."
+us,scenario_111,spouse_medicaid_eligible,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used MAGI of $18,240, counting only the IRA distributions and leaving out the head's $25,400 of Social Security. Medicaid MAGI adds back nontaxable Social Security benefits, so tax-unit MAGI is $43,640, or 2.02x FPL, which is above the 138% expansion limit."
+us,scenario_111,spouse_medicaid_eligible,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model deliberately left Social Security out of MAGI because none of it was federally taxable. Medicaid MAGI (42 CFR 435.603(e), via IRC 36B(d)(2)(B)) adds back the nontaxable portion of Social Security benefits, so MAGI is $43,640, or 2.02x FPL rather than 84%, which fails the 138% adult expansion test."
+us,scenario_111,spouse_medicaid_eligible,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left the head's nontaxable Social Security out of MAGI, when Medicaid MAGI adds it back to give $43,640. It also compared income against $20,783, which is the one-person 138% FPL figure, not the two-person one. For the ABD route it treated the spouse as having $0 income, ignoring that the couple's income counts toward the spouse and rules out SSI."
us,scenario_111,spouse_medicare_eligible,claude-fable-5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model claimed that disabled people qualify for Medicare regardless of age. Under-65 disability eligibility actually requires 24 months of Social Security disability benefit entitlement. The 49-year-old spouse has no SSDI income or SSDI months listed, so the correct answer is not eligible."
us,scenario_111,spouse_medicare_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model applied the Medicare disability pathway using only the disabled flag. That pathway requires 24 months of SSDI entitlement, and the spouse has zero Social Security disability benefits, so the pathway does not apply."
us,scenario_111,spouse_medicare_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model stated that Medicare covers disabled people under 65 and stopped there. It never applied the requirement of 24 months of Social Security disability benefit receipt, which the 49-year-old spouse (with no SSDI listed) does not meet."
@@ -9088,28 +9378,29 @@ us,scenario_111,spouse_medicare_eligible,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,age_disability,Fa
us,scenario_111,spouse_medicare_eligible,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model correctly noted that the spouse is below the age-65 threshold. It then claimed PolicyEngine treats any disabled person as Medicare-eligible regardless of age. The under-65 pathway actually requires 24 months of Social Security disability benefit receipt, which the spouse (with no SSDI) lacks."
us,scenario_112,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model explicitly built AGI as ""wages $5,923 + farm rent $1,920 + financial assistance $13,000 - $3,000"" = $17,843, treating the $13,000 financial-assistance receipt as taxable ordinary income; financial assistance is a non-taxable cash transfer excluded from gross income and AGI, so true AGI is $4,843. Removing that $13,000 leaves AGI below the ~$16,100 single standard deduction, so taxable income is $0 and the 10%-bracket computation that produced $174 never arises."
us,scenario_112,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model stated its ordinary income base as ""wages, farm-rent income, and financial assistance,"" including the $13,000 financial assistance in taxable income even though that receipt is a non-taxable transfer excluded from gross income and AGI. With only $5,923 of wages plus $1,920 of farm rent less the $3,000 allowable capital loss, AGI is $4,843 — under the 2026 single standard deduction — so taxable income is $0 and the $1,743 it ran through the 10% bracket to reach $174.30 is entirely the misclassified assistance."
-us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its reasoning correctly arrived at a childless EITC of 7.65% × $5,923 ≈ $453 with no phase-out reduction, but it then submitted 191. Nothing in its own derivation supports that number."
-us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It assumed EITC needs tax liability or children and that the income was 'below EITC thresholds.' The childless EITC is refundable and phases in at 7.65% from the first dollar of earnings, so $5,923 of wages earns about $453. It also wrongly treated the employer-insurance premiums and the uncapped capital loss as making income negative."
-us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It said no EITC applies because the head has no qualifying children and very low earnings. A 31-year-old without children qualifies for the childless EITC, which phases in at 7.65% of earned income with no minimum, giving about $453 on $5,923 of wages."
-us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly found childless EITC eligibility (age 31, AGI $4,843 below the phase-out, no investment-income problem) and computed $5,923 × 7.65% ≈ $453. It then swapped in an arbitrary 'conservative estimate' of $50 that no rule supports."
-us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It concluded that the capital loss produces negative AGI that drives the EITC to zero. The deductible capital loss is capped at $3,000, so AGI is a positive $4,843 and below the phase-out start. The credit is the 7.65% phase-in on $5,923 of earned income, about $453."
-us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It first got 7.65% × $5,923 ≈ $453 and then raised the answer to $492, saying the earnings were 'near the maximum plateau.' $5,923 is well below the earned-income amount where the childless credit reaches its maximum, so the credit is simply 7.65% × $5,923 ≈ $453."
-us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted farm rent as earned income and assumed the full $9,944 capital loss pushes AGI below zero, which it said makes the credit negligible. Farm rent is unearned income, and the capital-loss deduction is capped at $3,000, so AGI is $4,843. The credit is the 7.65% phase-in on $5,923 of wages, about $453."
-us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $8,389 employer-insurance premium from the $5,923 of wages and got zero earned income. The premiums do not reduce the reported wage income used as EITC earned income. The childless EITC is 7.65% × $5,923 ≈ $453."
-us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a 7.67% phase-in rate. The statutory childless EITC phase-in rate is 7.65% and is not indexed for inflation, so the credit is 7.65% × $5,923 ≈ $453.10, not $454.29."
-us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It claimed the household falls short of an EITC earned-income threshold. The childless EITC has no minimum earnings requirement and phases in at 7.65% from the first dollar, giving about $453 on $5,923 of wages."
-us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the $8,389 employer-insurance premium as a pre-tax deduction that wipes out the $5,923 of wages. The wage input counts in full as EITC earned income, so the childless EITC is 7.65% × $5,923 ≈ $453."
-us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reduced earned income to $0 by subtracting the employer-insurance premiums from gross wages. Earned income for the EITC is the full $5,923 of wages, and the 7.65% childless phase-in gives about $453."
-us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"Its $0 answer leaves out the childless EITC entirely. The single 31-year-old head with $5,923 of wages and AGI of $4,843 qualifies for a 7.65% phase-in credit of about $453."
-us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the employer-insurance premiums as a pre-tax deduction that leaves zero earned income. The full $5,923 of wages is EITC earned income, giving a childless EITC of 7.65% × $5,923 ≈ $453."
-us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It applied the 7.65% phase-in rate to the smaller of earned income and AGI ($4,843). The phase-in credit is calculated on earned income alone ($5,923 → about $453). AGI only matters for the phase-out, where the greater of AGI and earned income is compared with the threshold."
-us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It built a 'modified AGI' of $17,843 by adding the $13,000 of nontaxable financial assistance, which pushed the credit into full phase-out. Financial assistance is not in AGI, so AGI is $4,843, below the phase-out start, and the full 7.65% × $5,923 ≈ $453 credit applies."
-us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated having no qualifying children as ruling out every refundable credit. A 31-year-old worker without children qualifies for the childless EITC, which is 7.65% × $5,923 ≈ $453 here."
-us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It concluded no refundable credit applies because there are no children. It missed the childless EITC, which a 31-year-old wage earner qualifies for: 7.65% × $5,923 ≈ $453."
-us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It said earned income is not enough for the EITC. The childless EITC has no earnings floor and phases in at 7.65% from the first dollar, so $5,923 of wages gives about $453."
-us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It dismissed the childless EITC as 'minimal or zero' at this income level. The credit phases in at 7.65% of earned income and AGI ($4,843) is below the phase-out start, so the full $453 phase-in amount is refundable."
-us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It computed 7.65% × $5,923 = $453 and then cut it to $390 for a supposed capital-loss effect on investment income. The EITC investment-income test is all-or-nothing: it removes the credit only when investment income exceeds the limit. The farm rent here is far below that limit, so no reduction applies and the credit stays at about $453."
-us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It concluded no refundable credits apply and missed the childless EITC. The single 31-year-old head with $5,923 of wages and $4,843 of AGI qualifies for a 7.65% phase-in credit of about $453."
+us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"The model's own reasoning correctly arrived at a childless EITC of 7.65% × $5,923 ≈ $453 with no phase-out. It then submitted 191, a number its reasoning never supports, so the error is an internal mismatch between its calculation and its answer."
+us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said that having no tax liability and no children ruled out refundable credits. It missed that the childless EITC is refundable and phases in from the first dollar of earned income. A 31-year-old with $5,923 in wages gets 7.65% × $5,923 = $453.10."
+us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model assumed the EITC needs a qualifying child. Workers aged 25–64 with no children qualify for the childless EITC, which here is 7.65% × $5,923 in earned income = $453.10."
+us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,other,False,"The model correctly calculated 7.65% × $5,923 = $453 and confirmed that AGI of $4,843 is below the phase-out. It then cut the answer to $50 as a 'conservative estimate' for no rule-based reason."
+us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model treated the -$9,944 capital loss as making AGI negative and wiping out the credit. Only $3,000 of the loss is deductible, so AGI is a positive $4,843 and below the phase-out. The phase-in uses earned income, giving 7.65% × $5,923 = $453.10."
+us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly found that $5,923 is still in the phase-in range, where the credit is 7.65% × $5,923 = $453. It then raised the answer to $492 by citing a 'plateau region' that this level of earnings never reaches."
+us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model counted farm rent as earned income. It also treated the full $9,944 capital loss as pushing AGI below zero, when the $3,000 cap leaves AGI at $4,843. It then rounded the credit to $0, even though the childless EITC on $5,923 of wages is $453.10 and nothing disqualifies it."
+us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $8,389 ESI premiums from the $5,923 gross wages and reduced earned income to $0. The listed gross wages are the EITC earned income, and the premiums do not reduce them. The credit is 7.65% × $5,923 = $453.10."
+us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a 7.67% phase-in rate for the childless EITC. The statutory rate is 7.65%, which gives 0.0765 × $5,923 = $453.10, not $454.29."
+us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said the household fails an earned-income threshold for the EITC. The childless EITC has no minimum earnings and phases in from the first dollar, so a 31-year-old with $5,923 in wages gets $453.10."
+us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model treated the ESI premiums as pre-tax deductions that fully offset wages and reduced earned income to zero. The $5,923 in gross wages counts in full as earned income, giving an EITC of $453.10."
+us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the pre-tax health premiums from gross wages and concluded that earned income was $0. EITC earned income is the stated $5,923 in gross wages, giving 7.65% × $5,923 = $453.10."
+us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model answered $0 without reasoning, which means it applied no childless EITC. A 31-year-old with $5,923 in earned income and AGI of $4,843 qualifies for 7.65% × $5,923 = $453.10."
+us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model treated the ESI premiums as pre-tax deductions that reduced earned income to zero. The $5,923 in gross wages is the earned income for the EITC, which gives a credit of $453.10."
+us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model applied the 7.65% phase-in rate to the lesser of earned income and AGI ($4,843). The phase-in uses earned income only ($5,923), and AGI matters only for the phase-out test. The correct credit is $453.10, not $370.70."
+us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model built a modified AGI of $17,843 by adding the $13,000 in nontaxable financial assistance and ignoring the capital loss. AGI is actually $4,843, well below the childless EITC phase-out, so the full $453.10 phase-in credit applies."
+us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model concluded that having no qualifying children meant no refundable credits. It ignored the childless EITC, which a 31-year-old with $5,923 in wages receives at 7.65% for $453.10."
+us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model ruled out the EITC because there are no children. The childless EITC applies to filers aged 25–64 and here equals 7.65% × $5,923 = $453.10."
+us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said earned income was not enough for the EITC. The childless EITC has no minimum earnings and phases in at 7.65% from the first dollar, giving $453.10 on $5,923 in wages."
+us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model assumed the childless EITC is minimal or zero at low income. Low earnings are exactly the phase-in range, where the credit is 7.65% × $5,923 = $453.10, and AGI of $4,843 triggers no phase-out."
+us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model took the minimum of the phase-in amounts based on earned income and on AGI, which effectively applied 7.65% to the $4,843 AGI. The phase-in amount uses earned income alone, and AGI matters only for the phase-out, so the credit is $453.10."
+us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model reduced the EITC from $453 to $390 because of the capital loss. The investment-income test is an all-or-nothing eligibility test, and capital losses never lower the credit. With farm rent of $1,920 far under the limit, the full 7.65% × $5,923 = $453.10 applies."
+us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model answered $0 without explanation, so it omitted the childless EITC. A 31-year-old single filer with $5,923 in wages and AGI of $4,843 receives 7.65% × $5,923 = $453.10."
us,scenario_112,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated low MAGI as a standalone Texas Medicaid pathway for a childless adult. A 31-year-old nondependent must first belong to an active eligibility category, and this head belongs to none."
us,scenario_112,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model inferred Medicaid eligibility directly from low earned income and minimal assets without identifying a Texas eligibility category. Assets do not establish a MAGI pathway, and this childless, nondependent adult qualifies through none of the available categories."
us,scenario_112,head_medicaid_eligible,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model incorrectly assumed that low income qualifies a single Texas adult for Medicaid. Texas has no general MAGI pathway for this 31-year-old childless, nondependent adult, whose Medicaid category is NONE."
@@ -9127,102 +9418,106 @@ us,scenario_112,self_employment_tax,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,
us,scenario_112,self_employment_tax,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model correctly stated that passive real-estate farm rent is not subject to self-employment tax, then contradicted that rule by calculating tax as though the entire $1,920 were farm-operator self-employment earnings. The actual net self-employment tax base is zero because the household has no positive net self-employment earnings."
us,scenario_112,self_employment_tax,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model improperly combined farm rent, financial assistance, and the capital loss into a self-employment tax base. Financial assistance and capital gains or losses are not self-employment earnings, and the household’s relevant net earnings are nonpositive, so no self-employment tax applies."
us,scenario_112,self_employment_tax,minimax-m3,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model treated the full $1,920 of farm rent as net self-employment income and applied the standard 92.35% and 15.3% factors without establishing positive net earnings from self-employment. The resulting tax base is zero, and its submitted $269 also does not match its own stated calculation of about $271."
-us,scenario_112,snap,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model added the $1,920 farm rent to SNAP income, which pushed gross income to $1,737/mo and net to $1,429/mo, so the household failed the tests. PolicyEngine counts only wages plus financial assistance, giving gross $1,576.90 (121% FPL) and net $1,269.19, below the $1,304.17 net limit. The household is eligible and receives the $23.84/mo one-person minimum allotment ($287.68/yr)."
-us,scenario_112,snap,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model counted farm rent as SNAP income, which put net income at $1,429 and failed the net test. Without farm rent, net income is $1,269.19, below the $1,304.17 limit. The model also treated '30% of net exceeds the $298 max' as a $0 benefit, but eligible one-person households receive the $23.84/mo minimum allotment, which totals $287.68/yr."
-us,scenario_112,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model included farm rent to reach $1,737/mo gross and declared the household over the gross limit. PolicyEngine's countable gross income is $1,576.90 (121% FPL), which is under both the 130% limit and Texas's 165% BBCE limit. The household is eligible and receives the one-person minimum allotment of $23.84/mo."
-us,scenario_112,snap,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model ran no computation and defaulted to $0 because it was uncertain about the financial assistance and the vehicle. With $10 in assets, Texas BBCE through TANF non-cash assistance, and net income of $1,269.19 (97% FPL), the household is eligible and receives the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_112,snap,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model counted farm rent to get $1,737/mo and compared it to a 130% gross limit. Countable gross income excludes farm rent and is $1,576.90 (121% FPL), which passes, and the vehicle does not disqualify the household. The benefit is the one-person minimum allotment of $23.84/mo ($287.68/yr)."
-us,scenario_112,snap,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated the $13,000 financial assistance as an excluded gift, but PolicyEngine counts it as unearned SNAP income. That raises net income to $1,269.19/mo and the 30% contribution to $380.76, which exceeds the $298 maximum. The household therefore gets only the $23.84/mo minimum allotment, not about $192/mo."
-us,scenario_112,snap,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model left the $13,000 financial assistance out of countable income and included farm rent, which PolicyEngine excludes. Countable income is wages plus financial assistance, so net income is $1,269.19 and the expected contribution of $380.76 exceeds the $298 maximum. The benefit is the $23.84/mo minimum allotment, not $275/mo."
-us,scenario_112,snap,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model assumed the $13,000 financial assistance does not count. PolicyEngine counts it as unearned income, so net income is $1,269.19/mo, not $346. At that income, 30% of net exceeds the $298 maximum and only the $23.84/mo minimum allotment is paid, not $194/mo."
-us,scenario_112,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model counted $1,920 of farm rent to reach $20,843/yr and declared the household over the 130% gross limit. PolicyEngine's countable income is $18,923/yr ($1,576.90/mo, 121% FPL), which passes the gross test and also falls under Texas's 165% BBCE limit. The household is eligible and receives the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_112,snap,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model asserted that income was 'far above' the 130% gross limit after counting farm rent. Countable gross income is wages plus financial assistance, $1,576.90/mo (121% FPL), which passes, and net income of $1,269.19 passes the net test. The one-person household receives the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_112,snap,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model excluded the $13,000 financial assistance from countable income, but PolicyEngine counts it as unearned SNAP income. Net income is then $1,269.19/mo, and the $380.76 expected contribution exceeds the $298 maximum. Only the $23.84/mo minimum allotment ($287.68/yr) is paid, not $194/mo."
-us,scenario_112,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model included farm rent to reach $20,843 and found it above the $20,345 130% gross limit. Countable income excludes farm rent and is $18,923/yr (121% FPL), so the household passes. Net income of $1,269.19/mo passes the net test, and the household gets the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_112,snap,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model's $1,737/mo gross figure includes farm rent, which PolicyEngine excludes from SNAP income. Correct gross income is $1,576.90 (121% FPL), which passes the 130% test, and net income of $1,269.19 passes the 100% test. The household receives the $23.84/mo one-person minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_112,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model concluded that because 30% of net income exceeds the maximum allotment, the benefit is $0. That skips the minimum-benefit rule: eligible one- and two-person households get 8% of the one-person maximum ($23.84/mo). The household passes the net test at $1,269.19 once farm rent is excluded."
-us,scenario_112,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model zeroed out the benefit because 30% of net income exceeds the one-person maximum, which ignores the minimum allotment. Eligible one-person households receive 8% of the maximum ($23.84/mo, $287.68/yr). The model's $6,454 annual net figure also does not match the correct $1,269.19/mo net income."
-us,scenario_112,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model's $1,440 net income includes the $1,920/yr farm rent, which PolicyEngine excludes from SNAP income. Excluding it gives net income of $1,269.19, below the $1,304.17 limit. The household is eligible for the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_112,snap,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model asserted ineligibility with no computation. Countable income (wages plus financial assistance, excluding farm rent) gives gross $1,576.90 and net $1,269.19, both of which pass. The household receives the $23.84/mo one-person minimum allotment ($287.68/yr)."
-us,scenario_112,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model set SNAP to $0 because 30% of net income exceeds the one-person maximum. That ignores the minimum benefit: eligible one-person households receive 8% of the maximum allotment ($23.84/mo, $287.68/yr)."
-us,scenario_112,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model counted farm rent, which inflated net income to $1,440, and then reduced the benefit to $0 because 30% of net exceeded the maximum. Without farm rent, net income is $1,269.19 and passes the net test, and one-person households whose contribution exceeds $298 still get the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_112,snap,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model gave $0 with no derivation. Countable gross income is $1,576.90 (121% FPL) and net income is $1,269.19 (97% FPL), so the household is eligible. It receives the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_112,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,The model equated a contribution above the maximum allotment with a $0 benefit. It skipped the rule that eligible one-person households receive a minimum allotment of 8% of the maximum ($23.84/mo).
-us,scenario_112,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model claimed income exceeds the net limit, but with farm rent excluded, net income is $1,269.19, below the $1,304.17 limit. The household is eligible, and its allotment is the $23.84/mo minimum, not $0."
-us,scenario_112,snap,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model cited vehicle and asset resources and a contribution above the maximum to reach $0. The $10 in assets passes under Texas BBCE, the vehicle does not disqualify the household, and the one-person minimum allotment of $23.84/mo applies when the contribution exceeds $298."
-us,scenario_112,snap,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model counted farm rent to reach $1,434 in net income and failed the net test. PolicyEngine excludes farm rent, giving net income of $1,269.19, which passes the $1,304.17 limit. The household receives the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_112,snap,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model counted farm rent, used a wrong gross limit (about $17,000 instead of $20,345 at 130% FPL), and treated the $11,838 vehicle as disqualifying. Countable gross income is $18,923/yr, Texas BBCE waives the asset test, and the household receives the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_112,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model asserted that income and resources were too high without computing them. Countable gross income is $1,576.90 and net income is $1,269.19, both of which pass, and assets are $10. The household gets the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_112,snap,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model claimed the facts were insufficient and defaulted to $0. The facts fully determine a one-person household that passes the income tests (net $1,269.19 against a $1,304.17 limit) and is BBCE-eligible, with a $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_112,snap,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model's $20,843 figure includes farm rent, which PolicyEngine excludes from SNAP income. Countable gross income is $18,923/yr (121% FPL), which passes the gross test, so the household is eligible for the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_112,snap,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model found the household over the gross limit after counting farm rent. With farm rent excluded, gross income is $1,576.90/mo (121% FPL), which passes, and the household gets the one-person minimum allotment of $23.84/mo."
-us,scenario_112,snap,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model counted farm rent and failed the household on the net test. With farm rent excluded, net income is $1,569.90 less deductions, which comes to $1,269.19 and passes the $1,304.17 limit. The household receives the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_112,snap,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model counted farm rent and concluded that the household fails the gross test. Countable gross income is wages plus financial assistance, $1,576.90/mo (121% FPL), which passes, so the household receives the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_112,snap,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model counted farm rent and concluded that net income exceeds the 100% FPL limit. With farm rent excluded, net income is $1,269.19, below $1,304.17. The household is eligible and receives the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_112,snap,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model counted farm rent, which put net income over the limit. PolicyEngine's net income of $1,269.19 passes the $1,304.17 net limit, and the household receives the one-person minimum allotment of $23.84/mo."
-us,scenario_112,snap,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model concluded that income was 'too high for a positive one-person benefit.' Eligible one-person households always get at least the $23.84/mo minimum allotment, and this household passes the net test at $1,269.19 once farm rent is excluded."
-us,scenario_112,snap,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said income was too high to produce a benefit, which ignores the minimum allotment. An eligible one-person household whose contribution exceeds the $298 maximum still receives $23.84/mo, and with farm rent excluded, net income of $1,269.19 passes the net test."
-us,scenario_112,snap,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model gave no computation and asserted that limits were exceeded. Countable gross income is $1,576.90 (121% FPL), net income is $1,269.19 (97% FPL), and assets are $10, so the household is eligible for the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_112,snap,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model counted farm rent and concluded that the gross or net limit was exceeded. PolicyEngine's countable income passes both tests, with gross $1,576.90 and net $1,269.19, and the household gets the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_112,snap,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated the $0 formula result as the benefit and skipped the minimum allotment. Eligible one-person households receive 8% of the one-person maximum ($23.84/mo, $287.68/yr)."
-us,scenario_112,snap,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model included $1,920 of farm rent and failed the 100% FPL net test. With farm rent excluded, net income is $1,269.19, below $1,304.17, and the household receives the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_112,snap,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model counted farm rent to get $20,843 against a roughly $20,700 limit. Countable income excludes farm rent and is $18,923/yr (121% FPL), which passes, so the household receives the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_112,snap,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model's 130% gross-test failure comes from counting farm rent. Countable gross income is $1,576.90/mo (121% FPL), which passes, and the household is eligible for the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_112,snap,kimi-k2.6,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model counted farm rent to reach $20,843 and failed the 130% gross test. Countable gross income is $18,923/yr (121% FPL), so the household passes and receives the $23.84/mo one-person minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_112,snap,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model denied categorical eligibility and let the expected contribution eliminate the allotment. Texas confers BBCE through TANF non-cash assistance, and eligible one-person households receive the $23.84/mo minimum allotment even when 30% of net income exceeds the $298 maximum."
-us,scenario_112,snap,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model invented a rule that a single adult with wages does not qualify for SNAP. One-person households are eligible when they pass the income tests, and this household does (net $1,269.19 against a $1,304.17 limit), so it receives the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_112,snap,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model's $1,737/mo income includes farm rent, which pushed net income over the limit. Excluding farm rent gives net income of $1,269.19, which passes the $1,304.17 limit, and the household gets the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_112,snap,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model counted farm rent to get $1,737/mo against a $1,695 limit set at 130% FPL. Countable gross income is $1,576.90 (121% FPL), which passes, so the household receives the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_112,snap,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model first derived $0 because 30% of net income exceeded the maximum. It then substituted an unsupported $3,576 by assuming a shelter deduction that the household does not have. The correct result is the one-person minimum allotment of $23.84/mo ($287.68/yr)."
-us,scenario_112,snap,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model asserted ineligibility without computing anything. Countable gross income is $1,576.90 (121% FPL) and net income is $1,269.19 (97% FPL), so the household is eligible and receives the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model worked out taxable income of $78,077 and tax of about $11,889, then submitted $8,971 with no supporting calculation. Its itemized deductions also left Virginia income tax out of SALT, left out the $2,434.80 Medicare Part B premium, counted the $2,000 of over-the-counter costs, and skipped the 0.5%-of-AGI charitable floor."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used its own $3,524 Virginia income tax in SALT, while the frozen reference uses a $5,367.30 withholding estimate. Its $4,007 medical deduction counts the $2,000 of over-the-counter costs, which the engine excludes, instead of the $2,434.80 Part B premium the engine imputes. Neither withholding nor the premium is listed in the prompt. These differences put its itemized deductions about $2,278 below the reference's, giving taxable income of $75,085 versus the reference's $72,807."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left $19,829 of taxable Social Security out of income and used an invented $28,300 standard deduction. It then added Medicare payroll tax to income tax and applied an arbitrary upward 'adjustment' to reach $10,268, so the number does not come from any valid calculation."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the standard deduction and senior add-on wipe out taxable income. AGI is about $106,573, and even after $33,765 of deductions taxable income is $72,807, which is taxed in the 22% bracket."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Partway through, it reached about $10,711 with the senior deduction, then submitted $5,489 without any calculation behind it. Its itemized total also wrongly counted SALT as the $10,000 cap rather than actual taxes paid, left out Virginia income tax and the Medicare Part B premium, and skipped the 0.5% charitable floor."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It invented $4,500 of mortgage interest from the loan balance even though the prompt gives no interest, left out the $4,106 OBBBA senior deduction, and left Virginia income tax and the Part B premium out of itemized deductions. It then reduced its own $11,802 to $11,210 with no explanation."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the partnership/S-corp income as self-employment income and deducted half of SE tax, and it took the standard deduction, which the recorded audit also gives with no state income tax paid or Part B premium; the frozen reference itemizes $24,787 by adding a $5,367.30 Virginia withholding estimate and an imputed $2,434.80 Part B premium. It then cut its own ~$11,900 estimate to $6,900 with no basis."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its SALT of $7,618.50 uses its own Virginia tax of about $3,555, while the frozen reference uses a $5,367.30 withholding estimate. Its $4,007 medical deduction counts the $2,000 of over-the-counter costs the engine excludes, instead of the $2,434.80 Part B premium the engine imputes. Neither withholding nor the premium is listed in the prompt. Itemized deductions are $2,248 below the reference's, and taxable income is $75,055 versus the reference's $72,807."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated 2026 as unchanged TCJA law and left out the $4,106 OBBBA senior deduction. It also invented $6,693 of mortgage interest from the balance, left Virginia income tax out of SALT, skipped the 0.5% charitable floor, and used inflation-guessed brackets instead of the 2026 $12,400/$50,400 thresholds."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $19,518 of itemized deductions left Virginia income tax out of SALT and left out the Medicare Part B premium, and it left out the $4,106 senior deduction entirely. That produced taxable income of $82,183 instead of $72,807."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized $21,188, below the frozen reference's $24,787. The reference's SALT uses an unlisted $5,367.30 Virginia withholding estimate, and its medical deduction includes an imputed $2,434.80 Part B premium. The model's taxable income is $76,407 versus the reference's $72,807."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted half of SE tax ($1,721) as though the partnership income were self-employment earnings, and left Virginia income tax and the Part B premium out of itemized deductions. It also left out the $4,106 senior deduction, giving taxable income of $82,357."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It omitted the $4,106 OBBBA senior deduction and skipped the 0.5% charitable floor. Its SALT uses its own $3,551.53 Virginia tax, while the frozen reference uses an unlisted $5,367.30 withholding estimate. Its $2,007 medical deduction excludes the $2,434.80 Part B premium the engine imputes despite the prompt listing none. Its taxable income is $80,631."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied pre-TCJA sunset law, with a $5,350 personal exemption and 10%/15%/25% brackets, and dropped the QBI and senior deductions. OBBBA made the TCJA rates permanent, kept the 20% QBI deduction, and added the senior deduction for 2026."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its taxable income of $79,373 leaves out the $4,106 OBBBA senior deduction. Its implied itemized deductions are about $2,460 below the frozen reference's, which includes an unlisted $5,367.30 Virginia withholding estimate and an imputed $2,434.80 Part B premium; its explanation does not give the deduction components."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used pre-TCJA law: a $5,000 personal exemption and 10%/15%/25% brackets, with no senior deduction. It also subtracted half of SE tax as though the partnership income were self-employment income."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It overstated gross income at $110,094 instead of AGI of $106,573, and left out the QBI and senior deductions, and its listed itemized deductions include no state income tax. The frozen reference's deductions add an unlisted $5,367.30 Virginia withholding estimate and an imputed $2,434.80 Part B premium. The model reports taxable income of about $81,300."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied 2026 pre-TCJA sunset law with personal exemptions and the old higher brackets. Under OBBBA, 2026 keeps the TCJA rates and the QBI deduction and adds the senior deduction."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used TCJA-sunset brackets with a $5,050 personal exemption and no senior deduction, which is not 2026 OBBBA law. Its $19,256 of itemized deductions are below the frozen reference's $24,787, which includes an unlisted $5,367.30 Virginia withholding estimate and an imputed $2,434.80 Part B premium."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation. Under the 2026 brackets, $9,334 implies taxable income of about $66,460, which implies deductions about $6,350 above the frozen reference's and taxable income below its $72,807; the reference depends on unlisted withholding and Part B inputs."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $4,106 OBBBA senior deduction. Its $22,018 of itemized deductions are about $2,770 below the frozen reference's, whose SALT includes an unlisted $5,367.30 Virginia withholding estimate and whose medical deduction includes an imputed $2,434.80 Part B premium. The model's taxable income is $79,682."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the $18,150 standard deduction and omitted the $4,106 senior deduction, giving taxable income of about $83,550. The frozen reference's $72,807 uses $24,787 of itemized deductions that include an unlisted $5,367.30 Virginia withholding estimate and an imputed $2,434.80 Part B premium."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized only $17,518, leaving out Virginia income tax, the Part B premium and the 0.5% charitable floor. It also never applied the $4,872 QBI deduction or the $4,106 senior deduction."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,It wrongly assumed the QBI deduction expired after 2025 and applied a personal exemption with 10%/15%/25% brackets. OBBBA made the TCJA rates and QBI permanent and added the senior deduction for 2026.
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $17,518 of itemized deductions left out Virginia income tax in SALT and the Medicare Part B premium in medical, and it left out the $4,106 OBBBA senior deduction. That gave taxable income of $84,183 instead of $72,807."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the standard and age-65 deductions eliminate all taxable income. AGI is about $106,573, and the frozen reference's taxable income after deductions including unlisted engine inputs is $72,807, which is taxed in the 22% bracket."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the filer as having modest taxable income, ignoring $86,744 of non-Social Security income plus $19,829 of taxable Social Security. The frozen reference's taxable income, after deductions including unlisted engine inputs, is $72,807; the listed income also contradicts the model's zero-tax explanation."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied post-2025 sunset law with a personal exemption and the old brackets, and dropped the QBI and senior deductions. Its $17,518 itemized total is below the frozen reference's $24,787, which includes an unlisted $5,367.30 Virginia withholding estimate and an imputed $2,434.80 Part B premium."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It wrongly deducted half of an estimated SE tax on the partnership income and took the standard deduction, while the frozen reference itemizes using an unlisted Virginia withholding estimate and an imputed Part B premium. Its taxable income of $67,020 is about $5,790 below the reference's $72,807."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the $18,150 standard deduction plus the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction. Its $11,970 matches the recorded audit's $11,969.80 standard-deduction result with no state income tax paid, no local sales-tax estimate and no Medicare Part B premium. The frozen reference instead counts a $5,367.30 Virginia withholding estimate and an imputed $2,434.80 Part B premium, itemizes $24,787 and reaches taxable income of $72,807."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $11,540 implies taxable income of about $76,490, about $3,684 above the frozen reference's $72,807. Its explanation gives no deduction figures; if its other deductions match the reference's, its itemized deductions are about $3,684 below the reference's $24,787, which includes an unlisted $5,367.30 Virginia withholding estimate and an imputed $2,434.80 Part B premium."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $20,639 of itemized deductions and $11,642.20 answer match the recorded $20,639.28 and $11,642.16 alternative with no Part B premium and the engine's $3,654.15 Virginia liability in SALT. The frozen reference instead counts an unlisted $5,367.30 Virginia withholding estimate and an imputed $2,434.80 Part B premium, producing taxable income of $72,807."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $4,106 OBBBA senior deduction, and its implied roughly $21,000 of itemized deductions are below the frozen reference's $24,787, which includes an unlisted $5,367.30 Virginia withholding estimate and an imputed $2,434.80 Part B premium. That left taxable income at $80,675."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It dropped $10,000 of income, stating AGI as $96,573 instead of $106,573, and took the standard deduction plus the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction while the frozen reference itemizes $24,787 using an unlisted Virginia withholding estimate and an imputed Medicare Part B premium. The wrong AGI also inflated its senior deduction to $4,706."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no itemized figure, and its $11,642.09 answer matches the recorded $11,642.16 alternative with no Part B premium and the engine's $3,654.15 Virginia liability in SALT, where itemized deductions are $20,639.28. The frozen reference instead includes an unlisted $5,367.30 Virginia withholding estimate and an imputed $2,434.80 Part B premium."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation. $10,234 implies taxable income of about $70,555, which implies combined deductions about $2,250 above the frozen reference's $33,765 (itemized $24,787 + QBI $4,872 + senior $4,106)."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied post-TCJA sunset law with a $5,468 personal exemption and 10%/15%/25% brackets, and dropped the QBI and senior deductions. OBBBA keeps TCJA rates and QBI for 2026 and adds the senior deduction."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It wrongly assumed the TCJA sunset and QBI expiration, adding a $5,300 personal exemption and the 15%/25% brackets. 2026 law under OBBBA keeps the 12%/22% brackets and the $4,872 QBI deduction and adds the $4,106 senior deduction."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It concluded the $18,150 standard deduction exceeds itemized deductions. The frozen reference itemizes $24,787 by counting an unlisted $5,367.30 Virginia withholding estimate and an imputed $2,434.80 Medicare Part B premium. On its own standard-deduction path, the model omitted the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, leaving taxable income of $79,445."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $4,106 OBBBA senior deduction, and its SALT used its own $2,746 Virginia tax, while the frozen reference uses a $5,367.30 withholding estimate. Its medical deduction counted over-the-counter costs, which the engine excludes, while the reference includes an imputed $2,434.80 Part B premium; neither withholding nor the premium is listed in the prompt. Its taxable income was $79,437."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied pre-TCJA brackets with a $5,300 personal exemption and dropped the senior deduction. It also wrongly deducted half of SE tax on the partnership income, which brought AGI down to $104,852."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,It returned no value and no explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits.
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the standard deduction because it put itemized deductions at only $17,518. The model gives no itemized breakdown. Its $11,969.85 matches the recorded audit's $11,969.80 standard-deduction result with no state income tax paid, no local sales-tax estimate and no Part B premium. The frozen reference instead counts an unlisted $5,367.30 Virginia withholding estimate and an imputed $2,434.80 Part B premium, itemizes $24,787 and returns $10,729.61."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It said taxable income is positive and that it itemizes, yet submitted $0. No nonrefundable credit applies to offset tax on $72,807 of taxable income."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its taxable income of $78,077 is about $5,270 above the frozen reference's $72,807. The reference's itemized deductions include an unlisted $5,367.30 Virginia withholding estimate and an imputed $2,434.80 Medicare Part B premium, and exclude the $2,000 of over-the-counter costs; the model gives no itemized breakdown."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It put itemized deductions at about $19,500 and chose the standard deduction, while the frozen reference itemizes $24,787 by counting an unlisted $5,367.30 Virginia withholding estimate and an imputed $2,434.80 Medicare Part B premium. It also left out the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction from its own standard-deduction path, giving taxable income of $79,445."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left the $19,829 of taxable Social Security out of income, used an outdated $15,750 standard deduction, and skipped itemizing and the senior deduction. Its $15,654 does not even match the tax on its own $66,122 taxable income."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It stated AGI as $80,164, losing about $26,400 of income, used a made-up $20,400 standard deduction, and limited QBI to $3,550. It then subtracted the QBI tax effect a second time, ending at $5,290."
+us,scenario_112,snap,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It counted the $160/mo farm rent as SNAP income, which raised gross income to $1,737 and net income to about $1,429, so the net test failed. SNAP countable income is only wages plus financial assistance ($1,576.90). That gives a net of $1,269.19, which is 97% of FPL and passes, and the household then gets the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_112,snap,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It included the $160/mo farm rent in countable income, which put net income at about $1,429, above the 100% FPL net limit. Without farm rent, net income is $1,269.19 and passes. It also treated 30% of net exceeding the $298 maximum as producing $0, when an eligible one-person household gets the 8% minimum allotment ($23.84/mo)."
+us,scenario_112,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It counted farm rent as SNAP income ($1,737/mo gross) and said this exceeded the gross limit. Countable gross income is $1,576.90 (wages plus financial assistance), which is 121% of FPL and under both the 130% limit and Texas's 165% BBCE limit. The household passes the net test at 97% FPL and gets the minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_112,snap,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It did not compute anything and defaulted to $0. Countable income of $1,576.90/mo (wages plus financial assistance) leaves net income of $1,269.19 after the earned-income and $209 standard deductions. That passes the 100% FPL net test, and the household receives the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_112,snap,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It added the $160/mo farm rent to reach $1,737 and applied a 130% gross limit. SNAP countable gross income is $1,576.90, which is 121% of FPL and within the limit even before Texas BBCE raises it to 165%. Net income of $1,269.19 passes, and the minimum allotment of about $24/mo applies."
+us,scenario_112,snap,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated the $13,000 financial assistance as an excluded gift and counted farm rent instead. SNAP counts the financial assistance as $1,083.33/mo of unearned income and does not count farm rent. Net income is therefore $1,269.19, 30% of it exceeds the maximum allotment, and the benefit falls to the $23.84/mo minimum, not about $192/mo."
+us,scenario_112,snap,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It left the $13,000 financial assistance out of countable income and produced a near-maximum benefit. Financial assistance counts as unearned income, so net income is $1,269.19 and the expected contribution ($380.76) exceeds the $298 maximum. The household gets only the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_112,snap,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It assumed the $13,000 financial assistance was not countable and included farm rent, which gave a net of $346. SNAP counts the financial assistance and excludes farm rent, giving net income of $1,269.19. The 30% contribution then exceeds the maximum, leaving only the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_112,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It counted farm rent so that gross income was $20,843 and failed a 130% gross test. SNAP countable gross income excludes farm rent and is $1,576.90/mo, or 121% of FPL. That passes the gross test (Texas BBCE allows 165%) and the net test (97% FPL), so the minimum allotment applies."
+us,scenario_112,snap,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It counted farm rent and claimed gross income was far above 130% FPL. Countable gross income is $1,576.90/mo (121% FPL) and net income is $1,269.19 (97% FPL). The household is eligible and receives the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_112,snap,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated the $13,000 financial assistance as non-countable, which gave a $346 net and a $194/mo benefit. Financial assistance counts as unearned income, so net income is $1,269.19 and 30% of it exceeds the $298 maximum. The benefit is the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_112,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It included $1,920 of farm rent to reach $20,843, just over 130% FPL ($20,345). Countable income excludes farm rent and is $18,923/yr (121% FPL), which passes the gross test, and Texas BBCE also raises the limit to 165%. With net income at 97% FPL, the minimum allotment is paid."
+us,scenario_112,snap,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Its $1,737/mo gross figure includes the $160 of farm rent, which SNAP does not count. Countable gross income is $1,576.90 (121% FPL), which passes, and net income of $1,269.19 passes the 100% FPL test. The household receives the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_112,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It concluded that because 30% of net income exceeds the maximum allotment, the benefit is $0. An eligible one- or two-person household that passes the net income test gets the minimum allotment of 8% of the one-person maximum ($23.84/mo). It also counted farm rent, which SNAP excludes."
+us,scenario_112,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It compared 30% of an annual net figure ($1,936) against a monthly maximum allotment and set the benefit to $0. It also ignored the minimum allotment. Monthly net income is $1,269.19, which passes the net test, and the household receives the $23.84/mo minimum."
+us,scenario_112,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Its $1,440.20 net income includes the $160/mo farm rent, which SNAP does not count. Without it, net income is $1,269.19, below the $1,304.17 net limit. The household qualifies under Texas BBCE for the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_112,snap,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It gave $0 without any computation. Countable income of $1,576.90/mo (wages plus financial assistance, excluding farm rent) yields net income of $1,269.19, which passes the 100% FPL test. The household gets the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_112,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It set SNAP to $0 because 30% of net income exceeds the one-person maximum. Eligible one-person households get the minimum allotment of 8% of the maximum ($23.84/mo) whenever the formula falls below it. Net income of $1,269.19 passes the net test, so that minimum is paid."
+us,scenario_112,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It counted farm rent (net of about $1,440) and then reduced the benefit to $0 because 30% of net exceeded the maximum. With farm rent excluded, net income is $1,269.19 and passes. The one-person household then receives the $23.84/mo minimum allotment instead of $0."
+us,scenario_112,snap,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It gave $0 with no derivation. Countable income excludes farm rent, so net income is $1,269.19 (97% FPL), the household is eligible, and it receives the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_112,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It assumed that a 30% contribution above the maximum allotment means a $0 benefit. Eligible one-person households that pass the net income test (net $1,269.19 is 97% FPL) receive the minimum allotment of $23.84/mo."
+us,scenario_112,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It claimed income exceeded the net limit. Countable income excludes the farm rent, which leaves net income at $1,269.19, below the $1,304.17 limit. It also missed that the minimum allotment ($23.84/mo) replaces a zero formula benefit."
+us,scenario_112,snap,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It returned $0 because 30% of net income exceeded the maximum allotment and ignored the minimum allotment for one- and two-person households. Net income of $1,269.19 passes the net test, so $23.84/mo is paid. Under Texas BBCE, vehicles and assets do not disqualify the household."
+us,scenario_112,snap,gemini-4-argon,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It counted only wages and left out the $13,000 financial assistance, which gave a net of $185.87 and a large benefit. Financial assistance is countable unearned income ($1,083.33/mo), which raises net income to $1,269.19. The 30% contribution then exceeds the maximum, leaving only the $23.84/mo minimum."
+us,scenario_112,snap,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It counted the $160/mo farm rent, which produced a net of about $1,434, above the poverty line. Excluding farm rent, net income is $1,269.19, below the $1,304.17 limit. The household is eligible for the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_112,snap,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It used a wrong gross limit (about $17,000), counted farm rent, and treated the $11,838 vehicle as disqualifying. Texas BBCE waives the asset test, and countable gross income of $18,923 (121% FPL) passes. Net income at 97% FPL yields the minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_112,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It asserted that income and resources were too high without calculating anything. BBCE waives the asset test, and countable income excluding farm rent gives net income of $1,269.19, which passes the 100% FPL test. The household gets the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_112,snap,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly claimed the inputs were insufficient and defaulted to $0. Household size is one, and wages plus financial assistance give net income of $1,269.19, which passes the net test. The $23.84/mo minimum allotment applies."
+us,scenario_112,snap,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Its $20,843 gross figure includes farm rent, which SNAP does not count. Countable gross income of $18,923 is 121% of FPL, under both the 130% and the Texas BBCE 165% limits. Net income passes at 97% FPL, so the minimum allotment is paid."
+us,scenario_112,snap,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It counted farm rent alongside wages and financial assistance and said the gross limit was exceeded. Excluding farm rent, gross income is 121% FPL and passes, and net income of $1,269.19 is 97% FPL. The household receives the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_112,snap,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It counted farm rent and so failed the net income test. SNAP countable income excludes farm rent, giving net income of $1,269.19 after the $98.72 earned-income and $209 standard deductions, which passes the net test. The minimum allotment of $23.84/mo applies."
+us,scenario_112,snap,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It counted farm rent and reported that the gross limit was exceeded. Countable gross income is $1,576.90/mo (121% FPL), which passes even the 130% test, and Texas BBCE allows 165%. Net income passes, so the $23.84/mo minimum allotment is paid."
+us,scenario_112,snap,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It counted farm rent, which pushed net income above the 100% FPL limit. Without farm rent, net income is $1,269.19, below $1,304.17, so no shelter deduction is needed to qualify. The household gets the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_112,snap,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It included farm rent in countable income and failed the net test. SNAP income excludes farm rent, so net income is $1,269.19 (97% FPL), and the eligible one-person household receives the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_112,snap,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It counted farm rent and treated high countable income as producing $0. Net income without farm rent is $1,269.19, which passes the net test. Because 30% of net exceeds the maximum, the 8% minimum allotment ($23.84/mo) is paid rather than zero."
+us,scenario_112,snap,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It counted farm rent and concluded that income was too high for any benefit. Excluding farm rent, the household passes the net test at 97% FPL. The minimum allotment of $23.84/mo applies even though the formula benefit is negative."
+us,scenario_112,snap,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It asserted that income and assets exceeded limits without computing them. Texas BBCE waives the asset test, and countable income excluding farm rent gives net income of $1,269.19, below the $1,304.17 limit. The household receives the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_112,snap,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It counted farm rent and concluded the household failed either the gross or the net test. Countable gross income of $1,576.90 (121% FPL) and net income of $1,269.19 (97% FPL) both pass. The $23.84/mo minimum allotment applies."
+us,scenario_112,snap,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated 30% of net income exceeding the one-person maximum as a $0 benefit. SNAP guarantees eligible one- and two-person households a minimum allotment of 8% of the maximum ($23.84/mo). This household is eligible once farm rent is excluded (net $1,269.19)."
+us,scenario_112,snap,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It counted $1,920 of farm rent, which kept net income above the 100% FPL limit. Excluding farm rent, net income is $1,269.19, which passes. The household then receives the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_112,snap,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Its $20,843 gross figure includes farm rent, which tipped it over 130% FPL. Countable gross income is $18,923 (121% FPL), which passes the gross test, and Texas BBCE raises the limit to 165%. Net income passes and the minimum allotment applies."
+us,scenario_112,snap,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,It counted farm rent and applied a 130% gross test that it then failed. SNAP countable gross income excludes farm rent and is 121% of FPL. The household passes both tests and receives the $23.84/mo minimum allotment.
+us,scenario_112,snap,kimi-k2.6,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It counted farm rent to reach $20,843 and failed the 130% gross test. Countable income excluding farm rent is $18,923 (121% FPL), and Texas BBCE uses 165%. The household is eligible for the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_112,snap,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly denied categorical eligibility; the household is categorically eligible through TANF non-cash assistance (Texas BBCE). It also counted farm rent and let the expected contribution zero out the allotment. Net income of $1,269.19 passes, so the $23.84/mo minimum allotment is paid."
+us,scenario_112,snap,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It wrongly assumed that a single adult with wages cannot qualify for SNAP. A one-person household with countable income of $1,576.90/mo and net income of $1,269.19 (97% FPL) is eligible and receives the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_112,snap,muse-spark-1.3,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It counted farm rent to reach $20,843 and failed the 130% gross test. Countable gross income excludes farm rent and is 121% of FPL, so it passes. Net income at 97% FPL yields the minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_112,snap,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"Its $1,737/mo income figure includes the $160 of farm rent, which SNAP does not count. Without it, net income after deductions is $1,269.19, below the one-person net limit of $1,304.17, so the $23.84/mo minimum allotment is paid."
+us,scenario_112,snap,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It counted farm rent to reach $1,737/mo and failed a 130% gross limit of $1,695. Countable gross income is $1,576.90, which passes. Net income at 97% FPL qualifies the household for the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_112,snap,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It counted farm rent, computed a negative formula benefit, and then replaced it with an unsupported $3,576 guess based on an assumed shelter deduction. Rent is $0, so no shelter deduction exists. With farm rent excluded, net income is $1,269.19 and the benefit is the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_112,snap,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"It declared the household ineligible with no derivation. Countable income excludes farm rent, net income of $1,269.19 passes the 100% FPL net test, and Texas BBCE makes the household eligible for the $23.84/mo minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its own itemized path reached taxable income of $78,077 and tax of about $11,889, but it then cut the answer to $8,971 with an unexplained 'bracket inflation' adjustment. Its itemized total also left VA income tax out of SALT (the engine adds $5,367.30), skipped the 0.5%-of-AGI charitable floor, and counted the $2,000 of OTC expenses instead of the $2,434.80 Part B premium."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its structure matches the engine: AGI of $106,573, the charitable floor, the phased $4,106 senior deduction, $4,872 of QBI, and 2026 brackets. However, its SALT used a $3,524 VA tax estimate where the engine includes $5,367.30 of imputed VA withholding, and its medical deduction counted the $2,000 of OTC expenses (not deductible under §213(b)) instead of the engine's $2,434.80 Part B premium. That gave itemized deductions of $22,510 instead of $24,787.23 and taxable income of $75,085 instead of $72,807.33."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left the $19,828.80 of taxable Social Security out of income, used an invented $28,300 standard deduction, and then added $336 of Medicare payroll tax plus an arbitrary $2,000 'safe harbor' adjustment to income tax. Its number is close to the target only because these errors offset each other; it never itemized $24,787.23 or took the $4,105.65 senior and $4,872.35 QBI deductions against $106,572.56 of AGI."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed taxable income falls in a zero-tax range, ignoring that AGI is $106,572.56, including $19,828.80 of taxable Social Security. Even after $33,765.23 of deductions, $72,807.33 of taxable income remains and reaches the 22% bracket."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It entered the $10,000 SALT cap as the deduction instead of the taxes actually counted ($4,064 of real estate tax plus the engine's $5,367.30 of VA withholding). It also took the full $6,000 senior deduction without the 6% phase-down above $75,000 of MAGI, which leaves $4,105.65. After computing about $10,711, it reported an unexplained $5,489."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It invented $4,500 of mortgage interest from the loan balance, omitted the $4,105.65 phased senior deduction, skipped the 0.5% charitable floor, and left VA income tax out of SALT. It then reported $11,210, although its own taxable income of $77,683 produces about $11,802 under 2026 brackets."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the partnership/S-corp income as self-employment earnings and subtracted $1,721 of half-SE tax that the engine does not apply. It also took the standard deduction instead of the engine's $24,787.23 itemized total and used the unphased $6,000 senior deduction. It then cut its own estimate of about $11,900 to $6,900 with no supporting step."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its framework matches the engine, but its SALT used $3,554.50 of estimated VA liability where the engine includes $5,367.30 of imputed VA withholding. Its $4,007 medical deduction counted the $2,000 of OTC expenses instead of the engine's $2,434.80 Part B premium. Together these left itemized deductions $2,247.63 short ($22,539.60 vs $24,787.23) and taxable income at $75,055.20 instead of $72,807.33."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It invented $6,693 of mortgage interest at an assumed 7% rate, omitted the $4,105.65 phased 2026 senior deduction, left VA income tax out of SALT, and skipped the 0.5% charitable floor. It also used inflation-guessed brackets (12% ending at $49,784) instead of the 2026 schedule, where 12% runs to $50,400."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It omitted the $4,105.65 phased senior deduction, left VA income tax out of SALT (the engine uses $5,367.30), skipped the 0.5% charitable floor, and counted OTC expenses instead of the $2,434.80 Part B premium. That produced taxable income of $82,183 instead of $72,807.33, and it taxed that income at approximate pre-2026 brackets."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the right structure: itemizing, the phased $4,106 senior deduction, $4,872 of QBI, and 2026 brackets. Its itemized total of $21,188 is $3,599 below the engine's $24,787.23, which carries $5,367.30 of imputed VA withholding in SALT and a $2,434.80 Part B premium in medical expenses. As a result, taxable income was $76,407 instead of $72,807.33."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted $1,721 of half-SE tax by treating partnership/S-corp income as self-employment earnings, omitted the $4,105.65 phased senior deduction, and itemized only $17,645 with no VA income tax and no Part B premium. That left taxable income at $82,357 instead of $72,807.33."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It omitted the OBBBA senior deduction ($6,000 reduced by 6% of MAGI over $75,000, to $4,105.65), left the $2,434.80 Part B premium out of medical expenses, and skipped the 0.5% charitable floor, ending at $80,630.83 of taxable income. It also used bracket thresholds of $12,200 and $49,400 instead of the 2026 thresholds of $12,400 and $50,400."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset law for 2026, with a $5,350 personal exemption and 10/15/25% brackets, although OBBBA made the 10/12/22% schedule and zero exemption permanent. It also omitted the $4,872.35 QBI deduction and the $4,105.65 senior deduction."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized and took the QBI deduction but omitted the $4,105.65 phased OBBBA senior deduction, which applies to itemizers too. That left taxable income at $79,372.69 instead of $72,807.33."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied a $5,000 personal exemption and pre-TCJA 10/15/25% brackets, which OBBBA eliminated for 2026. It also subtracted $1,721 of half-SE tax on partnership income that the engine does not treat as self-employment earnings."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It overstated gross income at $110,094 instead of $106,572.56 of AGI and reached about $81,300 of taxable income without the $4,105.65 senior deduction or the $4,872.35 QBI deduction. Its $13,919 also exceeds the 2026 single-bracket tax on its own $81,300, which is about $12,600."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied personal exemptions and pre-TCJA rates for 2026, but OBBBA permanently kept the 10/12/22% schedule with no personal exemption. It also never applied the $4,872.35 QBI deduction or the $4,105.65 senior deduction."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used TCJA-sunset brackets and a $5,050 personal exemption, though OBBBA kept the 10/12/22% schedule and zero exemption for 2026. It also omitted the $4,105.65 senior deduction and itemized only $19,256 instead of the engine's $24,787.23."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation. Under 2026 single brackets, $9,334 corresponds to about $66,460 of taxable income, roughly $6,340 below the engine's $72,807.33 ($106,572.56 AGI minus $24,787.23 itemized, $4,872.35 QBI and $4,105.65 senior deductions), so it overstated deductions or understated income."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It omitted the $4,105.65 phased senior deduction and applied 2025 brackets, with 12% ending at $48,475, instead of the 2026 schedule, where 12% runs to $50,400. As a result it taxed $79,682.36 instead of $72,807.33."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the standard deduction with the aged add-on plus QBI but omitted the $4,105.65 senior deduction and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction. The engine instead itemizes $24,787.23, including $5,367.30 of imputed VA withholding and a $2,434.80 Part B premium, which yields $72,807.33 of taxable income."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It omitted both the $4,872.35 QBI deduction and the $4,105.65 senior deduction. Its $17,518 itemized total also lacks VA income tax in SALT, the Part B premium, and the 0.5% charitable floor, so it taxed about $89,000 instead of $72,807.33."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied a personal exemption and pre-TCJA rates for 2026, both of which OBBBA eliminated permanently. It also did not apply the $4,872.35 QBI deduction or the $4,105.65 senior deduction."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the TCJA sunset: no QBI deduction, a $5,500 personal exemption, and 10/15/25% brackets. OBBBA made §199A and the 10/12/22% schedule permanent and added the senior deduction, worth $4,105.65 here, for 2026."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It omitted the $4,105.65 phased senior deduction and itemized only $17,518, with only real estate tax in SALT, no Part B premium, and no charitable floor. That produced $84,183 of taxable income instead of $72,807.33."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the standard and age-65 deductions wipe out all taxable income. AGI is $106,572.56, including $19,828.80 of taxable Social Security, and taxable income after all deductions is $72,807.33."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the filer as having modest income, mainly from Social Security, and ignored $86,744 of wage, partnership, pension and IRA income. That income makes 85% of benefits taxable and leaves $72,807.33 of taxable income."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a personal exemption and TCJA-sunset brackets, but OBBBA retained the 10/12/22% schedule with no exemption for 2026. It also omitted the $4,872.35 QBI deduction and the $4,105.65 senior deduction."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted half of an estimated self-employment tax on partnership/S-corp income that the engine does not treat as SE earnings, and it took the standard-deduction path instead of the engine's $24,787.23 itemized total. Even so, its stated $67,020 of taxable income is $5,787 below the engine's $72,807.33, so its arithmetic overstated the standard, senior and QBI deductions."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the $18,150 standard deduction, the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, $4,105.63 of senior deduction and $4,872.40 of QBI. This reproduces the engine's standard-deduction alternative of $11,969.80, because its itemized tally counted no state income tax and no Part B premium. The engine adds $5,367.30 of imputed VA withholding to SALT and a $2,434.80 Part B premium to medical expenses, which raises itemized deductions to $24,787.23 and lowers tax by $1,240.19."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $11,540 implies about $76,490 of 2026 taxable income, roughly $3,680 above the engine's $72,807.33. That matches itemizing without the engine's $5,367.30 of imputed VA withholding and $2,434.80 Part B premium. It also cited the age-65 additional standard deduction, which is unavailable to itemizers."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly excluded the OTC expenses and applied the charitable floor, the phased senior deduction and QBI. However, its $20,639.33 itemized total omits the $2,434.80 Medicare Part B premium the engine counts as a medical expense, and it uses about $3,650 of VA tax where the engine includes $5,367.30 of imputed withholding. Its taxable income therefore came out at $76,955 instead of $72,807.33."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized and applied QBI but omitted the $4,105.65 phased OBBBA senior deduction. That left taxable income at about $80,675 instead of $72,807.33."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It understated AGI by $10,000 ($96,572.80 instead of $106,572.56), which also inflated the senior deduction to $4,705.63 through a smaller phase-down. It then took the standard-plus-$1,000-charitable path instead of the engine's $24,787.23 of itemized deductions."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $11,642.09 matches itemizing about $20,640 with the charitable floor, OTC expenses excluded, the phased senior deduction and $4,872.40 of QBI. That itemized total omits the $2,434.80 Part B premium the engine counts as a medical expense and uses less VA tax than the engine's $5,367.30 of imputed withholding, so taxable income is about $76,955 instead of $72,807.33."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation. Under 2026 single brackets, $10,234 corresponds to about $70,550 of taxable income, roughly $2,250 below the engine's $72,807.33, so its deductions exceeded the engine's $24,787.23 itemized, $4,872.35 QBI and $4,105.65 senior deductions."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied a $5,468 personal exemption and pre-TCJA 10/15/25% brackets, but OBBBA kept the 10/12/22% schedule with no exemption for 2026 and added the $4,105.65 senior deduction. It also skipped the $4,872.35 QBI deduction."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the TCJA sunset: QBI 'expired', a $5,300 personal exemption, and 10/15/25% brackets. OBBBA made §199A permanent, kept the 10/12/22% schedule with no exemption, and added the $4,105.65 phased senior deduction for 2026."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the $18,150 standard deduction but omitted the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, and it misapplied the brackets: its own $79,444.77 of taxable income yields $12,189.85, not $12,279. The engine instead itemizes $24,787.23, including $5,367.30 of imputed VA withholding and a $2,434.80 Part B premium."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It omitted the $4,105.65 phased senior deduction, skipped the 0.5%-of-AGI charitable floor, and used $2,746 of VA tax where the engine uses $5,367.30. That left taxable income at $79,437 instead of $72,807.33."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied a $5,300 personal exemption and pre-TCJA brackets for 2026, although OBBBA kept the 10/12/22% schedule, and it reduced AGI by half of an SE tax on partnership income that the engine does not treat as SE earnings. It also omitted the $4,105.65 senior deduction and the $4,872.35 QBI deduction."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was no answer to score against the engine's $10,729.61."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It compared a $17,518 itemized total (only real estate tax in SALT, $2,007 of medical with no Part B premium) against the $18,150 standard deduction. It chose the standard deduction plus $1,000 of charity, $4,105.63 of senior deduction and $4,872.40 of QBI, which reproduces the engine's standard-deduction alternative of $11,969.80. The engine adds $5,367.30 of imputed VA withholding and a $2,434.80 Part B premium, which raises itemized deductions to $24,787.23 and lowers tax to $10,729.61."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It listed income and deductions that leave positive taxable income, then asserted tax near $0 without identifying any nonrefundable credit. The filer has no qualifying credits and $72,807.33 of taxable income in the 22% bracket."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized and applied QBI but omitted the $4,105.65 phased OBBBA senior deduction. That left taxable income near $78,382 instead of $72,807.33."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the correct structure: itemizing, the phased senior deduction and QBI. Its $19,518 itemized total has only real estate tax in SALT and medical expenses that include the OTC spending, and it omits the engine's $5,367.30 of imputed VA withholding and $2,434.80 Part B premium. Its taxable income is therefore $78,077 instead of $72,807.33."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the standard deduction plus the senior deduction and QBI but omitted the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction that OBBBA allows from 2026. Its $19,500 itemized estimate also lacked the engine's $5,367.30 of imputed VA withholding and $2,434.80 Part B premium, which make itemizing $24,787.23 the better choice."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left Social Security out of income entirely and used an outdated $15,750 standard deduction. It then reported $15,654 of tax on its own $66,122 of taxable income, which 2026 brackets tax at about $9,259."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It misstated AGI as $80,164 instead of $106,572.56 (which includes $19,828.80 of taxable Social Security) and used a $20,400 standard deduction. After already reducing taxable income by those deductions, it subtracted the QBI benefit and charitable items from tax a second time, counting deductions twice as if they were credits."
us,scenario_114,federal_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model applied the childless EITC phaseout using only $22,700 of wages and ignored the rule requiring the greater of earned income or adjusted gross income. The filer’s other taxable income raises AGI beyond the childless EITC phaseout ceiling, yielding EITC of $0 rather than $295."
us,scenario_114,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model supplied no numeric output or explanation for federal_refundable_credits, so it failed the required submission contract."
us,scenario_114,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model correctly calculated both employee payroll-tax components and correctly excluded self-employment tax, but submitted $3,470.30 instead of their $1,736.55 sum. Its answer effectively duplicates the employee payroll-tax total despite its own reasoning identifying no additional component."
@@ -9247,54 +9542,56 @@ us,scenario_114,self_employment_tax,inkling,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"Tr
us,scenario_114,self_employment_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no self_employment_tax value and no explanation, so there is no substantive calculation to assess. The correct output is $0 because the household has no net earnings from self-employment."
us,scenario_114,self_employment_tax,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"Treated the $24,362 partnership/S-corp income as SE income and computed $3,442.62. It then submitted an unexplained $3,459.40. The pass-through income is not net earnings from self-employment, so SE tax is $0."
us,scenario_114,self_employment_tax,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"Treated the $24,362 partnership/S-corp income as net SE income, which is the core error because it is not SE earnings, so SE tax is $0. It also added a made-up 'additional Medicare-equivalent portion above the Social Security wage base'. No income here comes near that base, and this pushed its answer to $3,486.63."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized $19,518, skipping the 0.5%-of-AGI charitable floor and counting $2,000 of OTC spending. The frozen engine instead counts an unlisted $2,434.80 Part B premium and excludes OTC spending, giving $19,419.94 of itemized deductions. It also dropped the $800 aged exemption. Its own steps reached about $3,555, yet it reported an unsupported $2,597."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It kept a $256 age deduction by using a $75,000 threshold, but the single threshold is $50,000, so the deduction is fully phased out. Its $18,985 of itemized deductions counts the $2,000 OTC spending in medical costs. The frozen engine excludes OTC spending and instead imputes an unlisted $2,434.80 Part B premium, giving an itemized total about $435 higher."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It built a bogus $27,752 AGI by subtracting charitable gifts from income and then applied a federal-style $28,000 standard deduction. It never used VA AGI of $86,744. The frozen engine's itemized deductions and exemptions leave $65,594 taxable, with the medical deduction counting an unlisted Part B premium."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed an age deduction and a retirement-income subtraction would wipe out taxable income. The $12,000 age deduction is fully phased out at AFAGI of $86,744, and Virginia has no general pension exclusion, so the income is not wiped out; the frozen engine leaves $65,594 taxable after counting an unlisted Part B premium in itemized deductions."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took an $8,750 standard deduction and left out the $1,730 of exemptions, which yields $4,227. The frozen engine itemizes $19,419.94 using unlisted inputs; without both its Part B premium and its Virginia withholding estimate in federal SALT, it also takes the $8,750 Virginia standard deduction, yielding $4,127.67 with the exemptions. It then reported an unrelated $1,854."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It computed tax with the $8,500 standard deduction and only the $930 personal exemption, which gives $4,188. It then guessed $4,014 without computing the $19,419.94 of itemized deductions or adding the $800 aged exemption."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used an $8,500 standard deduction and turned the exemptions into a vague tax reduction. The frozen engine itemizes $19,419.94, including an unlisted Part B premium; without both that premium and its Virginia withholding estimate in federal SALT, the engine also takes the standard deduction. It should have subtracted the $1,730 of exemptions from income."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized $19,518, skipping the 0.5%-of-AGI charitable floor and counting $2,000 of OTC spending. The frozen engine instead imputes an unlisted $2,434.80 Part B premium and excludes OTC spending, giving $19,419.94 of itemized deductions. It subtracted only the $930 personal exemption and missed the $800 aged exemption, taxing $66,296 compared with the frozen engine's $65,593.83."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took a $9,000 standard deduction. The frozen engine itemizes $19,419.94, including an unlisted Part B premium; without both that premium and its Virginia withholding estimate in federal SALT, it also takes the standard deduction. It then subtracted the $930 personal and $800 aged exemptions from the tax as credits, but Virginia deducts them from taxable income."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the full $12,000 age deduction, but AFAGI of $86,744 exceeds the $50,000 single threshold by more than $12,000, so the deduction is zero. It also left out the $1,730 of exemptions and the Part B premium in medical costs, and then cut its own $2,947 result to $2,450 without basis."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $17,518 of itemized deductions leaves out the $2,434.80 Part B premium in medical costs and skips the 0.5%-of-AGI charitable floor. It also subtracted only the $930 exemption and missed the $800 aged exemption, so it taxed $68,296."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It misstated federal AGI as $104,874 and used a roughly $4,800 standard deduction plus $800, leaving $78,515 taxable. The frozen engine leaves $65,594 taxable using $19,419.94 of itemized deductions, including an unlisted Part B premium; without both that premium and its Virginia withholding estimate in federal SALT, it also takes the standard deduction."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the full $12,000 age deduction even though AFAGI of $86,744 phases it out entirely. It also used an $8,500 standard deduction and left out the $1,730 of exemptions. The frozen engine itemizes $19,419.94, including an unlisted Part B premium; without both that premium and its Virginia withholding estimate in federal SALT, it also takes the standard deduction."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $19,518.04 itemized total skips the 0.5%-of-AGI charitable floor and counts $2,000 of OTC spending. The frozen engine excludes OTC spending and instead imputes an unlisted $2,434.80 Part B premium. These different assumptions put its taxable income at $65,495.96 compared with the frozen engine's $65,593.83, and its tax about $6 below the frozen reference."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It never subtracted the $19,828.80 of federally taxable Social Security, which Virginia excludes. It also missed the $800 aged exemption and taxed $88,125. The frozen engine's $65,594 taxable income includes a medical deduction for an unlisted Part B premium, which the model did not count."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $23,948.60 itemized total exceeds the frozen engine's $19,419.94, which applies the charitable floor and counts an unlisted Part B premium in the medical deduction. It also dropped the $930 personal exemption and kept only $800."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $4,180 matches about $77,170 of taxable income, consistent with a standard deduction. The frozen engine itemizes $19,419.94 and subtracts $1,730 of exemptions, leaving $65,594 taxable; without both its unlisted Part B premium and its Virginia withholding estimate in federal SALT, it also takes the standard deduction."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $3,726 matches about $69,280 of taxable income, or only about $17,470 of total deductions. That is consistent with leaving the Part B premium out of medical costs and skipping the $1,730 of exemptions."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $15,511 itemized total leaves out the $4,441.86 medical deduction, which includes the Part B premium, and skips the charitable floor. It used a $1,600 exemption instead of $930 plus $800."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $5,617 matches about $102,000 of taxable income, so it never subtracted the $19,829 of taxable Social Security. It also applied almost none of the $19,419.94 of itemized deductions or the $1,730 of exemptions."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $17,518.04 itemized total includes a medical deduction of about $2,007, matching the engine's $2,007.06 without the unlisted Part B premium. The frozen engine imputes that $2,434.80 premium and deducts $4,441.86 of medical expenses. The model also skips the 0.5%-of-AGI charitable floor, taxing $67,496 compared with the frozen engine's $65,594."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $3,623.52 matches $17,518 of itemized deductions, which leaves out the $2,434.80 Part B premium and skips the 0.5%-of-AGI charitable floor. That understates deductions by about $1,900 compared with $19,419.94."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized $17,518 without the Part B premium or the charitable floor. The frozen engine's $19,419.94 itemized total applies the floor and includes an unlisted $2,434.80 premium. The model taxed $67,496 compared with the frozen engine's $65,593.83."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $14,036.62 implies roughly $248,000 of taxable income, which is impossible from VA AGI of $86,744. It also used a standard deduction, while the frozen engine itemizes $19,419.94 using an unlisted Part B premium. Without both that premium and its Virginia withholding estimate in federal SALT, the engine also takes the standard deduction. Its bracket arithmetic is broken."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used an $8,500 standard deduction and set the aged exemption at $930 instead of $800. The frozen engine itemizes $19,419.94 using an unlisted Part B premium; without both that premium and its Virginia withholding estimate in federal SALT, it also takes the standard deduction. It also misstated VA AGI as $87,744 and mangled the bracket arithmetic."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed deductions and exemptions shelter all income. VA AGI after the Social Security subtraction is $86,744. The frozen engine subtracts about $21,150 of itemized deductions and exemptions, including an unlisted Part B premium in medical costs, leaving $65,594 taxable."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed retirement income and age-based relief zero out the tax. Virginia taxes the $30,000 pension and $9,600 IRA, and the age deduction is phased out at AFAGI of $86,744, with the frozen engine leaving $65,594 taxable after counting an unlisted Part B premium in itemized deductions."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $17,518 itemized total leaves out the $2,434.80 Part B premium in medical costs and skips the 0.5%-of-AGI charitable floor. That understates deductions compared with $19,419.94, so it taxed $67,496."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the $12,000 age deduction on top of itemized deductions, which leaves about $51,647 taxable. AFAGI of $86,744 exceeds the $50,000 threshold by more than $12,000, so the age deduction is zero."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the $8,750 standard deduction. Without both the unlisted $2,434.80 Part B premium and $5,367.30 Virginia withholding estimate in federal SALT, the engine does the same, yielding $76,263.77 taxable income and $4,127.67 tax; its $19,419.94 itemized total applies in the frozen calculation that counts the unlisted inputs. It applied only the $930 exemption and missed the $800 aged exemption."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $4,658 matches about $85,500 of taxable income, so it subtracted almost nothing from VA AGI of $86,744. The frozen engine subtracts $19,419.94 of itemized deductions, including an unlisted Part B premium, and $1,730 of exemptions."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $16,985.18 of itemized deductions matches the engine's $16,985.14 without the unlisted Part B premium. Its $3,654.16 answer matches the adjudicated $3,654.15 alternative within a cent; the frozen $3,514.15 reference includes the $2,434.80 premium the engine imputes."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $3,397 matches about $63,560 of taxable income. That implied taxable income is about $2,037 below the frozen engine's $65,593.83. The engine's $21,149.94 total of deductions and exemptions includes an unlisted Part B premium."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its about $57,229 taxable income matches carrying into Virginia the $96,572.80 federal AGI stated in its federal answer, about $10,000 below the engine's: $76,744 of Virginia AGI less about $17,785 of itemized deductions and $1,730 of exemptions. The frozen engine's $19,419.94 itemized total includes an unlisted Part B premium. Virginia's rates on $57,229 give about $3,033, about $10 below its submitted $3,043.16."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $16,985.18 itemized total matches the engine's $16,985.14 without the unlisted Part B premium. Virginia's rates on its $68,028.82 taxable income give $3,654.16, within a cent of the adjudicated $3,654.15 alternative; its submitted $3,654.66 adds a $0.50 arithmetic slip."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the standard deduction and exemptions offset all tax. VA AGI is $86,744. The frozen engine subtracts about $21,150 of deductions and exemptions, including an unlisted Part B premium in medical costs, leaving $65,594 taxable."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $17,518 itemized total omits the Part B premium and skips the 0.5%-of-AGI charitable floor. The frozen engine applies the floor and imputes an unlisted $2,434.80 premium; it leaves $65,593.83 taxable compared with the model's $67,496."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $19,518 itemized total skips the 0.5%-of-AGI charitable floor and counts $2,000 of OTC spending. The frozen engine excludes OTC spending and instead imputes an unlisted $2,434.80 Part B premium. These different assumptions put taxable income at $65,496 compared with the frozen engine's $65,593.83."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the filer takes the federal standard deduction and so used Virginia's $8,500 standard deduction. The frozen engine itemizes $19,419.94 with its unlisted Part B premium. Without both that premium and its $5,367.30 Virginia withholding estimate in federal SALT, it also takes the standard deduction: $8,750 in Virginia, yielding $76,263.77 taxable income and $4,127.67 tax, about $250 less taxable income than the model's $8,500 deduction gives."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the fully phased-out $12,000 age deduction and left out the $1,730 of exemptions. It also used a 5.3% top rate instead of Virginia's 5.75%."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied only the $930 personal exemption and missed the $800 aged exemption. Its stated deductions give $66,167 taxable, not the $64,446 it taxed, so the reported tax rests on a subtraction error."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,The model returned no parseable value or explanation for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits.
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used an $8,500 standard deduction. The frozen engine itemizes $19,419.94 with its unlisted Part B premium; without both that premium and its $5,367.30 Virginia withholding estimate in federal SALT, it also takes the standard deduction, $8,750 in Virginia, yielding $76,263.77 taxable income and $4,127.67 tax. It also set the aged exemption at $930 instead of $800."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the filer as a low-income retiree with no tax. VA AGI is $86,744 after the Social Security subtraction, and the frozen engine's itemized deductions and exemptions leave $65,594 taxable, counting an unlisted Part B premium in medical costs."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took an $8,500 standard deduction. The frozen engine itemizes $19,419.94 using an unlisted Part B premium; without both that premium and its Virginia withholding estimate in federal SALT, it also takes the standard deduction. It applied only the $930 exemption and missed the $800 aged exemption."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It calculated AFAGI net of Social Security but then taxed federal AGI without subtracting the $19,829 of taxable Social Security. It also used a $9,500 standard deduction and left out the $1,730 of exemptions. The frozen engine itemizes $19,419.94 using an unlisted Part B premium; without both that premium and its Virginia withholding estimate in federal SALT, it also takes the standard deduction."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took a half-SE-tax deduction on partnership income, used a nonexistent $1,000 standard deduction and applied the fully phased-out $12,000 age deduction. It also subtracted the full $23,328 of Social Security from an AGI that never included it, and its final $2,453.71 does not match its own $2,542.44."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It understated federal AGI at $80,164, used a $9,000 standard deduction (the engine uses $8,750 when neither its unlisted Part B premium nor its Virginia withholding estimate in federal SALT is counted), and applied the fully phased-out $12,000 age deduction. It also invented $745.50 of nonrefundable credits."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its own working reached taxable income of $66,296 and tax of about $3,555, but it then submitted an unrelated $2,597. That working also left out the $800 aged exemption and the 0.5%-of-AGI floor on charitable gifts. It counted the $2,000 of OTC spending as medical expense instead of the $2,434.80 Medicare Part B premium."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It phased out the age deduction from a $75,000 threshold, which is the married figure, and kept a $256 deduction. For a single filer the threshold is $50,000, so the deduction is fully eliminated. Its $18,985 of itemized deductions counted $2,000 of OTC spending as medical expense instead of the $2,434.80 Part B premium, giving taxable income of $65,773 instead of $65,593.83."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left $19,829 of taxable Social Security out of federal AGI and subtracted charitable gifts above the line. It then applied an invented $28,000 federal standard deduction to reach $0, even though Virginia AGI is $86,744 and Virginia taxable income after itemized deductions and exemptions is $65,593.83."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed an age deduction and a retirement income subtraction would wipe out taxable income. Virginia has no general exclusion for pension or IRA income, and the $12,000 age deduction is zero once AFAGI reaches $86,744, so $65,593.83 stays taxable."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used an $8,750 standard deduction even though the filer itemizes ($19,419.94), and it left out the $930 personal and $800 aged exemptions, reaching $4,227. It then submitted $1,854, which does not follow from its own reasoning."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its main calculation used the $8,500 standard deduction instead of the $19,419.94 of itemized deductions and left out the $800 aged exemption. It then nudged the result to $4,014 instead of fully recomputing with itemized deductions."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the Virginia standard deduction instead of the $19,419.94 of itemized deductions, which is required because the filer itemizes. It also cut the tax by an arbitrary 'exemption credit' instead of subtracting the $1,730 of exemptions from taxable income."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took only the $930 personal exemption and left out the $800 aged exemption for a filer aged 69. Its $19,518 of itemized deductions skipped the 0.5%-of-AGI charitable floor and counted OTC spending instead of the $2,434.80 Part B premium. Taxable income came to $66,296 instead of $65,593.83."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $9,000 standard deduction instead of the $19,419.94 of itemized deductions. It also treated the $930 and $800 exemptions as credits against tax instead of deductions from taxable income, reaching $2,483."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the full $12,000 age deduction as if income were under the threshold. With AFAGI of $86,744 against the $50,000 single threshold, the deduction phases out to zero. It also left out the $1,730 of exemptions and then adjusted its $2,948 result down to $2,450 for no stated reason."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $17,518 of itemized deductions left the $2,434.80 Medicare Part B premium out of medical expenses and skipped the 0.5%-of-AGI charitable floor. It also used only the $930 exemption and left out the $800 aged exemption, giving taxable income of $68,296 instead of $65,593.83."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a wrong federal AGI of $104,874 and an invented $4,800 standard deduction instead of the $19,419.94 of itemized deductions, which left taxable income near $78,515 instead of $65,593.83."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the full $12,000 age deduction even though AFAGI of $86,744 phases it out to zero. It also used the $8,500 standard deduction instead of $19,419.94 of itemized deductions and left out the $1,730 of exemptions."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $19,518.04 of itemized deductions used the full $11,447 of charitable gifts without the 0.5%-of-AGI floor ($533 too high). Its medical deduction counted $2,000 of OTC spending instead of the $2,434.80 Medicare Part B premium ($435 too low). Together these overstated itemized deductions by $98 and understated the tax by about $5.63."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It never subtracted the $19,828.80 of taxable Social Security from federal AGI. It also left the Part B premium out of medical expenses and used only the $930 exemption, giving taxable income of $88,125 instead of $65,593.83."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It overstated itemized deductions at $23,948.60 against the correct $19,419.94, and allowed only the $800 aged exemption while leaving out the $930 personal exemption. Taxable income came out at $60,294 instead of $65,593.83."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $4,180 matches taxable income of about $77,200: Virginia AGI less a standard deduction and a small exemption. It used the standard deduction instead of the $19,419.94 of itemized deductions and did not take the full $1,730 of exemptions."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $3,726 matches taxable income of about $69,300, which means total deductions and exemptions of about $17,500 instead of $21,149.94. That is consistent with leaving the $2,434.80 Part B premium out of medical expenses and dropping the $800 aged exemption."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $15,511 of itemized deductions is just charitable gifts plus real estate tax, leaving out the $4,441.86 medical deduction (including the Part B premium) and the 0.5%-of-AGI charitable floor. It also used $1,600 of exemptions instead of $1,730."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $5,617 matches Virginia taxable income of about $102,000. That means it never subtracted the $19,828.80 of taxable Social Security or the $19,419.94 of itemized deductions from federal AGI."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $17,518.04 of itemized deductions counted only the $10,000 of medical expenses above the 7.5% floor. It left out the $2,434.80 Medicare Part B premium that this Medicare enrollee pays and skipped the 0.5%-of-AGI charitable floor, understating itemized deductions by $1,901.90."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $3,623.52 matches itemized deductions of $17,518.04, which leave the $2,434.80 Medicare Part B premium out of deductible medical expenses and skip the 0.5%-of-AGI charitable floor. Taxable income came to $67,495.96 instead of $65,593.83."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized $17,518, leaving the $2,434.80 Medicare Part B premium out of medical expenses and using the full $11,447 of charitable gifts without the 0.5%-of-AGI floor. Taxable income came to $67,496 instead of $65,593.83."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $17,518.04 of itemized deductions left the $2,434.80 Medicare Part B premium out of the medical deduction and skipped the 0.5%-of-AGI charitable floor. That overstated taxable income by $1,902."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its stated method (Virginia AGI of about $86,744 less a $9,000 standard deduction and $930 exemption) yields about $4,200. The $14,036.62 it reported is an arithmetic breakdown that matches roughly $250,000 of taxable income. It also used the standard deduction instead of $19,419.94 of itemized deductions."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the $8,500 standard deduction instead of the $19,419.94 of itemized deductions and put the aged exemption at $930 instead of $800. It also misstated Virginia AGI as $87,744 and the bracket base as $270 on the first $8,000."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed deductions and exemptions shelter all income. After subtracting Social Security, Virginia AGI is still $86,744, and the $19,419.94 of itemized deductions plus $1,730 of exemptions leave $65,593.83 taxable."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated retirement income and the age deduction as removing the tax liability. Virginia does not exclude pension or IRA income, and the age deduction phases out completely at AFAGI of $86,744, leaving $65,593.83 taxable."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $17,518 of itemized deductions left the $2,434.80 Medicare Part B premium out of deductible medical expenses and skipped the 0.5%-of-AGI charitable floor. Taxable income came to $67,496 instead of $65,593.83."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the Virginia age deduction and reached taxable income of about $51,647. With AFAGI of $86,744, more than $12,000 above the $50,000 single threshold, the age deduction is fully phased out and taxable income is $65,593.83."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used an $8,750 standard deduction instead of the $19,419.94 of itemized deductions and left out the $800 aged exemption, giving taxable income of $77,064."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $4,658 matches taxable income of about $85,500, which is roughly Virginia AGI with no itemized deductions at all. It never applied the $19,419.94 of itemized deductions or the full $1,730 of exemptions."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly applied the 0.5%-of-AGI charitable floor, but its medical deduction counted only the $10,000 of other medical expenses above 7.5% of AGI. It left out the $2,434.80 Medicare Part B premium, so itemized deductions came to $16,985.18 instead of $19,419.94."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $3,397 matches taxable income of about $63,560, so it overstated total deductions and exemptions by about $2,000 against the correct $21,149.94. That is consistent with counting the $2,000 of OTC spending as medical expense and skipping the 0.5%-of-AGI charitable floor."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reached taxable income of $57,229, which means about $29,500 of deductions and exemptions instead of $21,149.94. It overstated itemized deductions beyond charitable gifts after the floor, medical costs above 7.5% of AGI (including the Part B premium), and real estate tax."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the charitable floor, but its $16,985.18 of itemized deductions left the $2,434.80 Medicare Part B premium out of medical expenses. Taxable income came to $68,029 instead of $65,593.83."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the standard deduction and exemptions wipe out the tax. Virginia AGI is $86,744, and even after $19,419.94 of itemized deductions and $1,730 of exemptions, $65,593.83 stays taxable."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $17,518 of itemized deductions left the $2,434.80 Medicare Part B premium out of deductible medical expenses and skipped the 0.5%-of-AGI charitable floor. Taxable income came to $67,496 instead of $65,593.83."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $19,518 of itemized deductions used charitable gifts without the 0.5%-of-AGI floor and counted $2,000 of OTC spending instead of the $2,434.80 Part B premium. That overstated deductions by $98 and gave $3,509 instead of $3,514.15."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the filer takes the federal standard deduction and so used Virginia's $8,500 standard deduction. Federal itemized deductions exceed the federal standard deduction, so Virginia must use $19,419.94 of itemized deductions."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the full $12,000 age deduction even though AFAGI of $86,744 phases it out to zero, and it left out the $1,730 of exemptions. It also used a 5.3% top rate instead of Virginia's 5.75% rate above $17,000."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed only the $930 personal exemption, leaving out the $800 aged exemption, and its itemized total of about $19,647 did not apply the charitable floor and Part B premium correctly. Its reported taxable income of $64,446 also does not follow from its own deduction figures."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,It returned no parseable value and no explanation for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits.
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the $8,500 standard deduction on the assumption that the filer does not itemize federally, instead of the $19,419.94 of itemized deductions. It also put the aged exemption at $930 instead of $800."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the filer as a low-income retiree whose tax is wiped out. Virginia AGI is $86,744 and taxable income after itemized deductions and exemptions is $65,593.83."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used an $8,000 standard deduction instead of the $19,419.94 of itemized deductions and did not take the full $1,730 of exemptions, giving taxable income of about $77,014."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the single standard deduction ($8,500) and the $930 exemption instead of $19,419.94 of itemized deductions and $1,730 of exemptions, giving taxable income of $77,314."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It recognized that Virginia AGI excludes Social Security but then computed taxable income from the full $106,573 federal AGI without the $19,829 subtraction. It also used a standard deduction with an invented $1,000 aged add-on instead of $19,419.94 of itemized deductions and $1,730 of exemptions."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It invented self-employment tax on the partnership income and used a $1,000 Virginia standard deduction. It applied an unreduced $12,000 age/pension deduction even though the age deduction phases out at AFAGI of $86,744, and subtracted $23,328 of Social Security that it had never included. It then reported $2,453.71, which differs from its own $2,542.44."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started from a wrong federal AGI of $80,164, applied the full $12,000 age deduction even though it is fully phased out, and used a $9,000 standard deduction instead of itemized deductions. It then subtracted $745.50 of nonrefundable credits for which the filer has no basis."
us,scenario_114,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_115,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model invented an Alabama aged/disabled Medicaid pathway for the head instead of determining whether PolicyEngine assigned an eligible category. The engine assigns medicaid_category = NONE, so comparing $18,708 of Social Security income with an asserted aged/disabled limit cannot produce eligibility."
us,scenario_115,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated age, disability, low assets, and $1,953 of monthly income as sufficient for an Alabama aged/disabled Medicaid category. PolicyEngine assigns no Medicaid category, so its income-and-assets comparison was applied to a pathway the head does not qualify through."
@@ -9307,53 +9604,55 @@ us,scenario_115,snap,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model
us,scenario_115,snap,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model waived the gross-income test, excluded tax-exempt interest, and converted a negative allotment formula into an unsupported $142 monthly benefit. Total income of approximately $23,442 exceeds the applicable eligibility limit, and minimum-benefit rules cannot override that ineligibility."
us,scenario_115,snap,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly computed that the ordinary allotment formula yields $0 even after excluding tax-exempt interest, but then replaced that result with an unsupported $321 monthly minimum benefit. It also missed that approximately $23,442 of income exceeds the applicable SNAP eligibility threshold; minimum-allotment rules do not grant benefits after failure of eligibility."
us,scenario_115,snap,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model incorrectly reduced all countable income to zero through a standard medical deduction. The listed $250 of annual medical and over-the-counter expenses cannot erase approximately $23,442 of annual household income, which exceeds the applicable one-person SNAP eligibility limit."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Treated the $4,734 of tax-exempt interest as excluded from Alabama income and set Alabama AGI to zero. Alabama adds federally tax-exempt (non-Alabama) interest back into AGI, so AGI is $4,734. Subtracting the $3,000 standard deduction and $1,500 exemption leaves $234, taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Assumed tax-exempt interest is not taxable in Alabama. Alabama AGI includes the $4,734 of federally exempt interest, and after $4,500 in standard deduction plus personal exemption, $234 is taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Excluded the tax-exempt interest from Alabama income and relied on 'elderly exemptions' that do not exist in Alabama's income tax. Alabama AGI is $4,734. Only the $3,000 single standard deduction and $1,500 personal exemption apply, which leaves $234 taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Excluded the tax-exempt interest and assumed a 77-year-old gets larger deduction thresholds. Alabama adds the $4,734 of interest to AGI and has no age-based deduction, so $3,000 + $1,500 = $4,500 in deductions leaves $234 taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Stated that tax-exempt interest is not taxed by Alabama. Alabama includes federally exempt interest from obligations of other states in AGI, so AGI is $4,734. After the $3,000 standard deduction and $1,500 exemption, $234 is taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Set Alabama AGI to $0 by excluding the $4,734 of tax-exempt interest. Alabama adds that interest back, and $4,734 minus the $4,500 standard deduction plus personal exemption leaves $234, taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Asserted that Alabama taxes no tax-exempt interest. Alabama AGI includes the $4,734 of federally exempt interest, and after the $3,000 standard deduction and $1,500 exemption, $234 is taxable at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Correctly exempted Social Security but ignored the $4,734 of tax-exempt interest, which Alabama includes in AGI. Deductions of $4,500 leave $234 taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Stated that tax-exempt interest is not included in Alabama gross income. Alabama taxes federally exempt interest from non-Alabama obligations, so AGI is $4,734. After the $3,000 standard deduction and $1,500 exemption, $234 is taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Treated the $4,734 of tax-exempt interest as not subject to Alabama tax. Alabama adds it to AGI, and $4,734 minus $4,500 in standard deduction and exemption leaves $234 taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Started from federal AGI of $0 and never added back the $4,734 of federally tax-exempt interest, which Alabama includes in its AGI. After the $4,500 in deductions, $234 is taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Excluded the tax-exempt interest and cited 'elderly deductions' that Alabama does not have. Alabama AGI is $4,734. Only the $3,000 standard deduction and $1,500 exemption apply, which leaves $234 taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Stated that tax-exempt interest is not taxed in Alabama. Alabama AGI includes the $4,734 of federally exempt interest, and after $4,500 in deductions, $234 is taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Considered adding the interest back but used a $4,500 'age 65+' standard deduction. Alabama's single standard deduction tops out at $3,000 regardless of age. Total deductions are $3,000 + $1,500 = $4,500, which leaves $234 of the $4,734 taxable at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Excluded federal tax-exempt interest from Alabama income. Alabama includes it, so AGI is $4,734, and the $3,000 standard deduction plus $1,500 personal exemption leave $234 taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Counted the $4,734 of interest but assumed deductions of at least $5,000 for a single filer over 65. Alabama has no age add-on: the $3,000 standard deduction plus $1,500 exemption is $4,500, which leaves $234 taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Exempted Social Security but never counted the $4,734 of tax-exempt interest, which is part of Alabama AGI. After $4,500 in deductions, taxable income is $234 and tax is 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Considered only the Social Security exemption and ignored the $4,734 of tax-exempt interest, which Alabama includes in AGI. After the $3,000 standard deduction and $1,500 exemption, $234 is taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Excluded the tax-exempt interest from Alabama taxable income. Alabama adds federally exempt interest to AGI, giving $4,734, and minus $4,500 in deductions that leaves $234 taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Asserted that taxable income is below the threshold without counting the $4,734 of interest in Alabama AGI. That income exceeds the $4,500 standard deduction plus exemption by $234, which is taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Exempted Social Security and treated taxable income as zero, omitting the $4,734 of tax-exempt interest that Alabama includes in AGI. After $4,500 in deductions, $234 is taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Said there was no other taxable income, overlooking that Alabama taxes the $4,734 of federally exempt interest. After the $3,000 standard deduction and $1,500 exemption, $234 is taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Treated Social Security as the only income and ignored the $4,734 of tax-exempt interest included in Alabama AGI. Deductions of $4,500 leave $234 taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Stated that Alabama exempts federally tax-exempt interest, setting AGI to $0. Alabama includes that interest in AGI ($4,734), and after the $4,500 standard deduction plus exemption, $234 is taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Left the tax-exempt interest out of the Alabama AGI base. Alabama adds it in, giving AGI of $4,734, and minus the $3,000 standard deduction and $1,500 personal exemption that leaves $234 taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Treated Social Security and tax-exempt interest as producing no Alabama-taxable income. The $4,734 of federally exempt interest is included in Alabama AGI and exceeds the $4,500 in deductions by $234, which is taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Assumed taxable income is effectively zero after deductions. Alabama AGI includes the $4,734 of tax-exempt interest, and deductions are only $4,500 ($3,000 standard + $1,500 exemption), which leaves $234 taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Found no taxable Alabama income because it excluded the $4,734 of tax-exempt interest. Alabama includes that interest in AGI, and after the $4,500 standard deduction plus exemption, $234 is taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Started from zero federal taxable income and did not add back the $4,734 of federally exempt interest that Alabama taxes. After $4,500 in deductions, $234 is taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Concluded that the tax-exempt interest produces no Alabama taxable income. Alabama includes it in AGI ($4,734), and minus the $3,000 standard deduction and $1,500 exemption, $234 is taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Excluded Social Security but treated the $4,734 of tax-exempt interest as non-taxable, even though Alabama includes it in AGI. Deductions of $4,500 leave $234 taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Said no other taxable income was reported, missing that Alabama taxes the $4,734 of federally exempt interest. After the $3,000 standard deduction and $1,500 exemption, $234 is taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Stated that the tax-exempt interest produces no taxable state income. Alabama includes it in AGI, and $4,734 minus $4,500 in deductions leaves $234 taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Treated the reported tax-exempt interest as producing no Alabama taxable income. Alabama adds it to AGI ($4,734), which leaves $234 after the $4,500 standard deduction plus exemption, taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Said there was no taxable income other than Social Security, ignoring the $4,734 of tax-exempt interest that Alabama includes in AGI. After $4,500 in deductions, $234 is taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Claimed the added-back interest is fully offset by deductions for a single filer age 65+. Alabama has no age add-on: $3,000 standard deduction + $1,500 exemption = $4,500 < $4,734, which leaves $234 taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Started from federal AGI of $0 without adding back the $4,734 of federally tax-exempt interest that Alabama taxes. After the $4,500 in deductions, $234 is taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Assumed the tax-exempt interest was Alabama-source because no out-of-state bond amount was identified. The rule here treats all listed federally exempt interest as Alabama income, so AGI is $4,734, and minus $4,500 in deductions that leaves $234 taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Asserted that exemptions and deductions would absorb the interest if it were included. Alabama's $3,000 single standard deduction plus $1,500 exemption total only $4,500, which leaves $234 of the $4,734 taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Added back the interest but claimed the standard deduction and personal exemption reduce taxable income to $0. They total only $4,500 ($3,000 + $1,500) against $4,734 of AGI, which leaves $234 taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Stated that the $4,734 of tax-exempt interest is not taxable under Alabama law. Alabama includes federally exempt interest in AGI, and after the $4,500 standard deduction plus exemption, $234 is taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Added back the interest but claimed the standard deduction plus $1,500 exemption is at least $5,500. Alabama's single standard deduction maxes at $3,000, so total deductions are $4,500, which leaves $234 taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Claimed Alabama has no state income tax. Alabama levies a graduated 2%/4%/5% income tax, and its AGI includes the $4,734 of tax-exempt interest. After $4,500 in deductions, $234 is taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Found no Alabama-taxable income beyond the exempt Social Security, overlooking that Alabama includes the $4,734 of federally exempt interest in AGI. After the $3,000 standard deduction and $1,500 exemption, $234 is taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Stated that Alabama exempts federally tax-exempt interest. Alabama AGI includes that $4,734, and after the $4,500 standard deduction plus exemption, $234 is taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Treated the $4,734 of tax-exempt interest as not taxable in Alabama. Alabama includes it in AGI, and minus the $3,000 standard deduction and $1,500 exemption, $234 is taxed at 2% = $4.68."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Claimed Alabama taxable income is $0 after the standard deduction. Alabama AGI of $4,734 (the tax-exempt interest) exceeds the $3,000 standard deduction plus $1,500 personal exemption by $234, which is taxed at 2% = $4.68."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model treated the $4,734 of tax-exempt interest as non-taxable for Alabama and set Alabama AGI to zero. Alabama adds back federally exempt interest on non-Alabama obligations, so AGI is $4,734. After the $3,000 standard deduction and $1,500 exemption, $234 is taxed at 2% = $4.68."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model said tax-exempt interest is not taxable in Alabama, so it found taxable income of zero. Alabama includes federally exempt interest in its own gross income, giving $4,734 of AGI. That leaves $234 taxable after the $3,000 standard deduction and $1,500 exemption, and tax of $4.68 at 2%."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model excluded the tax-exempt interest and also cited 'elderly exemptions' for age 77, which Alabama does not provide. With the $4,734 of interest included, the only deductions are the $3,000 standard deduction and $1,500 personal exemption, leaving $234 taxed at 2% = $4.68."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model excluded the tax-exempt interest and assumed Alabama's deductions for a 77-year-old cover all income. Alabama has no age-based increase to the standard deduction. The $3,000 standard deduction plus $1,500 exemption totals $4,500, which is $234 short of the $4,734 interest, so tax is $4.68."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model said tax-exempt interest is not taxed in Alabama. Alabama's gross income includes the $4,734 of federally exempt interest. After the $4,500 of standard deduction plus personal exemption, $234 is taxable at 2% = $4.68."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model set Alabama AGI to $0 by excluding both Social Security and tax-exempt interest. Only Social Security is excluded. The $4,734 of interest is Alabama AGI, leaving $234 taxable after the $3,000 standard deduction and $1,500 exemption, for tax of $4.68."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model assumed Alabama does not tax federally tax-exempt interest. Alabama's own gross income includes the $4,734, which produces $234 of taxable income after the $4,500 of deductions and $4.68 of tax at 2%."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model looked only at the Social Security exemption and never put the $4,734 of tax-exempt interest into Alabama income, even though Alabama taxes it. After the $3,000 standard deduction and $1,500 exemption, $234 is taxed at 2% = $4.68."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model said tax-exempt interest is not in Alabama gross income. Alabama includes federally exempt interest, so AGI is $4,734, taxable income is $234 after the $3,000 standard deduction and $1,500 exemption, and tax is $4.68."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model treated the $4,734 of tax-exempt interest as not subject to Alabama income tax. Alabama taxes it. After the $4,500 of standard deduction plus personal exemption, $234 remains and is taxed at 2% = $4.68."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model started Alabama income from federal AGI of $0. Alabama computes its own gross income, which includes the $4,734 of federally exempt interest. That gives $234 of taxable income after the $3,000 standard deduction and $1,500 exemption, and $4.68 of tax."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model excluded the tax-exempt interest and relied on 'elderly deductions' that Alabama does not have. With the $4,734 of interest included, only the $3,000 standard deduction and $1,500 exemption apply, leaving $234 taxed at 2% = $4.68."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model said tax-exempt interest is not taxed by Alabama. Alabama includes federally exempt interest in AGI, so $4,734 minus the $3,000 standard deduction and $1,500 exemption leaves $234, taxed at 2% = $4.68."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model correctly included the interest in Alabama AGI but used a $4,500 standard deduction for a single filer over 65. Alabama's maximum single standard deduction is $3,000 with no age add-on, so total deductions are $4,500, which leaves $234 taxable and $4.68 of tax."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model excluded federally tax-exempt interest from Alabama income. Alabama taxes that interest, so AGI is $4,734. The $3,000 standard deduction and $1,500 exemption do not fully offset it, leaving $234 taxed at 2% = $4.68."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model included the $4,734 of interest but assumed deductions of at least $5,000 for a single filer over 65. Alabama gives only the $3,000 single standard deduction plus the $1,500 personal exemption, with no age increase, so $234 is taxable at 2% = $4.68."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model said taxable income was below the threshold for tax without counting the $4,734 of tax-exempt interest that Alabama includes in AGI. After the $3,000 standard deduction and $1,500 exemption, $234 is taxable at 2% = $4.68."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied only the Social Security exemption and left out the $4,734 of federally tax-exempt interest, which Alabama taxes. That interest exceeds the $4,500 of standard deduction plus exemption by $234, which produces $4.68 of tax."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model said tax-exempt interest is excluded in Alabama. Alabama's gross income includes it, so AGI is $4,734 and taxable income is $234 after the $3,000 standard deduction and $1,500 exemption, for tax of $4.68."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model said income was below Alabama's tax threshold without counting the $4,734 of interest Alabama taxes. The $3,000 standard deduction plus $1,500 exemption leaves $234 taxable, so Alabama tax is $4.68."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model looked only at the Social Security exemption and missed that the $4,734 of federally tax-exempt interest is Alabama-taxable. After the $4,500 of deductions, $234 is taxed at 2% = $4.68."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model said the head had no other taxable income, ignoring that Alabama taxes the $4,734 of federally tax-exempt interest. That leaves $234 taxable after the $3,000 standard deduction and $1,500 exemption, for tax of $4.68."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied only the Social Security exemption and left the $4,734 of tax-exempt interest out of Alabama income. Alabama includes it, so $234 is taxable after deductions and tax is $4.68."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model said tax-exempt interest is not subject to Alabama income tax. Alabama includes federally exempt interest in AGI, so the $4,734 less the $3,000 standard deduction and $1,500 exemption leaves $234, taxed at 2% = $4.68."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model said Alabama exempts federally tax-exempt interest and set Alabama AGI to $0. Alabama only exempts interest on its own obligations, so the $4,734 is AGI, which yields $234 of taxable income and $4.68 of tax."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left tax-exempt interest out of the Alabama AGI base. Alabama AGI includes the $4,734, and after the $3,000 standard deduction and $1,500 exemption, $234 is taxed at 2% = $4.68."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model treated Social Security and tax-exempt interest as the only income and found no Alabama-taxable income. Alabama taxes the $4,734 of interest, which leaves $234 above the $4,500 of deductions and produces $4.68 of tax."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model said taxable income after deductions was effectively zero. Alabama's $3,000 standard deduction plus $1,500 personal exemption total $4,500, which is $234 short of the $4,734 of Alabama-taxable interest, so tax is $4.68 at 2%."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model listed no taxable Alabama income after the Social Security exemption and missed that the $4,734 of federally tax-exempt interest is Alabama AGI. After the $4,500 of deductions, $234 is taxed at 2% = $4.68."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model based Alabama tax on having no federal taxable income. Alabama computes its own gross income, which includes the $4,734 of federally exempt interest, so $234 is taxable after deductions and tax is $4.68."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model said the tax-exempt interest produces no Alabama taxable income. Alabama includes that interest in AGI, and the $4,734 exceeds the $3,000 standard deduction plus $1,500 exemption by $234, giving $4.68 of tax."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model found no state-taxable income after excluding Social Security and missed that Alabama taxes the $4,734 of federally exempt interest. That leaves $234 of taxable income after deductions and $4.68 of tax."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model said no other taxable income was reported, overlooking that the $4,734 of tax-exempt interest is Alabama AGI. After the $3,000 standard deduction and $1,500 exemption, $234 is taxed at 2% = $4.68."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model said the tax-exempt interest produces no taxable state income. Alabama taxes federally exempt interest, so $4,734 less $4,500 of deductions leaves $234, taxed at 2% = $4.68."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model treated the tax-exempt interest as producing no Alabama taxable income. Alabama includes the $4,734 in AGI, which leaves $234 taxable after the standard deduction and personal exemption and $4.68 of tax."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied the Social Security exemption and said there was no other taxable income, ignoring the $4,734 of federally tax-exempt interest that Alabama taxes. That interest exceeds the $4,500 of deductions by $234, giving $4.68 of tax."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model said that even with the interest added, Alabama's deductions for a single filer over 65 would fully offset it. Alabama has no age-65 increase: the $3,000 standard deduction plus $1,500 exemption is $4,500, which leaves $234 of the $4,734 taxable at 2% = $4.68."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model started from federal AGI of $0 and never added the $4,734 of federally exempt interest that Alabama includes in its gross income. After the $3,000 standard deduction and $1,500 exemption, $234 is taxed at 2% = $4.68."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model kept the interest out of Alabama AGI because no out-of-state bond amount was identified. Alabama taxes all of the $4,734 of federally exempt interest here, which leaves $234 taxable after the $4,500 of deductions and $4.68 of tax."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model assumed Alabama's deductions are large enough to cover the $4,734 of interest. The $3,000 single standard deduction plus $1,500 exemption total only $4,500, leaving $234 taxed at 2% = $4.68."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model said the standard deduction and personal exemption reduce the added-back interest to zero. Together they total $4,500, which is less than the $4,734 of interest, so $234 is taxable and tax is $4.68."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model treated the $4,734 of tax-exempt interest as not taxable under Alabama law. Alabama includes it in AGI, which gives $234 of taxable income after the $3,000 standard deduction and $1,500 exemption and $4.68 of tax."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model included the interest but assumed the standard deduction plus exemption is at least $5,500. Alabama's maximum single standard deduction is $3,000, so the total is $4,500, leaving $234 taxable at 2% = $4.68."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Alabama has no state income tax, which is false: Alabama has a graduated income tax starting at 2%. The $4,734 of Alabama-taxable interest less the $3,000 standard deduction and $1,500 exemption leaves $234, taxed at $4.68."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model treated the tax-exempt interest as nontaxable and set Alabama AGI to zero. Alabama includes the $4,734 in AGI, which leaves $234 taxable after deductions and $4.68 of tax."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model said no Alabama-taxable income was listed and missed that the $4,734 of federally tax-exempt interest is Alabama AGI. After the $3,000 standard deduction and $1,500 exemption, $234 is taxed at 2% = $4.68."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model said Alabama exempts federally tax-exempt interest. Alabama exempts only interest on its own obligations, so the $4,734 is AGI, taxable income is $234 after deductions, and tax is $4.68."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model called the $4,734 of tax-exempt interest not taxable in Alabama. Alabama includes it in AGI, and after the $3,000 standard deduction and $1,500 exemption, $234 is taxed at 2% = $4.68."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model said taxable income is $0 after the standard deduction. Alabama AGI is the $4,734 of federally exempt interest, and the $3,000 standard deduction plus $1,500 exemption leave $234 taxable at 2% = $4.68."
us,scenario_115,tanf,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_116,snap,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model improperly awarded a SNAP minimum allotment after its own benefit calculation reduced the regular allotment below zero, even though the household fails the gross-income eligibility test. It also submitted $6,804 despite stating an annual result of $3,402, doubling its own incorrectly calculated amount."
us,scenario_116,spouse_medicaid_eligible,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model itself said the $52,800 in veterans benefits exceeds Florida's disabled-adult income limit, then answered eligible anyway because Florida 'typically provides expanded Medicaid' and has unnamed 'special provisions'. Florida is a non-expansion state with no such override. The spouse gets no SSI and fails the aged/disabled income test, so no category applies."
@@ -9370,54 +9669,55 @@ us,scenario_117,child3_early_head_start_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categori
us,scenario_117,child3_early_head_start_eligible,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated remaining under age 3 throughout the year as sufficient to qualify as a participant. It omitted the required low-income condition, and this household's approximately $250,733 income is above the qualifying threshold."
us,scenario_117,child3_head_start_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated age 2 as sufficient for Head Start eligibility and omitted the income-eligibility test. The household's approximately $250,733 income exceeds the poverty-based Head Start limit, and no other qualifying pathway applies."
us,scenario_117,child3_wic_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model treated age under five as sufficient for WIC eligibility and omitted the separate income test. Although Child 3 meets the categorical age rule, household income exceeds the 185% federal-poverty-guideline threshold for a five-person household, yielding no WIC eligibility."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started the overtime-deduction phaseout at the $150,000 single threshold rather than the $300,000 joint threshold, which cut the deduction to $15,185 instead of the full $25,000. It also claimed a $1,200 CDCC even though Head has $0 earned income, and it left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reduced the overtime deduction by 10% of MAGI above $150,000, leaving $14,927, when joint filers do not start phasing out until $300,000 and get the full $25,000. It also compared its $33,088 of itemized deductions only against $32,200 and ignored the extra $2,000 charitable deduction for non-itemizers, which makes the standard path worth $34,200."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $35,525 overtime premium on top of wages that already include it, and it subtracted charitable gifts above the line. It also used an outdated $29,200 standard deduction and never applied the $25,000 qualified-overtime deduction. Finally, it reported pre-credit tax without subtracting the $6,600 CTC."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its own reasoning says the tax is well above zero, yet it submitted 0 as a placeholder without doing the calculation. The correct path is taxable income of $191,533, tax of $31,561, minus the $6,600 CTC."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It made up about $35,070 of mortgage interest from the loan balance even though no interest was listed, and it claimed a $10,000 SALT cap amount with no basis. It also skipped the $25,000 overtime deduction and treated the 16-year-old as a $500 other dependent instead of a $2,200 CTC child. On top of that, it claimed a CDCC even though Head has no earnings, so the near-match is a coincidence of offsetting errors."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its reasoning ends near $25,972, but it submitted $47,714, which matches nothing in its own work. The reasoning also made up mortgage interest from the balance, left out the $25,000 overtime deduction, used a $2,000-per-child CTC, and claimed a CDCC that zero Head earnings rules out."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed about $80,000 of itemized deductions by making up mortgage interest and SALT that were never listed, and it subtracted the full $35,525 overtime premium instead of the $25,000 cap. That cut taxable income to about $135,000 instead of $191,533. It also used a $2,000 CTC per child and claimed a CDCC."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized because $33,186 beat the $32,200 standard deduction, but it missed that non-itemizers also get a $2,000 charitable deduction in 2026, so the standard path is worth $34,200. That error added about $1,014 to taxable income, giving $192,548 instead of $191,533."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It never applied the $25,000 qualified-overtime deduction, and it used 2025 brackets with a $30,000 standard deduction, which left taxable income at $220,734. It also used a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200 and claimed a $1,200 CDCC even though Head has no earned income."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its reasoning reaches about $22,630, but it submitted $62,700, which contradicts its own calculation. The reasoning itself made up roughly $32,000 of mortgage interest and $10,000 of SALT, left out the $25,000 overtime deduction, and claimed a CDCC that Head's zero earnings rule out."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It capped the overtime deduction at $12,500, the single-filer limit, instead of the $25,000 joint limit. It also overstated itemized deductions at about $35,400, which raised taxable income to $202,834 against the correct $191,533."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It made up $32,565 of mortgage interest from the loan balance even though no interest was listed, and it left out the $25,000 overtime deduction. It also wrongly limited the nonrefundable CTC to $900, when the full $6,600 offsets tax first, and claimed a $1,200 CDCC despite Head having no earned income."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the expired pre-TCJA brackets (15%/25%/28%) and treated the CTC as fully phased out. In fact, 2026 law keeps the 10/12/22% brackets, provides a $2,200 CTC with a $400,000 joint phaseout start, and allows the $25,000 overtime deduction, which it also left out."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It removed the entire $35,525 overtime premium from AGI instead of allowing a below-the-line deduction capped at $25,000. It also overstated medical deductions at $3,905 when the excess over the 7.5% floor is about $741, chose to itemize over the standard plus $2,000 charitable path, and used a $2,000-per-child CTC instead of $2,200."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $25,000 overtime deduction and used the 2025 $31,500 standard deduction. It then treated $5,400 of the CTC as refundable and subtracted only $600, but because pre-credit tax exceeds $6,600, the whole CTC is used as a nonrefundable credit."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied pre-TCJA 2026 rules: $5,000 personal exemptions, the old brackets, and a $1,000 CTC. Current law instead has no exemptions, a $2,200 CTC, a $32,200 standard deduction, and a $25,000 overtime deduction. It also claimed a $1,200 CDCC even though Head has no earned income."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $46,522 is higher than the $37,644 pre-credit tax this household would owe even with only the $32,200 standard deduction and no overtime deduction. So it used higher rates than the 2026 10/12/22/24% brackets and subtracted neither the $25,000 overtime deduction nor the $6,600 CTC."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the TCJA had expired in 2026, so it used pre-TCJA brackets, exemptions, and CTC amounts. Under current law the household gets the $32,200 standard deduction, the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, the $25,000 overtime deduction, and a $6,600 CTC. It also applied a CDCC that Head's zero earnings rule out."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the TCJA had expired, so it used personal exemptions, pre-TCJA brackets, and a $1,000 CTC fully phased out at this income. Under current 2026 law, the $2,200-per-child CTC is not reduced below $400,000 of joint MAGI, and the $25,000 overtime deduction applies."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $35,283 is above the $31,044 the household would owe after the full $6,600 CTC even with no overtime deduction. So it both left out the $25,000 qualified-overtime deduction and failed to subtract the full $6,600 nonrefundable CTC from the $31,561 pre-credit tax."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It cited a CTC phaseout that does not apply below $400,000 of joint MAGI. Its $26,522 answer implies about $7,100 more taxable income than the correct $191,533, which comes from the $32,200 standard deduction, the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, and the full $25,000 overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $41,320 is higher than the $37,644 pre-credit tax owed with only the standard deduction. So it applied rates above the 2026 brackets and subtracted neither the $25,000 overtime deduction nor the $6,600 CTC, while the correct result is $31,561 − $6,600."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used an AGI of $248,145, which leaves out the taxable $2,589 state refund. Its $33,816 is higher than the $30,423 that its own AGI yields after the standard deduction and full CTC, so it also skipped the $25,000 overtime deduction and did not subtract the full $6,600 CTC."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It never applied the $25,000 qualified-overtime deduction or the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, which left taxable income at $219,734 instead of $191,533. It also used a $2,000 CTC per child instead of the 2026 amount of $2,200."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $25,000 overtime deduction, which left taxable income at about $215,834. It then treated $1,700 per child as refundable and subtracted only $1,500 of CTC, when the full $6,600 is used against the tax first. It also claimed a $1,200 CDCC even though Head has no earned income."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied only the standard deduction and left out the $25,000 qualified-overtime deduction and the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction. Its $32,981 is even higher than the $31,044 that the standard deduction alone yields after the full $6,600 CTC, so its credit subtraction was also short."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed credits wipe out the tax, but pre-credit tax is $31,561 and the only nonrefundable credit is the $6,600 CTC. That leaves $24,961 in liability, not 0."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It never applied the $25,000 qualified overtime deduction for the spouse's $35,525 FLSA overtime premium. That left taxable income at $214,996 instead of $191,533. Its $6,600 CTC and its refusal of the CDCC were both correct."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its answer works out to a $12,500 overtime deduction (the single-filer cap instead of the $25,000 joint cap) plus the $32,200 standard deduction. On top of that, it allowed only two CTC children ($4,400 instead of $6,600) and claimed a $1,200 CDCC despite Head having no earned income. It also left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its pre-credit tax of about $31,561 is correct, but it subtracted a $600 CDCC. Under IRC §21(d), qualifying care expenses are capped at the lower-earning spouse's earned income, and Head has $0 and is not a student or disabled, so the CDCC is zero."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized about $33,895 of charity and SALT, which is less than the $34,200 that a non-itemizer gets from the $32,200 standard deduction plus the $2,000 charitable deduction. Choosing the smaller itemized total raised taxable income by about $305."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized about $33,080 of charity above the 0.5% floor and state income tax, missing that the standard deduction plus the 2026 $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction totals $34,200. That raised taxable income by about $1,120."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed about $35,843 of itemized charity and state-tax deductions, which overstates them because it ignored the 0.5%-of-AGI floor on charitable gifts ($1,254). The correct deduction is the $34,200 standard path ($32,200 plus the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction), so it understated taxable income by about $1,640."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took the $32,200 standard deduction and the $25,000 overtime deduction but left out the $2,000 charitable deduction for non-itemizers that applies from 2026. That raised taxable income to $193,534 instead of $191,533, adding $440 of tax."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized about $34,249 based on an overstated Arkansas income tax figure. The household's actual itemizable charity, SALT, and medical total falls below $34,200, so the standard deduction plus the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction controls. That gives taxable income of $191,533 rather than its $191,485."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $52,000 is higher than the $37,644 pre-credit tax owed even with no overtime deduction. So it used inflated rates and subtracted neither the $25,000 overtime deduction nor the $6,600 CTC, while the correct figure is $31,561 − $6,600."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset rules: personal exemptions, a 25% bracket, and a CTC fully phased out. Under current 2026 law, the 10/12/22% brackets apply and the $2,200 CTC is fully available below $400,000. It also left out the $25,000 overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the TCJA had expired, using $5,300 exemptions, 15%/25% brackets, and a CTC phased out above $110,000. Current 2026 law instead gives a $32,200 standard deduction, the $25,000 overtime deduction, the 10/12/22% brackets, and a $6,600 CTC."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its taxable income of $191,534 is correct, but it miscalculated the bracket tax at $31,735. Tax at 10% to $24,800, 12% to $100,800, and 22% above is $2,480 + $9,120 + $19,961 = $31,561, so it overstated the tax by about $174."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the TCJA had expired, using personal exemptions, 15%/25% brackets, and no CTC. It also subtracted the ESI premium from wages that were already reported as gross, and it claimed a $1,200 CDCC despite Head having no earned income. In fact, current 2026 law gives a $6,600 CTC and a $25,000 overtime deduction."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized $37,873 by overstating medical at $3,116 (the excess over the 7.5% AGI floor is about $741). It also counted $237 of miscellaneous deductions, which are permanently disallowed, and skipped the 0.5% floor on charity. The correct choice is the $34,200 standard path, which gives taxable income of $191,533 instead of its $187,861."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It gave no value or reasoning for this output, so nothing was scored. The correct derivation gives $31,561 in tax on $191,533 of taxable income, minus the $6,600 CTC, which equals $24,961."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized $34,414.79 based on an Arkansas income tax estimate of $9,027.51, which is too high. It weighed itemizing only against the $32,200 standard deduction and never counted the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction. With both fixed, the $34,200 standard path wins and taxable income is $191,533."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed credits fully offset the tax, but the only nonrefundable credit is the $6,600 CTC against $31,561 of pre-credit tax. That leaves $24,961, not 0."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted a $1,200 CDCC even though Head has no earned income, and under IRC §21(d) that caps qualifying expenses at $0. It also left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, so taxable income stayed at $193,534 instead of $191,533."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It got close to the correct structure ($25,000 overtime deduction and $6,600 CTC) but miscalculated the bracket tax as about $31,580 and then rounded the result to $25,000. The exact figure is $31,561.34 − $6,600 = $24,961.34."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It made up $24,375 of mortgage interest on an assumed $375,000 cap even though no interest was listed (and the joint acquisition-debt limit is $750,000), and it added an unsupported $10,000 SALT amount. It also left out the $25,000 overtime deduction, used a $2,000 CTC per child, and claimed a $600 CDCC even though Head has no earnings."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It removed the overtime premium from wages and also invented several items: a $2,800 'additional standard deduction', a $5,400 SALT cap, an overtime 'credit', and a $409,000 mortgage cap penalty. The correct treatment is a $25,000 below-the-line overtime deduction plus the $32,200 standard deduction and the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, giving taxable income of $191,533."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It phased out the overtime deduction starting at $150,000, which is the single-filer threshold, and cut it to $15,185. Joint filers start phasing out at $300,000, so the full $25,000 applies. It also dropped the taxable $2,589 state refund, missed the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, and subtracted a $1,200 CDCC even though Head has no earned income."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reduced the overtime deduction by 10% of MAGI over $150,000, leaving $14,927. The joint phase-out starts at $300,000, so the full $25,000 is allowed. It also itemized at $33,088 instead of taking the $32,200 standard deduction plus the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, which comes to $34,200 and is larger. Together these overstated taxable income by about $11,200."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $35,525 FLSA overtime premium on top of the $248,675 wages, which already include it, instead of taking a $25,000 overtime deduction. It also subtracted charity and employee business expenses above the line and used an outdated $29,200 standard deduction. Its child credit reasoning is garbled ('$25,000 × 3'), and it never subtracted the $6,600 CTC."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It said tax was well above zero but submitted a placeholder of 0 without doing the calculation. The correct figure is $191,533.36 of taxable income, $31,561.34 of tax, and $24,961.34 after the $6,600 CTC."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It made up about $35,070 of mortgage interest from the loan balance, although no interest paid was listed, and assumed $10,000 of SALT. It left out the $25,000 qualified-overtime deduction entirely and used 2025 brackets. It also treated the 16-year-old as a $500 ODC dependent and used $2,000 per child, when all three children get the $2,200 CTC. Finally, it claimed a $600 CDCC despite Head having no earnings."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its reasoning ends at about $25,972, but it submitted $47,714, a number that matches none of its own steps. That reasoning was also wrong: it made up $20,000 of mortgage interest and $10,000 of SALT, left out the $25,000 overtime deduction, used $2,000 per child for the CTC, and claimed a CDCC that Head's zero earnings rule out."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It made up about $32,000 of mortgage interest plus SALT, giving about $80,000 of itemized deductions, and then also subtracted the full $35,525 overtime premium instead of the $25,000 cap. That pushed taxable income down to about $135,000. It also used a $2,000-per-child CTC and claimed a $1,200 CDCC, which Head's zero earned income does not allow."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized $33,186 because that beat the bare $32,200 standard deduction. It overlooked the 2026 $2,000 charitable deduction for non-itemizing joint filers, which brings the standard path to $34,200. Taxable income came out $1,014 too high, at $192,548, which raised tax by $223."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $25,000 qualified-overtime deduction and the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, and used a $30,000 standard deduction with 2025 brackets. That gave $220,734 of taxable income instead of $191,533. It also used $2,000 per child for the CTC instead of $2,200 and subtracted a $1,200 CDCC, even though Head has no earned income."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It made up $32,000 of mortgage interest and $10,000 of SALT, left out the $25,000 overtime deduction, used $2,000 per child for the CTC, and claimed a $1,200 CDCC, reaching about $22,630. It then submitted $62,700, which contradicts its own calculation."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It allowed only $12,500 of overtime deduction, which is the single-filer cap. Joint filers get $25,000 when MAGI is under $300,000. It also itemized at about $35,400 instead of using the standard path ($32,200 plus the $2,000 charitable deduction), so taxable income was $202,834 instead of $191,533."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It made up $32,565 of mortgage interest and left out the $25,000 qualified-overtime deduction. It also allowed only $900 of nonrefundable CTC instead of the full $6,600 (3 × $2,200), which the tax liability easily absorbs, and claimed a $1,200 CDCC that Head's zero earnings rule out."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used made-up 15%, 25%, and 28% brackets instead of the 2026 joint schedule of 10%, 12%, and 22%. It left out the $25,000 overtime deduction and treated the CTC as fully phased out, even though AGI is far below the $400,000 joint threshold and three children qualify for $2,200 each."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It excluded the entire $35,525 overtime premium from AGI. The rule is a deduction capped at $25,000 for joint filers. It also itemized instead of using the $34,200 standard path and used $2,000 per child for the CTC instead of $2,200."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $25,000 qualified-overtime deduction and the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, and used a $31,500 standard deduction. It also counted only $600 of the CTC as nonrefundable. The full $6,600 offsets tax first because liability far exceeds it."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired in 2026, applying $25,000 of personal exemptions, pre-TCJA rates, and a $1,000-per-child CTC phased down to $3,000. Under the 2026 law the reference applies, the household gets the $32,200 standard deduction, the $25,000 overtime deduction, the 10/12/22% brackets, and a $6,600 CTC. It also claimed a $1,200 CDCC, which Head's zero earnings rule out."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $46,522 is about $21,500 too high. That matches taxing nearly all of the $250,733 AGI after only a standard deduction, with no $25,000 overtime deduction, no $2,000 charitable deduction, and no full $6,600 CTC subtracted."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used pre-TCJA 2026 rules, with exemptions, higher brackets, and a $1,000 CTC, instead of the 2026 law with the $32,200 standard deduction, the $25,000 overtime deduction, and the $2,200-per-child CTC. It also applied a CDCC that Head's lack of earned income rules out."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired, so it used personal exemptions, higher brackets, and a $1,000 CTC that it treated as fully phased out. Under 2026 law all three children qualify for the $2,200 CTC with no phase-out below $400,000, and the $25,000 overtime deduction applies."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation. Its $35,283 is about $10,300 too high, which matches leaving out the $25,000 qualified-overtime deduction and not fully subtracting the $6,600 CTC from $191,533 of correct taxable income."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $26,521.84 is $1,560 too high, which equals about $7,100 of extra taxable income at 22% or a CTC below $6,600. It cited a CTC phase-out, but none applies because AGI is far below the $400,000 joint threshold. It also did not apply the full $25,000 overtime deduction and the $2,000 charitable deduction."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $41,320 is about $16,400 too high. That matches leaving out the $25,000 qualified-overtime deduction and the $2,000 charitable deduction and not subtracting the full $6,600 CTC, which together put taxable income and net tax far above the correct $191,533 and $24,961."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It dropped the taxable $2,589 state refund, using AGI of $248,145. More importantly, it did not take the $25,000 qualified-overtime deduction, which is why its $33,816 is about $8,900 above the reference."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $25,000 qualified-overtime deduction and the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction and used a $31,000 standard deduction, giving $219,734 of taxable income instead of $191,533. It also used $2,000 per child for the CTC instead of $2,200."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $25,000 overtime deduction, so taxable income was $215,834. It also allowed only $500 per child as nonrefundable CTC, when the whole $2,200 per child offsets liability first, and claimed a $1,200 CDCC even though Head has no earned income."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied only a standard deduction, without the $25,000 qualified-overtime deduction or the $2,000 charitable deduction. It also subtracted a childcare credit that Head's zero earned income rules out, leaving $32,981 instead of $24,961.34."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It returned 0 based on an unsupported 'simplified' assumption that credits erase all tax. Taxable income of $191,533 produces $31,561 of tax, and nonrefundable credits total only $6,600."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out the $25,000 qualified-overtime deduction, so taxable income was $214,996 instead of $191,533. It also itemized instead of using the $32,200 standard deduction plus the $2,000 charitable deduction."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It allowed the CTC for only two children, although all three (ages 16, 11, and 2) are under 17 and qualify for $2,200 each, for $6,600. It also claimed a dependent-care credit even though Head has no earned income, which makes the CDCC zero."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It computed taxable income and the $6,600 CTC correctly but also subtracted a $600 CDCC. The CDCC is limited by the lower-earning spouse's earned income, and Head's is $0, so the credit is zero."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized charitable and SALT deductions totaling about $33,900 instead of taking the $32,200 standard deduction plus the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, which totals $34,200. Taxable income came out about $305 too high."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized, applying the 0.5% floor to charitable gifts and adding state income tax, for about $33,080. That is less than the $34,200 from the $32,200 standard deduction plus the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, so taxable income was about $1,120 too high."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized charitable and state-tax deductions at about $35,400. That overstates the itemized total, which is below the $34,200 standard-plus-$2,000 charitable path, so taxable income came out about $1,230 too low."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly applied the $32,200 standard deduction and $25,000 overtime deduction but missed the 2026 $2,000 charitable deduction for non-itemizing joint filers. Taxable income was $193,534 instead of $191,533, which raised tax by $440."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized charitable and state-tax deductions slightly above $34,200 by overstating the Arkansas income tax used for SALT. It should have used the $32,200 standard deduction plus the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, which put taxable income at $191,533.36."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no computation and submitted a round $52,000, more than double the correct figure. Even with no qualified-overtime deduction and no child credits at all, tax on this AGI does not reach $52,000. The correct path ($191,533 taxable, $31,561 tax, less the $6,600 CTC) gives $24,961."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired, using personal exemptions, a 25% bracket, and a CTC it treated as fully phased out. Under 2026 law the joint brackets top out at 22% at this income, the $25,000 overtime deduction applies, and the $6,600 CTC is fully available below the $400,000 threshold."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired, applying 15% and 25% brackets, personal exemptions, uncapped SALT, and a CTC phased out above $110,000. It never applied the 2026 law, which provides the $32,200 standard deduction, the $25,000 overtime deduction, the $2,000 charitable deduction, and a $2,200-per-child CTC."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reached the correct $191,534 of taxable income but miscalculated the bracket tax as $31,735. The 2026 joint schedule ($2,480 + $9,120 + 22% of $90,733) gives $31,561, so its answer is about $174 too high."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired, with reverted brackets, personal exemptions, and no CTC. It also subtracted the employer-plan premium from AGI and claimed a $1,200 CDCC, even though Head has no earned income. It never applied the $25,000 overtime deduction or the $6,600 CTC."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized $37,873, including $3,116 of medical expense from a misapplied 7.5% floor and $237 of miscellaneous employee expenses, which are not deductible. The correct path is the $32,200 standard deduction plus the $2,000 charitable deduction, so its taxable income was about $3,700 too low."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It submitted no value and no explanation for this output, so there was no answer to score."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It overstated the Arkansas income tax used for SALT at $9,027.51, so its itemized total of $34,414.79 came out above the $34,200 standard path ($32,200 plus the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction). Taxable income ended up $214 too low."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed credits wipe out all tax, but nonrefundable credits total only $6,600, the CTC. Pre-credit tax is $31,561.34 on $191,533 of taxable income, leaving $24,961.34."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It allowed only $12,500 of overtime deduction instead of the $25,000 joint cap, and itemized about $35,441 instead of using the $34,200 standard path. It also subtracted a $1,200 CDCC that Head's zero earned income rules out."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted a $1,200 CDCC even though Head has no earned income, which makes the credit zero. It also missed the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, leaving taxable income at $193,534 instead of $191,533."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its own calculation came to about $24,980: about $191,544 of taxable income, $31,580 of tax, minus the $6,600 CTC. It then rounded and submitted $25,000 instead of the exact $24,961.34."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It made up $24,375 of mortgage interest from the loan balance and assumed $10,000 of SALT. It left out the $25,000 qualified-overtime deduction, used $2,000 per child for the CTC, and claimed a $600 CDCC, even though Head has no earned income."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It removed the full $35,525 overtime premium from wages instead of taking a $25,000 deduction, and used a $31,500 standard deduction. It then added made-up items: a $5,400 SALT cap adjustment, an overtime 'credit', a 32% marginal rate, and a $409,000 mortgage-interest limitation adding $12,000. None of these apply."
us,scenario_117,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,other,False,"It never applied the rule that the ACTC can refund only the CTC left after offsetting tax liability. A federal tax bill of more than $25,000 absorbs all of this household's CTC, so the ACTC is $0. Instead it invented a $3,750 amount 'limited by the ratio of Additional CTC to total CTC'. Along the way it counted the FLSA overtime premium twice on top of gross wages, used the 2023 $27,700 standard deduction and $2,000-per-child CTC, and said income was above the $400,000 phase-out when AGI is about $250,733."
us,scenario_117,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,other,False,"It treated the $1,700-per-child refundable cap as an amount paid out automatically ($5,100). It skipped the step that limits the ACTC to CTC left after tax liability. With more than $25,000 of federal income tax, the full $6,600 CTC is used as a nonrefundable credit, so the refundable portion is $0."
us,scenario_117,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,other,False,"It multiplied 3 children by an $1,800 refundable cap to get $5,400. It never limited the ACTC to CTC left after the credit offsets tax liability. The household's federal tax of more than $25,000 absorbs the full $6,600 CTC, so the ACTC is $0. EITC is also $0."
@@ -9453,195 +9753,204 @@ us,scenario_117,payroll_tax,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The m
us,scenario_117,payroll_tax,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,other,False,"The model correctly computed SS tax of $11,439 at the $184,500 base, Medicare of $3,606 and $0 Additional Medicare Tax. Those sum to $15,045, but it submitted $20,603, a number disconnected from its own components."
us,scenario_117,self_employment_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_117,spouse_wic_eligible,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model incorrectly transferred a young child's WIC categorical status to the spouse. Living with a WIC-age child does not make an adult eligible; the spouse has no stated pregnancy, postpartum, or breastfeeding status and the household also fails WIC's income test."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Took a ~$2,340 standard deduction instead of itemizing the $24,646.33 charitable deduction, so its taxable income was ~$245,805 instead of $223,498.20. It then cut its own $9,196 to $8,081 with an unexplained 'bracket smoothing' step, and it claimed only the $145 personal credits, missing the $60 additional credit."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Deducted the full $25,900 of charity without the 0.5%-of-AGI floor ($1,253.67), giving $222,245 of taxable income. Its 2%/4%/3.9% schedule produced $8,586.66, well above the engine's $8,189.53 on a larger $223,498.20 base. It also subtracted only $145 of personal credits and left out the $60 additional credit."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Added the $35,525 overtime premium on top of wages that already include it, counted the state refund, subtracted made-up self-employment taxes, and used a federal-style $258,046 base instead of Arkansas AGI ($248,144.53) less $24,646.33 itemized. It applied a nonexistent 5% top rate and invented $1,050 of credits in place of the actual $205."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"Never computed Arkansas tax and entered 0. Arkansas taxes this household's $223,498.20 of taxable income at $8,189.53, less $205 of nonrefundable credits, for $7,984.53."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Made up ~$22,500 of mortgage interest from the $501,000 balance even though no interest paid is listed, which pushed itemized deductions to ~$48,400 instead of $24,646.33. It then submitted $11,264, which does not match its own ~$7,645 working figure."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Counted the $2,589 state refund as Arkansas income and made up ~$20,040 of mortgage interest from the loan balance. Its submitted $11,820 is a ~5.9% effective rate on its own stated ~$202,000 base, which no Arkansas schedule produces. The correct path is $223,498.20 taxable → $8,189.53 − $205."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Added mortgage interest to itemized deductions even though only a mortgage balance is given, which cut taxable income to ~$190,000 instead of $223,498.20 and understated the tax. It also claimed only the $145 personal credits, missing the $60 additional credit."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Started from $250,734, which includes the $2,589 state refund that Arkansas excludes, and deducted the full $25,900 without the 0.5% AGI floor, ending at $224,834. Its 3.9% top-rate calculation gave $8,685, above the engine's $8,189.53, and it subtracted only $145 of credits, leaving out the $60 additional credit."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied a nonexistent Arkansas exclusion for the $35,525 FLSA overtime premium and counted the refund. It added a $10,000 SALT deduction with no state or local taxes paid and a $448 employee-expense deduction, so taxable income was $178,861 instead of $223,498.20. It also claimed a $240 Arkansas child-care credit, which is $0 because the head has no earnings and the federal CDCC is therefore zero."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Made up $20,040 of mortgage interest from the $501,000 balance, which brought taxable income down to $202,205. It then dropped its own ~$8,086 result and submitted an unsupported $12,500."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used the small Arkansas standard deduction instead of itemizing the $24,646.33 charitable deduction, taxing ~$245,000 instead of $223,498.20, which overstates the liability by about $800."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied a 4.9% top rate that Arkansas no longer has to an understated ~$184k base (the correct base is $223,498.20), and said there are no nonrefundable credits, leaving out the $145 personal and $60 additional credits. Its $8,000 comes from these errors offsetting each other, not from the actual computation."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used a $5,000 standard deduction instead of itemizing the $24,646.33 charitable deduction, taxing $243,145 instead of $223,498.20. It also applied no nonrefundable credits, leaving out the $205 of personal and additional credits."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its $185,403.68 taxable income equals $250,734 − $35,525 − $29,805.33. That means it excluded the FLSA overtime premium, which Arkansas does not exclude, kept the state refund, and overstated itemized deductions compared with the $24,646.33 charitable-only amount. Its base ended up ~$38,000 below the correct $223,498.20."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied the outdated 4.4% top rate, counted the $2,589 refund in Arkansas income, took a $4,400 standard deduction instead of the $24,646.33 itemized charitable deduction, and applied no nonrefundable credits."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Started from $250,734, which includes the state refund Arkansas excludes, and itemized the full $25,900 plus $741 of medical without the 0.5% charitable floor. Its bracket tax of $8,413.63 is above the engine's $8,189.53, and it subtracted only $145 of credits, leaving out the $60 additional credit."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"No reasoning was given. $10,560 matches a rate near 4.4% applied to about $240,000, meaning the outdated top rate on a base that skips the $24,646.33 charitable itemization, and it ignores the $205 of credits."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"$8,768 equals exactly 3.9% × $224,834, a flat rate on AGI including the refund minus the full $25,900 of charity. That means no lower-bracket schedule, no 0.5% charitable floor, refund exclusion, or subtraction of the $205 nonrefundable credits."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"$8,623 equals 3.9% × $224,834 − $145: a flat 3.9% on AGI that still includes the $2,589 refund, less the full $25,900 of charity. It skips the actual rate schedule (which gives $8,189.53 on $223,498.20), the 0.5% charitable floor, and the $60 additional credit."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"No reasoning was given. $10,879 is about 4.4% of ~$247,000, which matches the outdated 4.4% top rate on income reduced only by a small standard deduction, with no charitable itemization and no $205 credits."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,other,False,"No reasoning was given. $8,234.12 is above even the engine's pre-credit bracket tax of $8,189.53, so the answer gives no effect to the $205 of nonrefundable credits ($145 personal plus $60 additional) that bring the liability down to $7,984.53."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"No reasoning was given. $9,260 matches taxing roughly the full ~$243k of income after a standard deduction, instead of itemizing the $24,646.33 charitable deduction down to $223,498.20 and subtracting the $205 of credits."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Stated outright that it used the Arkansas standard deduction, missing that the $24,646.33 charitable itemization is far larger. This overstated taxable income by ~$20,000 and the tax by about $1,200."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used an outdated bracket table with 3.4%/4.7%/4.4% rates instead of the 2026 schedule, deducted the full $25,900 without the 0.5% AGI floor, and subtracted no nonrefundable credits, leaving out the $145 personal and $60 additional credits."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,other,False,"Counted the $2,589 refund in Arkansas income, added a medical deduction that is actually under the floor, and skipped the 0.5% charitable floor. It then said no Arkansas nonrefundable credits apply, leaving out the $145 personal and $60 additional credits, and rounded to $8,000."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,other,False,"Treated the liability as 'modest' and gave $1,005, about one-eighth of the correct tax. Arkansas AGI is $248,144.53 with only $24,646.33 itemized, so the schedule gives $8,189.53 before $205 of credits; the answer amounts to taxing only a small slice of income."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Claimed that deductions and offsets wipe out the Arkansas tax. In fact itemized deductions are only $24,646.33 against $248,144.53 of Arkansas AGI, leaving $223,498.20 taxable and $7,984.53 owed after credits."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Deducted the full $25,900 without the 0.5% AGI floor (taxable $222,245). Its high-income schedule produced $8,496.66, above the engine's $8,189.53 on the larger correct base, and it took $160 of credits instead of $145 personal plus the $60 additional credit ($205)."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used the standard deduction instead of itemizing the $24,646.33 charitable deduction and said no nonrefundable credit applies, leaving out the $145 personal and $60 additional credits."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $8,107 after only small personal/dependent credits means a bracket tax of about $8,250, above the engine's $8,189.53 on $223,498.20. It also left out the $60 additional credit for qualified individuals that brings total credits to $205."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"$7,995.31 matches deducting the full $25,900 without the 0.5%-of-AGI floor ($1,253.67) while subtracting only the $145 personal credits and dropping the $60 additional credit. The two errors nearly cancel, leaving it $10.78 above the correct $223,498.20 → $8,189.53 − $205 path."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Deducted the full $25,900 without the 0.5% floor (taxable $222,245). Its high-income schedule gave $8,578.26, well above the engine's $8,189.53 on $223,498.20, and it subtracted only $145 of credits, leaving out the $60 additional credit."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"$9,535 matches taxing essentially all wage income after only a standard deduction, without the $24,646.33 charitable itemization that brings taxable income down to $223,498.20, and without the full $205 of credits."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied a 3.9% marginal rate to its post-charity base, which overstates bracket tax compared with the engine's 2026 schedule ($8,189.53 on $223,498.20, equal to 3.7% minus $79.90). It also counted only personal credits and left out the $60 additional credit."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Deducted the full $25,900 without the 0.5% AGI floor and used a 3.9% high-income schedule, which gives about $8,585 instead of the engine's $8,189.53. It subtracted only $145 of personal credits and left out the $60 additional credit."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,other,False,"Gave a rounded $8,000 guess with no computation. The correct path is $248,144.53 AGI − $24,646.33 itemized = $223,498.20, taxed at $8,189.53, minus $205 of nonrefundable credits = $7,984.53."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied the outdated ~4.4% top rate to ~$224,000 instead of the 2026 schedule that gives $8,189.53 on $223,498.20, and subtracted none of the $205 of personal and additional credits."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Started from federal AGI $250,734, which includes the refund Arkansas excludes, added $741 of medical, and skipped the 0.5% charitable floor. It used a 3.9% top rate and said no nonrefundable credits apply, leaving out the $145 personal and $60 additional credits."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Started from an unsupported $223,734 'federal AGI', $24,411 below the correct Arkansas AGI of $248,144.53, so taxable income came to $197,834 instead of $223,498.20. It also subtracted only the $145 personal credits, missing the $60 additional credit."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $242,511 AGI equals $250,734 − $8,223: it kept the state refund and subtracted the head's employer-plan premiums as an above-the-line deduction, which Arkansas does not allow. It then applied a flat 3.9% with no bracket schedule and no 0.5% charitable floor, and subtracted none of the $205 of credits."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied about 3.9% to ~$221,000, which overstates bracket tax compared with the engine's $8,189.53 on $223,498.20. It subtracted only small personal credits and left out the $60 additional credit, which accounts for most of its ~$515 overstatement."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Gave no answer and no reasoning for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there is nothing to score."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used the joint standard deduction (taxable $245,654) instead of itemizing the $24,646.33 charitable deduction, and subtracted only $145 of personal credits, missing the $60 additional credit."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"Said there is no Arkansas liability, but $223,498.20 of Arkansas taxable income produces $8,189.53 of tax, and only $205 of nonrefundable credits apply, leaving $7,984.53."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Correctly removed the state refund but used the joint standard deduction (taxable $243,435) instead of itemizing the $24,646.33 charitable deduction. It also subtracted only $145 of personal credits, missing the $60 additional credit."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Kept the $2,589 refund in Arkansas AGI ($250,734 instead of $248,144.53) and deducted the full $25,900 without the 0.5% floor. It applied a ~3.8% rate that gave $8,450 instead of $8,189.53, and it used a made-up $31 × 5 = $155 credit instead of $145 personal plus the $60 additional credit."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Added the $35,525 overtime premium on top of wages that already include it and counted the refund, reaching $286,259. It then took a $4,400 standard deduction and a flat outdated 4.4% rate, throwing out its own itemized calculation, instead of taxing $223,498.20 under the 2026 schedule."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its $213,150 starting income equals $248,675 − $35,525, so it excluded the FLSA overtime premium, which Arkansas does not exclude, and then subtracted an invented $28,867 deduction instead of the $24,646.33 itemized amount. It applied only the $60 additional credit and missed the $145 personal credits, and its final $5,105 does not match its own $7,127 calculation."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Took the ~$2,340 Arkansas standard deduction instead of itemizing, so it taxed ~$245,805 rather than $223,498.20 (after $24,646.33 of itemized deductions led by the charitable gift). It then made an unexplained ~$1,115 'bracket smoothing' cut to reach $8,081. It also subtracted only the $145 personal credits, missing the $60 additional credit for qualified individuals."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its income and deduction steps were nearly right ($248,145 AGI, refund excluded, charity itemized). The error was the 2%/4%/3.9% schedule: it gave $8,586.66 on $222,245, about $446 more than Arkansas's 2026 brackets produce on that base. It also stopped at $145 of personal credits and missed the $60 additional tax credit for qualified individuals."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Added the $35,525 FLSA overtime premium on top of wages that already include it, counted the $2,589 refund that Arkansas excludes, and used a standard deduction instead of the $24,646.33 itemized total. It then applied a 5% top rate (the 2026 top rate is 3.9%). It subtracted $1,050 of invented credits instead of the actual $205 ($145 personal + $60 additional)."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,missing_output,False,"Entered $0 and explicitly skipped the Arkansas calculation. Arkansas AGI of $248,144.53 less $24,646.33 of itemized deductions leaves $223,498.20 taxable. That produces $8,189.53 of bracket tax, or $7,984.53 after $205 of nonrefundable credits."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Imputed ~$22,500 of mortgage interest from the $501,000 balance, even though no interest paid is listed and unlisted amounts are zero. That pushed itemized deductions to ~$48,400 instead of $24,646.33. Its own arithmetic then reached ~$7,645, but it reported an unrelated $11,264."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Counted the $2,589 refund that Arkansas excludes and imputed ~$20,040 of mortgage interest that isn't an input, putting itemized deductions at ~$48,000 instead of $24,646.33. The 3.9% top rate on its own ~$202,000 base gives under $8,000, but it reported $11,820, which none of its stated steps supports."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Claimed mortgage interest and medical deductions the facts don't support: only a mortgage balance is listed, and medical costs fall below the AGI floor. That cut taxable income to ~$190,000 instead of $223,498.20. It also subtracted only $145 of credits, missing the $60 additional credit."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Kept the $2,589 refund in Arkansas income ($224,834 base). The bigger error was the rate schedule: it computed $8,685 where the 2026 brackets give about $8,242 on that base. It also subtracted only the $145 personal credits, missing the $60 additional credit."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Subtracted the $35,525 FLSA overtime premium as Arkansas-exempt, but Arkansas AGI of $248,144.53 includes it. It also added a $10,000 SALT deduction with no state or local taxes paid listed. And it claimed a $240 Arkansas child-care credit, which is zero because the federal CDCC is zero (the head has no earned income)."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Imputed ~$20,040 of mortgage interest from the $501,000 balance, which isn't an input, overstating deductions. Its own bracket calculation came to ~$8,086, but it reported $12,500 with no supporting computation."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used the small Arkansas standard deduction instead of itemizing, so it taxed ~$245,000 instead of $223,498.20 (after $24,646.33 of itemized deductions led by the $25,900 charitable gift)."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used a 4.9% top rate (the 2026 top rate is 3.9%) and taxed only ~$184,000 instead of $223,498.20. It also said no nonrefundable credits apply, dropping the $145 personal and $60 additional credits. These errors happen to roughly offset."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used a $5,000 standard deduction instead of the $24,646.33 itemized total, taxing $243,145 instead of $223,498.20. It also subtracted none of the $205 nonrefundable credits ($145 personal, $60 additional)."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its $215,209 starting income ($185,403.68 + $29,805.33) is $250,734 minus the $35,525 overtime premium, so it treated overtime as exempt from Arkansas tax. Arkansas AGI of $248,144.53 keeps the overtime and leaves out only the state refund, which makes taxable income $223,498.20."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used an outdated 4.4% top rate (the 2026 top rate is 3.9%), kept the $2,589 refund in income, and took a $4,400 standard deduction instead of itemizing $24,646.33. It also subtracted none of the $205 nonrefundable credits."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Started from $250,734, which includes the $2,589 refund Arkansas excludes, and added a $741 medical deduction even though medical costs fall below the AGI floor, giving a $224,093 base. Its brackets produced $8,413.63, about $200 more than the 2026 schedule gives on that base. It also subtracted only $145, missing the $60 additional credit."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"No derivation given. $10,560 is consistent with an outdated ~4.4% rate on roughly $240,000 of standard-deduction income. The correct path itemizes $24,646.33 to reach $223,498.20 taxable, applies 2026 brackets topping at 3.9% for $8,189.53, and subtracts $205 of credits."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"$8,768 is exactly 3.9% × $224,834 ($250,734 − $25,900): a flat top rate on a base that wrongly includes the $2,589 refund. It skips the ~$527 of lower-bracket relief in the 2026 schedule and all $205 of nonrefundable credits."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"$8,623 equals 3.9% × $224,834 minus $145. It applied the top rate flat with no lower-bracket relief (bracket tax should be $8,189.53), kept the $2,589 refund in income, and missed the $60 additional credit."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"No derivation given. $10,879 is consistent with an outdated ~4.4% rate on income reduced by at most a standard deduction. Arkansas taxes $223,498.20 after $24,646.33 of itemized deductions, using 2026 brackets topping at 3.9%, then subtracts $205 of credits."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,other,False,"No derivation given; it is $249.59 too high. The gap is consistent with leaving out the $60 additional credit plus about $190 of extra bracket tax, from either a base above $223,498.20 or a schedule with less lower-bracket relief than the one producing $8,189.53."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"No derivation given. $9,260 is consistent with taxing roughly $245,000 after a small standard deduction, instead of $223,498.20 after the $24,646.33 of itemized deductions led by the charitable gift."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Said it used the Arkansas standard deduction, so it taxed over $240,000 instead of $223,498.20 after itemizing $24,646.33 (led by the $25,900 charitable gift)."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Itemized the charitable gift, but its progressive schedule gave ~$8,698 before credits where the 2026 schedule gives $8,189.53, about $500 too much from too little lower-bracket relief. It also subtracted only $145, missing the $60 additional credit."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Used outdated pre-reform Arkansas brackets with 4.7% and 4.4% rates. The 2026 schedule tops out at 3.9% and gives $8,189.53 on $223,498.20. It also subtracted none of the $205 nonrefundable credits."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,other,False,"Kept the $2,589 refund in income and added a ~$1,000 medical deduction even though medical costs fall below the AGI floor. It said no nonrefundable credits apply, dropping the $145 personal and $60 additional credits, and rounded bracket tax to $8,000 instead of computing it."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Called the liability 'modest' and reported $1,005 without taxing the $223,498.20 of taxable income (AGI $248,144.53 less $24,646.33 itemized). That income produces $8,189.53 of bracket tax before $205 of credits."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Claimed deductions eliminate the tax. Itemized deductions are only $24,646.33 against $248,144.53 of AGI, leaving $223,498.20 taxable and $7,984.53 owed after $205 of credits."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Got to $222,245 of taxable income, but its high-income schedule gave $8,496.66, about $356 more than the 2026 brackets produce on that base. It also subtracted $160 of credits instead of $205 ($145 personal + $60 additional)."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used the standard deduction instead of the $24,646.33 itemized total. It also said no nonrefundable credit applies, dropping the $145 personal and $60 additional credits."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,other,False,"Its $122.47 overstatement is consistent with taxing a $224,834 base that includes the $2,589 refund (Arkansas excludes it) and subtracting only $145 of personal credits without the $60 additional credit."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,other,False,"$7,995.31 matches the 2026 schedule applied to $222,245 (the full $25,900 deducted instead of the $24,646.33 itemized total) minus only $145 of personal credits. The missing $60 additional credit nearly cancels the ~$49 of tax lost to the oversized deduction."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Got to $222,245 of taxable income, but its high-income schedule gave $8,578.26 where the 2026 brackets give about $8,141 on that base. It also subtracted only $145, missing the $60 additional credit."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"$9,535 is about 3.9% of the full $248,145 AGI minus $145. It skipped the $24,646.33 itemized deduction and the lower-bracket relief, and missed the $60 additional credit."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $365 overstatement after the charitable deduction is consistent with a schedule that gives too little lower-bracket relief (the 2026 brackets give $8,189.53 on $223,498.20) plus leaving out the $60 additional credit."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Got to $222,245 of taxable income, but its high-income schedule gave $8,584.76 where the 2026 brackets give about $8,141 on that base. It also subtracted only $145, missing the $60 additional credit."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,other,False,"Reported a rounded $8,000 with no computation. Graduated tax on $223,498.20 is $8,189.53, and subtracting $205 of credits gives $7,984.53."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Applied an outdated ~4.4% top rate to ~$224,000 of taxable income. The 2026 top rate is 3.9%, and the graduated tax on $223,498.20 is $8,189.53 before $205 of credits."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,other,False,"Kept the $2,589 refund in income and added a $741 medical deduction even though medical costs fall below the AGI floor, giving a $224,093 base. It said no nonrefundable credits apply, but the $145 personal and $60 additional credits apply regardless of the zero CDCC. Its bracket tax also ran ~$220 high."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Started from an AGI of $223,734 that the facts don't support; wages of $248,675 less the $530 loss give Arkansas AGI of $248,144.53. That understated taxable income by about $25,700 ($197,834 vs $223,498.20)."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Treated Arkansas as a flat 3.9% tax, started from a misstated $242,511 AGI, and skipped all nonrefundable credits. Arkansas AGI is $248,144.53, the 2026 graduated brackets give $8,189.53 on $223,498.20, and $205 of personal and additional credits come off that."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Taxed ~$221,000 at a near-flat 3.9% (~$8,600), skipping most of the lower-bracket relief that brings 2026 tax to $8,189.53 on $223,498.20. It then subtracted only ~$100 of credits instead of $205."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Gave no value and no explanation for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there is no answer to score."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Took the joint standard deduction for ~$245,654 of taxable income, instead of itemizing $24,646.33 for $223,498.20. It also subtracted only $145 of personal credits, missing the $60 additional credit."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"Reported no Arkansas liability. AGI of $248,144.53 less $24,646.33 of itemized deductions leaves $223,498.20 taxable, producing $8,189.53 of bracket tax and $7,984.53 after $205 of credits."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,other,False,"Added a ~$700 medical deduction even though medical costs fall below the AGI floor, and applied a near-flat 3.9%. It left out the $205 of personal and additional credits, and its $8,340 doesn't follow from its own ~$221,545 × 3.9% (~$8,640)."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Took the joint standard deduction (~$243,435 taxable) instead of itemizing $24,646.33 ($223,498.20 taxable). It also subtracted only $145, missing the $60 additional credit."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Kept the $2,589 refund in income ($224,834 base) and used a ~3.8% top rate instead of the 2026 graduated schedule that gives $8,189.53. It estimated credits at $155 ($31 × 5) instead of $205 ($29 × 5 personal + $60 additional)."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Added the $35,525 overtime premium on top of wages that already include it and kept the $2,589 refund, inflating income to $286,259. It then dropped its own itemized calculation for a $4,400 standard deduction and applied a flat 4.4%, where 2026 Arkansas uses graduated rates topping at 3.9%."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its $213,150 base is wages minus the $35,525 overtime premium, so it treated overtime as exempt even though Arkansas AGI of $248,144.53 includes it. It also used an unsupported $28,867 deduction and subtracted only $60 of credits, missing the $145 personal credits. It then reported $5,105 even though its own math gave $7,127."
us,scenario_117,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_118,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said Social Security income is modest but still concluded 'no Medicaid enrollment assumed; not eligible'. That confuses enrollment with eligibility, and Medicare eligibility does not rule out Medicaid. It also missed that $2,800 a year in Social Security and $70 in assets qualify the head for SSI ($9,368 a year), and in NY that gives automatic Medicaid through the SSI-recipient category."
us,scenario_118,head_medicaid_eligible,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said the facts were not enough to support eligibility, even though they fully establish the aged/blind/disabled pathway. The head is 74, blind, and disabled, with $2,800 a year in Social Security and $70 in assets. That qualifies them for SSI, which gives automatic NY Medicaid through the SSI-recipient category, and they also pass NY's aged/disabled income and asset tests. The model never applied these tests to the listed income and resources."
us,scenario_118,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model correctly stated that the $2,800 Social Security retirement benefit is not subject to employee payroll tax and that no wages were provided, but then contradicted that reasoning by assigning $172.90 of employee-side tax. It improperly placed retirement benefits or another nonexistent amount in the payroll-tax base instead of applying the tax rates to a zero earned-income base."
-us,scenario_118,snap,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted only the $233/month of Social Security and left out the $780.67/month of SSI the blind/disabled head receives, which SNAP counts as income (gross $1,014). With SSI counted, the shelter deduction leaves $194 of net income and a $58.20 contribution, not $0. Its $293×12 maximum-allotment answer therefore overstates the benefit."
-us,scenario_118,snap,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted SSI correctly ($1,014 gross) and applied the uncapped shelter deduction, but it used only mortgage interest plus property tax ($599/month) as shelter costs and left out the New York standard utility allowance. The SUA-inclusive excess shelter deduction is about $611/month, not $196. That gives $194 of net income instead of $609, and $239.80/month (rising to $248.58 in October–December) instead of $115."
-us,scenario_118,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It ruled the household ineligible even though gross income is 78% of FPG, assets are $70, and SSI receipt confers categorical eligibility. It never ran the benefit formula, which gives the $298 maximum minus a $58.20 contribution, or $239.80/month."
-us,scenario_118,snap,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It returned $0 without doing any calculation, ignoring that the household passes every income and asset test and is categorically eligible through SSI. The formula gives $239.80/month for January–September and $248.58 for October–December, or $2,903.94 a year."
-us,scenario_118,snap,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the $233 of Social Security as the only income and left out the $780.67/month of SSI, which drove net income to $0 and the answer to the ~$293 maximum allotment. It also explicitly declined the standard utility allowance, which PolicyEngine includes in shelter costs. Counting SSI and the SUA-inclusive shelter deduction gives $194 of net income and a $58.20 contribution."
-us,scenario_118,snap,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left SSI out of income and ignored the shelter deduction, then submitted $2,533, which matches none of its own intermediate figures (~$3,400). Counting the $780.67 of SSI and subtracting the $209 standard deduction and the ~$611 SUA-inclusive excess shelter deduction gives $194 of net income and $239.80/month."
-us,scenario_118,snap,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out SSI and the shelter deduction, which gave net income of $29, and then misapplied its own formula: $298 − 0.3×$29 is $289, not $203. The correct path counts $1,014 of gross income (SS plus SSI) and subtracts $209 and ~$611 in deductions, leaving $194 of net income and a $239.80 benefit."
-us,scenario_118,snap,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted SSI ($1,014 gross) but built shelter costs from mortgage interest and property tax alone ($599) and left out the New York standard utility allowance. That understated the excess shelter deduction ($196 instead of ~$611) and overstated net income ($609 instead of $194). It also took 12 flat months, missing the higher $248.58 benefit for October–December."
-us,scenario_118,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It explicitly assumed the head gets no SSI, but a blind/disabled person with $2,800 of SS receives $780.67/month of SSI, which counts as SNAP income. Leaving it out drove net income to $0 and the answer to the maximum allotment, and it used the FY2025 $292 maximum instead of $298."
-us,scenario_118,snap,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left SSI out of income, concluded net income was near zero, then cut the $3,504 maximum to $2,555 without computing any net income. Counting the $780.67 of SSI and the ~$611 SUA-inclusive shelter deduction gives $194 of net income, a $58.20 contribution, and $239.80/month."
-us,scenario_118,snap,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted only $233/month of Social Security and left out the $780.67/month of SSI, so net income fell to $0 and it returned the $298×12 maximum. With SSI counted, net income is $194 and the $58.20 contribution brings the benefit down to $239.80/month."
-us,scenario_118,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out both SSI and the excess shelter deduction, subtracting only a $199 standard deduction from $233 of SS. The correct base is $1,014 of gross income (SS plus $780.67 SSI) less $209 and a ~$611 excess shelter deduction, which leaves $194 of net income and a $58.20 contribution."
-us,scenario_118,snap,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reached $0 net income only by leaving out the $780.67/month of SSI, and it used the FY2025 $292 maximum allotment. With SSI counted, net income is $194, so the benefit is $298 − $58.20 = $239.80/month, not the maximum."
-us,scenario_118,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,It counted SSI but built shelter costs from mortgage interest and property tax only and left out the New York standard utility allowance. That gave a $198.75 excess shelter deduction instead of ~$611 and net income of $601 instead of $194. It also used a $303 maximum and a $210 standard deduction instead of $298 and $209.
-us,scenario_118,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It explicitly excluded SSI from SNAP income, but SSI is countable unearned income for SNAP, so gross income is $1,014, not $233. With SSI counted, net income is $194 rather than $0 and the benefit is $239.80/month, not a $299 maximum."
-us,scenario_118,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted SSI (overstated at $864.67 instead of $780.67) and included the utility allowance, but asserted $0 net income without computing it. Adjusted income of $805 less the ~$611 excess shelter deduction leaves $194 of net income and a $58.20 contribution. It also used $292 rather than $298 as the maximum."
-us,scenario_118,snap,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It returned $0 on the grounds that income was too low to generate a benefit, which inverts the SNAP formula: lower net income means a larger allotment. This categorically eligible SSI household receives $298 − $58.20 = $239.80/month."
-us,scenario_118,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It overstated SSI at $817/month, used a $198 standard deduction and a $291 maximum, and built shelter costs from mortgage interest and property tax without the New York standard utility allowance. That produced a $173 excess shelter deduction and $679 of net income, instead of ~$611 and $194."
-us,scenario_118,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It replaced the regular SNAP formula with a standardized maximum benefit under the NY Nutrition Improvement Project for SSI recipients. PolicyEngine computes the regular formula, where $194 of net income produces a $58.20 contribution and a $239.80 monthly benefit. It also used $291 rather than $298 as the maximum allotment."
-us,scenario_118,snap,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It returned $0 even though the household passes the gross, net, and asset tests and is categorically eligible through SSI. The formula gives $298 − $58.20 = $239.80/month, or $2,903.94 a year once the higher October–December months are included."
-us,scenario_118,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $291×12 answer implies $0 net income, which only follows if the $780.67/month of SSI is left out of income. With SSI counted, net income after the standard and SUA-inclusive shelter deductions is $194, and the benefit is $239.80/month against a $298 maximum."
-us,scenario_118,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $828 ($69/month) implies about $763 of net income against the $298 maximum. That fits counting SSI while taking almost none of the excess shelter deduction. The correct deduction is ~$611 once mortgage interest, property tax, and the NY utility allowance are included, which leaves $194 of net income and a $239.80 benefit."
-us,scenario_118,snap,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It understated SSI at $9,044/yr instead of $9,368, used a $200/month standard deduction and a $292 maximum, and limited shelter costs to mortgage interest and property tax without the New York standard utility allowance. That gave a $2,463/yr excess shelter deduction instead of ~$7,327 and $6,981 of annual net income instead of about $2,333."
-us,scenario_118,snap,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated $233 of Social Security as the only income and left out the $780.67/month of SSI, which drove net income to $0 and the answer to an estimated $295 maximum. With SSI counted, net income is $194 and the benefit is $298 − $58.20 = $239.80/month."
-us,scenario_118,snap,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out both SSI and the excess shelter deduction, subtracting only a ~$207 standard deduction from $233 of SS. The correct net income is $194: $1,014 of gross income (SS plus SSI) less $209 and a ~$611 shelter deduction, which gives a $58.20 contribution."
-us,scenario_118,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the household had no expenses or eligibility facts, ignoring the listed mortgage interest and property tax and the SSI the blind/disabled head receives. The household is categorically eligible through SSI and gets $298 − $58.20 = $239.80/month."
-us,scenario_118,snap,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It returned $0 for lack of 'supporting facts', but low-income, low-asset elderly/disabled households qualify for SNAP without any further facts, and SSI receipt confers categorical eligibility. Running the formula gives $239.80/month for January–September and $248.58 for October–December."
-us,scenario_118,snap,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left the $780.67/month of SSI out of income (and applied the SSI program's $20 exclusion, which SNAP does not use), so net income fell to $0. It then used a $243 maximum allotment instead of the FY2026 $298. These two errors offset each other, putting its answer close to the formula result of $298 − $58.20 = $239.80/month."
-us,scenario_118,snap,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $3,488.40 equals 12×($298 − 0.3×$24.33), which means it subtracted only the $209 standard deduction from $233.33 of SS. It left out both the $780.67/month of SSI and the excess shelter deduction, which together give $194 of net income."
-us,scenario_118,snap,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted SSI, but its $115/month result comes from shelter costs of mortgage interest plus property tax alone, without the New York standard utility allowance. The SUA-inclusive excess shelter deduction is ~$611/month, which gives $194 of net income and $239.80/month (and $248.58 in October–December)."
-us,scenario_118,snap,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted SSI and the mortgage-interest and property-tax shelter costs, but its $123/month benefit implies net income near $580 because it left out the New York standard utility allowance. With the SUA, the excess shelter deduction is ~$611, net income is $194, and the benefit is $239.80/month."
-us,scenario_118,snap,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted SSI correctly ($1,014 gross) but explicitly took no shelter deduction, ignoring the listed mortgage interest and property tax and the NY standard utility allowance. The uncapped elderly/disabled excess shelter deduction of ~$611/month cuts net income from $805 to $194."
-us,scenario_118,snap,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reached the $298 maximum by treating net income as $0, which only happens if the $780.67/month of SSI is left out. With SSI counted, net income is $194 and the $58.20 contribution brings the benefit down to $239.80/month."
-us,scenario_118,snap,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It overstated SSI at $10,412/yr instead of $9,368 and used a $1,833/yr excess shelter deduction that leaves out the New York standard utility allowance; the correct deduction is ~$7,327/yr. That inflated annual net income to $8,871 instead of about $2,333."
-us,scenario_118,snap,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted SSI and used the $209 deduction and $298 maximum, but it built shelter costs from mortgage interest and property tax only and left out the NY standard utility allowance. That produced $609 of net income instead of $194 and $115/month instead of $239.80."
-us,scenario_118,snap,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It returned $0 without computing anything, although every input needed is listed: SS income, SSI eligibility from blindness/disability with low income, shelter costs, and assets. The formula gives $239.80/month for January–September and $248.58 for October–December."
-us,scenario_118,snap,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It recognized SSI categorical eligibility but arrived at $735 of net income, which implies an excess shelter deduction far below the ~$611 that results once the NY standard utility allowance is added to mortgage interest and property tax. It also used a $301 maximum instead of $298."
-us,scenario_118,snap,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reached $0 net income by leaving the $780.67/month of SSI out of income, and it used the FY2025 $292 maximum. With SSI counted, net income is $194 and the benefit is $298 − $58.20 = $239.80/month."
-us,scenario_118,snap,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted SSI at $9,368 correctly but built the excess shelter deduction from mortgage interest and property tax alone and left out the New York standard utility allowance. That gave $7,305 of annual net income instead of about $2,333 and $1,384.50 instead of $2,903.94."
-us,scenario_118,snap,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated shelter costs as $0 despite the listed mortgage interest and property tax, left out the $780.67/month of SSI, and used 2024 parameters ($193 standard deduction, $291 maximum). The correct computation counts $1,014 of gross income, subtracts $209 and a ~$611 excess shelter deduction, and gives $194 of net income."
-us,scenario_118,snap,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted only ~$233/month of Social Security and left out the $780.67/month of SSI, so net income hit $0 and it returned the $298×12 maximum. With SSI counted, net income is $194 and the benefit is $239.80/month."
-us,scenario_118,snap,kimi-k2.6,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left the $780.67/month of SSI out of income, which drove net income to $0, and used an overstated $309 maximum allotment instead of $298. With SSI counted, net income is $194 and the benefit is $239.80/month."
-us,scenario_118,snap,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It overstated SSI at $867.67/month instead of $780.67 and took no shelter deduction, wrongly claiming no housing-cost input existed despite the listed mortgage interest and property tax. The uncapped excess shelter deduction, including the NY utility allowance, is ~$611/month, which leaves $194 of net income and a $239.80 benefit."
-us,scenario_118,snap,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It said income was too low to qualify and that the standard deduction produces a $0 benefit, which inverts the SNAP formula: low net income raises the allotment. This SSI-categorically-eligible household receives $298 − $58.20 = $239.80/month."
-us,scenario_118,snap,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted SSI and used the $209/$298 parameters, but its $196 excess shelter deduction comes from mortgage interest and property tax alone, without the New York standard utility allowance. The correct ~$611 deduction gives $194 of net income and $239.80/month (and $248.58 in October–December)."
-us,scenario_118,snap,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used $598.75 (mortgage interest plus property tax) as total shelter costs and left out the New York standard utility allowance, so its excess shelter deduction was $196.25 instead of ~$611. That left $608.75 of net income instead of $194 and $115.38/month instead of $239.80."
-us,scenario_118,snap,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left out both SSI and the excess shelter deduction, subtracting only a $198 standard deduction from $233 of SS against a $291 maximum. The correct net income is $194 ($1,014 gross less $209 and ~$611), giving a $58.20 contribution and $239.80/month."
-us,scenario_118,snap,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It wrongly assumed SNAP requires a qualifying child. Single elderly/disabled adults are eligible, and this SSI recipient passes all tests and receives $298 − $58.20 = $239.80/month."
-us,scenario_118,ssi,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"The model's own reasoning correctly computed 12 × ($994 − $213.33) = $9,368. It then dropped that result, cited a made-up $725.33 FBR and an incoherent adjustment formula, and submitted $6,144. That number comes from no valid SSI computation."
-us,scenario_118,ssi,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model compared the $2,800 annual Social Security total against a monthly FBR and concluded that income exceeds the limit. In fact, countable income is only $213.33/month after the $20 exclusion, well below the $994 2026 FBR. It also used the stale 2024 FBR of $943."
-us,scenario_118,ssi,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model asserted that $2,800/year of Social Security exceeds the SSI income threshold. Monthly countable income is $233.33 − $20 = $213.33, far below the $994 FBR, so the federal payment is $780.67/month ($9,368/year)."
-us,scenario_118,ssi,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 2025 FBR of $967 instead of the 2026 FBR of $994. It also added an estimated NY state supplement, which is not part of the federal `ssi` output, and inflated the total to $10,788 instead of 12 × ($994 − $213.33) = $9,368."
-us,scenario_118,ssi,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,other,False,"The model's reasoning found a positive payment ($8,824) but it submitted 0. That figure was also wrong: it used the 2025 FBR of $967 instead of $994 and subtracted the $20 general exclusion once per year ($2,780) instead of $20 per month ($2,560)."
-us,scenario_118,ssi,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used an approximate FBR of about $1,000 instead of $994 and folded in a NY state supplement that does not belong in federal SSI. Its arithmetic is internally inconsistent: $1,000 − $213 plus a supplement cannot yield $667/month. The correct federal payment is $994 − $213.33 = $780.67/month."
-us,scenario_118,ssi,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,period_annualization,False,"The model applied the $20 general income exclusion once per year ($2,800 − $20 = $2,780) instead of monthly ($240/year, leaving $2,560 countable). It also used the 2025 FBR of $967 instead of the 2026 FBR of $994, which produced $8,824 instead of $9,368."
-us,scenario_118,ssi,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model overestimated the 2026 FBR at $1,013/month instead of $994. It also subtracted the $20 exclusion only once per year. It then replaced its own $9,372 result with an unexplained 'NY supplement/rounding' figure of $6,212 that matches no SSI formula."
-us,scenario_118,ssi,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The income counting was correct ($213.33/month countable), but the model used an estimated 2026 FBR of $991 instead of the actual $994. That gives $9,332 instead of 12 × $780.67 = $9,368."
-us,scenario_118,ssi,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model added a $54/month NY state supplement to the federal benefit rate, but the `ssi` output is federal SSI only. It also used a $991 FBR instead of the 2026 FBR of $994."
-us,scenario_118,ssi,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a 2026 FBR of $990/month instead of $994. Its countable income of $213.33/month was correct, so the result was $9,320 instead of $9,368."
-us,scenario_118,ssi,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model added an $87.30/month NY state supplement to a $993 FBR. The `ssi` output is federal SSI only, computed from the $994 FBR minus $213.33 of countable income, which gives $9,368."
-us,scenario_118,ssi,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model combined a $991 FBR with an $87 NY living-alone supplement. The federal `ssi` output excludes the state supplement and uses the $994 2026 FBR, which yields $780.67/month."
-us,scenario_118,ssi,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model claimed Social Security income exceeds the federal benefit rate, which compares $2,800 annual income against a monthly FBR. Countable income is $213.33/month, far below the $994 FBR, so the head receives $780.67/month."
-us,scenario_118,ssi,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Countable income of $2,560 was correct. However, the model used the 2024 FBR ($943/month, $11,316/year) instead of the 2026 FBR of $994 ($11,928/year), and it added a $1,044 NY state supplement that is not part of federal SSI."
-us,scenario_118,ssi,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,The model explicitly used the 2024 FBR of $943 for a 2026 calculation instead of $994. It also added an $87/month NY living-alone supplement that is not part of the federal `ssi` output.
-us,scenario_118,ssi,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model treated $2,800 of annual Social Security as exceeding the monthly FBR. Countable income is only $213.33/month against a $994 FBR, which leaves a $780.67 monthly payment."
-us,scenario_118,ssi,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Countable income of $2,560 was correct, but the $9,236 answer implies an FBR of $983/month ($11,796/year) instead of the 2026 FBR of $994 ($11,928/year)."
-us,scenario_118,ssi,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Countable income of $2,560 was correct, but $10,376 implies a combined $1,078/month rate: a $991 FBR plus an $87 NY state supplement. The federal `ssi` output uses only the $994 FBR, with no state supplement."
-us,scenario_118,ssi,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 2025 FBR of $967/month ($11,604/year) instead of the 2026 FBR of $994 ($11,928/year). Its countable income of $2,560 was correct, so the error is entirely in the stale benefit rate."
-us,scenario_118,ssi,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model added an estimated $94/month NY supplement for a blind individual on top of a $991 FBR. The `ssi` output excludes the state supplement and uses the $994 2026 FBR.
-us,scenario_118,ssi,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model said the facts do not establish a positive SSI benefit, ignoring that the head is aged (74) and blind with $70 in resources. The income test was never run: $213.33/month of countable income against the $994 FBR leaves $780.67/month."
-us,scenario_118,ssi,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model claimed no SSI eligibility facts were provided, even though the household lists age 74, blindness, disability, and $70 in resources. Those facts satisfy both the categorical and resource tests, and the income test leaves a $9,368 annual benefit."
-us,scenario_118,ssi,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Countable income of $2,560 was correct, but the model understated the 2026 FBR. Its stated $982.67/month would give $9,232, and its submitted $9,332 corresponds to $991/month. Neither matches the actual $994 FBR."
-us,scenario_118,ssi,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,period_annualization,False,"The model used the correct $11,928 annual FBR but subtracted the $20 general exclusion only once per year ($2,780 countable). The exclusion is $20 per month, or $240/year, which leaves $2,560 countable and a $9,368 benefit."
-us,scenario_118,ssi,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly computed federal SSI as $11,928 − $2,560 = $9,368. It then added a $1,044 NY state supplement, which is not part of the federal `ssi` output."
-us,scenario_118,ssi,grok-4.3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model ran no SSI computation and defaulted to 0, even though the head is aged and blind, holds $70 in resources, and has only $213.33/month of countable income against the $994 FBR."
-us,scenario_118,ssi,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model added an $87/month NY living-alone supplement to a $991 FBR. The federal `ssi` output excludes the state supplement and uses the $994 2026 FBR, which gives $780.67/month."
-us,scenario_118,ssi,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Countable income of $2,560 was correct, but $9,044 implies the 2025 FBR of $967/month ($11,604/year) instead of the 2026 FBR of $994 ($11,928/year)."
-us,scenario_118,ssi,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 2024 FBR of $943 as a proxy for 2026 instead of $994. It also added an $87 NY supplement, which is not part of the federal `ssi` output."
-us,scenario_118,ssi,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly used the $994 FBR and $213 of countable income to get about $780/month of federal SSI. It then added an $87/month NY state supplement, which the federal `ssi` output excludes."
-us,scenario_118,ssi,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Countable income of $2,560 was correct, but the model used an estimated 2026 FBR of $991/month ($11,892/year) instead of $994 ($11,928/year), which gave $9,332 instead of $9,368."
-us,scenario_118,ssi,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly computed federal SSI of $9,368 from the $11,928 FBR minus $2,560. It then added a $1,044 NY living-alone supplement, which is not part of the federal `ssi` output."
-us,scenario_118,ssi,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model stated that $233/month of Social Security exceeds a $967+ FBR, which is an inverted comparison because $233 is far below the FBR. Countable income of $213.33 against the $994 FBR leaves $780.67/month."
-us,scenario_118,ssi,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,other,False,"The model's reasoning computed a positive $8,756 benefit but it submitted 0 with no basis. That figure also relied on the stale 2024 FBR of $943 instead of the 2026 FBR of $994."
-us,scenario_118,ssi,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model acknowledged that the head is blind and disabled but returned 0 without running the income test. Countable income of $213.33/month against the $994 FBR yields $780.67/month, or $9,368/year."
-us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model asserted that a homeowner with these facts does not qualify for the NY real property tax circuit breaker. In fact this 74-year-old homeowner has federal AGI of $0 and $1,634 of property tax, above 3.5% of that AGI, so the flat table gives $375."
-us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model looked only at earned-income-based credits and concluded there was no refundable NY credit. It never applied the IT-214 real property tax credit: this homeowner is 74 with federal AGI of $0 and property taxes above 3.5% of that AGI, so the flat table gives $375."
-us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model tied NY refundable credits to having tax liability, earned income, or children. The real property tax credit requires none of these and pays this elderly homeowner the $375 cap."
-us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model identified the senior RPTC and mentioned $375, then substituted an unexplained $63. With federal AGI of $0 and $1,634 in property taxes, above 3.5% of that AGI, this 74-year-old filer receives a flat $375, so nothing reduces it to $63."
-us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model assumed the real property tax credit needs NY taxable income or liability to generate a refund. The credit is fully refundable regardless of liability and pays $375 to this senior homeowner with $2,800 HGI."
-us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model dismissed the real property tax credit because no rent was reported. Homeowners qualify through real estate taxes paid, and the $1,634 here yields the $375 elderly maximum."
-us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used the repealed household-gross-income rule, including estimated SSI, to select a $171 income-band cap. Under the rule in force from 2025, this 74-year-old filer has federal AGI of $0 and property taxes above 3.5% of that AGI, so the flat table gives $375."
-us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used the repealed household-gross-income formula with a 6% threshold and applied a $75 maximum it tied to having no dependents. The head is 74 with federal AGI of $0 and property taxes above 3.5% of that AGI, so the flat table gives $375."
-us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model rejected the real property tax credit because no rent was paid and called the senior credit negligible. Homeowners can qualify through property taxes; with federal AGI of $0 and property taxes above 3.5% of that AGI, this 74-year-old filer receives a flat $375."
-us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model reported the NY household credit, which is nonrefundable, as the refundable amount, and said it explicitly skipped the real property tax credit. The refundable RPTC for this senior homeowner is $375."
-us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model treated zero state tax liability as ruling out refundable credits. The NY real property tax credit is paid regardless of liability and gives this 74-year-old homeowner $375.
-us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly reached the $375 RPTC senior cap but added a $75 NY household credit. That credit is nonrefundable, so it doesn't belong in state refundable credits, and the correct total is $375 rather than $450."
-us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model concluded no NY refundable credit applies and overlooked the real property tax credit. With $2,800 HGI and $1,634 in property taxes, this senior homeowner receives the $375 elderly maximum."
-us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model checked only the Empire State Child Credit and NY EITC. It never evaluated the IT-214 real property tax credit, which pays this 74-year-old homeowner the $375 cap."
-us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model asserted no refundable credits apply and omitted the NY real property tax credit. This 74-year-old homeowner has federal AGI of $0 and $1,634 in property taxes, above 3.5% of that AGI, so the flat table gives $375."
-us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model missed the refundable NY real property tax credit. With federal AGI of $0 and property taxes above 3.5% of that AGI, this 74-year-old homeowner receives a flat $375."
-us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model required earned income or dependents for any refundable credit. The NY real property tax credit applies here because this 74-year-old filer has federal AGI of $0 and property taxes above 3.5% of that AGI, giving a flat $375."
-us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model ruled out the child credit and EITC but never considered the real property tax credit. That credit gives this 74-year-old homeowner a flat $375 because federal AGI is $0 and property taxes exceed 3.5% of that AGI.
-us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used the repealed household-gross-income formula to calculate $768 and compared it with a $1,000 senior maximum that does not apply here. With federal AGI of $0 and property taxes above 3.5% of that AGI, this 74-year-old filer receives a flat $375."
-us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model considered only the NY EITC and concluded nothing applies without earned income. It missed the refundable real property tax credit, which pays this 74-year-old homeowner $375."
-us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said no refundable NY credit was triggered and overlooked that the listed age, real estate taxes, and low Social Security-only income qualify the head for the real property tax credit at its $375 elderly cap."
-us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model found no refundable credit and missed the IT-214 real property tax credit. With federal AGI of $0 and $1,634 in property taxes, above 3.5% of that AGI, this 74-year-old filer receives a flat $375."
-us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model concluded that Social Security-only income generates no refundable credit. The real property tax credit uses federal AGI and a flat table; with federal AGI of $0 and property taxes above 3.5% of that AGI, this 74-year-old homeowner receives $375."
-us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model reported the $90 NY household credit, which is nonrefundable, as refundable, and it omitted the real property tax credit. The refundable amount is the $375 RPTC elderly maximum."
-us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used the repealed household-gross-income rule, including estimated SSI, and applied a $75 cap it described as the cap for a homeowner aged 65 or older. The head is 74 with federal AGI of $0 and property taxes above 3.5% of that AGI, so the flat table gives $375."
-us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model computed the credit as 2.5% of property taxes, which is not the IT-214 formula. From 2025 the credit uses federal AGI and a flat table: with federal AGI of $0 and $1,634 in property taxes, above 3.5% of that AGI, this 74-year-old filer receives $375."
-us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used the repealed household-gross-income rule, including estimated SSI, to select a $171 income-band cap. With federal AGI of $0 and property taxes above 3.5% of that AGI, this 74-year-old filer receives a flat $375."
-us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model found no qualifying credits and missed the NY real property tax credit. A 74-year-old homeowner with $2,800 HGI and $1,634 in property taxes receives the $375 maximum."
-us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated the EITC as NY's main refundable credit and never evaluated the real property tax credit, which pays this senior homeowner $375 regardless of earned income."
-us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model explicitly dismissed property tax credits. The NY real property tax credit applies to this 74-year-old homeowner with federal AGI of $0 and property taxes above 3.5% of that AGI, giving a flat $375."
-us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model checked only the EITC, child, childcare, and tuition credits. It missed the refundable real property tax credit, which the listed real estate taxes and age 74 trigger at the $375 cap."
-us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model required NY tax liability or qualifying children. The real property tax credit is refundable without liability and gives this elderly homeowner $375.
-us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model concluded there was no basis for a refundable NY credit and overlooked that $1,634 in real estate taxes and age 74 qualify the head for the real property tax credit at its $375 elderly maximum."
-us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model considered only the NY EITC and the refundable CDCC. It never evaluated the real property tax credit, which gives this 74-year-old homeowner a flat $375 based on federal AGI of $0 and property taxes above 3.5% of that AGI."
-us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model equated NY refundable credits with the earned-income and child credits and missed the real property tax credit. The listed age and property taxes produce that credit at $375.
-us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed the household's income and age qualify it for no credit. Age 74, federal AGI of $0, and property taxes above 3.5% of that AGI qualify it for the NY real property tax credit at a flat $375."
-us,scenario_119,child1_chip_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Tested only age under 19 and income of about 197% FPL against the 200% FAMIS limit. It ignored that Child 1 has employer-sponsored insurance, and a child covered under a group health plan is not a CHIP targeted low-income child."
-us,scenario_119,child1_chip_eligible,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Correctly placed income (about 197% FPL) under the 200% FAMIS limit plus the 5% disregard. It then stopped there and never applied CHIP's rule excluding children already covered by employer-sponsored insurance, which Child 1 has."
-us,scenario_119,child1_chip_eligible,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Checked MAGI of $52,569 (about 197% FPL) against the 200% CHIP limit and confirmed the child is not Medicaid-eligible. It skipped the remaining categorical condition: Child 1 is covered by employer-sponsored insurance, which bars CHIP eligibility."
-us,scenario_119,child1_chip_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Applied only the under-19 age test and the 205% FPL FAMIS income limit. It overlooked Child 1's employer-sponsored insurance, which removes the child from CHIP's targeted low-income child definition."
-us,scenario_119,child1_chip_eligible,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Treated age 14 plus income within the FAMIS threshold as sufficient. It never applied CHIP's requirement that the child not already be covered by a group health plan, and Child 1 has employer-sponsored insurance."
-us,scenario_119,child1_chip_eligible,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Screened only age and MAGI against the 205% FPL FAMIS limit. It ignored that Child 1 is enrolled in employer-sponsored insurance, which fails CHIP's no-other-coverage categorical requirement."
-us,scenario_119,child1_chip_eligible,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Returned no value or explanation for child1_chip_eligible, so there is no answer to score. The correct derivation yields 0 because Child 1 has employer-sponsored insurance, which excludes the child from CHIP."
-us,scenario_119,child1_chip_eligible,gpt-5.5,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Placed household income above the child Medicaid limit and within Virginia's CHIP range, then concluded eligible. It never applied the CHIP bar on children already covered by employer-sponsored insurance, which Child 1 has."
-us,scenario_119,child1_chip_eligible,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,health_coverage,False,Relied solely on age under 19 and an estimated income within Virginia's CHIP range. It missed that Child 1's existing employer-sponsored coverage disqualifies the child from CHIP.
-us,scenario_119,child1_chip_eligible,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Checked only age under 19 and MAGI below Virginia's upper CHIP limit. It disregarded the listed employer-sponsored insurance for Child 1, and a group health plan enrollee is not a CHIP targeted low-income child."
-us,scenario_119,child1_chip_eligible,grok-4.5,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Computed MAGI at about 192% FPL, within the 200% FAMIS limit, and stopped. It omitted CHIP's categorical exclusion for children covered by employer-sponsored insurance, which applies to Child 1."
-us,scenario_119,child1_chip_eligible,grok-4.6,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Correctly placed income between Virginia's child Medicaid limit and the 200-205% FAMIS limit. It never tested whether Child 1 has other coverage, and the child's employer-sponsored insurance makes the child CHIP-ineligible."
-us,scenario_119,child1_chip_eligible,grok-4.7,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Applied the age test and the Medicaid-to-FAMIS income band (about 190-197% FPL against a 200-205% limit). It ignored Child 1's employer-sponsored insurance, which fails CHIP's requirement that the child not be covered under a group health plan."
-us,scenario_119,child1_chip_eligible,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Understated MAGI at $46,180 (168% FPL) and checked it only against a 143-200% FPL CHIP band. The decisive error is ignoring that Child 1 has employer-sponsored insurance, which excludes the child from CHIP at any income."
-us,scenario_119,child1_chip_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Returned no value or explanation for child1_chip_eligible, so there is no answer to score. The correct derivation yields 0 because Child 1 has employer-sponsored insurance, which excludes the child from CHIP."
-us,scenario_119,child1_chip_eligible,kimi-k3,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Checked only age under 19 and three-person MAGI of $52,569 against Virginia's CHIP income band. It skipped the categorical rule excluding children already covered by employer-sponsored insurance, which Child 1 has."
-us,scenario_119,child1_chip_eligible,ox-alpha,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"Computed MAGI of $52,569 at about 204% FPL, under the 205% FAMIS limit, and concluded eligible on age and income alone. It never applied CHIP's exclusion of children covered by a group health plan, and Child 1 has employer-sponsored insurance."
+us,scenario_118,snap,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model counted only the $233/month of Social Security and left out the $780.67/month of SSI the head receives, which SNAP counts as unearned income. As a result, net income fell to $0 and the model paid the maximum allotment ($293×12). Counting SSI makes gross income $1,014 and net income $194.38, for a benefit of $239.80/month."
+us,scenario_118,snap,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model correctly counted SSI and got $1,014 of gross income, but its shelter costs were only the $599 of mortgage interest and property tax. It left out the New York utility allowance that raises shelter costs to about $1,013/month. The excess shelter deduction is therefore about $611, not $196, net income is $194.38, not $609, and the benefit is $239.80/month, not $115."
+us,scenario_118,snap,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model concluded the household fails SNAP income limits, but its income is far below them. Net income of $194.38 is well under the $1,304 net income limit, and SSI receipt makes the household categorically eligible. The standard formula ($298 minus 30% of net income) yields $239.80/month, not $0."
+us,scenario_118,snap,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model returned $0 without doing any calculation. The household is categorically eligible through SSI and passes every income and asset test. Counting $1,014 of SS plus SSI income and the uncapped shelter deduction gives net income of $194.38 and $239.80/month."
+us,scenario_118,snap,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model treated $233/month of Social Security as the only income and left out the $780.67/month of SSI, which is countable unearned income for SNAP. That drove net income to $0 and produced a maximum allotment of $293×12. With SSI counted, net income is $194.38 and the contribution is $58.20."
+us,scenario_118,snap,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left the $780.67/month of SSI out of SNAP income and ignored the shelter deduction from the mortgage interest and property tax. Its own reasoning reached about $3,400/year, yet it submitted $2,533 with no supporting calculation. The correct path uses $1,014 of gross income and gives net income of $194.38 and $239.80/month."
+us,scenario_118,snap,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left out the $780.67/month of SSI and skipped the shelter deduction. It also made an arithmetic error: $298 minus 30% of $29 is about $289, not $203. The correct computation uses $1,014 of income and shelter costs of about $1,013, which gives net income of $194.38 and $239.80/month."
+us,scenario_118,snap,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model counted SSI correctly, but its shelter costs were only the $599 of mortgage interest and property tax, leaving out the New York utility allowance. With the allowance, shelter costs are about $1,013/month and the excess shelter deduction is about $611, not $196. That gives net income of $194.38 and a benefit of $239.80/month instead of $115."
+us,scenario_118,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model stated that no SSI is received and counted only Social Security. PolicyEngine pays $780.67/month of SSI ($994 benefit rate minus $213.33 of countable Social Security), and SNAP counts it as income. Net income is therefore $194.38, not $0, and the benefit is below the maximum. The model also used the FY2025 maximum of $292 instead of $298."
+us,scenario_118,snap,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left out the $780.67/month of SSI and concluded that net income was near zero, which implies the maximum allotment. It then cut that to $2,555 with an arbitrary adjustment instead of applying the formula. Correctly computed, net income is $194.38, the contribution is $58.20, and the benefit is $239.80/month."
+us,scenario_118,snap,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used $233/month of income and left out the $780.67/month of SSI the head receives, so net income fell to $0 and it paid the full $298×12. Including SSI makes gross income $1,014 and net income $194.38, which reduces the benefit by $58.20/month."
+us,scenario_118,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left out the $780.67/month of SSI and also ignored the uncapped excess shelter deduction from mortgage interest and property tax. It subtracted only a $199 standard deduction from $233. The correct computation starts from $1,014 of income and yields net income of $194.38."
+us,scenario_118,snap,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model treated income as Social Security only and left out the $780.67/month of SSI, so net income went to $0 and it applied the FY2025 maximum of $292×12. With SSI counted, net income is $194.38, and the benefit is $298 minus $58.20, or $239.80/month."
+us,scenario_118,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model counted SSI, but its shelter costs were only the $598.75 of mortgage interest and property tax, leaving out the New York utility allowance that brings shelter costs to about $1,013/month. Its excess shelter deduction of $198.75 should be about $611, so net income is $194.38, not $601.25. It also used an inflated $303 maximum instead of $298."
+us,scenario_118,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model explicitly excluded SSI from SNAP income, but SSI is countable unearned income for SNAP. Adding the $780.67/month of SSI raises gross income to $1,014 and net income to $194.38, which gives $239.80/month. The model instead paid a $299 maximum allotment."
+us,scenario_118,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model included SSI, overstated at $864.67, but then asserted that net income was $0. The excess shelter deduction equals shelter costs minus half of adjusted income, and on income of about $1,000 it cannot wipe income out. Net income is $194.38 and the benefit is $239.80/month, not the $292 maximum."
+us,scenario_118,snap,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model returned $0 with no calculation. The household is categorically eligible through SSI, and with $1,014 of income, the $209 standard deduction and the uncapped shelter deduction, its net income is $194.38. That yields $239.80/month."
+us,scenario_118,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's shelter costs were only the $599 of mortgage interest and property tax, leaving out the New York utility allowance that brings them to about $1,013/month. It also overstated SSI ($817 instead of $780.67) and used outdated deduction and maximum values ($198 and $291). The excess shelter deduction is about $611, net income is $194.38, and the benefit is $239.80/month."
+us,scenario_118,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model assumed that New York's NYSNIP simplified program for SSI recipients pays the maximum allotment. PolicyEngine applies the standard formula: maximum allotment minus 30% of net income, with SSI counted as income. Net income is $194.38, so the benefit is $298 minus $58.20, or $239.80/month, not $291."
+us,scenario_118,snap,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model claimed that the deductions produce a $0 benefit, but low net income raises the benefit rather than eliminating it. With SSI counted, gross income is $1,014 and net income is $194.38, below the $1,304 limit. The benefit is $239.80/month."
+us,scenario_118,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model counted only Social Security and left out the $780.67/month of SSI, so net income fell to $0 and it applied a $291×12 maximum. Counting SSI gives net income of $194.38 and a contribution of $58.20, which brings the benefit down to $239.80/month."
+us,scenario_118,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's $69/month implies net income of about $760, which means it applied almost no shelter deduction to the roughly $1,014 of SS plus SSI. Shelter costs are about $1,013/month (mortgage interest, property tax and the New York utility allowance), and the excess over half of adjusted income is about $611. Net income is therefore $194.38."
+us,scenario_118,snap,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's shelter costs were only $7,185/year of mortgage interest and property tax, leaving out the New York utility allowance that raises them to about $1,013/month. It also used outdated $200 and $292 values for the standard deduction and maximum allotment. The excess shelter deduction is about $611/month, not $205, so net income is $194.38/month, not $582."
+us,scenario_118,snap,gemini-4-argon,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's roughly $70/month implies net income of about $760, which means the shelter deduction it applied to SS plus SSI income was far too small. Shelter costs including the New York utility allowance are about $1,013/month, which gives an excess shelter deduction of about $611 and net income of $194.38. That yields $239.80/month."
+us,scenario_118,snap,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,The model used $233.33/month of Social Security as the only income and left out the $780.67/month of SSI. Its shelter deduction therefore zeroed out net income and it paid an estimated $295 maximum. Counting SSI gives net income of $194.38 and $239.80/month.
+us,scenario_118,snap,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left out the $780.67/month of SSI and also skipped the uncapped excess shelter deduction, subtracting only the standard deduction from $233. The correct computation starts from $1,014 of gross income, subtracts $209 and about $611 of excess shelter, and arrives at net income of $194.38."
+us,scenario_118,snap,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model claimed there were no expenses, ignoring the listed mortgage interest and property tax, and returned $0. The household is categorically eligible through SSI and has shelter costs that support an uncapped elderly/disabled shelter deduction. Its net income is $194.38, which gives $239.80/month."
+us,scenario_118,snap,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model returned $0 on the grounds that supporting facts were missing, but the facts given are enough to compute the benefit. SSI of $780.67/month confers categorical eligibility, and income of $1,014 less the standard and shelter deductions leaves net income of $194.38. That yields $239.80/month."
+us,scenario_118,snap,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left out the $780.67/month of SSI, which drove net income to $0, and it used a wrong one-person maximum of $243 instead of $298. The correct benefit is $298 minus a $58.20 contribution on net income of $194.38."
+us,scenario_118,snap,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model counted only the $2,800/year of Social Security as income and left out the $9,368/year of SSI, so it paid close to the maximum allotment ($290.70/month). With SSI included, net income is $194.38 and the benefit is $239.80/month."
+us,scenario_118,snap,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model counted SSI, but its shelter costs left out the New York utility allowance, so its excess shelter deduction was only about $196. Shelter costs are about $1,013/month, which gives an excess shelter deduction of about $611 and net income of $194.38. The benefit is $239.80/month, not $115."
+us,scenario_118,snap,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model counted SSI, but its shelter costs were limited to mortgage interest and property tax, leaving out the New York utility allowance that raises them to about $1,013/month. The resulting excess shelter deduction was too small, putting net income near $585 instead of $194.38 and the benefit at $123/month instead of $239.80."
+us,scenario_118,snap,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model applied no shelter deduction at all, even though mortgage interest and property tax are deductible shelter costs. With the New York utility allowance, shelter costs total about $1,013/month, and the uncapped excess shelter deduction of about $611 reduces net income from $805 to $194.38."
+us,scenario_118,snap,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model treated income as Social Security alone and left out the $780.67/month of SSI, so net income fell to $0 and it paid the $298 maximum. With SSI counted, net income is $194.38 and the $58.20 contribution brings the benefit to $239.80/month."
+us,scenario_118,snap,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model overstated SSI at $10,412/year; the correct figure is $9,368 ($994 benefit rate minus $213.33 of countable Social Security). It also left the New York utility allowance out of shelter costs, so its excess shelter deduction was only $1,833/year instead of about $7,327. Correct net income is $194.38/month."
+us,scenario_118,snap,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's shelter costs were only the $598.75 of mortgage interest and property tax, leaving out the New York utility allowance that raises them to about $1,013/month. The excess shelter deduction is about $611, not $196, so net income is $194.38, not $608.75, and the benefit is $239.80/month."
+us,scenario_118,snap,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model returned $0 claiming there were no inputs, but the listed income, assets and housing costs are enough. With SSI counted, income is $1,014/month and net income is $194.38. The household is categorically eligible through SSI and receives $239.80/month."
+us,scenario_118,snap,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's net income of $735 implies an undersized shelter deduction that leaves out the New York utility allowance; with the allowance, shelter costs are about $1,013/month and the excess shelter deduction is about $611. Correct net income is $194.38. The model also used a $301 maximum instead of $298."
+us,scenario_118,snap,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left out the $780.67/month of SSI, so the shelter deduction drove net income to $0 and it paid a $292 maximum. Counting SSI gives gross income of $1,014 and net income of $194.38, and the benefit is $298 minus $58.20."
+us,scenario_118,snap,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model correctly counted SSI of $9,368, but its shelter costs were only $7,185/year of mortgage interest and property tax, leaving out the New York utility allowance. Shelter costs are about $1,013/month and the excess shelter deduction is about $611/month. Net income is therefore $194.38/month, not $608.75, and the benefit is $239.80/month."
+us,scenario_118,snap,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model treated shelter costs as $0 despite the listed mortgage interest and property tax, and it left out the $780.67/month of SSI. It also used outdated 2024 values of $193 and $291. The correct computation uses $1,014 of income and about $1,013 of shelter costs, which gives net income of $194.38."
+us,scenario_118,snap,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model counted only the $233/month of Social Security and left out the $780.67/month of SSI, so net income went to $0 and it paid the $298 maximum. With SSI counted, net income is $194.38 and the benefit is $239.80/month."
+us,scenario_118,snap,kimi-k2.6,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left out the $780.67/month of SSI from income, which zeroed out net income. It also overstated the one-person maximum as $309 instead of $298. Correctly computed, net income is $194.38 and the benefit is $298 minus $58.20, or $239.80/month."
+us,scenario_118,snap,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model overstated SSI at $10,412/year instead of $9,368. It also applied no shelter deduction, claiming no housing input, even though the listed mortgage interest and property tax plus the New York utility allowance produce an uncapped excess shelter deduction of about $611/month. Net income is $194.38, not $892."
+us,scenario_118,snap,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model argued that very low income produces a zero benefit, which inverts the SNAP formula: lower net income means a larger benefit. With $1,014 of SS plus SSI income, net income is $194.38 and the benefit is $298 minus $58.20, or $239.80/month."
+us,scenario_118,snap,muse-spark-1.3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model overstated SSI at about $868/month instead of $780.67. It also applied no shelter deduction, ignoring the mortgage interest, property tax and utility allowance that make up about $1,013/month of shelter costs. Correct net income is $194.38, not $897."
+us,scenario_118,snap,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model counted SSI correctly, but its shelter costs left out the New York utility allowance, which gave an excess shelter deduction of only $196. Shelter costs are about $1,013/month, so the deduction is about $611 and net income is $194.38, not $609. The benefit is $239.80/month."
+us,scenario_118,snap,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's shelter costs were just the $598.75 of mortgage interest and property tax, leaving out the New York utility allowance that brings them to about $1,013/month. The excess shelter deduction is about $611 instead of $196.25, so net income is $194.38 instead of $608.75 and the benefit is $239.80/month."
+us,scenario_118,snap,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left out the $780.67/month of SSI and ignored the uncapped excess shelter deduction from mortgage interest and property tax. It also used outdated $198 and $291 values. The correct computation starts from $1,014 of income and gives net income of $194.38 and $239.80/month."
+us,scenario_118,snap,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model wrongly assumed that SNAP requires a qualifying child. A one-person elderly/disabled household is eligible, here categorically through SSI, and with net income of $194.38 it receives $239.80/month."
+us,scenario_118,ssi,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its reasoning reaches the correct figure, 12 × ($994 − $213.33) = $9,368, but then switches to an incoherent mix of a $725.33 benefit rate and an expression built on $967. It submitted $6,144, which no valid SSI calculation supports."
+us,scenario_118,ssi,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,period_annualization,False,"It treated $2,800 of annual Social Security as exceeding a monthly benefit rate of about $943 and concluded the person is ineligible. Monthly, that income is only $233.33, or $213.33 after the $20 exclusion, well below the 2026 rate of $994, so SSI of $780.67/month is payable."
+us,scenario_118,ssi,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,period_annualization,False,"It said $2,800 of annual Social Security exceeds the SSI income threshold. Converted to monthly, countable income is $213.33 ($233.33 − $20), far below the $994 benefit rate, which leaves a $780.67/month federal payment ($9,368/year)."
+us,scenario_118,ssi,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used the 2025 benefit rate of $967 instead of the 2026 rate of $994, then added a NY State Supplement estimate. The supplement is not part of the federal `ssi` output, which is ($994 − $213.33) × 12 = $9,368."
+us,scenario_118,ssi,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,other,False,"It computed a positive federal SSI of $8,824 (using the stale $967 rate and taking the $20 exclusion only once a year) and then submitted $0, contradicting its own calculation. The correct figure is ($994 − $213.33) × 12 = $9,368."
+us,scenario_118,ssi,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"It used a benefit rate of about $1,000 and countable income of $213, yet got $667/month, an arithmetic error since $1,000 − $213 = $787. It also folded in an unspecified NY supplement. The correct federal figure is $994 − $213.33 = $780.67/month ($9,368/year)."
+us,scenario_118,ssi,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the 2025 benefit rate of $967/month instead of the 2026 rate of $994. It also subtracted the $20 general exclusion once from annual income ($2,780 countable) instead of every month ($240/year, leaving $2,560). Together these cut the result to $8,824 instead of $9,368."
+us,scenario_118,ssi,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,other,False,"It assumed a $1,013 benefit rate and took the $20 exclusion only once a year, which gave $9,372. It then arbitrarily changed that to $6,212, citing an unexplained 'NY supplement and rounding' adjustment. The correct figure is ($994 − $213.33) × 12 = $9,368."
+us,scenario_118,ssi,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It handled countable income correctly ($213.33/month) but projected the 2026 benefit rate as $991 instead of the actual $994. That gives $777.67/month ($9,332) instead of $780.67/month ($9,368)."
+us,scenario_118,ssi,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used a $991 benefit rate instead of $994 and added a $54/month NY State Supplement. The supplement is not part of the federal `ssi` output, which is ($994 − $213.33) × 12 = $9,368."
+us,scenario_118,ssi,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It handled countable income correctly ($213.33/month) but used a 2026 benefit rate of $990 instead of $994. That gives $776.67/month ($9,320) instead of $780.67/month ($9,368)."
+us,scenario_118,ssi,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It added an $87.30/month NY State Supplement to a $993 benefit rate. The supplement is not part of the federal `ssi` output, which is the $994 rate minus $213.33 countable income, times 12, or $9,368."
+us,scenario_118,ssi,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It added an $87/month NY living-alone supplement to a $991 benefit rate. The supplement is not part of the federal `ssi` output, and the 2026 rate is $994, giving $780.67/month ($9,368)."
+us,scenario_118,ssi,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,period_annualization,False,"It said Social Security exceeds the federal benefit rate, comparing $2,800 of annual income against a monthly rate. Monthly countable income is only $213.33 against a $994 rate, leaving $780.67/month ($9,368/year)."
+us,scenario_118,ssi,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used the 2024 benefit rate ($943/month, $11,316/year) instead of the 2026 rate ($994, $11,928/year) and added a $1,044 NY State Supplement that is not part of `ssi`. The correct figure is $11,928 − $2,560 = $9,368."
+us,scenario_118,ssi,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It explicitly used the 2024 benefit rate of $943/month instead of the 2026 rate of $994, then added an $87/month NY State Supplement that is not part of the federal `ssi` output. The correct figure is ($994 − $213.33) × 12 = $9,368."
+us,scenario_118,ssi,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,period_annualization,False,"It compared $2,800 of annual Social Security against the monthly benefit rate and concluded SSI is $0. Monthly countable income is $213.33 against a $994 rate, leaving $9,368 a year."
+us,scenario_118,ssi,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got countable income right ($2,560/year), but its $9,236 implies an annual maximum of $11,796 (about $983/month) instead of the 2026 rate of $994/month ($11,928/year)."
+us,scenario_118,ssi,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It explicitly added a NY State Supplement to federal SSI. Its $10,376 implies $991 federal plus $87 state, minus $213.33. The `ssi` output excludes the state supplement and uses the $994 rate, giving $9,368."
+us,scenario_118,ssi,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got countable income right ($2,560/year) but used the 2025 benefit rate of $967/month ($11,604/year) instead of the 2026 rate of $994/month ($11,928/year), which understates SSI by $324."
+us,scenario_118,ssi,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its $10,412 is the correct federal $9,368 plus a $1,044 NY State Supplement. The supplement is a separate program and is not part of the `ssi` output."
+us,scenario_118,ssi,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It projected the benefit rate as $991 instead of $994 and added a $94/month NY State Supplement. The supplement is not part of the federal `ssi` output, which is ($994 − $213.33) × 12 = $9,368."
+us,scenario_118,ssi,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It returned $0 and said the facts do not establish SSI. But the person is aged 74, blind and disabled, has $70 in resources and $213.33/month in countable income, so they qualify for $994 − $213.33 = $780.67/month ($9,368/year)."
+us,scenario_118,ssi,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It claimed no SSI eligibility facts were provided, ignoring that the person is 74, blind and disabled with $70 in resources. Those facts satisfy the aged/blind/disabled and resource tests, giving $9,368 of federal SSI."
+us,scenario_118,ssi,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got countable income right ($2,560/year) but used a 2026 benefit rate of $982.67/month instead of $994. That gives $9,332 instead of $9,368."
+us,scenario_118,ssi,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,period_annualization,False,"It used the correct 2026 maximum of $11,928 but subtracted the $20 general exclusion only once a year, leaving $2,780 countable. The exclusion applies every month ($240/year), so countable income is $2,560 and SSI is $9,368."
+us,scenario_118,ssi,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It correctly computed federal SSI of $11,928 − $2,560 = $9,368, then added $1,044 of NY State Supplement. The supplement is not part of the `ssi` output."
+us,scenario_118,ssi,grok-4.3,llm_error,other,False,"It declined to calculate, citing missing inputs, and returned $0. The facts given (age 74, blind, disabled, $70 in resources, $2,800 in Social Security) are enough to compute ($994 − $213.33) × 12 = $9,368."
+us,scenario_118,ssi,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It added an $87/month NY living-alone supplement to federal SSI and used a $991 rate instead of $994. The `ssi` output is federal only: $780.67/month, or $9,368/year."
+us,scenario_118,ssi,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got countable income right ($2,560/year), but its $9,044 implies the 2025 benefit rate of $967/month ($11,604/year) instead of the 2026 rate of $994 ($11,928/year)."
+us,scenario_118,ssi,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used the 2024 benefit rate of $943 as a stand-in for 2026 ($994) and added an $87/month NY supplement that is not part of the federal `ssi` output. The correct figure is ($994 − $213.33) × 12 = $9,368."
+us,scenario_118,ssi,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used the correct $994 rate and $213 of countable income, then added an $87/month NY State Supplement. The supplement is not part of the federal `ssi` output, which is $9,368."
+us,scenario_118,ssi,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It got countable income right ($2,560/year) but projected the 2026 benefit rate as $991/month ($11,892/year) instead of $994 ($11,928/year), giving $9,332 instead of $9,368."
+us,scenario_118,ssi,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It correctly derived federal SSI of $9,368, then added a $1,044 NY living-alone supplement. The supplement is a separate program and is not part of the `ssi` output."
+us,scenario_118,ssi,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"It said $233/month of Social Security exceeds a $967+/month benefit rate, which reverses the comparison. Countable income of $213.33 is far below the $994 rate, so SSI is $780.67/month ($9,368/year)."
+us,scenario_118,ssi,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It correctly computed $994 − $213.33, then added an $87/month NY supplement. The `ssi` output excludes the state supplement and equals $780.67 × 12 = $9,368."
+us,scenario_118,ssi,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,other,False,"It computed a positive federal SSI of $8,756 (using the stale 2024 rate of $943) and then submitted $0 without justification. The correct figure is ($994 − $213.33) × 12 = $9,368."
+us,scenario_118,ssi,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It acknowledged the person is blind and disabled, yet returned $0 with no income test. Countable income of $213.33/month against the $994 rate leaves $780.67/month, or $9,368/year."
+us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed this homeowner does not qualify for the real property tax circuit breaker. That is wrong: a 65+ homeowner with $1,634 in property taxes and minimal household income gets the refundable NY RPTC at the $375 elderly cap."
+us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model looked only at the Empire State EITC and concluded that New York has no refundable credit for this household. It missed the refundable Real Property Tax Credit for homeowners, which pays $375 to this 74-year-old with $1,634 in property taxes."
+us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated NY refundable credits as requiring tax liability, earned income, or children. The Real Property Tax Credit has none of those requirements and pays this elderly homeowner the $375 maximum."
+us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly identified the RPTC and the $375 senior maximum, then cut the credit to an unexplained $63. Half of the $1,634 in property taxes above the small income-based floor is more than $800, so the credit is capped at $375."
+us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model assumed the real property tax credit needs NY tax liability to produce a refund. The RPTC is fully refundable, so this zero-liability 74-year-old homeowner receives the $375 elderly maximum."
+us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model rejected the real property tax credit because no rent was reported. Homeowners qualify on real property taxes paid, and $1,634 in taxes yields the $375 elderly maximum."
+us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model added imputed SSI to reach about $12,168 of household gross income, which put it in a bracket with a $171 cap. PolicyEngine's RPTC income measure keeps this household in the lowest elderly band, where the cap is $375, and the 50%-of-excess amount exceeds that cap."
+us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly calculated an uncapped RPTC of about $733, then applied the $75 non-elderly maximum on the belief that the $375 maximum requires dependents. The $375 maximum applies whenever the claimant is 65 or older, so the credit is $375."
+us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model dismissed the senior circuit breaker as negligible because no rent was paid. A homeowner's $1,634 in property taxes qualifies, and the elderly credit reaches its $375 cap."
+us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model reported the $90 NY household credit, which is nonrefundable and does not belong in refundable credits. It also explicitly skipped the refundable Real Property Tax Credit, which is $375 here."
+us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model made zero tax liability a condition for refundable credits and overlooked the NY Real Property Tax Credit. That credit pays this 74-year-old homeowner $375 regardless of liability.
+us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly capped the RPTC at the $375 senior maximum but added a $75 NY household credit. The household credit is nonrefundable and is excluded from state refundable credits, so the total is $375."
+us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model found no eligible NY refundable credit and missed the Real Property Tax Credit for low-income homeowners. A 65+ homeowner paying $1,634 in property taxes receives the $375 maximum."
+us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model considered only the Empire State Child Credit and the state EITC, so it never reached the refundable Real Property Tax Credit. That credit gives this elderly homeowner $375."
+us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model concluded there were no refundable credits and skipped NY's Real Property Tax Credit. For a 74-year-old homeowner with $1,634 in property taxes and minimal income, the credit is $375."
+us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model said no NY refundable credit applied and missed the Real Property Tax Credit. This low-income senior homeowner hits the $375 elderly cap.
+us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model made eligibility depend on earned income or dependents. The refundable Real Property Tax Credit requires neither, and it pays this elderly homeowner $375 based on $1,634 in property taxes."
+us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model ruled out only the Empire State Child Credit and the EITC, never considering the Real Property Tax Credit. That credit is $375 for this 65+ homeowner with low income."
+us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model tied NY refundable credits to earned income and missed the Real Property Tax Credit. It pays the $375 elderly maximum to this homeowner with $1,634 in property taxes."
+us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied the RPTC formula correctly but assumed an expanded $1,000 maximum for senior homeowners, which does not exist. The elderly maximum in the lowest income band is $375, so the uncapped $768 is reduced to $375."
+us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model checked only the NY EITC and missed the refundable Real Property Tax Credit. That credit gives this 74-year-old homeowner $375.
+us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said none of the listed facts trigger a NY refundable credit. Age 74, $1,634 in real estate taxes, and very low income are exactly what trigger the Real Property Tax Credit at its $375 elderly cap."
+us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model concluded no refundable credits applied and missed NY's Real Property Tax Credit. The household's property taxes and age qualify it for $375.
+us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model looked only at whether Social Security-only income generates a credit and ignored the property-tax-based RPTC. For this elderly homeowner, that credit is $375."
+us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model reported the $90 NY household credit as refundable, but it is nonrefundable. It also omitted the refundable Real Property Tax Credit, which is $375 for this senior homeowner."
+us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model added imputed SSI to household gross income and then applied a $75 cap, which is the non-elderly maximum. PolicyEngine places this 65+ homeowner in the lowest elderly band, where the cap is $375."
+us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model made up a 2.5%-of-property-taxes formula. The RPTC is 50% of property taxes above a percentage of household gross income, capped at the elderly maximum, which gives $375 here."
+us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model added estimated SSI to household gross income, which pushed it into a band capped at $171. PolicyEngine's RPTC income measure keeps the household in the lowest elderly band, where the cap is $375."
+us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model found no qualifying credits and overlooked NY's refundable Real Property Tax Credit. That credit pays this 74-year-old homeowner with $1,634 in property taxes $375."
+us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated the EITC as NY's main refundable credit and looked only at child credits. It missed the Real Property Tax Credit, which pays this elderly homeowner $375."
+us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model explicitly ruled out property tax credits. A 65+ homeowner with $1,634 in real estate taxes and minimal income qualifies for the RPTC at the $375 maximum."
+us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model checked the EITC, child, tuition, and childcare credits but never checked the Real Property Tax Credit. That credit pays $375 to this elderly homeowner."
+us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model made NY tax liability or children a prerequisite. The refundable Real Property Tax Credit pays this zero-liability 74-year-old homeowner $375.
+us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model tied refundable credits to earnings and children and missed the Real Property Tax Credit. That credit is based on the $1,634 in property taxes and the head's age, and it equals $375."
+us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model found no basis for a refundable NY credit, but the real estate taxes paid by a 65+ homeowner are such a basis. They qualify the household for the $375 Real Property Tax Credit."
+us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model ruled out only the NY EITC and the child and dependent care credit, never evaluating the Real Property Tax Credit. That credit pays this elderly homeowner $375."
+us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model required earned income or children and missed the refundable Real Property Tax Credit. This low-income homeowner aged 65+ receives $375 from it.
+us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model cited the household's age yet concluded no credit applied. Age 74 combined with $1,634 in real estate taxes and minimal income qualifies the household for the RPTC at its $375 elderly maximum."
+us,scenario_119,child1_chip_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model put income at about 197% FPL by subtracting the traditional 401(k) and IRA contributions from wages. The engine's countable income is about $55,800 (wages plus interest), which is over Virginia's 200% FAMIS limit, so Child 1 fails CHIP's income test."
+us,scenario_119,child1_chip_eligible,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a reduced MAGI of about 197% FPL and stretched the FAMIS limit to 205% with a 5% disregard. The engine counts about $55,800 of income against Virginia's CHIP child limit, and the household is over that limit, so Child 1 is ineligible."
+us,scenario_119,child1_chip_eligible,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model cut MAGI to $52,569 by subtracting the traditional 401(k) and IRA contributions, which gave about 197% FPL. The engine's countable income is about $55,800, which is over Virginia's 200% CHIP limit, so Child 1 fails the income test even though they are not Medicaid-eligible."
+us,scenario_119,child1_chip_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied a 205% FPL FAMIS threshold and said household income was under it. The engine compares about $55,800 of countable income with Virginia's CHIP child limit and finds the household over it, so Child 1 fails CHIP's income criterion."
+us,scenario_119,child1_chip_eligible,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model said income was within the FAMIS threshold without testing it. In the engine, about $55,800 of countable income for a 3-person unit is over Virginia's CHIP child income limit, so Child 1 is ineligible despite passing the age test."
+us,scenario_119,child1_chip_eligible,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model applied a 205% FPL ceiling and said MAGI fell within it. The engine counts about $55,800 of household income, which is over Virginia's CHIP child limit, so Child 1 fails the income test."
+us,scenario_119,child1_chip_eligible,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no value or reasoning for child1_chip_eligible, so there is no answer to score. The correct derivation finds about $55,800 of countable income, which is over Virginia's CHIP child limit, so the answer is 0."
+us,scenario_119,child1_chip_eligible,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model correctly placed income above the Medicaid child limit, then wrongly assumed it was still within Virginia's CHIP range. The engine's countable income of about $55,800 is over the FAMIS child limit, so Child 1 fails CHIP's income test."
+us,scenario_119,child1_chip_eligible,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model relied on an estimated Virginia CHIP income range without comparing actual income to it. The engine's countable income of about $55,800 for 3 people is over Virginia's CHIP child income limit, so Child 1 is ineligible."
+us,scenario_119,child1_chip_eligible,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model's estimated MAGI came in under Virginia's CHIP ceiling because it reduced income for retirement contributions. The engine counts about $55,800 of household income, which is over the FAMIS child limit, so Child 1 fails the income test."
+us,scenario_119,child1_chip_eligible,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model got about 192% FPL by subtracting the traditional 401(k) and IRA contributions from wages. The engine's countable income is about $55,800, which is over Virginia's 200% FAMIS limit, so Child 1 is not CHIP-eligible."
+us,scenario_119,child1_chip_eligible,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a FAMIS limit of 200–205% FPL and said income was under it. The engine compares about $55,800 of countable income with Virginia's CHIP child limit, finds the household over it, and marks Child 1 ineligible."
+us,scenario_119,child1_chip_eligible,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model put MAGI at 190–197% FPL using a contribution-reduced income figure and a FAMIS ceiling of up to 205%. The engine counts about $55,800 of income, which is over Virginia's CHIP child limit, so Child 1 fails the income test."
+us,scenario_119,child1_chip_eligible,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model cut MAGI to $46,180 (168% FPL) by subtracting the $6,389 ESI premium as well as the 401(k) and IRA contributions. The engine counts about $55,800 of household income, which is over Virginia's 200% CHIP limit, so Child 1 is ineligible."
+us,scenario_119,child1_chip_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no value or reasoning for child1_chip_eligible, so there is no answer to score. The correct derivation finds about $55,800 of countable income, which is over Virginia's CHIP child limit, so the answer is 0."
+us,scenario_119,child1_chip_eligible,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used a MAGI of $52,569, which subtracts the traditional 401(k) and IRA contributions, and placed it inside Virginia's CHIP band. The engine's countable income is about $55,800, which is over the FAMIS child limit, so Child 1 fails CHIP's income criterion."
+us,scenario_119,child1_chip_eligible,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model got about 191% FPL from a MAGI reduced by retirement contributions and put it inside a 148–200% FAMIS band. The engine counts about $55,800 of income, which is over Virginia's 200% CHIP limit, so Child 1 is ineligible."
+us,scenario_119,child1_chip_eligible,ox-alpha,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model computed about 204% FPL and called Child 1 eligible only because it assumed a 205% limit that includes the 5% disregard. The engine applies Virginia's CHIP child limit to about $55,800 of countable income and finds the household over it, so Child 1 fails the income test."
us,scenario_119,child1_early_head_start_eligible,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_119,child1_head_start_eligible,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_119,child1_medicaid_eligible,claude-fable-5,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model computed MAGI correctly ($55,800 less $3,231 of traditional 401(k)/IRA contributions ≈ 1.9x FPL) and correctly rejected Virginia's children's Medicaid MAGI limit of 143% + 5% disregard for ages 6-18, then reversed its own conclusion by asserting that PolicyEngine counts coverage up to ~205% FPL as Medicaid. Virginia's coverage above 143% FPL is FAMIS, a separate CHIP program that PolicyEngine scores under child1_chip_eligible and never under is_medicaid_eligible; the CHIP-funded Medicaid expansion for 6-18 year olds stops at the same 143%/148% line the model had already ruled out, so medicaid_category is NONE at 1.92x FPL."
@@ -9652,23 +9961,24 @@ us,scenario_119,child1_medicaid_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missin
us,scenario_119,child1_medicare_eligible,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_119,child1_medicare_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_119,child1_wic_eligible,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_119,child2_chip_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Put household income at about 197% FPL, compared it with a 200% FAMIS cap and called child2 eligible. PolicyEngine's CHIP income test, run on the roughly $55,800 household income, puts child2 above Virginia's CHIP child limit, so child2 fails CHIP on income even though the age test passes."
-us,scenario_119,child2_chip_eligible,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Said income was about 197% FPL and inside the FAMIS limit. PolicyEngine's income level for child2, based on roughly $55,800 of household income, exceeds Virginia's CHIP child limit, so the CHIP income test fails and child2 is not eligible."
-us,scenario_119,child2_chip_eligible,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Correctly found child2 not Medicaid-eligible, but subtracted the 401(k) and IRA contributions to get a MAGI of $52,569 (about 197% FPL) and placed that under a 200% cap. PolicyEngine's CHIP income test, run on the roughly $55,800 household income, puts child2 above Virginia's CHIP child limit, so child2 is ineligible."
-us,scenario_119,child2_chip_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Said household income was below a 205% FPL FAMIS threshold without showing an income figure. PolicyEngine's income level on the roughly $55,800 household income exceeds Virginia's CHIP child limit, so child2 fails the income test even though the age test passes."
-us,scenario_119,child2_chip_eligible,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Said income was within Virginia's FAMIS threshold and checked only age and state. PolicyEngine's CHIP income test on the roughly $55,800 household income puts child2 above Virginia's CHIP child limit, so the income test fails and child2 is not eligible."
-us,scenario_119,child2_chip_eligible,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Placed household MAGI under a 205% FPL FAMIS limit and called child2 eligible. PolicyEngine's income level, based on roughly $55,800 of household income, exceeds Virginia's CHIP child limit, so child2 fails CHIP on income."
-us,scenario_119,child2_chip_eligible,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Returned no value and no explanation for child2_chip_eligible, so there was no answer to score. The correct derivation passes the under-19 age test but fails Virginia's CHIP child income limit on the roughly $55,800 household income, which gives 0."
-us,scenario_119,child2_chip_eligible,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Said household income was within Virginia's 2026 CHIP/FAMIS child limit but showed no ratio. PolicyEngine's CHIP income test on the roughly $55,800 household income puts child2 above that limit, so child2 is not CHIP-eligible."
-us,scenario_119,child2_chip_eligible,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Checked the under-19 age test and assumed income fell within Virginia's CHIP range. PolicyEngine's income level on the roughly $55,800 household income exceeds Virginia's CHIP child limit, so child2 fails the income test."
-us,scenario_119,child2_chip_eligible,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Said estimated household MAGI was below Virginia's CHIP upper income limit. PolicyEngine's CHIP income test on the roughly $55,800 household income puts child2 above that limit, so child2 is ineligible even though the age test passes."
-us,scenario_119,child2_chip_eligible,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Computed household MAGI at about 192% FPL and compared it with a 200% FAMIS cap. PolicyEngine's income level for child2, based on roughly $55,800 of household income, exceeds Virginia's CHIP child limit, so child2 fails CHIP on income."
-us,scenario_119,child2_chip_eligible,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Correctly put income above Virginia's child Medicaid limit, but wrongly assumed it was below a 200-205% FAMIS limit. On the roughly $55,800 household income, PolicyEngine places child2 above Virginia's CHIP child limit as well, so child2 qualifies for neither program."
-us,scenario_119,child2_chip_eligible,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Estimated MAGI at 190-197% FPL, which put child2 above Medicaid but inside a 200-205% FAMIS band. PolicyEngine's CHIP income test on the roughly $55,800 household income puts child2 above Virginia's CHIP child limit, so the FAMIS band does not apply and child2 is ineligible."
-us,scenario_119,child2_chip_eligible,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Cut household income to a MAGI of $46,180 (168% FPL) by subtracting the $6,389 ESI premiums on top of the 401(k) and IRA contributions, then placed it in a 143-200% CHIP band. PolicyEngine's CHIP income test runs on roughly $55,800 of household income, which puts child2 above Virginia's CHIP child limit, so child2 is ineligible."
-us,scenario_119,child2_chip_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Returned no value and no explanation for child2_chip_eligible, so there was no answer to score. The correct derivation passes the under-19 age test but fails Virginia's CHIP child income limit on the roughly $55,800 household income, which gives 0."
-us,scenario_119,child2_chip_eligible,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Used a MAGI of $52,569 for a three-person household, net of the 401(k) and IRA contributions, and placed it inside Virginia's CHIP band. PolicyEngine's income test on the roughly $55,800 household income puts child2 above Virginia's CHIP child limit, so child2 is not eligible."
-us,scenario_119,child2_chip_eligible,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Took a MAGI of $52,569 net of the 401(k) and IRA contributions and put it at about 204% of the poverty guideline, just under a 205% FAMIS limit. PolicyEngine's CHIP income test runs on roughly $55,800 of household income, which puts child2 above Virginia's CHIP child limit, so child2 fails on income."
+us,scenario_119,child2_chip_eligible,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model checked only age (under 19) and income (about 197% FPL against a 200% FAMIS limit). It never applied CHIP's requirement that the child be uninsured, and Child 2 is listed as having employer-sponsored insurance, which makes the child ineligible."
+us,scenario_119,child2_chip_eligible,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model based eligibility only on income being about 197% FPL, within the FAMIS limit. It ignored that Child 2 has employer-sponsored insurance, and coverage under a group health plan excludes a child from CHIP's targeted low-income child definition."
+us,scenario_119,child2_chip_eligible,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model correctly found MAGI of about $52,569 (about 197% FPL) and correctly found the child not Medicaid-eligible. It then treated the 200% FPL limit as the only CHIP test and missed the exclusion for children covered by employer-sponsored insurance, which applies to Child 2."
+us,scenario_119,child2_chip_eligible,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model applied only the age-under-19 test and a 205% FPL income test. It skipped CHIP's no-other-coverage rule, and Child 2's employer-sponsored insurance disqualifies the child from FAMIS."
+us,scenario_119,child2_chip_eligible,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model concluded eligibility from age 11 and income within the FAMIS threshold alone. It never applied the CHIP requirement that the child not be covered by a group health plan, and Child 2 has employer-sponsored insurance."
+us,scenario_119,child2_chip_eligible,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model treated age 11 and MAGI under 205% FPL as enough for FAMIS. It omitted CHIP's uninsured requirement, which Child 2 fails because the child has employer-sponsored insurance."
+us,scenario_119,child2_chip_eligible,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no parseable value or explanation for child2_chip_eligible. The correct derivation yields 0: Child 2 has employer-sponsored insurance, which excludes the child from CHIP, and the child is not Medicaid-eligible."
+us,scenario_119,child2_chip_eligible,gpt-5.5,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model asserted eligibility from age and income being within the FAMIS child limit. It never accounted for Child 2's employer-sponsored insurance, which fails CHIP's requirement that a targeted low-income child have no group health coverage."
+us,scenario_119,child2_chip_eligible,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model used only the under-19 age test and an estimated income range. It missed that Child 2 is covered by employer-sponsored insurance, which makes the child ineligible for CHIP regardless of income."
+us,scenario_119,child2_chip_eligible,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model concluded eligibility because MAGI is below Virginia's upper CHIP income limit. It ignored the CHIP coverage exclusion, which Child 2 fails because the child has employer-sponsored insurance."
+us,scenario_119,child2_chip_eligible,grok-4.5,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model checked only that MAGI of about 192% FPL is within FAMIS's 200% limit. It never applied the rule that a child covered by employer-sponsored insurance is not a targeted low-income child for CHIP, and that rule applies to Child 2."
+us,scenario_119,child2_chip_eligible,grok-4.6,llm_error,health_coverage,False,The model correctly placed income above Virginia's child Medicaid limit and below the FAMIS limit. It then stopped at the income band and missed that Child 2's employer-sponsored insurance disqualifies the child from CHIP.
+us,scenario_119,child2_chip_eligible,grok-4.7,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model applied the age test and the income band between child Medicaid and FAMIS (about 190–197% FPL). It omitted CHIP's requirement that the child have no group health coverage, and Child 2 has employer-sponsored insurance."
+us,scenario_119,child2_chip_eligible,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model understated MAGI at $46,180 (168% FPL); the correct figure is about $52,569. More importantly, it treated the 143–200% FPL band as the only CHIP test and ignored that Child 2's employer-sponsored insurance excludes the child from CHIP."
+us,scenario_119,child2_chip_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no parseable value or explanation for child2_chip_eligible. The correct derivation yields 0, because Child 2's employer-sponsored insurance fails CHIP's uninsured requirement and the child is not Medicaid-eligible."
+us,scenario_119,child2_chip_eligible,kimi-k3,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model computed MAGI of $52,569 for a three-person household and found it within the CHIP income band. It never applied CHIP's exclusion of children covered by a group health plan, which applies to Child 2's employer-sponsored insurance."
+us,scenario_119,child2_chip_eligible,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model concluded eligibility because income of about 191% FPL falls in the 148–200% FAMIS band. It missed that Child 2 has employer-sponsored insurance, which disqualifies the child from CHIP."
+us,scenario_119,child2_chip_eligible,ox-alpha,llm_error,health_coverage,False,"The model checked age and MAGI against a 205% FPL limit. Its 204% FPL figure uses a poverty guideline that is too low; the correct ratio is about 192–197%. Its decisive error is skipping CHIP's no-other-coverage rule, which Child 2 fails because the child has employer-sponsored insurance."
us,scenario_119,child2_early_head_start_eligible,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_119,child2_head_start_eligible,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_119,child2_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model substituted Virginia's FAMIS/CHIP ceiling (200%, effectively 205% FPL with the 5% disregard) for the children's MAGI Medicaid limit, which Virginia sets at 143% FPL for ages 6-18. Its own arithmetic put household income above the 200% figure it cited, and it then overrode that with a ""marginal overage"" fudge and a CHIP-to-Medicaid conflation to return 1. Child2's MAGI of 1.92 x FPL exceeds 143% FPL, so no MAGI child category applies and medicaid_category is NONE."
@@ -9679,75 +9989,78 @@ us,scenario_119,child2_medicaid_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missin
us,scenario_119,child2_medicare_eligible,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_119,child2_wic_eligible,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_119,child2_wic_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"It got the AGI, the $24,150 standard deduction, and roughly $3,064 of tax right. Then it set aside part of the $4,400 CTC as refundable ACTC and applied only a partial nonrefundable CTC, leaving $1,210. The nonrefundable CTC should absorb all liability left after the other credits. It also used a 20% CDCC ($312) instead of the 2026 35% rate ($546), and it left out the $200 Saver's credit."
-us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It filed as single with a $14,600 standard deduction and single brackets. A parent with two qualifying children files as head of household with the $24,150 deduction. It also wrongly said employer coverage rules out the CDCC. Its own math gave $324.28, but it reported an unexplained $2,873, when the $4,400 CTC plus the CDCC and Saver's credit bring the $3,056 liability to $0."
-us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It treated the 14-year-old as eligible only for the $500 other-dependent credit. Any child under 17 qualifies for the full CTC, which in 2026 is $2,200 per child, so its $2,500 cap should have been $4,400. It also used a 20% CDCC ($312) instead of 35% ($546) and left out the $200 Saver's credit. With a $4,400 CTC, the leftover liability is fully offset, giving $0."
-us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,other,False,"Its own reasoning says the CTC easily covers the $2,896 left after the CDCC, which leaves tax near $0. It then reported $1,568 'reflecting partial' use without any calculation behind it. The nonrefundable CTC is limited only by the remaining tax, so the answer is $0."
-us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"It applied only about $800 of CTC as nonrefundable and counted the rest as refundable ACTC. That reverses the ordering: the nonrefundable CTC first absorbs all remaining liability, and only the leftover credit becomes ACTC. It also left out the CDCC ($546) and the Saver's credit ($200), and its $3,244 tax on $28,069 of taxable income is too high."
-us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It first reached $0, then dropped that answer on the assumption that TCJA expires in 2026. It rebuilt the tax with personal exemptions, 15% brackets, itemized medical deductions, and a $1,000-per-child CTC. OBBBA made the TCJA parameters permanent: head-of-household deduction of $24,150, no exemptions, and a $2,200 CTC per child. It also filed as single instead of head of household."
-us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,other,False,"It estimated $3,268 of tax and noted a $4,000 CTC. It then subtracted only about $291 of credit and reported $2,977, even though a CTC larger than the liability reduces tax to zero. It also left out the CDCC and the Saver's credit."
-us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It set the CTC at $1,000 per child ($2,000 total), the pre-TCJA amount. The 2026 amount is $2,200 per child ($4,400). It also used a 20% CDCC ($312) instead of 35% ($546) and left out the $200 Saver's credit, so $896.28 of tax remained instead of $0."
-us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the pre-TCJA head-of-household rules and a $2,000 total CTC. For 2026, OBBBA keeps the $24,150 standard deduction and a $2,200-per-child CTC ($4,400). It also used a 20% CDCC ($312) instead of 35% ($546). The full $4,400 CTC would have wiped out the remaining $2,310 of liability."
-us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied pre-TCJA 2026 rules: an $11,700 standard deduction, three $5,100 personal exemptions, 15% brackets, and a $2,000 total CTC. OBBBA keeps the $24,150 head-of-household deduction and a $2,200-per-child CTC, which absorbs all liability left after the $546 CDCC and $200 Saver's credit."
-us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,other,False,"It miscalculated AGI as $51,713 instead of $52,569. It also reported $1,395, which is not the tax on its own $29,813 of taxable income. It never subtracted the CTC, CDCC, or Saver's credit, which together exceed the $3,056 pre-credit tax and bring it to $0."
-us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used personal exemptions, as if TCJA had expired, and a $2,000 total CTC. It also understated AGI at $46,180 instead of $52,569. The 2026 CTC is $2,200 per child ($4,400) and the CDCC is 35% ($546), which fully offset the liability."
-us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,other,False,"It describes only taxable wages and interest minus the standard deduction and pre-tax deductions, and it never subtracts any nonrefundable credit. Its $2,618 is therefore a pre-credit figure. The $4,400 CTC, $546 CDCC, and $200 Saver's credit together exceed the $3,056 tax, so the answer is $0."
-us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,It gave no parseable value and no explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits.
-us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"$6,350 is about twice the $3,056 pre-credit tax at head-of-household rates, and it matches the 2017 single standard deduction rather than any tax amount. This shows it did not compute head-of-household tax and did not subtract the $4,400 nonrefundable CTC, the CDCC, or the Saver's credit, which together reduce tax to $0."
-us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed a post-TCJA-expiration 2026 with personal exemptions and a $2,000 total CTC. OBBBA keeps the $24,150 head-of-household deduction and a $2,200-per-child CTC. It also used a 20% CDCC ($312) instead of 35% ($546) and left out the $200 Saver's credit, so $443 remained instead of $0."
-us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,other,False,"It deducted mortgage interest even though no interest amount was given, which the prompt says to treat as $0. It then applied only a small part of the CTC and left $2,492. The $4,400 nonrefundable CTC, $546 CDCC, and $200 Saver's credit exceed the $3,056 tax, so the answer is $0."
-us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used 2026 rules as if TCJA had expired: head-of-household deduction plus three personal exemptions, 15% brackets, and a $2,000 total CTC. OBBBA keeps a $2,200-per-child CTC ($4,400) and a 35% CDCC ($546), and together they wipe out all liability."
-us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $12,250 post-TCJA head-of-household deduction, three $5,300 personal exemptions, 15% brackets, and a $2,000 total CTC. OBBBA keeps the $24,150 deduction with no exemptions and a $2,200-per-child CTC. That CTC absorbs the $2,310 left after the $546 CDCC and $200 Saver's credit."
-us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,It gave no parseable value and no explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits.
-us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It filed as single with a $16,100 standard deduction and single brackets, which gave $5,328 of tax. A parent with two qualifying children files as head of household with a $24,150 deduction, and that tax is $3,056.23. It also used a 20% CDCC instead of 35% and left out the Saver's credit. Under head-of-household status, its correct $4,400 CTC fully offsets the liability."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It set the EITC to zero, saying AGI of $52,569 is above the two-child phase-out. In fact the 2026 head-of-household phase-out runs from $23,890 to about $58,630 and leaves $1,276.30. It also assumed the $1,700-per-child cap limits the ACTC to $3,400. The refundable CTC is actually the $2,089.77 left over after $2,310.23 of liability (tax of $3,056.23 minus the $546 CDCC and the $200 saver's credit)."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,other,False,"Its $2,514 of nonrefundable CTC use is the $3,056 tax minus only the $546 CDCC. It left out the $200 saver's credit (10% of $2,000 of retirement contributions), which brings liability down to $2,310.23 and raises the refundable CTC to $2,089.77. It also started the EITC phase-out at about $23,850 instead of $23,890, giving $1,268 instead of $1,276.30."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It treated $55,000 as above the EITC phase-out and assumed the refundable CTC is unavailable at this income. The 2026 head-of-household two-child EITC stays positive up to about $58,630, so AGI of $52,568.54 gives $1,276.30. The ACTC has no income cutoff here, so the $2,089.77 of CTC left after $2,310.23 of liability is refundable."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It said there is no EITC and no CTC left over. The two-child EITC phases out at 21.06% above $23,890, which leaves $1,276.30 at AGI of $52,568.54. The $4,400 CTC is larger than the $2,310.23 of liability left after the CDCC and saver's credit, so $2,089.77 is refundable."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It used the old $2,000-per-child CTC, skipped the $546 CDCC and $200 saver's credit that reduce liability before the CTC, and thought the two-child EITC ran out near $52,900. In 2026 the CTC is $2,200 per child and liability after the other credits is $2,310.23, so $2,089.77 is refundable. The EITC is $1,276.30 because the phase-out runs from $23,890 to about $58,630."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It used a $32,300 married-filing-jointly deduction inconsistently, estimated tax above $5,000, and concluded that the $2,000-per-child CTC is fully used and the EITC is zero. As head of household with a $24,150 deduction, tax is $3,056.23, which falls to $2,310.23 after the CDCC and saver's credit, so $2,089.77 of the $4,400 CTC is refundable. The EITC at AGI of $52,568.54 is $1,276.30."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It dropped the EITC as 'far above' the limit, but the two-child phase-out leaves $1,276.30 at AGI of $52,568.54. It also assumed only about $800 of CTC is used against tax and applied an $1,800-per-child cap. Liability after the CDCC and saver's credit is actually $2,310.23, so the refundable CTC is $2,089.77, under the $1,700-per-child cap."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"It figured $2,510.28 of nonrefundable CTC use by subtracting only the $546 CDCC from tax. It left out the $200 saver's credit (10% rate on $2,000 of contributions at head-of-household AGI of $52,569), which lowers liability to $2,310.23 and raises the refundable CTC to $2,089.77. Its $1,276.20 EITC is right."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the old $2,000-per-child CTC and a $22,500 head-of-household deduction, never subtracted the $546 CDCC or $200 saver's credit, and phased out the EITC on earned income with guessed parameters ($6,780 maximum, $24,100 start). It then rounded to $1,600. The 2026 values are a $2,200-per-child CTC, a $24,150 deduction, and a $7,316 maximum EITC phasing out from $23,890 on AGI of $52,568.54. That gives a $1,276.30 EITC plus a $2,089.77 ACTC."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It assumed tax fully uses up a $4,000 CTC and that the EITC is phased out. With the $24,150 head-of-household deduction, tax is $3,056.23, cut to $2,310.23 by the CDCC and saver's credit, so $2,089.77 of the $4,400 CTC is refundable. The EITC is $1,276.30 because the two-child phase-out extends to about $58,630."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the old 20% CDCC rate ($312) instead of the 2026 rate of 35% ($546) at AGI of $52,569, and it left out the $200 saver's credit. That left $2,758 of liability for the CTC instead of $2,310.23, so its refundable CTC was $1,642 instead of $2,089.77."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It based the EITC on AGI of $46,180, which means it subtracted the $6,389 employer health premium from the stated gross wages. AGI is $52,568.54, which gives an EITC of $1,276.30, not about $3,913. Its refundable CTC also used a $4,000 CTC against a $2,403 tax instead of $4,400 minus $2,310.23 = $2,089.77."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It concluded the CTC is fully used against tax, but the 2026 CTC is $4,400 and liability after the $546 CDCC and $200 saver's credit is only $2,310.23, so $2,089.77 is refundable. Its EITC also used a $24,871 phase-out start and a $7,264 maximum instead of $23,890 and $7,316."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It set the refundable CTC to zero even though the $4,400 CTC is larger than the $2,310.23 of liability left after the CDCC and saver's credit, so it left out $2,089.77. Its $1,075.76 EITC is also too low: the $7,316 maximum phased out at 21.06% above $23,890 gives $1,276.30."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It treated the CTC as a single $2,000 credit, fully used against tax. Two children get $2,200 each ($4,400), and only $2,310.23 of liability remains, so $2,089.77 is refundable. Its EITC also used a $22,800 phase-out start and a $7,350 maximum instead of $23,890 and $7,316."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used AGI of $46,180 by subtracting the $6,389 employer health premium from the stated gross wages, which pushed the EITC up to $2,643. It also treated the CTC as one $2,000 credit and left $427 refundable. AGI is $52,568.54 (EITC of $1,276.30), and the CTC is $4,400, with $2,089.77 refundable after $2,310.23 of liability."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It reported $3,000 of refundable CTC with no EITC and no liability calculation. It left out the EITC entirely, though AGI of $52,568.54 is still inside the two-child phase-out range and gives $1,276.30. The refundable CTC is the $4,400 CTC minus $2,310.23 of liability after the CDCC and saver's credit, which is $2,089.77."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Its $172 ACTC means it treated nearly the whole CTC as used against tax. The $546 CDCC and $200 saver's credit cut liability to $2,310.23, leaving $2,089.77 refundable. Its $1,933 EITC is too high: phasing the $7,316 maximum down at 21.06% on AGI of $52,568.54 above $23,890 gives $1,276.30."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It figured earned income as $45,524 by subtracting the $6,389 employer health premium from gross wages, and it said the CTC was fully used against tax. Earned income is $51,912.80, and the phase-out uses AGI of $52,568.54, giving an EITC of $1,276.30. The $4,400 CTC exceeds the $2,310.23 of remaining liability, so $2,089.77 is refundable."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It returned $0 with no working. It missed the $1,276.30 EITC (AGI of $52,568.54 is inside the two-child phase-out, which ends near $58,630) and the $2,089.77 refundable CTC left after $2,310.23 of liability uses part of the $4,400 CTC."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It gave no breakdown. Its $2,216.39 matches a $1,276.30 EITC plus about $940 of ACTC, which is what you get from the old $4,000 CTC set against the full $3,056 tax with no CDCC or saver's credit. The 2026 CTC is $4,400 and liability after the $546 CDCC and $200 saver's credit is $2,310.23, so the ACTC is $2,089.77."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It gave no breakdown. Its $1,530.82 is $1,835.25 short, which fits a roughly correct $1,276 EITC plus only about $255 of ACTC, meaning it treated almost the whole CTC as used against tax. Liability after the $546 CDCC and $200 saver's credit is only $2,310.23, so $2,089.77 of the $4,400 CTC is refundable."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Its EITC of about $497 and ACTC of about $1,044 are both too low. The two-child EITC is $7,316 minus 21.06% of AGI above $23,890, which is $1,276.30. The ACTC is $4,400 minus $2,310.23 of liability (after the $546 CDCC and $200 saver's credit), which is $2,089.77. It used outdated EITC parameters and overstated how much CTC is used against tax."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It set the EITC to zero, saying $51,913 is above the 2026 phase-out. The head-of-household two-child EITC actually runs out near $58,630 and equals $1,276.30 at AGI of $52,568.54. It also used a $4,000 CTC instead of $4,400 and $2,894 of nonrefundable use instead of $2,310.23, so its ACTC was $1,106 instead of $2,089.77."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It submitted no value or explanation for federal_refundable_credits, so there is no answer to score."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It treated the full $2,000 per child as refundable and left out the EITC. The refundable ACTC is only the CTC not used against the $2,310.23 liability ($2,089.77, within the $1,700-per-child cap), and the $1,276.30 EITC has to be added."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It gave $190 with no working, missing almost all of the $1,276.30 EITC and the $2,089.77 refundable CTC. AGI of $52,568.54 is inside the two-child EITC phase-out, and the $4,400 CTC exceeds the $2,310.23 of remaining liability."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It said the CTC is fully used against tax, but the 2026 CTC of $4,400 exceeds the $2,310.23 liability left after the $546 CDCC and $200 saver's credit, so $2,089.77 is refundable. Its $1,496 EITC is also too high: the $7,316 maximum phased out above $23,890 gives $1,276.30."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Its EITC of about $3,000 is too high: the $7,316 maximum minus 21.06% of the $28,678.54 by which AGI exceeds $23,890 is $1,276.30. Its $2,363.10 refundable CTC is also too high because it understated liability, which is $2,310.23 after the CDCC and saver's credit, leaving $2,089.77."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $1,656 ACTC equals $4,400 minus the $3,056 tax less a $312 CDCC. That means it used the old 20% CDCC rate instead of the 2026 rate of 35% ($546) and left out the $200 saver's credit. Liability left for the CTC is actually $2,310.23, so the ACTC is $2,089.77."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $1,656 ACTC reflects a 20% ($312) CDCC and no $200 saver's credit, instead of a 35% ($546) CDCC plus the saver's credit, which leave $2,089.77 refundable. Its $785 EITC is also too low: phasing out on AGI of $52,568.54 from $23,890 gives $1,276.30."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its EITC uses AGI of $46,180, which means it subtracted the $6,389 employer health premium from the stated gross wages. With AGI of $52,568.54 the EITC is $1,276.30, not $2,621.73. The higher AGI also raises tax, so only $2,089.77 of the CTC is refundable, not $2,856.40."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,other,False,"Its $1,344 ACTC equals $4,400 minus the full $3,056 tax, so it never subtracted the $546 CDCC and $200 saver's credit, which apply before the CTC. Liability left for the CTC is $2,310.23, so the ACTC is $2,089.77. Its $1,246 EITC is also $30 below $1,276.30."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,other,False,"Its $1,343.72 ACTC is $4,400 minus the full $3,056.28 tax. It ignored the $546 CDCC and $200 saver's credit that reduce liability first, which understates the ACTC by $746. Its EITC of about $1,474 is too high: phasing out on AGI of $52,568.54 above $23,890 gives $1,276.30."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $2,623.83 EITC reflects AGI near $46,180, meaning it subtracted the $6,389 employer health premium from the stated gross wages. AGI is $52,568.54, which gives an EITC of $1,276.30. The higher AGI also means higher tax, leaving only $2,089.77 of the CTC refundable instead of $2,856.40."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It said income is above the EITC phase-out and no other refundable credit applies. The two-child EITC is $1,276.30 at AGI of $52,568.54, and $2,089.77 of the $4,400 CTC is left after $2,310.23 of liability and is refundable."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It treated the CTC as a single $2,000 credit fully used against tax. The 2026 CTC is $2,200 per child ($4,400), set against only $2,310.23 of liability after the CDCC and saver's credit, so $2,089.77 is refundable. Its $1,300 EITC is close to $1,276.30."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the pre-2018 CTC of $1,000 per child and so found no ACTC. The 2026 CTC is $2,200 per child, and the $2,089.77 that exceeds the $2,310.23 liability is refundable. Its EITC also used a $23,200 start and a $7,300 maximum instead of $23,890 and $7,316, giving $1,115 instead of $1,276.30."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,other,False,"Its $806 ACTC overstates the CTC used against tax by about $1,284. Liability after the $546 CDCC and $200 saver's credit is only $2,310.23, so $2,089.77 of the $4,400 CTC is refundable. Its $1,301 EITC is close to $1,276.30."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Its EITC of $4,109 is far too high: the $7,316 maximum minus 21.06% of AGI above $23,890 is $1,276.30 at AGI of $52,568.54. Its $584 ACTC is too low: $4,400 of CTC minus $2,310.23 of liability leaves $2,089.77 refundable."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $2,742 of nonrefundable CTC use reflects a 20% ($312) CDCC and no $200 saver's credit. With the 2026 CDCC rate of 35% ($546) and the saver's credit, liability is $2,310.23 and the ACTC is $2,089.77. Its $1,188 EITC is also below $1,276.30."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It submitted no value or explanation for federal_refundable_credits, so there is no answer to score."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It computed $4,128 of tax using the single-filer deduction and brackets instead of head of household ($24,150 deduction, $3,056.23 tax). It also used a 20% ($312) CDCC instead of 35% ($546) and left out the $200 saver's credit, so its ACTC was $583.72 instead of $2,089.77. Its $764.23 EITC phases out on $55,000 of gross wages instead of AGI of $52,568.54, which gives $1,276.30."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It said income is too high for the EITC and that tax exceeds the CTC. The two-child EITC is $1,276.30 at AGI of $52,568.54. Head-of-household tax of $3,056.23, less the CDCC and saver's credit, leaves $2,310.23, which is below the $4,400 CTC, so $2,089.77 is refundable."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"Both parts are too low. Its $1,504 ACTC implies about $2,896 of liability used the CTC, but after the $546 CDCC and $200 saver's credit only $2,310.23 remains, leaving $2,089.77. Its $1,096 EITC falls short of $1,276.30."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It put the two-child EITC cutoff near $48,000 and said the whole $4,400 CTC was used against tax. The 2026 head-of-household phase-out runs at 21.06% from $23,890 and ends near $58,630 (EITC of $1,276.30). Tax before credits is only $3,056.23, cut to $2,310.23 by the CDCC and saver's credit, leaving $2,089.77 refundable."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It treated the filer as married filing jointly with a phase-out start of about $49,084, and used AGI of $55,800 without subtracting the traditional 401(k) and IRA amounts. As head of household the phase-out starts at $23,890 and AGI is $52,568.54, so the EITC is $1,276.30. The refundable CTC is $2,089.77, based on a $4,400 CTC, not $4,000."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"It denied the EITC because of $300,000 in stock, but the EITC has no asset test. It only limits investment income (about $12,000), and $800 of interest is well under that, so the EITC is $1,276.30. Its $565 ACTC is also too low compared with the $2,089.77 left after $2,310.23 of liability."
+us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly identified $4,400 of CTC against about $3,064 of tax, but treated the nonrefundable CTC as only the part not covered by the ACTC refundable cap. The CTC is applied against remaining liability first and wipes it out, so the result is $0. It also used a 20% CDCC rate instead of the 35% OBBBA rate and left out the $200 Saver's Credit."
+us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It filed the parent as single with a $14,600 standard deduction instead of head of household with $24,150, which inflated pre-credit tax to $4,324. It also wrongly ruled out the CDCC because of employer-sponsored insurance. Its own arithmetic gave $324, but it reported an unrelated $2,873, so it never applied the $4,400 CTC that eliminates the tax."
+us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It wrongly gave the 14-year-old only the $500 credit for other dependents. Both children are under 17 and qualify for the full CTC, which is $2,200 each in 2026 under OBBBA, not $2,000. A $4,400 CTC, plus the 35% CDCC ($546) and the $200 Saver's Credit it omitted, fully offsets the $3,056 tax and leaves $0."
+us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,other,False,"It computed $2,896 of tax after the CDCC and stated that the $4,000 CTC easily covers it, leaving roughly $0. It then reported $1,568 anyway, which contradicts its own correct application of the nonrefundable CTC up to the tax liability."
+us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"It applied only about $800 of the CTC nonrefundably and sent the rest to the ACTC, which reverses the statutory order. The CTC offsets tax liability first, and only the unused part is refundable. It also left out the CDCC and the Saver's Credit. With $4,400 of CTC available against $3,056 of tax, the result is $0."
+us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It first reached $0, then switched to assuming the TCJA expired in 2026. It applied pre-TCJA personal exemptions, a 15% bracket, and a $1,000-per-child CTC, and used single filing status. Under OBBBA the TCJA rules are permanent, so the correct inputs are the $24,150 head-of-household standard deduction and a $2,200-per-child CTC, which together eliminate the tax."
+us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,other,False,"It computed $3,268 of tax and $4,000 of potential CTC, and said the nonrefundable CTC is limited to tax liability, which leads to $0. It then reported $2,977 based on unexplained 'adjustments', so in effect it applied only about $291 of credits."
+us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the pre-TCJA CTC of $1,000 per child ($2,000 total) alongside a TCJA-era standard deduction. The 2026 CTC is $2,200 per child, so $4,400 in total, which by itself exceeds the $3,056 pre-credit tax. It also used a 20% CDCC rate instead of 35% and left out the $200 Saver's Credit."
+us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied pre-TCJA 2026 law with a $1,000-per-child CTC. OBBBA kept the TCJA structure permanently, with a $24,150 head-of-household standard deduction and a $2,200-per-child CTC. The full $4,400 CTC, plus the CDCC and the $200 Saver's Credit, brings the tax to $0."
+us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired, using an $11,700 standard deduction, personal exemptions, a 15% bracket, and only a $2,000 total CTC. Under OBBBA, 2026 uses the $24,150 head-of-household deduction and a $2,200-per-child CTC, which together with the 35% CDCC and the Saver's Credit reduce the tax to $0."
+us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,other,False,"It made an arithmetic error on AGI ($51,713 instead of $52,569) and reported $1,395 as tax without subtracting any nonrefundable credits. The $4,400 CTC, the $546 CDCC, and the $200 Saver's Credit fully offset the $3,056 pre-credit tax."
+us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It understated AGI ($46,180 instead of $52,569) and applied pre-TCJA personal exemptions with a $1,000-per-child CTC. The 2026 CTC is $2,200 per child, and that $4,400 alone exceeds the tax, so the result is $0."
+us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,other,False,"It computed tax from wages minus deductions and subtracted no nonrefundable credits. The $4,400 CTC alone exceeds the $3,056 pre-credit tax, so tax before refundable credits is $0."
+us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed pre-TCJA parameters were restored for 2026, using personal exemptions and a $1,000-per-child CTC. OBBBA made the TCJA permanent, so the CTC is $2,200 per child ($4,400 total), which fully offsets tax together with the CDCC and the Saver's Credit."
+us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No answer or reasoning was returned for this variable, so the output was missing rather than a substantive miscalculation."
+us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"Its $6,350 is about twice the correct pre-credit tax of $3,056. That matches applying far too little deduction and none of the $4,400 CTC. The CTC, the $546 CDCC, and the $200 Saver's Credit bring tax before refundable credits to $0."
+us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used post-TCJA-expiration personal exemptions and only $2,000 of nonrefundable CTC ($1,000 per child), and left out the Saver's Credit. Under OBBBA, the 2026 CTC is $2,200 per child, so $4,400 in total, which exceeds the tax and leaves $0."
+us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,other,False,"It claimed a mortgage interest deduction even though no interest paid is listed; a mortgage balance alone generates no deduction. It also left $2,492 of tax after the CTC. Applied in full against the $3,056 pre-credit tax, the $4,400 CTC reduces liability to $0."
+us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired, using personal exemptions, the 15% bracket, and a $1,000-per-child CTC. OBBBA made the TCJA rules permanent with a $2,200-per-child CTC, so the $4,400 CTC plus the CDCC and the Saver's Credit eliminate the $3,056 tax."
+us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied a post-TCJA-expiration $12,250 standard deduction with three personal exemptions and a $2,000 total CTC. Under OBBBA, 2026 uses the $24,150 head-of-household deduction and a $2,200-per-child CTC, which fully offset the tax to $0."
+us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No answer or reasoning was returned for this variable, so the output was missing rather than a substantive miscalculation."
+us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It used single filing status with a $16,100 standard deduction instead of head of household with $24,150. That raised pre-credit tax to $5,328 rather than $3,056. It also used a 20% CDCC rate instead of 35% and omitted the Saver's Credit; with head-of-household status, the $4,400 CTC it correctly identified brings tax to $0."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It called AGI of ~$52,569 'well above' the two-child HoH EITC phase-out. In fact the 2026 credit ($7,316 max, phase-out from $23,890 at 21.06%) runs out only near $58,629, leaving $1,276.30. It also set the ACTC to the $3,400 cap instead of the actual unused CTC: $4,400 minus the $2,310.23 of liability left after the $546 CDCC and $200 saver's credit, which is $2,089.77."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,other,False,"Its $2,514 of nonrefundable CTC use is the pre-credit tax minus only the $546 CDCC. It left out the $200 saver's credit, which also comes before the CTC, so the CTC really offsets $2,310.23 and the ACTC is $2,089.77, not $1,886. Its $1,268 EITC also used a ~$23,850 phase-out start instead of $23,890."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It said $55,000 of income is above the EITC phase-out and too high for a refundable CTC. The two-child EITC still pays $1,276.30 at AGI $52,568.54, and the ACTC has no binding income ceiling here: $2,089.77 of the $4,400 CTC is left after the $2,310.23 liability and is refundable."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It said the EITC is unavailable and no CTC is left over after liability. The two-child HoH EITC is still $1,276.30 inside the phase-out range. Liability after the $546 CDCC and $200 saver's credit is only $2,310.23, so $2,089.77 of the $4,400 CTC is refundable."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the old $2,000-per-child CTC ($4,000) instead of the 2026 $2,200 ($4,400) and ignored the $546 CDCC and $200 saver's credit, which lower liability to $2,310.23 before the CTC. It also assumed the two-child EITC ends near $52,900 when it runs to ~$58,629, which dropped the $1,276.30 EITC."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It put pre-credit tax at $5,000+ using a $32,300 MFJ-scale standard deduction and a $2,000-per-child CTC, then concluded the CTC was fully absorbed. HoH tax is $3,056.23 on $28,418.54 of taxable income, cut to $2,310.23 by the CDCC and saver's credit, which leaves $2,089.77 of a $4,400 CTC refundable. It also wrongly zeroed the $1,276.30 EITC."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It dropped the $1,276.30 EITC by calling income 'far above' the two-child limit (the phase-out actually ends ~$58,629). It also assumed only ~$800 of CTC is used nonrefundably and a $1,800-per-child refundable cap. The 2026 cap is $1,700 per child, and the CTC absorbs $2,310.23 of liability, so $2,089.77 is refundable."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"Its EITC ($1,276.20) is right, but it subtracted only the $546 CDCC from the $3,056 pre-credit tax, leaving $2,510.28 for the CTC. The $200 saver's credit also comes before the CTC, so remaining liability is $2,310.23 and the ACTC is $2,089.77, not $1,889.72."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used outdated parameters: a $2,000-per-child CTC, a ~$22,500 HoH standard deduction (2026 is $24,150), and an EITC max of $6,780 with a $24,100 start (2026 is $7,316 and $23,890). It phased the EITC out on earned income instead of the larger AGI and ignored the $546 CDCC and $200 saver's credit, then rounded to $1,600. The correct pieces are a $1,276.30 EITC and a $2,089.77 ACTC."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It assumed liability fully absorbs a $2,000-per-child CTC, that the EITC is phased out, and that no dependent-care credit applies. HoH tax is $3,056.23, cut to $2,310.23 by the $546 CDCC and $200 saver's credit, so $2,089.77 of the $4,400 CTC is refundable. The two-child EITC is still $1,276.30 at AGI $52,568.54."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It took the CDCC at 20% ($312) instead of the 35% ($546) that applies at this AGI in 2026, and it left out the $200 saver's credit. That left $2,758 of liability for the CTC instead of $2,310.23, giving an ACTC of $1,642 instead of $2,089.77; its $1,276 EITC was correct."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It cut AGI to $46,180 by subtracting the $6,389 employer-sponsored insurance premium, which is not an AGI deduction. That pushed the EITC up to ~$3,913; the correct figure at AGI $52,568.54 is $1,276.30. It also used a $2,000-per-child CTC, giving a $1,597 ACTC instead of $2,089.77."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,other,False,"It said no CTC is refundable because the nonrefundable CTC was fully used. In fact the $4,400 CTC is larger than the $2,310.23 of liability left after the CDCC and saver's credit, so $2,089.77 is refundable. Its EITC also used wrong 2026 parameters ($7,264 max, $24,871 start instead of $7,316 and $23,890)."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,other,False,"It set the refundable CTC to 0, saying the nonrefundable CTC was fully used. Liability after the $546 CDCC and $200 saver's credit is $2,310.23 against a $4,400 CTC, so $2,089.77 is refundable. Its $1,075.76 EITC is also about $200 below the correct $1,276.30 under 2026 parameters."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed a $2,000 CTC fully used against tax, so ACTC = 0. The 2026 CTC is $2,200 per child ($4,400), which exceeds the $2,310.23 of liability after the CDCC and saver's credit by $2,089.77. Its EITC used a $7,350 max and $22,800 start instead of $7,316 and $23,890."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used AGI of $46,180, which means it subtracted the $6,389 employer health premium; that pushed the EITC to $2,643 instead of $1,276.30. Its $427 ACTC came from a $2,000 credit figure rather than the 2026 $4,400 CTC net of the $2,310.23 post-CDCC/saver's-credit liability, which gives $2,089.77."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It reported $3,000 of refundable CTC and no EITC. The correct ACTC is $2,089.77 (the $4,400 CTC minus the $2,310.23 remaining liability), plus a $1,276.30 EITC that is still positive in the two-child phase-out range."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It overstated the EITC at ~$1,933; the correct amount is $7,316 − 21.06% × ($52,568.54 − $23,890) = $1,276.30. It understated the ACTC at ~$172 by letting the CTC absorb nearly everything. After the $546 CDCC and $200 saver's credit only $2,310.23 of liability remains, so $2,089.77 of the $4,400 CTC is refundable."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It ran the EITC on earned income of $45,524, which is $51,913 minus the $6,389 employer health premium. Earned income is actually $51,912.80, and the phase-out uses the larger AGI of $52,568.54, giving $1,276.30. It also zeroed the ACTC, missing $2,089.77 of unused CTC."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It returned $0 using AGI of $55,000, skipping the 401(k) and IRA reductions. It missed both the $1,276.30 EITC, still inside the phase-out range, and the $2,089.77 refundable CTC left after the CTC offsets the $2,310.23 liability."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $2,216.39 matches an EITC near $1,276 plus an ACTC of about $940, which is what you get from a $2,000-per-child CTC minus the full $3,056 pre-credit tax. The 2026 CTC is $2,200 per child, and the $546 CDCC and $200 saver's credit first lower liability to $2,310.23, so the ACTC is $2,089.77."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,other,False,"Its $1,530.82 matches an EITC near $1,276 plus only ~$255 of refundable CTC, so it let the CTC absorb far more than the $2,310.23 of liability left after the $546 CDCC and $200 saver's credit. The correct ACTC is $2,089.77."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It understated both credits. Its EITC of $497 should be $1,276.30 (2026 two-child max $7,316, start $23,890, 21.06% rate on AGI $52,568.54). Its ACTC of $1,044 should be $2,089.77; it did not first reduce the $3,056.23 pre-credit tax by the $546 CDCC and $200 saver's credit before applying the $4,400 CTC."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,other,False,"It put the EITC near $1,162 (correct is $1,276.30) and set the ACTC to $0. The $4,400 CTC exceeds the $2,310.23 of liability left after the CDCC and saver's credit by $2,089.77, and that excess is refundable."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It zeroed the EITC, saying $51,913 exceeds the two-child HoH phase-out. The phase-out runs to ~$58,629, leaving $1,276.30. It also used a $4,000 CTC instead of $4,400 and $2,894 of nonrefundable use instead of $2,310.23, which gave an ACTC of $1,106 instead of $2,089.77."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It gave no answer or explanation for federal_refundable_credits. The correct value is a $1,276.30 EITC plus a $2,089.77 refundable CTC, $3,366.07 in total."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,other,False,"It treated the full $2,000 per child ($4,000) as refundable. That ignores that the CTC first offsets the $2,310.23 of remaining liability and that refundability is capped at $1,700 per child; the correct ACTC is $2,089.77. It also left out the $1,276.30 EITC."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"Its $190 matches treating almost the whole CTC as absorbed by tax and leaving out the EITC. The CTC offsets only $2,310.23 of liability, leaving $2,089.77 refundable, and the two-child EITC adds $1,276.30."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"It said the CTC is fully used against tax, but the $4,400 CTC exceeds the $2,310.23 of liability after the $546 CDCC and $200 saver's credit, so $2,089.77 is refundable. Its $1,496 EITC also overshoots the $1,276.30 that the 2026 parameters ($7,316 max, $23,890 start, 21.06%) give."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It overstated the EITC at ~$3,000 when the phase-out cuts the $7,316 max by $6,039.70, to $1,276.30. Its $2,363.10 refundable CTC is also above $2,089.77, which means it took about $273 too much in nonrefundable credits off the $3,056.23 pre-credit tax; only the $546 CDCC and $200 saver's credit apply."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It took the CDCC at 20% ($312) instead of 35% ($546) and left out the $200 saver's credit. That left $2,744 of liability for the CTC and an ACTC of $1,656, instead of $2,310.23 and $2,089.77; its $1,276 EITC was correct."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $1,656 ACTC comes from a 20% CDCC ($312 instead of $546) and no $200 saver's credit, which leaves too much liability for the CTC; the correct ACTC is $2,089.77. Its $785 EITC also understates the $1,276.30 that the 2026 two-child phase-out gives at AGI $52,568.54."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used AGI of $46,180, which means it subtracted the $6,389 employer-sponsored insurance premium as if it were an above-the-line deduction. With the correct AGI of $52,568.54, tax is $3,056.23, the CTC uses $2,310.23 instead of $1,543.60, the ACTC is $2,089.77, and the EITC is $1,276.30 instead of $2,621.73."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,other,False,"Its $1,344 ACTC is $4,400 minus the full $3,056 pre-credit tax, ignoring the $546 CDCC and $200 saver's credit that are taken first. Remaining liability is $2,310.23, so the ACTC is $2,089.77. Its $1,246 EITC is also slightly below $1,276.30."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,other,False,"Its $1,343.72 ACTC is $4,400 − $3,056.28, which skips the $546 CDCC and $200 saver's credit. Remaining liability is $2,310.23, so the ACTC is $2,089.77. Its ~$1,474 EITC overshoots the correct $1,276.30."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the $546 CDCC and $200 saver's credit correctly but computed tax and the EITC on an AGI of about $46,180, after subtracting the $6,389 employer health premium. That inflated the EITC to $2,623.83 and the ACTC to $2,856.40; at AGI $52,568.54 they are $1,276.30 and $2,089.77."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It said income is above the EITC phase-out and that no other refundable credits apply. The two-child EITC is still $1,276.30 at AGI $52,568.54, and $2,089.77 of the $4,400 CTC is left after the $2,310.23 liability and is refundable."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It assumed a $2,000 CTC fully used against tax and set the ACTC to 0. The 2026 CTC is $4,400 for two children and exceeds the $2,310.23 of liability left after the CDCC and saver's credit, leaving $2,089.77 refundable. Its $1,300 EITC was close to $1,276.30."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the pre-TCJA $1,000-per-child CTC and set the ACTC to 0. The 2026 CTC is $2,200 per child, and $2,089.77 of it is left after the $2,310.23 liability and is refundable. Its EITC used a $7,300 max and a $23,200 start, giving $1,115 instead of $1,276.30."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,other,False,"Its $806 ACTC assumes the CTC absorbed far more than the $2,310.23 of liability left after the $546 CDCC and $200 saver's credit come off the $3,056.23 pre-credit tax; the correct ACTC is $2,089.77. Its $1,301 EITC is close to $1,276.30."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It overstated the EITC at $4,109. The 21.06% phase-out on the $28,678.54 of AGI above $23,890 cuts the $7,316 max by $6,039.70, leaving $1,276.30. It also understated the ACTC at $584 instead of $2,089.77, the $4,400 CTC minus the $2,310.23 remaining liability."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $2,742 of nonrefundable CTC use is pre-credit tax minus a 20% CDCC ($312), with no $200 saver's credit. At 35% the CDCC is $546, remaining liability is $2,310.23, and the ACTC is $2,089.77, not $1,658. Its $1,188 EITC also falls short of $1,276.30 under the 2026 two-child parameters applied to the larger AGI."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It gave no answer or explanation for federal_refundable_credits. The correct value is a $1,276.30 EITC plus a $2,089.77 refundable CTC, $3,366.07 in total."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Its $3,816.28 of nonrefundable CTC plus a $312 CDCC implies $4,128 of pre-credit tax, which is single-filer tax ($16,100 deduction, single brackets) rather than HoH tax of $3,056.23 on a $24,150 deduction. It also took the CDCC at 20% instead of 35% ($546) and left out the $200 saver's credit, so its ACTC is $583.72 instead of $2,089.77. Its $764.23 EITC understates $1,276.30."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It said income is too high for the EITC and that tax exceeds the CTC. HoH tax is $3,056.23, cut to $2,310.23 by the CDCC and saver's credit, leaving $2,089.77 of the $4,400 CTC refundable. The two-child EITC still pays $1,276.30 at AGI $52,568.54."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,other,False,"It set the ACTC to the $3,400 cap (2 × $1,700) without first taking off the $2,310.23 of liability the CTC offsets. The unused CTC is only $2,089.77, below the cap. Its ~$1,490 EITC also overshoots $1,276.30."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,other,False,"It understated both credits: an ACTC of $1,504 instead of $2,089.77 and an EITC of $1,096 instead of $1,276.30. It did not cut the $3,056.23 pre-credit tax by both the $546 CDCC and $200 saver's credit before applying the $4,400 CTC, and it used non-2026 EITC parameters instead of the $7,316 max and $23,890 start."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It claimed earnings exceed a ~$48,000 two-child EITC ceiling; the 2026 HoH two-child EITC phases out only near $58,629, leaving $1,276.30. It also said the $4,400 CTC was fully absorbed, but liability after the CDCC and saver's credit is only $2,310.23, leaving $2,089.77 refundable."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It used MFJ EITC parameters (a ~$49,000 phase-out start) and an AGI of $55,800 without the 401(k) and IRA exclusions, which produced a $6,400 EITC. The filer is head of household with AGI of $52,568.54 and a $23,890 phase-out start, so the EITC is $1,276.30. It also used a $2,000-per-child CTC, which gave an ACTC of $1,837 instead of $2,089.77."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,asset_resource,False,"It denied the EITC because of the $300,000 in stock. The EITC has no asset test, only a disqualified-investment-income limit, and $800 of interest is well under it, so the EITC is $1,276.30. Its $565 ACTC also understates the $2,089.77 left from the $4,400 CTC after the $2,310.23 post-CDCC/saver's-credit liability."
us,scenario_119,free_school_meals_eligible,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_119,head_chip_eligible,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_119,head_chip_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
@@ -9781,118 +10094,124 @@ us,scenario_119,self_employment_tax,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_outpu
us,scenario_119,self_employment_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_119,snap,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_119,ssi,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly worked out $39,469 of taxable income and $2,012 of tax with the $1,560 child care deduction, then dropped that result for an unsupported $2,296. It also never subtracted the nonrefundable Virginia EITC of 20% × $1,276.30 = $255.26."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model got the $2,012 pre-credit tax right but wrongly treated the Virginia EITC as only refundable. Here Virginia's nonrefundable 20% credit ($255.26, from the $1,276.30 federal EITC) applies before refundable credits, which brings tax to $1,756.68."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used an outdated $4,500 standard deduction instead of $8,750. It also left out the $2,790 of personal exemptions, the $1,560 child care deduction and the $255.26 nonrefundable Virginia EITC. Its $1,888 doesn't even match its own $48,069 taxable income."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model claimed zero Virginia tax. After the $8,750 standard deduction, $2,790 of exemptions and the $1,560 child care deduction, $39,468.54 of income is still taxable. That produces $2,011.94 of tax, and only $255.26 of it is offset by the nonrefundable Virginia EITC."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used an $8,500 standard deduction instead of $8,750 and left out the $1,560 child care deduction, getting $2,116 of tax. It then subtracted unspecified 'small nonrefundable credits' instead of the 20% Virginia EITC of $255.26 on the correct $2,011.94."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model worked out $2,116 using an $8,500 standard deduction and no $1,560 child care deduction, then raised it to $2,459 for no stated reason. It also never applied the $255.26 nonrefundable Virginia EITC."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used an $8,500 standard deduction instead of $8,750 and left out the $1,560 child care deduction. It then raised its $2,116 with unexplained 'adjustments' instead of subtracting the $255.26 nonrefundable Virginia EITC."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used a $9,000 standard deduction instead of $8,750 and left out the $1,560 child and dependent care expense deduction. It also said no Virginia nonrefundable credit applies, missing the 20% EITC of $255.26."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model dropped the $2,790 of personal exemptions and the $1,560 child care deduction. It then made up a $220 low-income adjustment and a 30% child care credit. Virginia handles child care as a deduction, and the only nonrefundable credit here is the $255.26 EITC (20% of the federal EITC)."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model stopped at $41,029 of taxable income. It never subtracted the $1,560 child and dependent care expense deduction (giving $39,468.54 and $2,011.94 of tax) or the $255.26 nonrefundable Virginia EITC."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $6,389 ESI premiums again, getting $46,180 of AGI, even though federal AGI is $52,568.54. It then made up a $1,000 Virginia child tax credit. Virginia's only nonrefundable credit here is the 20% EITC of $255.26."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model left out the $2,790 of personal exemptions and the $1,560 child care deduction, and used $8,500 instead of the $8,750 standard deduction. It also applied a made-up 40%-of-federal child care credit instead of the 20% Virginia EITC of $255.26."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used an $8,500 standard deduction instead of $8,750, left out the $1,560 child care deduction, and applied no nonrefundable Virginia EITC. That EITC is $255.26 (20% of $1,276.30) and would reduce the $2,011.94 tax to $1,756.68."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used an outdated $4,500 standard deduction instead of $8,750 and wrongly applied the 5% bracket to $17,000 instead of $12,000. It also left out the $1,560 child care deduction and the $255.26 nonrefundable Virginia EITC."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the ESI premiums again, which lowered AGI below the correct $52,568.54. It made up a 25% Virginia child care credit; Virginia gives a $1,560 deduction instead. It also took 25% of an overstated federal EITC, when the Virginia credit is 20% of $1,276.30 = $255.26."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model started from a miscomputed $51,713 of AGI instead of $52,568.54. Its $2,043 is close to the pre-credit tax, which means it never subtracted the $255.26 nonrefundable Virginia EITC."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $6,389 ESI premiums again, getting $46,180 of AGI instead of $52,568.54. It also used a $3,000 standard deduction instead of $8,750. Because of the lower AGI, its 20% Virginia EITC came out at $386.60 instead of $255.26."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the ESI premiums again ($46,180 of AGI) and used outdated $800 exemptions and an $8,500 standard deduction. It replaced the $1,560 child care deduction with a made-up child care credit and never applied the $255.26 nonrefundable Virginia EITC."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The $1,974 answer is close to Virginia's pre-credit tax and leaves out the nonrefundable 20% Virginia EITC. The correct path is $2,011.94 of tax on $39,468.54 of taxable income, less a $255.26 EITC, for $1,756.68."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model subtracted a 'state child care credit' that Virginia doesn't have; Virginia allows the $1,560 as a deduction from taxable income. It also left out the actual nonrefundable credit, the 20% Virginia EITC of $255.26 on $2,011.94 of tax."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The $1,450.48 answer is $306 below the correct result. The correct path is $2,011.94 of tax on $39,468.54 of taxable income, minus only the $255.26 nonrefundable Virginia EITC. Getting $1,450.48 requires credits or deductions beyond those Virginia allows here."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used an $8,000 standard deduction instead of $8,750 and left out the $1,560 child care deduction. It added a made-up $78 Virginia child care credit and understated the 20% Virginia EITC as $100 instead of $255.26."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model dropped the $2,790 of exemptions and the $1,560 child care deduction and used $8,500 instead of $8,750. It also put the federal EITC at $5,669.56 without applying the phase-out above AGI of about $24,000. At $52,568.54 of AGI the federal EITC is only $1,276.30, so the Virginia credit is $255.26."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no answer for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was no value to score."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model's $803.75 is less than half the correct tax. Virginia taxable income is $39,468.54 after the $8,750 standard deduction, $2,790 of exemptions and $1,560 of child care. That produces $2,011.94 of tax, reduced only by the $255.26 nonrefundable EITC."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model's $180 assumes nonrefundable credits wipe out almost all the tax. The only Virginia nonrefundable credit here is the 20% EITC of $255.26, which leaves $1,756.68 of the $2,011.94 tax."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model listed the standard deduction, exemptions and child care deduction but reported $45,219 of taxable income instead of $39,468.54, which subtracts only $7,350. It then slightly overstated the Virginia EITC as $267 instead of $255.26."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied the standard deduction, exemptions and child care subtraction but reported $1,483.02, which is $528.92 below the $2,011.94 pre-credit tax. The only nonrefundable reduction Virginia allows here is the $255.26 EITC (20% of $1,276.30)."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model got the $2,012 pre-credit tax right but said no nonrefundable credit applied. It missed the Virginia EITC at 20% of the $1,276.30 federal EITC ($255.26), which brings tax to $1,756.68."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model made up two $500 nonrefundable Virginia child credits, which Virginia doesn't have. It also left out the $1,560 child care deduction and missed the actual nonrefundable credit, the 20% EITC of $255.26."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the $6,389 ESI premiums again, getting $46,180 of AGI; those premiums are already excluded from the $55,000 of wages, so AGI is $52,568.54. It also never subtracted the $255.26 nonrefundable Virginia EITC."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated child care as a nonrefundable Virginia credit (about $62) instead of a $1,560 deduction from taxable income. It also left out the nonrefundable Virginia EITC of $255.26."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model stopped at $41,029 of taxable income. It left out the $1,560 child and dependent care expense deduction (taxable income should be $39,468.54 and tax $2,011.94) and the $255.26 nonrefundable Virginia EITC."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model subtracted the ESI premiums again, getting $46,180 of AGI and $33,080 of taxable income. It then misapplied the brackets: tax on $33,080 is $1,644.60, not $1,764.60. It also never applied the $255.26 nonrefundable Virginia EITC."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model's $1,874 doesn't follow the correct steps: $39,468.54 of taxable income after the $1,560 child care deduction gives $2,011.94 of tax, less the $255.26 nonrefundable Virginia EITC. Its figure shows it either missed the child care deduction or misstated the 20% EITC."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used an $8,500 standard deduction instead of $8,750 and left out the $1,560 child care deduction. It also never applied the 20% nonrefundable Virginia EITC ($255.26), so it stopped at $2,116."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model left out the $1,560 child and dependent care expense deduction and used $8,500 instead of the $8,750 standard deduction, getting $2,116 of tax instead of $2,011.94. It also understated the 20% Virginia EITC as $223 instead of $255.26."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used the 2025 $8,500 standard deduction instead of the 2026 $8,750, which overstated taxable income by $250 ($39,719 vs. $39,468.54). It also slightly overstated the 20% Virginia EITC as $260 instead of $255.26."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model taxed $35,330 instead of the correct $39,468.54 of Virginia taxable income ($52,568.54 − $8,750 − $2,790 − $1,560). It also never subtracted the $255.26 nonrefundable Virginia EITC from the resulting $2,011.94."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used an $8,000 standard deduction instead of $8,750 and left out the $1,560 child care deduction, getting $41,779 of taxable income instead of $39,468.54. It also understated the Virginia EITC as $238 instead of $255.26."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no answer for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was no value to score."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used an $8,500 standard deduction instead of $8,750 and left out the $1,560 child care deduction. It also said no nonrefundable credit applied, missing the 20% Virginia EITC of $255.26."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a made-up $5,200 standard deduction, wrong bracket widths and four $800 exemptions. It then moved its tax upward after subtracting exemptions, ending at $2,867. The correct steps give $39,468.54 of taxable income, $2,011.94 of tax and a $255.26 EITC."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model used a $3,000 standard deduction instead of the 2026 $8,750 and left out the $1,560 child care deduction. It also never applied the $255.26 nonrefundable Virginia EITC."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used an $8,500 standard deduction instead of $8,750 and left out the $1,560 child care deduction. It also said no nonrefundable credit applied, missing the 20% Virginia EITC of $255.26."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model added imputed employer health coverage to AGI, getting $59,111, when the correct federal AGI is $52,568.54. It also made up an $18,000 joint standard deduction and gave a final tax that doesn't match its own taxable income."
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model reported $50,200 of taxable income, which ignores most of the $8,750 standard deduction and the $1,560 child care deduction. It also made up a $112 credit for taxable income under $50,250 instead of applying the 20% Virginia EITC of $255.26."
-us,scenario_119,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Counted 15% of the federal EITC (about $190) as a refundable Virginia credit without applying Virginia's either/or choice between EITC forms. The roughly $2,000 Virginia liability fully absorbs the larger 20% nonrefundable credit, so that is the form claimed and the refundable credit is $0."
-us,scenario_119,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Reported 15% of a $1,276 federal EITC ($191) as a refundable state credit, ignoring that filers claim either the refundable or the nonrefundable VA EITC, not both. Virginia tax of about $2,000 fully absorbs the 20% nonrefundable credit, so that one is chosen and state refundable credits are $0."
-us,scenario_119,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Treated the 20% VA EITC as refundable, but 20% is the rate of the nonrefundable option. Virginia tax liability fully absorbs that credit, so it reduces tax before refundable credits and the refundable credit is $0. The $3,913 federal EITC base is also too high, because AGI of about $52.6k puts the household deep in the phase-out range."
-us,scenario_119,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Called the 20% VA EITC ($286.20) refundable. That rate belongs to the nonrefundable credit, which this household elects because its roughly $2,000 Virginia liability absorbs it fully. Nothing is claimed through the refundable pathway, so the correct value is $0."
-us,scenario_119,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Reported 20% of the federal EITC ($215.15) as a refundable Virginia credit, but that amount is the nonrefundable EITC. With Virginia tax far above it, the household takes the nonrefundable credit, and state refundable credits are $0."
-us,scenario_119,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied the 15% refundable VA EITC ($332.46) without checking the either/or election against the nonrefundable credit. The roughly $2,000 Virginia liability fully absorbs the 20% nonrefundable credit, which makes it the better choice and leaves refundable credits at $0."
-us,scenario_119,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Gave no parseable value or explanation for state_refundable_credits. The correct derivation is $0, because the household elects Virginia's nonrefundable EITC, which its state liability fully absorbs."
-us,scenario_119,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Counted 20% of a $785 federal EITC ($157) as refundable, but that 20% credit is the nonrefundable VA EITC. The household's Virginia tax of about $2,000 absorbs it fully, so the refundable credit is $0."
-us,scenario_119,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Treated the 20% VA EITC ($524.35) as refundable, missing that filers choose either the nonrefundable or the refundable form. Because Virginia liability exceeds the credit, the nonrefundable form is claimed and state refundable credits are $0."
-us,scenario_119,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Put 20% of the federal EITC ($249) into refundable credits, but that is the nonrefundable VA EITC. The household's roughly $2,000 Virginia tax absorbs it fully, so no refundable credit is claimed and the value is $0."
-us,scenario_119,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Computed the refundable VA EITC at 15% ($221.10) without comparing it to the 20% nonrefundable alternative. Virginia tax is far above both amounts, so the nonrefundable credit is chosen and refundable credits are $0."
-us,scenario_119,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Called the 20% VA EITC ($524.77) refundable, but at this income it is claimed as the nonrefundable credit against roughly $2,000 of Virginia liability. The refundable form is not elected, so state refundable credits are $0."
-us,scenario_119,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Treated 20% of the federal EITC ($260) as refundable, ignoring Virginia's either/or choice between EITC forms. The household's Virginia tax absorbs the 20% nonrefundable credit in full, so that is the form taken and the refundable value is $0."
-us,scenario_119,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Gave no parseable value or explanation for state_refundable_credits. The correct derivation is $0, because the household elects Virginia's nonrefundable EITC, which its state liability fully absorbs."
-us,scenario_119,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Reported 20% of a $764.23 federal EITC ($152.85) as refundable, but that is the nonrefundable VA EITC. With roughly $2,000 of Virginia tax to offset, the household claims it as a nonrefundable credit, so refundable credits are $0."
-us,scenario_119,state_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Counted 20% of the federal EITC ($219) as a refundable Virginia credit without applying the either/or election. The household's Virginia tax absorbs the nonrefundable credit in full, so it is the form claimed and state refundable credits are $0."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It got taxable income of $39,469 and tax of $2,012 using the $1,560 care deduction, then dropped that result for an unsupported $2,296. It never subtracted Virginia's nonrefundable EITC: 20% of the $1,276.30 federal EITC, or $255.26."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It correctly reached $2,012 of tax on $39,469, but treated the EITC as refundable only. Virginia's 20% nonrefundable EITC ($255.26, on a $1,276.30 federal credit) reduces tax before refundable credits, giving $1,756.68."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used the old $4,500 single standard deduction instead of $8,750. It also left out the $2,790 of personal exemptions, the $1,560 care deduction and the $255.26 nonrefundable VA EITC. Its $1,888 doesn't even match its own brackets applied to $48,069."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It said deductions and exemptions eliminate the tax. But $52,568.54 of AGI less $8,750, $2,790 and $1,560 still leaves $39,468.54 taxable, which owes $2,011.94 before the $255.26 nonrefundable EITC."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used an $8,500 standard deduction instead of $8,750 and left out the $1,560 child and dependent care deduction, reaching $2,116. It then subtracted an unspecified 'small' credit instead of the 20% nonrefundable VA EITC of $255.26."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used an $8,500 standard deduction and left out the $1,560 care deduction to reach $2,116. It then raised that to $2,459 for no reason and never applied the $255.26 nonrefundable VA EITC."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used an $8,500 standard deduction instead of $8,750 and left out the $1,560 care deduction. It then added unexplained 'adjustments' to reach $2,280 rather than subtracting the $255.26 nonrefundable VA EITC."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used a $9,000 standard deduction instead of $8,750 and left out the $1,560 care deduction. It also wrongly said no Virginia nonrefundable credit applies, missing the 20% nonrefundable EITC of $255.26."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It left out the $2,790 of personal exemptions and the $1,560 care deduction, so taxable income was $43,819. It then applied an invented $220 low-income credit and a Virginia child care credit that doesn't exist, instead of the 20% nonrefundable EITC of $255.26."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It left out the $1,560 child and dependent care deduction, so taxable income was $41,029 instead of $39,468.54. It also never subtracted the $255.26 nonrefundable VA EITC."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $6,389 of ESI premiums from wages, giving an AGI of $46,180 instead of $52,568.54, and used a made-up $9,470 standard deduction. It then subtracted a $1,000 Virginia child tax credit that doesn't exist instead of the $255.26 nonrefundable VA EITC."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It left out the $2,790 of personal exemptions and the $1,560 care deduction and used an $8,500 standard deduction, giving $44,069 taxable. It applied a Virginia CDCC credit (40% of the federal CDCC) that doesn't exist instead of the 20% nonrefundable EITC of $255.26."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used an $8,500 standard deduction instead of $8,750, left out the $1,560 care deduction, and never subtracted the $255.26 nonrefundable VA EITC. That leaves $2,116.04."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used the old $4,500 standard deduction and stretched the 5% bracket to $22,000 instead of $17,000. It also left out the $1,560 care deduction and the $255.26 nonrefundable VA EITC."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $34,780 taxable income fits subtracting the ESI premiums from wages a second time. It applied the VA EITC at 25% instead of 20%, to an inflated federal EITC ($660 instead of $255.26), and added a Virginia child care credit that doesn't exist instead of the $1,560 deduction."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used an AGI of $51,713 instead of $52,568.54 and stopped at the bracket tax. It never subtracted Virginia's 20% nonrefundable EITC of $255.26."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $6,389 of ESI premiums from wages (AGI $46,180) and used a $3,000 'post-2025' standard deduction instead of $8,750. The lower AGI inflated the federal EITC, so its VA credit was $386.60 instead of $255.26."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used an AGI of $46,180 (subtracting the ESI premiums), $2,400 of exemptions instead of $930 × 3 = $2,790, and an $8,500 standard deduction. It also replaced the $1,560 care deduction with a Virginia CDCC credit that doesn't exist and never applied the $255.26 nonrefundable VA EITC."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"$1,974 matches bracket tax on roughly $38,800 of taxable income with no credit subtracted. The correct path is $2,011.94 of tax on $39,468.54, less the 20% nonrefundable VA EITC of $255.26."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It subtracted a 'nonrefundable state child care credit', which Virginia doesn't have. Child care counts only as the $1,560 deduction, and the credit that actually applies is the 20% nonrefundable EITC of $255.26."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its $1,450.48 is $306 below the correct amount, which fits overstating nonrefundable credits or deductions. The correct path is $2,011.94 of tax on $39,468.54 less only the 20% VA EITC of $255.26."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used an $8,000 standard deduction instead of $8,750 and left out the $1,560 care deduction. It then subtracted a $78 Virginia CDCC credit that doesn't exist and a $100 VA EITC instead of 20% × $1,276.30 = $255.26."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used an $8,500 standard deduction instead of $8,750 and stopped at $2,026.34 of tax. It never subtracted the 20% nonrefundable VA EITC of $255.26."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It ignored the federal EITC phase-out and used a $5,669.56 federal EITC. At $52,568.54 of AGI the credit is $1,276.30, so the VA credit is $255.26, not $1,133.91. It also left out the $2,790 of exemptions and the $1,560 care deduction."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It gave no answer for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits. The correct derivation gives $2,011.94 of tax on $39,468.54, less the $255.26 nonrefundable VA EITC."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"$803.75 is less than half the correct liability, which fits overstating deductions far beyond the $8,750 standard deduction, $2,790 of exemptions and $1,560 care deduction. Correct taxable income is $39,468.54, with $2,011.94 of tax less the $255.26 VA EITC."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It said nonrefundable credits wipe out almost all of the tax. The only nonrefundable credit is the 20% VA EITC of $255.26, which leaves $1,756.68 of the $2,011.94 tax."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its deductions came to only $7,350, giving taxable income of $45,219. The correct total is the $8,750 standard deduction, $2,790 of exemptions and the $1,560 care deduction ($13,100), giving $39,468.54. That overstated the tax by about $330."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"$1,483.02 fits taxable income of about $30,300, far below the correct $39,468.54, which points to subtracting extra items such as the ESI premiums. It also never mentions the 20% nonrefundable VA EITC."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It correctly computed $2,012 of tax but said no nonrefundable credit applies. It missed Virginia's 20% nonrefundable EITC of $255.26, which brings the amount to $1,756.68."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It left out the $1,560 care deduction ($2,101.67 of tax) and subtracted two $500 Virginia child credits that don't exist. The correct credit is the 20% nonrefundable EITC of $255.26."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started from an AGI of $46,180 by subtracting the $6,389 of ESI premiums from wages, which understated taxable income by $6,388.54. It also never subtracted the $255.26 nonrefundable VA EITC."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied a 'Virginia dependent-care credit' that doesn't exist instead of the $1,560 care deduction. It also never applied the 20% nonrefundable VA EITC of $255.26."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It left out the $1,560 child and dependent care deduction (taxable $41,029 instead of $39,468.54). It also never subtracted the $255.26 nonrefundable VA EITC."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used an AGI of $46,180 by subtracting the ESI premiums, and miscomputed the bracket tax on $33,080 (that tax is $1,644.60, not $1,764.60). It also never applied the $255.26 nonrefundable VA EITC."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"$1,874 is about $138 below the $2,011.94 bracket tax and $117 above the correct figure, so the right credit wasn't applied. The only nonrefundable credit is the 20% VA EITC of $255.26."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used an $8,500 standard deduction instead of $8,750 and left out the $1,560 care deduction. It also never subtracted the $255.26 nonrefundable VA EITC, stopping at $2,116."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used an $8,500 standard deduction and left out the $1,560 care deduction, so tentative tax was $2,116. It also understated the federal EITC, so the VA credit was $223 instead of $255.26."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used an $8,500 standard deduction instead of the 2026 $8,750, so tax came to $2,026 instead of $2,011.94. It also rounded the 20% VA EITC to $260 instead of $255.26."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used $35,330 of taxable income, $4,138.54 below the correct $39,468.54, which fits extra subtractions from AGI. It also never subtracted the 20% nonrefundable VA EITC of $255.26."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used an $8,000 standard deduction instead of $8,750 and left out the $1,560 care deduction, giving $41,779 taxable. Its VA EITC was $238 instead of 20% × $1,276.30 = $255.26."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It gave no answer for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits. The correct derivation gives $2,011.94 of tax on $39,468.54, less the $255.26 nonrefundable VA EITC."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used an $8,500 standard deduction and left out the $1,560 care deduction. It also said no nonrefundable credit applies, missing the 20% nonrefundable VA EITC of $255.26."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $5,200 standard deduction, a 5% top rate instead of 5.75%, and exemptions of $800 × 4 instead of $930 × 3. It then reported $2,867, which is more than its own pre-exemption tax, and never applied the care deduction or the VA EITC."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used an $8,000 standard deduction instead of $8,750 and left out the $1,560 care deduction. It also never subtracted the $255.26 nonrefundable VA EITC."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $3,000 standard deduction instead of the 2026 $8,750 and left out the $1,560 care deduction. It also never subtracted the $255.26 nonrefundable VA EITC."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used an $8,500 standard deduction and left out the $1,560 care deduction. It also said no nonrefundable credit applies, missing the 20% nonrefundable VA EITC of $255.26."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added imputed employer health insurance value to AGI ($59,111) and mixed up a married-joint $18,000 deduction with personal exemptions. Its $1,173.89 doesn't match bracket tax on its own $41,111 of taxable income, which is about $2,106."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It reduced AGI to only $50,200 of taxable income, missing most of the $8,750 standard deduction and the $1,560 care deduction, and got the bracket tax wrong. It then subtracted a $112 low-income credit that doesn't exist instead of the 20% nonrefundable VA EITC of $255.26."
+us,scenario_119,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Reported a refundable Virginia EITC of 15% of a roughly $1,268 federal EITC. It missed that the filer must choose between the nonrefundable 20% credit and the refundable credit. Because this household's Virginia tax fully absorbs the nonrefundable credit, that one is claimed and refundable state credits are $0."
+us,scenario_119,state_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied 15% to a roughly $1,276 federal EITC as if the refundable Virginia EITC came automatically. Virginia's refundable EITC is an alternative to the 20% nonrefundable credit. With about $2,000 of Virginia liability absorbing the nonrefundable credit, the household claims the nonrefundable credit and refundable credits are $0."
+us,scenario_119,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Claimed a refundable Virginia EITC of 20% of a $3,913 federal EITC, which also overstates the federal credit for a two-child head of household near the end of the phase-out range. The key error is treating the refundable credit as claimed. Virginia makes filers elect either the nonrefundable or the refundable EITC, and this household's tax liability makes the nonrefundable credit the better choice, so the refundable amount is $0."
+us,scenario_119,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Computed 20% of a $1,431 federal EITC and reported it as refundable. Virginia does not allow both the nonrefundable and the refundable EITC. Because the household's Virginia tax fully covers the nonrefundable credit, the nonrefundable credit is elected and state refundable credits are $0."
+us,scenario_119,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Reported 20% of a $1,075.76 federal EITC as a refundable Virginia credit. It ignored that the refundable EITC is only an alternative to the nonrefundable credit. With positive Virginia liability larger than the credit, the household takes the nonrefundable version and nothing counts as refundable."
+us,scenario_119,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied 15% to a federal EITC of about $2,216, which overstates the phased-down credit, and counted the result as refundable. Virginia requires an election between the nonrefundable and refundable EITC, and this household's Virginia tax absorbs the nonrefundable credit. So the refundable credit is not claimed and the value is $0."
+us,scenario_119,state_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Assumed the 15% refundable Virginia EITC applies automatically and reported $174.37. Filers choose either the nonrefundable or the refundable credit. With roughly $2,000 of Virginia income tax, the nonrefundable credit is fully usable and chosen, so refundable state credits are $0."
+us,scenario_119,state_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,The model gave no usable value for state_refundable_credits. The correct derivation yields $0 because the household elects Virginia's nonrefundable EITC over the refundable one.
+us,scenario_119,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Reported 20% of a $785 federal EITC as a refundable Virginia credit. Virginia's refundable EITC replaces the nonrefundable credit rather than adding to it, and only applies when it gives a larger benefit. Since Virginia liability exceeds the credit, the nonrefundable election wins and refundable credits are $0."
+us,scenario_119,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Applied 20% to a $2,621.73 federal EITC, which overstates the phased-out credit at about $55,000 of earnings, and reported the result as refundable. It missed the either/or election. The household's Virginia tax fully absorbs the nonrefundable credit, so no refundable credit is claimed and the value is $0."
+us,scenario_119,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Reported 20% of about $1,246 federal EITC as refundable. Virginia's refundable EITC is elected only in place of the nonrefundable credit. With Virginia tax liability large enough to use the nonrefundable credit in full, the household claims that one and state refundable credits are $0."
+us,scenario_119,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Took 15% of an estimated $1,474 federal EITC and counted it as refundable. It never applied Virginia's rule that the filer chooses between the nonrefundable and refundable EITC. Given this household's positive Virginia liability, the nonrefundable credit is chosen and the refundable amount is $0."
+us,scenario_119,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Computed 20% of a $2,623.83 federal EITC, an overstated federal credit for this income, and reported it as refundable. Virginia's refundable EITC is an alternative to the nonrefundable credit. Because the household's Virginia tax absorbs the nonrefundable credit, the refundable one is not elected and the value is $0."
+us,scenario_119,state_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Reported a refundable Virginia credit of 20% of a $1,300 federal EITC. It treated the refundable EITC as automatic, but Virginia filers elect either the nonrefundable or the refundable version. With about $2,000 of Virginia liability, the nonrefundable election is taken and refundable credits are $0."
+us,scenario_119,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,The model gave no usable value for state_refundable_credits. The correct derivation yields $0 because the household elects Virginia's nonrefundable EITC over the refundable one.
+us,scenario_119,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Reported 20% of a $764.23 federal EITC as a refundable Virginia credit. It missed that Virginia's refundable EITC is claimed only instead of the nonrefundable credit. Since Virginia tax fully covers the nonrefundable credit, that one is used and refundable credits are $0."
+us,scenario_119,state_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Estimated 20% of about $1,490 federal EITC as refundable. Virginia does not stack the refundable and nonrefundable EITC, and this household's positive Virginia liability makes the nonrefundable credit the elected one. So state refundable credits are $0."
+us,scenario_119,state_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Reported about 20% of a roughly $1,096 federal EITC as a refundable Virginia credit. It ignored the election between Virginia's nonrefundable and refundable EITC. With Virginia tax absorbing the nonrefundable credit, the household takes the nonrefundable credit and refundable credits are $0."
us,scenario_119,tanf,glm-5.3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its deductions used the expired $10,000 SALT cap, the full $3,744 of mortgage interest (should be $2,808) and no 0.5% charitable floor, giving about $200,500 of taxable income. The main error is the bracket math: 2026 single brackets on about $200,500 give roughly $40,700, not $30,238. It also left out the $163.40 NIIT."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $1,750 state tax refund to AGI and skipped the IRA deduction, getting $234,414 instead of $232,635, which pushed taxable income to $198,819 instead of $196,918. It also netted the farm rent loss into NIIT (about $70 on $1,853) instead of taking 3.8% of the full $4,300 of interest and rent ($163.40)."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used an invented $30,000 standard deduction instead of itemizing $35,717, and it taxed all $41,900 of Social Security instead of 85%. It then subtracted $11,297 of 'estimated withholding', which is a tax payment, not a nonrefundable credit, so the result fell far below $40,021.82."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave a $25,000 guess with no computation. The correct path is AGI $232,635, minus $35,717 itemized, for $196,918 taxable, which gives $39,858 of tax plus $163.40 NIIT. The guess undercounts the 24%-bracket liability by about $15,000."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It computed $40,823 of bracket tax and then reported $38,740 with no stated reduction. Its deductions used the old $10,000 SALT cap instead of the $13,908 allowed under the $40,400 cap, the full mortgage interest instead of $2,808, and no charitable floor. It also added the $1,750 refund to AGI and left out the $163.40 NIIT."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It capped SALT at the expired $10,000 instead of deducting $13,908 under the 2026 $40,400 cap, and it skipped the 0.5% charitable floor. It also added the $1,750 refund to AGI and never subtracted the $617 401(k) deferral, reaching $202,030 of taxable income instead of $196,918. It left out the $163.40 NIIT."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left about $11,896 of Connecticut income tax out of SALT and applied neither the $750k/$1M mortgage-debt limit nor the 0.5% charitable floor. That gave $25,920 of itemized deductions instead of $35,717 and $208,465 of taxable income instead of $196,918. It also left out the $163.40 NIIT and understated bracket tax on its own taxable income."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $1,750 state tax refund to AGI ($234,385 instead of $232,635), which raised taxable income to $198,906 instead of $196,918. It netted the farm rent loss into NIIT ($70 on $1,853) instead of applying 3.8% to the full $4,300 of interest and rent ($163.40)."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired after 2025 and applied pre-TCJA 10/15/25/28/33% brackets, a personal exemption, uncapped SALT and 2%-floor miscellaneous deductions. OBBBA made the TCJA rate schedule, the $750k mortgage limit and the repeal of exemptions and miscellaneous deductions permanent. It also left CT income tax out of SALT, and its final $42,046 does not match any of its own computations."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reached the correct $232,635 AGI but left CT income tax out of SALT and skipped the 0.5% charitable floor, so itemized deductions were $24,984 instead of $35,717. The tax step then failed: 2026 single brackets on its own $207,651 of taxable income give about $43,000, not $24,500. It also left out the $163.40 NIIT."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $235,031 includes the $1,750 state refund and never subtracts the $617 traditional 401(k) deferral or the IRA deduction. That gave $199,649 of taxable income instead of $196,918. It set NIIT at $70 on income netted with the farm loss, instead of $163.40 on the $4,300 of interest and rent."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $7,429 of employer insurance premiums from gross wages; wages should be $165,597 less only the 401(k) deferral. It also added the $1,750 refund and skipped the charitable floor. Even on its own $192,198 of taxable income, 2026 brackets give about $38,700, so the $34,322 also contains a bracket error, and it left out the $163.40 NIIT."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied pre-TCJA rules: a $5,063 personal exemption, pre-TCJA brackets and a 2%-floor miscellaneous deduction. OBBBA permanently kept the TCJA rate schedule and removed exemptions and miscellaneous deductions. It also subtracted the $7,429 of ESI premiums from wages, deducted mortgage interest with no limit, and computed NIIT on $1,853 instead of $4,300."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated 2026 as a post-TCJA-sunset year, with a $5,250 personal exemption, pre-TCJA brackets and inflated itemized deductions of $42,059. OBBBA made the 10/12/22/24/32/35/37% schedule permanent with no personal exemption. It also netted the farm loss into NIIT instead of taxing the full $4,300."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $1,750 refund to AGI and skipped the IRA deduction ($234,414 instead of $232,635). It deducted the full $20,164 of charity without the 0.5% floor, giving $198,557 of taxable income instead of $196,918. It left out the $163.40 NIIT entirely."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the TCJA sunset: no SALT cap, $2,966 of unreimbursed employee expenses taken as a 2%-floor miscellaneous deduction, the full $3,744 of mortgage interest, and higher pre-TCJA brackets. Under OBBBA those TCJA provisions are permanent, so the correct answer is $39,858 on $196,918 of taxable income plus $163.40 NIIT."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no computation. The correct figure is $39,858.42 of bracket tax on $196,918 of taxable income plus $163.40 NIIT. Its $39,591 is $431 short, which fits leaving out NIIT and taking about $1,100 of extra deductions, such as skipping the 0.5% charitable floor."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $7,429 of ESI premiums from gross wages, added the $1,750 refund, and deducted miscellaneous employee expenses, which OBBBA permanently eliminated. Its $41,404 of regular tax on a lower AGI reflects a heavier bracket schedule than the 2026 single schedule. It set NIIT at $87 instead of $163.40 on $4,300."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated 2026 as a post-TCJA year: a $5,000 personal exemption, uncapped SALT, a $3,149 miscellaneous deduction, full mortgage interest and pre-TCJA brackets. It also subtracted the $7,429 of ESI premiums from wages. OBBBA made the TCJA rates, the $750k mortgage limit and the elimination of exemptions and miscellaneous deductions permanent."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation. The correct path is AGI $232,635, $35,717 itemized and $196,918 taxable, which gives $39,858.42 of tax plus $163.40 NIIT. Its $33,814 is about $6,200 short, matching a bracket computation that undertaxes the 24% band."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $7,429 of ESI premiums from wages ($226,985 AGI instead of $232,635) and capped SALT at the old $10,000 instead of the $13,908 allowed under the $40,400 cap. It also skipped the charitable floor and left out the $163.40 NIIT. Its bracket math overstated tax on its own $194,013 of taxable income, which partly offset these errors."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation. The correct computation is $35,717 of itemized deductions, $196,918 of taxable income, and $39,858.42 of tax plus $163.40 NIIT. Its $37,824 is $2,198 short, which equals about $8,500 of extra deductions taxed at 24% on top of the allowed itemized amounts."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation. The correct computation is $35,717 of itemized deductions, $196,918 of taxable income, and $39,858.42 of tax plus $163.40 NIIT. Its $33,023.76 is about $7,000 short, matching a bracket schedule that badly undertaxes income in the 24% band."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left about $11,896 of Connecticut income tax out of SALT and skipped the 0.5% charitable floor, so itemized deductions were $24,984 instead of $35,717. It also added the $1,750 refund to AGI. Taxable income of $209,430 instead of $196,918 pushed income into the 32% bracket, and it left out the $163.40 NIIT."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It double-counted mortgage interest at $7,488; the head's $3,744 is the same interest as the tax unit's $2,976 + $768. It also ignored the $750k/$1M debt limit, which cuts the deduction to $2,808. It capped SALT at the old $10,000 instead of the $13,908 allowed under the $40,400 cap, skipped the charitable floor, and left out the $163.40 NIIT."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no computation and wrongly said itemized deductions are limited by the standard deduction. The household itemizes $35,717 against an $18,150 standard deduction, which gives $39,858.42 of tax plus $163.40 NIIT. Its $38,141 is $1,881 short."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated mortgage interest and SALT as 'nonrefundable credit-like items' when they are itemized deductions, and it showed no computation. Correctly itemizing $35,717 gives $196,918 of taxable income and $39,858.42 of tax plus $163.40 NIIT. Its $35,233 is about $4,800 short."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied post-TCJA-sunset rules: a $5,300 personal exemption, pre-TCJA brackets and inflated itemized deductions of $40,615. OBBBA kept the TCJA rate schedule and removed personal exemptions. The correct answer is $39,858 on $196,918 plus NIIT of $163.40 on $4,300, not $70."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $43,747.57 is the correct 2026 bracket tax on $210,286 of taxable income, but that taxable income is about $13,400 too high. It left about $11,896 of Connecticut income tax out of the SALT deduction. It also left out the $163.40 NIIT."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $1,750 refund to AGI ($234,414). It netted the farm loss into NIIT (about $70) instead of taking $163.40 on the full $4,300 of interest and rent. Its bracket tax implies about $195,800 of taxable income, below the correct $196,918, so it itemized more than the allowable $35,717."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset rules, with a restored personal exemption and pre-TCJA rates. OBBBA made the TCJA schedule permanent with no personal exemption. Even its $203,194 of taxable income gives only about $41,500 under 2026 single brackets, so the extra comes from the pre-TCJA rate structure. It also left out the $163.40 NIIT."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $7,429 of employer insurance premiums from gross wages, getting $226,985 of AGI instead of $232,635; wages are $165,597 less only the 401(k) deferral. It also left out the $163.40 NIIT on $4,300 of interest and rent, which applies because MAGI is over $200,000."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized $40,221 instead of $35,717, overstating the SALT and charitable amounts. The allowed amounts are $13,908 of SALT and $19,001 of charity after the 0.5% floor. It also added the $1,750 refund to AGI, and its $39,204 is the bracket tax on $194,193 with no $163.40 NIIT."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $39,672.32 is the correct 2026 bracket tax on $196,143 of taxable income, but it left out the 3.8% NIIT ($163.40) on $4,300 of interest and rent, which applies because MAGI is over $200,000. It also added the $1,750 refund to AGI and overstated itemized deductions (about $38,271 instead of $35,717)."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $7,429 of ESI premiums from gross wages, getting $226,985 of AGI instead of $232,635, and it left out the $163.40 NIIT. Its $38,437.74 is the correct bracket tax on its understated $190,999 of taxable income."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no derivation. The correct computation is $35,717 itemized, $196,918 taxable and $39,858.42 of tax plus $163.40 NIIT. Its $39,250 is $772 short, matching an omitted NIIT plus about $2,500 of extra deductions taxed at 24%."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied post-TCJA-sunset rules: a $5,427 personal exemption, a $2,966 miscellaneous employee-expense deduction, the full $3,744 of mortgage interest and pre-TCJA brackets. OBBBA keeps the TCJA 2026 schedule with no exemption or miscellaneous deductions, so the correct answer is $39,858 plus $163.40 NIIT."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied restored pre-TCJA 10/15/25/28% brackets and a $5,437 personal exemption, treating 2026 as post-sunset. OBBBA made the 10/12/22/24/32% schedule permanent and removed exemptions. It also left out the $163.40 NIIT."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It overstated SALT at $15,371; CT income tax is about $11,896, for $13,908 of total SALT. It skipped the 0.5% charitable floor ($19,001 deductible, not $20,164), which cut taxable income to $194,321 instead of $196,918. It netted the farm loss into NIIT ($70 on $1,853) instead of taking $163.40 on $4,300."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied post-TCJA brackets and deducted $2,966 of miscellaneous employee expenses and the full $3,744 of mortgage interest. OBBBA permanently kept the TCJA rates, the $750k mortgage limit and the repeal of miscellaneous itemized deductions. It also added the refund to AGI and left out the $163.40 NIIT."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted $2,966 of unreimbursed employee expenses as a miscellaneous itemized deduction, which OBBBA permanently repealed. It also skipped the 0.5% charitable floor, so itemized deductions were about $40,150 instead of $35,717 and taxable income was $194,235 instead of $196,918. Its $163 NIIT was correct."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value and no explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was no answer to score against $40,021.82."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value and no explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was no answer to score against $40,021.82."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It submitted $0 with no derivation, even though the single filer has $232,635 of AGI. After $35,717 of itemized deductions, $196,918 of taxable income gives $39,858.42 of bracket tax plus $163.40 NIIT."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized only charity, property tax and limited mortgage interest (about $23,800), leaving out about $11,896 of Connecticut income tax, which belongs in SALT under the $40,400 cap. That pushed taxable income to about $211,000 instead of $196,918 and into the 32% bracket, and it left out the $163.40 NIIT."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It did not apply the $750k/$1M debt limit to mortgage interest ($3,744 instead of $2,808), and it added the $1,750 refund to AGI. It also left out the $163.40 NIIT on $4,300 of interest and rent despite MAGI over $200,000. The higher taxable income ($197,685) and the missing NIIT nearly cancel, leaving it $20 high."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took an $18,525 standard deduction instead of itemizing $35,717 ($13,908 SALT including CT income tax, $2,808 mortgage interest, $19,001 charity). It also added the refund to AGI and skipped the 401(k) deferral. It used 2025 brackets and left out the $163.40 NIIT."
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the married-filing-separately status and brackets for a single filer. It also counted the $6,147 tax-exempt pension as taxable and took charity on top of the standard deduction. Its final $48,557 does not match its own $45,287 − $750."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $30,238 is about $10,000 below the 2026 single-bracket tax on its own ~$200,500 of taxable income (~$40,700), so the bracket arithmetic itself is wrong. It also used the obsolete $10,000 SALT cap instead of the $40,400 2026 cap, which lets the full ~$13,908 of CT income and property tax through. It deducted the full $3,744 of mortgage interest instead of $2,808, skipped the 0.5% charitable floor, and omitted the $163.40 NIIT."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $1,750 state tax refund to AGI and dropped the $29 IRA deduction. That overstated AGI ($234,414 vs $232,635) and taxable income ($198,819 vs $196,918), adding about $456 of tax. It also netted the farm rent loss into the NIIT base ($1,853 → ~$70), but the base is the full $4,300 of interest plus rental income ($163.40)."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted $11,297 of 'estimated tax paid/withholding' as if it were a nonrefundable credit, and it counted the full $41,900 of Social Security instead of the 85% taxable portion ($35,615). It also took a $30,000 standard deduction instead of itemizing $35,717. The correct path is $196,918 of taxable income, $39,858.42 of regular tax, and $163.40 of NIIT."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave a rough $25,000 guess with no computation. The correct derivation is AGI $232,635, itemized deductions $35,717, taxable income $196,918, regular tax $39,858.42 (the top ~$91,000 taxed at 24%), plus $163.40 NIIT. Its figure is consistent with taxing most of the income well below the 22–24% brackets that actually apply."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It computed ~$40,823 of bracket tax on $200,477 of taxable income, then cut the answer to $38,740 with no credit to justify the cut. Its taxable income was also overstated: it used the expired $10,000 SALT cap (the full $13,908 is deductible under the $40,400 cap), took the full $3,744 of mortgage interest instead of $2,808, skipped the 0.5% charitable floor, and included the $1,750 refund. It also omitted the $163.40 NIIT."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the old $10,000 SALT cap instead of the 2026 $40,400 cap, losing ~$3,908 of deductible CT income tax. It also left the $617 401(k) deferral in wages and added the $1,750 refund to AGI, pushing taxable income to $202,030 versus $196,918. It skipped the 0.5% charitable floor and omitted the $163.40 NIIT."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left Connecticut income tax (~$11,896) out of SALT, counting only the $2,012 property tax. It also deducted the full $3,744 of mortgage interest without the $750k/$1M limit ($2,808 allowed) and took charity without the 0.5% floor, so itemized deductions came to $25,920 instead of $35,717. It also added the $1,750 refund to AGI and omitted the $163.40 NIIT."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its deductions follow the same structure as the reference, but it added the $1,750 state refund to AGI ($234,385 vs $232,635), which raised taxable income by ~$1,988 and regular tax by ~$477. It also netted the $2,447 farm rent loss into the NIIT base ($1,853 → $70), but NIIT applies to the full $4,300 of interest and rental income ($163.40)."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired after 2025 and applied pre-TCJA brackets, a personal exemption, an uncapped SALT deduction, and 2%-floor miscellaneous deductions. The OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent, so 2026 uses the 10/12/22/24% brackets with no exemption and no miscellaneous deductions. It also left CT income tax out of SALT, and its submitted $42,046 does not match its own final computation of $47,383."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $232,635 is right, but it left Connecticut income tax out of SALT (deducting only the $2,012 property tax instead of $13,908) and skipped the 0.5% charitable floor, giving $207,651 of taxable income instead of $196,918. Its ~$24,500 tax is far below the ~$42,900 that 2026 single brackets produce even on its own taxable income. It also omitted the $163.40 NIIT."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It did not exclude the $617 401(k) deferral or the $29 IRA contribution from AGI, and it added the $1,750 state refund. That overstated AGI ($235,031 vs $232,635) and taxable income ($199,649 vs $196,918). It also netted the farm rent loss into the NIIT base, getting ~$70 instead of 3.8% × $4,300 = $163.40."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $7,429 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums from wages, but employment income nets only the $617.44 401(k) deferral. It also skipped the 0.5% charitable floor and added the $1,750 refund. Its $34,322 is about $4,400 below the 2026 bracket tax on its own $192,198 of taxable income (~$38,725), and it omitted the $163.40 NIIT."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset law: pre-TCJA brackets, a $5,063 personal exemption, and $3,114 of 2%-floor miscellaneous deductions. The OBBBA made the 10/12/22/24% brackets permanent and eliminated both the exemption and miscellaneous itemized deductions. It also subtracted the $7,429 ESI premiums from wages and netted the farm loss into the NIIT base ($70 vs $163.40)."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used post-TCJA-sunset rules: a $5,250 personal exemption, pre-TCJA brackets, and inflated itemized deductions ($42,059 vs $35,717). Under the OBBBA, 2026 keeps the 10/12/22/24% brackets with no exemption, the $750k mortgage limit, and the new 0.5% charitable floor. It also computed NIIT on the farm-loss-netted $1,853 ($70) instead of $4,300 ($163.40)."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $1,750 refund to AGI, dropped the $29 IRA deduction, and deducted the full $20,164 of charity without the 2026 0.5%-of-AGI floor ($19,001). It also understated the CT income tax in SALT ($12,885 vs $13,908). It omitted the $163.40 NIIT, which applies to the $4,300 of interest and rental income because MAGI exceeds $200,000."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired: no SALT cap, $2,966 of 2%-floor miscellaneous deductions, full $3,744 mortgage interest, and pre-TCJA rates. Under the OBBBA, 2026 keeps the TCJA brackets, has no miscellaneous itemized deductions, limits mortgage interest to $750k of debt ($2,808), and adds a 0.5% charitable floor. It also overstated SALT ($15,324 vs $13,908) and included the $1,750 refund in AGI."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no computation. The correct path is AGI $232,635, itemized deductions $35,717, taxable income $196,918, regular tax $39,858.42, plus $163.40 NIIT. Its $39,591 is $431 short, consistent with omitting the NIIT and overstating deductions by about $1,100, the size of skipping the 0.5% charitable floor."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $7,429 ESI premiums from wages and deducted 2%-floor miscellaneous employee business expenses, which the OBBBA permanently disallows. It then applied 'projected' brackets that produce ~$41,404 on a lower taxable income than the reference, which is more than the 2026 10/12/22/24% schedule yields. Its $87 NIIT also understates 3.8% × $4,300 = $163.40."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset rules: a $5,000 personal exemption, $3,149 of 2%-floor miscellaneous deductions, and pre-TCJA rates. Under the OBBBA, 2026 keeps the 10/12/22/24% brackets with no exemption and no miscellaneous deductions. It also subtracted the $7,429 ESI premiums from wages, took the full $3,744 of mortgage interest, and computed NIIT on $1,853 instead of $4,300."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no computation. The correct result is $39,858.42 of regular tax on $196,918 of taxable income plus $163.40 NIIT. Its $33,814 is ~$6,200 short, consistent with overstating deductions by ~$25,000 or taxing the ~$91,000 above $105,700 at less than the 24% rate that applies."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $7,429 ESI premiums from wages and used the expired $10,000 SALT cap instead of the $40,400 2026 cap (actual SALT is $13,908). It also took charity without the 0.5% floor, which together gave $194,013 of taxable income instead of $196,918. It omitted the $163.40 NIIT on $4,300 of interest and rental income."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no computation. The correct result is $39,858.42 of regular tax on $196,918 of taxable income plus $163.40 NIIT. Its $37,824 is $2,198 short, consistent with omitting the NIIT and understating taxable income by ~$8,500, roughly the effect of subtracting the $7,429 ESI premiums from wages."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no computation. The correct result is $39,858.42 of regular tax on $196,918 of taxable income plus $163.40 NIIT. Its $33,023.76 is ~$7,000 short, consistent with overstating deductions by ~$28,500 or taxing the top ~$91,000 below the 24% rate."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted a personal exemption, which exists only under TCJA-sunset law. The OBBBA set the exemption at zero permanently and kept the 10/12/22/24% brackets, so the correct tax is $39,858.42 on $196,918 of taxable income plus $163.40 NIIT. Its $45,850 reflects pre-TCJA rates."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left Connecticut income tax (~$11,896) out of SALT and skipped the 0.5% charitable floor, so itemized deductions came to $24,984 instead of $35,717. That made taxable income $209,430 instead of $196,918, pushing income into the 32% bracket. It also used 2025 rather than 2026 bracket thresholds, added the $1,750 refund, and omitted the $163.40 NIIT."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted $7,488 of mortgage interest by counting the head's $3,744 again on top of the tax unit's $2,976 + $768, and it ignored the $750k/$1M debt limit ($2,808 allowed). It also used the old $10,000 SALT cap and skipped the 0.5% charitable floor, ending at $195,012 of taxable income instead of $196,918. It dropped the $29 IRA deduction and omitted the $163.40 NIIT."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed itemized deductions are 'limited by the standard deduction'. In fact $35,717 of itemized deductions exceed the $18,150 standard deduction and are used in full, giving $196,918 of taxable income and $39,858.42 of tax plus $163.40 NIIT. Its $38,141 is $1,881 short, consistent with omitting the NIIT and understating taxable income by ~$7,200."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave only a generic description, with no figures. The correct result is $39,858.42 of regular tax on $196,918 of taxable income plus $163.40 NIIT. Its $35,233 is ~$4,800 short, consistent with overstating deductions by ~$19,000 or omitting the NIIT and understating income."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used post-TCJA-sunset rules with a ~$5,300 personal exemption and pre-TCJA brackets. Under the OBBBA, 2026 has no exemption and taxes income up to $201,775 at no more than 24%, giving $39,858.42 on $196,918. It also overstated itemized deductions ($40,615 vs $35,717) and computed NIIT on ~$1,853 instead of $4,300."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the 0.5% charitable floor, but its $210,286 of taxable income is ~$13,400 above the correct $196,918, consistent with leaving the ~$11,896 Connecticut income tax out of SALT and adding the $1,750 refund to AGI. That pushes income into the 32% bracket, and it also omitted the $163.40 NIIT."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $1,750 refund to AGI and dropped the $29 IRA deduction ($234,414 vs $232,635). It then overstated itemized deductions by ~$2,900: its ~$39,594 of regular tax implies ~$195,800 of taxable income, versus $196,918. It also netted the farm loss into the NIIT base, getting ~$70 instead of $163.40."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It restored the personal exemption and applied pre-TCJA rates. Under the OBBBA, 2026 has no exemption and applies the 10/12/22/24% schedule to $196,918, giving $39,858.42 plus $163.40 NIIT. Its itemized deductions (charity, $2,012 property tax, $3,744 mortgage interest) also left out the ~$11,896 of CT income tax, the $750k mortgage limit, and the 0.5% charitable floor."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $7,429 employer-sponsored insurance premiums from wages, which put AGI at $226,985 instead of $232,635. Employment income nets only the $617.44 401(k) deferral, so this understated taxable income by ~$5,800 and tax by ~$1,394."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $1,750 refund to AGI and claimed $40,221 of itemized deductions, ~$4,500 more than the correct $35,717 (charity $19,001 after the 0.5% floor, SALT $13,908, mortgage interest $2,808). That gave $194,193 of taxable income instead of $196,918. It also omitted the $163.40 NIIT."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $39,672.32 is exactly the 2026 bracket tax on $196,143 with no NIIT. It therefore omitted the 3.8% NIIT on $4,300 of interest and rental income ($163.40), which applies because MAGI exceeds $200,000. It also added the $1,750 refund to AGI while overstating itemized deductions by ~$2,550, leaving taxable income $775 below the correct $196,918."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted the $7,429 ESI premiums from wages (AGI $226,985 vs $232,635), which gave $190,999 of taxable income instead of $196,918. It also omitted the $163.40 NIIT, and its $38,437.74 is exactly the bracket tax on that understated base."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no computation. The correct result is $39,858.42 of regular tax on $196,918 of taxable income plus $163.40 NIIT. Its $39,250 is $772 short, consistent with omitting the NIIT and overstating deductions by ~$2,500, e.g. skipping the 0.5% charitable floor and taking the full $3,744 of mortgage interest instead of $2,808."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset rules: a $5,427 personal exemption, $2,966 of 2%-floor miscellaneous deductions, full $3,744 mortgage interest, and pre-TCJA brackets. The OBBBA made the TCJA brackets, the zero exemption, the $750k mortgage limit ($2,808), and the repeal of miscellaneous deductions permanent. It also skipped the 0.5% charitable floor and included the $1,750 refund."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied post-sunset rules with a $5,437 personal exemption and the old 10/15/25/28% brackets. Under the OBBBA, 2026 keeps the 10/12/22/24% schedule with no exemption, which on the correct $196,918 of taxable income gives $39,858.42. It also omitted the $163.40 NIIT."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted the full $20,164 of charity without the 2026 0.5%-of-AGI floor and overstated SALT ($15,371 vs $13,908). It also dropped the $29 IRA deduction, ending at $194,321 of taxable income instead of $196,918. It netted the farm rent loss into the NIIT base, getting $70 instead of 3.8% × $4,300 = $163.40."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied post-TCJA-expiration brackets and deducted $2,966 of 2%-floor miscellaneous expenses plus the full $3,744 of mortgage interest. The OBBBA kept the TCJA rates permanently, eliminated miscellaneous itemized deductions, and retained the $750k mortgage limit ($2,808). It also skipped the 0.5% charitable floor, included the $1,750 refund, and omitted the $163.40 NIIT."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted $2,966 of 2%-floor miscellaneous unreimbursed employee expenses, which the OBBBA permanently eliminated, and took the full $20,164 of charity without the 0.5% floor. Together these gave $194,235 of taxable income instead of $196,918. It also included the $1,750 refund in AGI; its $163 NIIT on $4,300 is right."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no value or explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was no answer to score against the $40,021.82 result."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model returned no value or explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was no answer to score against the $40,021.82 result."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reported $0 with no computation. Taxable income of $196,918 produces $39,858.42 of regular tax plus $163.40 NIIT, and no nonrefundable credit offsets any of it."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted the full $3,744 of mortgage interest instead of $2,808 under the $750k-of-$1M debt limit, took charity without the 0.5% floor, and overstated SALT (~$15,012 vs $13,908). That produced $195,494 of taxable income instead of $196,918. It also omitted the $163.40 NIIT and added the $1,750 refund."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left Connecticut income tax out of SALT, itemizing only ~$23,800 instead of the correct $35,717, which includes ~$11,896 of CT income tax. Its ~$211,000 of taxable income is therefore ~$14,000 too high and reaches the 32% bracket. It also omitted the $163.40 NIIT."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted the full $3,744 of mortgage interest instead of $2,808 (only interest on $750,000 of the $1,000,000 combined balance is deductible), added the $1,750 refund, and dropped the $29 IRA deduction. It also omitted the $163.40 NIIT on $4,300 of interest and rental income. The missing NIIT and its ~$767 net overstatement of taxable income nearly cancel, leaving it $20 off."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took an $18,525 standard deduction instead of itemizing $35,717 (charity $19,001 after the floor, SALT $13,908, mortgage interest $2,808). It also left the $617 401(k) deferral in wages, added the $1,750 refund, and used 2025 bracket thresholds. It omitted the $163.40 NIIT."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the single head as married filing separately and added the $6,147 tax-exempt pension to taxable pensions ($36,363). It also stacked charity on top of the standard deduction instead of itemizing $35,717. Its submitted $48,557 exceeds even its own $45,287 pre-credit tax, despite a claimed $750 credit."
us,scenario_120,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_120,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_120,free_school_meals_eligible,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
@@ -9902,96 +10221,99 @@ us,scenario_120,head_medicare_eligible,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_ou
us,scenario_120,head_medicare_eligible,minimax-m3,llm_error,age_disability,False,"The model returned 0 without applying Medicare's age-based eligibility rule. At age 76, the head exceeds the age-65 threshold, so the eligibility value is 1 regardless of the household's income, assets, or employer-sponsored coverage."
us,scenario_120,head_wic_eligible,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_120,local_income_tax,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"The model's own reasoning had the correct parts: SS $10,267.01, Medicare $2,401.16, CT PFML 0.5% ≈ $828, total $13,496.16. It then submitted $13,736.63, which doesn't follow from that arithmetic. The extra $240.47 has no basis in any rule."
-us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model got SS ($10,267.01) and Medicare ($2,401.16) right. It left out Connecticut's mandatory employee Paid Leave contribution, 0.5% × $165,597 = $827.98, which counts as an employee state payroll tax."
-us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used the 2024 wage base ($168,600) and slightly miscalculated SS and Medicare. It made up a 0.64% Connecticut payroll rate and then swapped it for a meaningless '-$48.79 net from itemizations'. Connecticut's employee tax is the 0.5% Paid Leave contribution on $165,597, or $827.98, and income-tax itemizations have no effect on payroll tax."
-us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model rounded FICA down to about $12,000 when 7.65% × $165,597 is exactly $12,668.17. It also left out Connecticut's 0.5% employee Paid Leave contribution ($827.98)."
-us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Connecticut has no mandatory employee payroll tax and stopped at FICA ($12,668.17). Connecticut charges employees a 0.5% Paid Leave contribution, here $827.98, which brings the total to $13,496.16."
-us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"The model listed all three correct parts: SS $10,267, Medicare $2,401, CT paid leave $828, which add to $13,496. It then submitted $10,680, a number that matches no combination of them, citing an unexplained 'PolicyEngine computation' adjustment."
-us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model knowingly left out the Connecticut paid-leave contribution on the assumption that PolicyEngine doesn't model it. The engine includes the 0.5% employee contribution ($827.98) as a state payroll tax, so the total is $13,496.16, not $12,668."
-us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model said Connecticut has no employee-side payroll tax because it lacks SDI/UI withholding. That overlooks the CT Paid Leave contribution of 0.5% of wages ($827.98).
-us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted only federal FICA ($12,668.17) and explicitly added no state payroll tax. It missed Connecticut's mandatory 0.5% employee Paid Leave contribution of $827.98."
-us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model shrank FICA wages to $157,551 by subtracting the $7,429 ESI premium and the $617 traditional 401(k) deferral. 401(k) deferrals are FICA wages, and the facts give gross wages with no stated salary-reduction premium, so the base is $165,597. It also said Connecticut has no employee payroll tax and left out the $827.98 Paid Leave contribution."
-us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model included the CT 0.5% paid leave contribution but applied all three rates to $158,168, after subtracting the $7,429 ESI premium. The base is the full $165,597 gross wage, which gives $10,267.01 + $2,401.16 + $827.98 = $13,496.16."
-us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model stopped at SS plus Medicare ($12,668.17) and left out Connecticut's mandatory 0.5% employee Paid Leave contribution ($827.98)."
-us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model brought in Additional Medicare Tax 'adjusted for this individual' even though wages of $165,597 are below the $200,000 threshold. Its $14,197 is roughly 8.55% of wages, consistent with adding 0.9% to all wages. It also never included the CT 0.5% Paid Leave contribution."
-us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model applied 6.2% + 1.45% + 0.5% to $158,168, after subtracting the $7,429 ESI premium. The facts give gross wages of $165,597 and don't describe the premium as a pre-tax salary reduction, so the base is $165,597 and the total is $13,496.16."
-us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model subtracted the $7,429 ESI premium to get a $158,168 FICA/PFML base. Applying the same rates to the full $165,597 gives SS $10,267.01, Medicare $2,401.16 and CT PFML $827.98, for $13,496.16."
-us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model said it counted only SS and Medicare on wages, but 7.65% × $165,597 is $12,668.17. Its $14,352.19 implies a base of about $187,600, more than the wages. It also left out Connecticut's $827.98 Paid Leave contribution."
-us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model computed SS, Medicare and CT Paid Leave on $158,168, after subtracting the ESI premium, instead of the stated $165,597 gross wages. That understated every component."
-us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The $12,891 answer equals 8.15% of $158,168, so the model took the $7,429 ESI premium out of the payroll base. The base is the full $165,597 gross wage, which gives $13,496.16."
-us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model had the right three taxes, but its $12,891.10 matches a base of about $158,168, i.e. wages less the ESI premium. The base is the full $165,597, which gives $13,496.16."
-us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,glm-5.2,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model subtracted the traditional 401(k) deferral, the ESI premium and even the $109 Roth 401(k) contribution from FICA wages. Both 401(k) types are FICA wages, and the premium isn't stated as a salary reduction. It also left out Connecticut's 0.5% Paid Leave contribution ($827.98)."
-us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Connecticut has no employee payroll tax and stopped at FICA ($12,668). It missed the mandatory 0.5% CT Paid Leave contribution of $827.98."
-us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,other,False,"The $10,087 answer is below even the Social Security tax alone ($10,267.01). The model effectively dropped the $2,401.16 Medicare tax and also wrongly denied the CT employee Paid Leave contribution ($827.98)."
-us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"The model correctly named the 6.2% and 1.45% rates on wages below the cap, but its sum of $6,180 is an arithmetic error. 7.65% × $165,597 is $12,668.17. It also left out the CT 0.5% Paid Leave contribution."
-us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model computed the CT paid-leave contribution as $922.50, which is 0.5% of the $184,500 Social Security wage cap rather than of actual wages. The cap only limits the contribution when wages exceed it, so the correct figure is 0.5% × $165,597 = $827.98."
-us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model subtracted the $617 traditional 401(k) deferral from FICA wages, giving a $164,980 base. Elective 401(k) deferrals are still Social Security and Medicare wages. It also left out Connecticut's 0.5% Paid Leave contribution ($827.98)."
-us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model applied SS, Medicare and CT paid-leave rates to $158,168, after subtracting the ESI premium. The facts give $165,597 gross wages with no pre-tax salary reduction, so the total is $13,496.16."
-us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model treated the $7,429 employer health premium as a pre-tax exclusion and taxed $158,168. All three payroll taxes apply to the full $165,597 gross wage."
-us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model counted only federal FICA ($12,668). It left out Connecticut's mandatory employee Paid Leave contribution, 0.5% of wages or $827.98."
-us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Connecticut has no employee state payroll tax. CT charges a 0.5% employee Paid Leave contribution, here $827.98, which brings the total to $13,496.16."
-us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model concluded there were 'no other employee payroll taxes' after FICA. It missed Connecticut's mandatory 0.5% Paid Leave contribution of $827.98.
-us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Connecticut has no mandatory employee state payroll tax. It overlooked the CT Paid Leave contribution, 0.5% × $165,597 = $827.98."
-us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no payroll_tax value or explanation, so there was no answer to score."
-us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no payroll_tax value or explanation, so there was no answer to score."
-us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"The model reported $0 payroll tax for someone with $165,597 in wages. Those wages are subject to 6.2% Social Security, 1.45% Medicare and Connecticut's 0.5% Paid Leave contribution, which total $13,496.16."
-us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Connecticut has no mandatory employee payroll tax and stopped at $12,668. It missed the 0.5% CT Paid Leave contribution ($827.98)."
-us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,The model computed SS and Medicare correctly but said Connecticut has no mandatory employee payroll tax. It left out the $827.98 CT Paid Leave contribution.
-us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model treated Social Security tax as 'capped at $9,655'. Wages of $165,597 are below the 2026 wage base, so the full 6.2% applies ($10,267.01). It also dropped the $2,401.16 Medicare tax and the $827.98 CT Paid Leave contribution."
+us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its reasoning got every part right: SS $10,267.01, Medicare $2,401.16, CT Paid Leave 0.5% about $828, for a total of $13,496.16. It then submitted $13,736.63 anyway. That number has no basis in its own calculation, so this is an inconsistency between the final answer and the reasoning."
+us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only federal SS ($10,267.01) and Medicare ($2,401.16) and left out Connecticut's mandatory 0.5% employee Paid Leave contribution ($827.98). That contribution is part of employee payroll tax."
+us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It made up a 0.64% Connecticut rate and then swapped it for an invented '-$48.79 net from itemizations' adjustment, which pushed the total below plain FICA. The correct state piece is Connecticut's 0.5% Paid Leave contribution on all $165,597 of wages ($827.98), added on top of $12,668.17 in FICA."
+us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It rounded the 7.65% FICA total ($12,668.17) down to roughly $12,000 and never added Connecticut's mandatory 0.5% employee Paid Leave contribution ($827.98)."
+us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It said Connecticut has no extra mandatory employee payroll tax. That leaves out the CT Paid Leave contribution of 0.5% on covered wages ($827.98), so its total stopped at the FICA amount of $12,668.17."
+us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly found FICA of $12,668 and the CT Paid Leave contribution of $828, which add up to $13,496. It then submitted $10,680, a number that does not follow from those parts and comes from an unexplained 'PolicyEngine adjustment'."
+us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,It left out the Connecticut Paid Leave contribution because it assumed PolicyEngine does not model it. The CT 0.5% employee paid leave contribution ($827.98) is a mandatory employee state payroll tax and belongs in the total.
+us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly stated that Connecticut has no mandatory employee-side payroll tax. CT requires a 0.5% employee Paid Leave contribution ($827.98 here), which belongs on top of the $12,668.17 in FICA."
+us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It deliberately left out all state payroll tax and so missed Connecticut's mandatory 0.5% employee Paid Leave contribution ($827.98) on $165,597 of wages."
+us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It cut FICA wages to $157,551 by subtracting the $7,429 employer insurance premium and the $617 traditional 401k deferral, but neither reduces the payroll tax base here. FICA applies to all $165,597. It also wrongly said Connecticut has no employee payroll tax, which leaves out the $827.98 Paid Leave contribution."
+us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It used $158,168 as the taxable wage by subtracting the $7,429 employer-sponsored insurance premium. In this computation, SS, Medicare and CT Paid Leave all apply to the full $165,597, so every component came out too low."
+us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It reported only SS and Medicare ($12,668.17) and left out Connecticut's mandatory 0.5% employee Paid Leave contribution ($827.98)."
+us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its $14,197 is about $700 above the correct total. That is consistent with adding an Additional Medicare Tax-style amount even though wages of $165,597 are below the $200,000 threshold. The correct total is 7.65% FICA ($12,668.17) plus the 0.5% CT Paid Leave contribution ($827.98)."
+us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It correctly included CT's 0.5% Paid Leave contribution but applied every rate to $158,168, after subtracting the $7,429 employer insurance premium. The payroll tax base is the full $165,597 of wages."
+us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It treated the $7,429 employer-sponsored insurance premium as an exclusion from FICA wages and used a $158,168 base. All three components apply to the full $165,597, which gives $13,496.16."
+us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,other,False,"It said the total was just SS and Medicare, yet its $14,352.19 works out to about 8.67% of wages instead of 7.65%. Its arithmetic is wrong, and it never identified the 0.5% CT Paid Leave contribution that makes up the rest of the correct $13,496.16."
+us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It applied 6.2%, 1.45% and 0.5% to $158,168 after taking out the $7,429 employer insurance premium. Those rates apply to the full $165,597, so each component was too low."
+us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"Its $12,891 equals 8.15% of $158,168, which shows it took the $7,429 employer insurance premium out of covered wages. SS, Medicare and CT Paid Leave all apply to the full $165,597."
+us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"Its $12,891.10 matches applying 6.2% + 1.45% + 0.5% to $158,168, so it subtracted the $7,429 employer insurance premium from wages. The correct base for all three is $165,597."
+us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only SS and Medicare ($12,668.17) and left out Connecticut's mandatory 0.5% employee Paid Leave contribution ($827.98)."
+us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,glm-5.2,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It subtracted the employer insurance premium, the traditional 401k deferral and even the Roth 401k contribution from FICA wages. 401k deferrals are subject to FICA, and here the payroll base is the full $165,597. It also left out the $827.98 CT Paid Leave contribution."
+us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly stated that Connecticut has no employee payroll tax and so left out the mandatory 0.5% Paid Leave contribution ($827.98) on top of $12,668 in FICA."
+us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,other,False,"Its $10,087 is less than the Social Security tax alone (6.2% × $165,597 = $10,267.01), so the arithmetic is wrong. It also wrongly said Connecticut has no employee payroll tax, leaving out the $827.98 Paid Leave contribution."
+us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"It named the right 6.2% and 1.45% rates but reported $6,180, about half of the $12,668.17 those rates produce on $165,597. It also left out the $827.98 CT Paid Leave contribution."
+us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its SS and Medicare figures are correct, but it set the CT Paid Leave contribution at $922.50, which is 0.5% of the $184,500 wage cap. The contribution applies to actual covered wages: 0.5% × $165,597 = $827.98."
+us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It subtracted the $617 traditional 401(k) deferral from FICA wages, but elective deferrals remain subject to SS and Medicare. It also left out Connecticut's 0.5% employee Paid Leave contribution ($827.98)."
+us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It used $158,168 as payroll-taxable wages by subtracting the $7,429 employer insurance premium. SS, Medicare and CT Paid Leave apply to the full $165,597, which gives $13,496.16."
+us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It treated the $7,429 employer health premium as a pretax exclusion and taxed only $158,168. The payroll tax base in this computation is the full $165,597 of wages for all three components."
+us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied only federal SS and Medicare rates ($12,668) and left out Connecticut's mandatory 0.5% employee Paid Leave contribution ($827.98)."
+us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,It explicitly said there is no employee state payroll tax in CT. That leaves out the mandatory 0.5% CT Paid Leave contribution ($827.98) that belongs on top of 7.65% FICA.
+us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,It said there are 'no other employee payroll taxes' and so left out Connecticut's 0.5% employee Paid Leave contribution ($827.98).
+us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,It wrongly stated that CT has no mandatory employee state payroll tax. The CT Paid Leave contribution of 0.5% of wages ($827.98) is required and belongs in the total.
+us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value or explanation for payroll_tax, so there is no answer to score."
+us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value or explanation for payroll_tax, so there is no answer to score."
+us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"It reported $0 even though the head earns $165,597 in wages, which are subject to 6.2% SS, 1.45% Medicare and the 0.5% CT Paid Leave contribution, for a total of $13,496.16."
+us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It stated that CT has no mandatory employee payroll tax and so left out the 0.5% CT Paid Leave contribution ($827.98) on top of $12,668 in FICA."
+us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly stated that Connecticut has no mandatory employee state payroll tax, leaving out the 0.5% Paid Leave contribution ($827.98) from the total."
+us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,other,False,"It reported only a Social Security figure, wrongly capped at $9,655, although wages are below the wage base and the correct SS amount is $10,267.01. It also left out Medicare ($2,401.16) and the CT Paid Leave contribution ($827.98)."
us,scenario_120,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_120,self_employment_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_120,self_employment_tax,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_120,snap,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_120,ssi,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It added back $2,852 of tax-exempt interest and never worked out the SS subtraction, only saying the subtraction was 'limited'. The correct subtraction is $25,140, so that only 25% of benefits stays taxable. It also never itemized the $250 phase-out add-back or the $430 recapture, so its ~$205,000 base and $12,130 tax don't follow from the CT schedule."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It got the $25,140 SS subtraction right but left out the $1,750 SALT refund subtraction, giving a CT AGI of $209,274 instead of $207,524. It added only the $250 phase-out and $180 middle-tax recapture, missing the separate $250 low-tax recapture."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It invented a CT deduction for federal income tax paid, an over-65 deduction and federal-style itemizing. Connecticut has none of these, so CT AGI is $207,524 and is fully taxable, which gives $11,919, not $0."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It gave a $7,000 estimate with no calculation. Applying the CT schedule to $207,524 of CT AGI (federal AGI less the $25,140 SS subtraction and $1,750 refund) gives $11,239, plus $680 of phase-out and recapture. That is $11,919."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly concluded that no SS subtraction applies above $75k, when CT still subtracts $25,140 so that only 25% of benefits is taxed. It also skipped the $1,750 refund subtraction, added back tax-exempt interest and used a 3% bottom rate. Its final $11,890 is an unexplained cut from its own $13,247 subtotal."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used ~$200k of taxable income instead of $207,524, stopped the schedule at 6% with the old 3%/5% lower rates, and left out the 6.5% bracket and the $680 of phase-out and recapture. Its $9,970 is below even the $11,050 its own rates give at $200k."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied only 2%–5.5% rates to ~$198,800 of taxable income, leaving out the 6% bracket ($100k–$200k) and the 6.5% bracket above $200k. It also understated CT AGI, which is $207,524 after the $25,140 SS and $1,750 refund subtractions."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its CT AGI (~$207,495) and graduated tax (~$11,237) are essentially right, but it added only the $250 phase-out and $180 middle-tax recapture. It left out the separate $250 low-tax recapture, so it came in $250 short."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It claimed CT gives no SS exemption above $100k AGI, but for high-AGI single filers CT still subtracts taxable SS above 25% of benefits ($25,140). It also skipped the $1,750 SALT refund subtraction, taxed $234,414 instead of $207,524, and left out the $680 of phase-out and recapture."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It estimated CT AGI at ~$198,000 by subtracting Roth and IRA contributions and a vague SS exemption. Its $7,200 also contradicts the graduated schedule, which gives over $10,700 at that income. The correct base is $207,524 after the $25,140 SS and $1,750 refund subtractions."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It skipped the $1,750 SALT refund subtraction, giving a CT AGI of ~$209,891 instead of $207,524. It added only the $180 middle-tax recapture and missed both the $250 phase-out of the 2% bracket and the $250 low-tax recapture."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It subtracted all $35,615 of taxable SS instead of $25,140, the amount that leaves 25% of benefits taxable. It also added tax-exempt interest, skipped the refund subtraction, took a $15,000 personal exemption that is fully phased out at this income, and left out the $680 of phase-out and recapture."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It exempted Social Security in full instead of subtracting only $25,140. It also took a $1,549 personal tax credit, which is fully phased out at a CT AGI above $200k."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It subtracted only the $1,750 SALT refund and missed the $25,140 Social Security subtraction, which limits taxable benefits to 25% of benefits for high-AGI single filers. As a result it taxed $232,664 instead of $207,524."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It subtracted all $35,615 of taxable SS instead of $25,140, so 25% of benefits stayed out of the base. It also used the repealed 3%/5% lower rates instead of 2%/4.5% and left out the $680 of phase-out and recapture."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It got the 25% rule backwards, subtracting only 25% of taxable SS ($8,904). The correct subtraction is taxable SS minus 25% of benefits ($25,140), and the error pushed CT AGI to $223,731 instead of $207,524."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It gave $7,800 with no calculation. The correct path is CT AGI of $207,524 after the $25,140 SS and $1,750 refund subtractions, $11,239 of graduated tax and $680 of phase-out and recapture, for $11,919."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It explicitly applied no Social Security subtraction because of the high income. CT still subtracts $25,140 at this AGI so that only 25% of benefits is taxed, so it taxed roughly $234k instead of $207,524."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It understated federal AGI ($225,235 vs $234,414) and used a $26,711 SS subtraction (75% of taxable SS) instead of $25,140, with no refund subtraction. It also added only ~$150 of recapture instead of the full $680 of phase-out and recapture."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It gave no calculation. CT AGI of $207,523.97 gives $11,239.06 of graduated tax plus $680 of phase-out and recapture, and its $11,770 is $149 short, which points to an incomplete add-back."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It subtracted only ~$22,094 in total from federal AGI, reaching $212,320 instead of the $26,890 subtraction ($25,140 SS plus $1,750 refund) that gives $207,524. The extra ~$4,800 in the base, taxed at 6.5%, accounts for the overstatement."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It gave no calculation. $13,125 matches taxing close to full federal AGI without the $25,140 Social Security subtraction and $1,750 refund subtraction that bring CT AGI down to $207,524."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It gave no calculation. $9,706.75 matches over-subtracting Social Security (excluding all of it) and/or dropping the 6.5% bracket and the $680 of phase-out and recapture that apply at a CT AGI of $207,524."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It treated Social Security as fully exempt instead of subtracting only $25,140. It also took a $15,000 'standard deduction' that CT doesn't have and a $200 property tax credit that is phased out at this income, and stopped the rates at 6% with no recapture."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It subtracted all $35,615 of taxable SS instead of $25,140 and taxed the whole base at a flat 4.5%. It never applied the graduated 2%–6.5% schedule or the $680 of phase-out and recapture."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It gave $4,414 with no calculation. That is far below the $11,919 from taxing $207,524 of CT AGI on the graduated schedule plus $680 of phase-out and recapture, which suggests it took deductions CT doesn't allow or left out most of the income."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It reduced CT taxable income by itemized deductions, but Connecticut allows no itemized deductions and taxes CT AGI directly. The correct base is $207,524, after only the $25,140 SS and $1,750 refund subtractions."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It subtracted 75% of taxable SS ($26,711) instead of taxable SS minus 25% of benefits ($25,140), and it added back $2,852 of tax-exempt interest that isn't part of the CT base here. That raised CT AGI to $208,805 and overstated the tax by about $83, although its $680 add-back total is correct."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It taxed ~$235,031 with no Social Security subtraction and no SALT refund subtraction. The $25,140 SS subtraction still applies at this AGI, so the correct base is $207,524."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied the schedule to ~$234,000 of CT AGI, skipping the $25,140 Social Security subtraction (taxable SS above 25% of benefits) and the $1,750 refund subtraction that bring the base to $207,524."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It said income was too high for any Social Security relief and used $234,414, missing the $25,140 subtraction and the $1,750 refund subtraction. Its $10,895 also contradicts the CT schedule on its own base, which gives about $13,000 before recapture."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It over-subtracted Social Security, about $32,569 implied instead of $25,140, and reached a $200,095 base instead of $207,524. It also added only $590 of phase-out and recapture instead of $680."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It taxed the full $234,414 federal AGI with no $25,140 Social Security subtraction or $1,750 refund subtraction, and it overstated the rate and recapture amounts well beyond the $680 cap."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It subtracted only the SALT refund and missed the $25,140 Social Security subtraction. Its $13,286.91 also reflects the repealed 3%/5% lower rates applied to $234,414, with no phase-out or recapture."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It over-subtracted Social Security (about $32,569 implied vs $25,140), giving taxable income of $200,095 instead of $207,524. It added only $90 of recapture, when the correct add-backs are the $250 phase-out plus $250 low-tax and $180 middle-tax recapture."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It gave $7,850 with no calculation, far below the $11,919 from taxing $207,524 of CT AGI at 2%–6.5% plus $680 of phase-out and recapture. That points to an over-stated exemption or deduction or to dropped upper brackets."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It subtracted all $35,615 of taxable SS instead of $25,140, which kept CT AGI under $200k at $197,049 and avoided the 6.5% bracket. It also left out the $250 phase-out add-back and the $430 recapture."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied a 100% pension exemption that is fully phased out for single filers at this AGI. It also subtracted all taxable SS instead of $25,140 and used the old 3%/5% lower rates."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It added $2,852 of tax-exempt interest and took no Social Security or SALT refund subtraction, reaching $235,516 instead of $207,524. Its $11,050 base at $200k also reflects the repealed 3%/5% lower rates."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It subtracted all $35,615 of taxable SS instead of $25,140, added tax-exempt interest and skipped the refund subtraction. It then applied the old 3%/5% lower rates and left out the $680 of phase-out and recapture."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It taxed $234,385 with no Social Security or SALT refund subtraction. It also took a $300 property tax credit that is fully phased out at this AGI and left out the $680 of phase-out and recapture."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value or explanation for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was nothing to score."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value or explanation for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was nothing to score."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It answered $0 with no reasoning, ignoring $207,524 of CT taxable income. Under the graduated 2%–6.5% schedule plus $680 of phase-out and recapture, that income produces $11,919 of tax."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its ~$208,000 base and graduated tax are close, but it treated the high-income adjustments only as phased-out benefits. It never added the $250 phase-out of the 2% bracket or the $430 low-tax and middle-tax recapture."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It invented a CT itemized charitable deduction ($15,476), but Connecticut has no itemized deductions. It also skipped the $25,140 SS and $1,750 refund subtractions and left out the $680 of phase-out and recapture."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It subtracted the full $41,900 of SS and the $6,147 tax-exempt pension from an AGI that never included them, which double-excludes both. It also took a $15,000 personal exemption that is fully phased out and used old 3%/5% rates."
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It understated taxable income ($202,564 vs $207,524) and subtracted a $500 property tax credit. That credit is capped at $300 and fully phased out at this AGI, so there are no nonrefundable credits to subtract."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model never computed the Social Security subtraction as $25,140 (taxable benefits minus 25% of gross benefits). It also added back the $2,852 of tax-exempt interest, which is not part of the CT base, and estimated taxable income loosely at about $205,000. It then gave a rounded $12,130 without itemizing the $250 phase-out add-back or the $250 and $180 recaptures."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model correctly subtracted the $25,140 Social Security adjustment but did not subtract the $1,750.24 state tax refund, so CT AGI came out at $209,274 instead of $207,524. It also included only $430 of add-backs ($250 phase-out plus $180 recapture) and missed the separate $250 low-tax recapture, for a total of $680."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model invented a Connecticut deduction for federal income tax paid and an over-65 deduction, then applied federal itemized deductions to wipe out the tax. Connecticut has none of these. CT taxable income is $207,523.97 and the tax is $11,919.06, not $0."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model gave no derivation. The correct path is CT AGI of $207,523.97 (federal AGI less the $25,140 Social Security adjustment and the $1,750.24 refund), graduated tax of $11,239.06, and $680 of phase-out and recapture add-backs. Its $7,000 understates the tax by nearly $5,000, consistent with heavily excluding income or using effective rates far below the schedule."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model assumed Connecticut gives no Social Security subtraction above $75k. In fact, high-income filers subtract taxable benefits minus 25% of gross benefits, which here is $25,140. It also added $2,852 of tax-exempt interest and skipped the refund subtraction, giving CT AGI of $236,883. It then cut its own $13,247 bracket result to $11,890 with no stated basis."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model used the pre-2024 3% and 5% bottom rates and an estimated taxable income of about $200,000 instead of $207,523.97. It reported $9,970, which is below even the bracket math it described. It also left out the $680 of phase-out and recapture add-backs."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model's base of about $198,800 implies it subtracted almost all federally taxable Social Security, when only $25,140 is subtractable. It also said the rates run only from 2% to 5.5%, which ignores the 6% and 6.5% brackets that apply up to $207,524. Its recapture was understated."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model got CT AGI (about $207,495) and graduated tax (about $11,237) right, but added only $430 ($250 phase-out plus $180 recapture). It missed the separate $250 low-tax recapture, which brings the add-backs to $680 and the tax to $11,919.06."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model concluded there is no Social Security subtraction above $100k AGI. Connecticut still limits CT-taxable benefits to 25% for high earners, giving a $25,140 subtraction. The model also skipped the $1,750.24 refund subtraction, taxed the full $234,414, and left out the $680 in add-backs."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model estimated CT AGI near $198,000 and then reported $7,200. That is thousands below what the graduated schedule gives even on its own base (about $10,900). The correct CT AGI is $207,523.97, after the $25,140 Social Security adjustment and the refund subtraction, and the $680 in add-backs also apply."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model took the 25%-taxable Social Security adjustment but did not subtract the $1,750.24 state tax refund, so CT AGI came out at $209,891. Its only add-back was a $180 recapture. It missed the $250 phase-out add-back and the $250 low-tax recapture."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model subtracted all $35,615 of taxable Social Security instead of $25,140, added $2,852 of tax-exempt interest, and skipped the refund subtraction. It then took a $15,000 personal exemption, which is fully phased out at this income. It also left out the $680 in add-backs."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model exempted Social Security in full, putting CT AGI at $191,370 instead of $207,524. It then subtracted a $1,549 personal tax credit, which is fully phased out at this income. It also left out the $680 in add-backs."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model subtracted only the state tax refund and missed the $25,140 Social Security adjustment. Its $13,173.16 equals the pre-2024 3% and 5% bottom-bracket rates applied to $232,664, with no add-backs."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model subtracted all $35,615 of taxable Social Security instead of $25,140, which pushed CT AGI down to $197,049. It also used the outdated 3% and 5% bottom rates and left out the $680 in add-backs."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model subtracted 25% of taxable Social Security ($8,904), which reverses the rule. The correct subtraction is taxable benefits minus 25% of gross benefits, or $25,140. That error inflated CT AGI to $223,731 instead of $207,524."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model gave no derivation. The correct path is CT AGI of $207,523.97 after the $25,140 Social Security adjustment and refund subtraction, graduated tax of $11,239.06, and $680 of add-backs. Its $7,800 is about $4,100 short, consistent with excluding far too much income or using effective rates well below the schedule."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model taxed federal AGI with no Social Security subtraction, missing the $25,140 adjustment that keeps CT-taxable benefits at 25% for high earners. It also skipped the $1,750.24 refund subtraction, so the tax came out about $1,350 too high."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model understated federal AGI ($225,235 instead of $234,414) and over-subtracted Social Security ($26,711 instead of $25,140), so CT AGI came out at $198,524. It added only $150 instead of the $680 in phase-out and recapture add-backs."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model gave no derivation. Graduated tax on $207,523.97 is $11,239.06, and the $680 in add-backs brings it to $11,919.06. Its $11,770 is $149 short, which matches a correct base with part of the $250 phase-out and $250 plus $180 recapture add-backs left out."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model's CT taxable income of $212,320 is about $4,800 too high because it did not fully subtract the refund and Social Security adjustments ($26,890 total). It also added only $410 instead of $680 in phase-out and recapture amounts."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model gave no derivation. Its $13,125 is about what the current schedule gives on unreduced federal AGI of about $234k, which means it skipped the $25,140 Social Security adjustment and the $1,750.24 refund subtraction that bring CT AGI down to $207,523.97."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model gave no derivation. Its $9,706.75 is about $2,200 short of $11,919.06, which corresponds to a CT base well below $207,523.97. That points to excluding far more Social Security than the $25,140 adjustment allows and leaving out the $680 in add-backs."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model treated the Social Security exemption as 75% of benefits ($31,425). The correct amount is federally taxable benefits minus 25% of gross benefits, or $25,140. Over-subtracting cut CT AGI to about $201,000 and the tax to $11,520."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model left Social Security out of income entirely, when only $25,140 of the taxable portion is subtractable. It also applied a $15,000 'standard deduction' that Connecticut does not have, took a $200 property tax credit that is phased out at this income, and omitted the 6.5% bracket and the $680 in add-backs."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model subtracted all $35,615 of taxable Social Security instead of $25,140. It then applied a flat 4.5% to $197,049 instead of the graduated 2%/4.5%/5.5%/6%/6.5% schedule, and left out the $680 in add-backs."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model gave no usable derivation. The correct path is CT AGI of $207,523.97, graduated tax of $11,239.06, and $680 in add-backs, for $11,919.06. Its $4,414 understates the tax by about 63%, consistent with treating most income as excluded or using a far lower effective rate."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said it applied itemized deductions, but Connecticut allows none and taxes CT AGI of $207,523.97 directly. Its $7,929 is about $4,000 short of the $11,919.06 that the graduated rates and add-backs produce."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model added $2,852 of tax-exempt interest, which is not part of the CT base. It also computed the Social Security subtraction as 75% of taxable benefits ($26,711) instead of taxable benefits minus 25% of gross benefits ($25,140). That made CT income $208,805 instead of $207,524. Its $680 of add-backs was correct."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model taxed about $235,031 with no Social Security or refund subtractions, missing $26,890.23 in CT subtractions. It also overstated the high-income recapture, landing about $2,350 above the correct tax."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied the schedule to about $234,000, which is unreduced federal AGI. It skipped the $25,140 Social Security adjustment and the $1,750.24 refund subtraction that bring CT AGI to $207,523.97, and it overstated the recapture."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model claimed no Social Security relief applies and used CT AGI of $234,414. Connecticut still subtracts $25,140, the taxable benefits above 25% of gross benefits. Its $10,895 is also below the schedule tax on its own stated base, and it left out the $680 in add-backs."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model over-subtracted Social Security by about $32,600 instead of $25,140, which gave taxable income of $200,095 instead of $207,523.97. It also included only $590 of phase-out and recapture instead of $680."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model taxed the full $234,414 of federal AGI with no $25,140 Social Security adjustment and no refund subtraction. It also applied an inflated recapture, landing about $3,300 too high."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model skipped the $25,140 Social Security adjustment. Its $13,286.91 equals the pre-2024 3% and 5% bottom-bracket rates applied to unreduced federal AGI of $234,414. It left out the phase-out and recapture add-backs."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model over-subtracted Social Security, which gave taxable income of $200,095 instead of $207,523.97. Its add-backs were $500 phase-out plus $90 recapture, when the correct amounts are $250 + $250 + $180 = $680."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model gave no derivation. The correct path is CT AGI of $207,523.97 (after the $25,140 Social Security adjustment and refund subtraction), graduated tax of $11,239.06, and $680 in add-backs. Its $7,850 is about $4,000 short, consistent with excluding far too much income."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model subtracted all $35,615 of taxable Social Security instead of $25,140, which made CT AGI $197,049 and kept income out of the 6.5% bracket. It also left out the $250 phase-out add-back and the $250 and $180 recaptures."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model subtracted all taxable Social Security and took a 100% pension exemption. Neither is available at this income: only $25,140 of Social Security is subtractable and the pension exemption is phased out. That cut CT AGI to $166,833. It also used the old 3% and 5% rates."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model added $2,852 of tax-exempt interest and made no Social Security or refund subtractions, giving CT AGI of $235,516 instead of $207,523.97. It also used an $11,050 base on the first $200k, which comes from the old 3% and 5% rates, and left out the add-backs."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model subtracted all $35,615 of taxable Social Security instead of $25,140, added $2,852 of tax-exempt interest, and skipped the refund subtraction. It applied the pre-2024 3% and 5% rates and left out the $680 in add-backs."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model taxed $234,385 with no $25,140 Social Security adjustment or refund subtraction. It then took a $300 property tax credit, which is fully phased out at CT AGI above $207k, and left out the $680 in add-backs."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No value was submitted for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there is no answer to score against $11,919.06."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No value was submitted for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there is no answer to score against $11,919.06."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model returned $0 with no reasoning. The household has CT AGI of $207,523.97 with no available exemption or nonrefundable credit, so the graduated rates plus $680 in add-backs give $11,919.06."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied no Social Security or refund subtraction, so taxable income was about $233k instead of $207,523.97. It also used the outdated 3% bottom rate."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model's base of about $208,000 after the partial Social Security adjustment was close, but $11,300 is essentially just the graduated tax. It left out nearly all of the $680 in add-backs: the $250 phase-out, the $250 low-tax recapture and the $180 middle-tax recapture."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model deducted charitable giving as an itemized deduction, which Connecticut does not allow. It also claimed the Social Security subtraction phases out to zero, when $25,140 is still subtractable, and it skipped the $1,750.24 refund subtraction and the $680 in add-backs."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model left taxable Social Security out of federal AGI and then subtracted the full $41,900 again. It also subtracted tax-exempt pension income that was never in AGI and applied a $15,000 personal exemption that is phased out, cutting CT AGI to about $151,825 instead of $207,523.97. It used the old 3% and 5% rates on top of that."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model understated taxable income at $202,564 instead of $207,523.97. It then subtracted a $500 property tax credit, which is fully phased out at this income, so nonrefundable credits are $0 and the tax stays at $11,919.06."
us,scenario_120,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_120,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_120,tanf,kimi-k3,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
@@ -10039,37 +10361,39 @@ us,scenario_121,payroll_tax,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"T
us,scenario_121,payroll_tax,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model wrongly treated employer-sponsored insurance premiums as automatically reducing the FICA wage base. The full $25,665 is subject to employee Social Security and Medicare tax."
us,scenario_121,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"The model identified the correct full-wage FICA calculation but submitted $1,911, which does not follow from its own formula. Applying 6.2% and 1.45% to $25,665 produces $1,591.23 and $372.14, totaling $1,963.37; South Carolina adds no employee payroll tax here."
us,scenario_121,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_121,snap,claude-fable-5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Waived the gross income test because the head is disabled. The head does not meet SNAP's disabled-member definition, which requires receiving SSI, SSDI, or similar benefits, so $3,326/mo of gross income fails SC's 200% FPL BBCE limit (about $2,608/mo). The $2,682/mo excess medical deduction it then used is unavailable, and the benefit is $0, not $3,540."
-us,scenario_121,snap,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Asserted 'no gross income test' for a disabled one-person household. The head's generic disability benefits and above-SGA wages do not make them a SNAP elderly/disabled member, so the gross income test applies. Gross income of $3,326/mo exceeds the 200% FPL limit, giving $0 rather than the $298/mo maximum allotment."
-us,scenario_121,snap,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Correctly noted SC's 200% FPL BBCE gross limit (about $2,510/mo) and that $3,326/mo exceeds it. It then exempted the household as disabled, but the head does not qualify as a SNAP disabled member (no SSI/SSDI receipt), so the gross test failure is final and SNAP is $0. Its arbitrary drop of the allotment to $264/mo does not change the eligibility error."
-us,scenario_121,snap,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Applied only the net income test on the theory that the household is disabled. The head is not a SNAP elderly/disabled member, so the gross income test applies, and the full $39,909 (it also wrongly dropped the $1,200 child support) exceeds the 200% FPL limit. Its $4,860 also exceeds the annual one-person maximum allotment."
-us,scenario_121,snap,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Used the elderly/disabled pathway: net income test only, $4,500 asset limit, and the excess medical deduction. The head does not meet SNAP's disabled-member definition, which requires receipt of SSI, SSDI, or similar benefits. The gross income test therefore applies, and $3,326/mo exceeds the 200% FPL limit, so SNAP is $0."
-us,scenario_121,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Correctly found that $39,909 fails the gross income test, then overrode that result with the disabled-household exemption. The head is not a SNAP disabled member because they receive only generic disability benefits, not SSI or SSDI, and their wages exceed SGA. The gross-test failure stands, the $32,180 medical deduction is unavailable, and SNAP is $0."
-us,scenario_121,snap,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Applied the elderly/disabled net-income-only test even though the head is not a SNAP disabled member, so gross income of $39,909 fails the 200% FPL limit and SNAP is $0. It also wrongly counted the $8,389 ESI premium as a medical expense and invented shelter costs from a mortgage balance with no listed payment."
-us,scenario_121,snap,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Treated the household as a SNAP disabled household eligible for the medical deduction and exempt from the gross test. The head's general disability flag does not satisfy SNAP's benefit-receipt definition of disability, so $3,326/mo of gross income fails the 200% FPL limit and the benefit is $0."
-us,scenario_121,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Assumed a disabled one-person household with an uncapped medical deduction. The head does not qualify as a SNAP elderly/disabled member, so the gross income test applies, and $39,909/yr exceeds the 200% FPL BBCE limit, giving $0."
-us,scenario_121,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Exempted the household from the gross income test as disabled. SNAP disability status requires receipt of SSI, SSDI, or similar benefits, which the head does not have, so gross income of $3,326/mo fails the roughly $2,608/mo 200% FPL limit and SNAP is $0."
-us,scenario_121,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Waived the gross income limit for a disabled household and applied the medical deduction. The head is not a SNAP disabled member, so gross income of $39,909 exceeds the 200% FPL gross limit and the household is ineligible ($0)."
-us,scenario_121,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Waived the gross income test for a disabled member and applied the medical and shelter deductions. The head does not meet SNAP's disabled-member definition, so $3,325/mo fails the 200% FPL gross limit and SNAP is $0. No shelter cost was listed either."
-us,scenario_121,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Claimed the disabled head exempts the household from the gross income test. The head receives no SSI or SSDI and is not SNAP-disabled, so the gross test applies, and $39,909/yr exceeds the 200% FPL limit. The result is $0, not the $291/mo maximum."
-us,scenario_121,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Waived the gross income limit because the head is disabled. SNAP's disability definition requires receiving qualifying disability benefits, which the head does not, so gross income of $3,326/mo fails the 200% FPL limit and SNAP is $0."
-us,scenario_121,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Exempted the head from the gross income test and took a $2,865/mo excess medical deduction. Neither applies because the head is not a SNAP elderly/disabled member, and gross income of $3,326/mo exceeds the 200% FPL BBCE limit, giving $0."
-us,scenario_121,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Treated the head as SNAP-disabled, exempt from the gross test and entitled to the excess medical deduction. The head lacks SSI or SSDI receipt and does not qualify, so $39,909 of gross income fails the 200% FPL limit and SNAP is $0."
-us,scenario_121,snap,glm-5.3,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Exempted the household from the gross income test as having a disabled member. The head is not SNAP-disabled under the benefit-receipt definition, so countable gross income (actually $39,909 including child support, not $38,709) exceeds the 200% FPL limit and SNAP is $0."
-us,scenario_121,snap,gpt-5.5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Applied the disabled-household rules, including the medical deduction and net-income-only eligibility. The head is not a SNAP disabled member, so the gross income test applies, and $3,326/mo exceeds the 200% FPL limit, giving $0 rather than the $298/mo maximum."
-us,scenario_121,snap,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Let the disabled head deduct medical costs and bypass the gross income test. SNAP's disabled-member definition requires receipt of SSI, SSDI, or similar benefits, which the head lacks, so gross income of $39,909 fails the 200% FPL limit and SNAP is $0."
-us,scenario_121,snap,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Treated the household as a SNAP disabled household and zeroed out net income with medical expenses. Without qualifying disability-benefit receipt the head is not SNAP-disabled, so the gross income test applies and $3,326/mo exceeds the 200% FPL limit, giving $0."
-us,scenario_121,snap,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Took a $32,180 disability-related medical deduction and skipped the gross income test. The head does not qualify as a SNAP elderly/disabled member, so the medical deduction is unavailable, and gross income of $39,909 exceeds the 200% FPL limit, giving $0."
-us,scenario_121,snap,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Applied allowable medical deductions for a disabled member and awarded the maximum allotment. The head is not SNAP-disabled, so the gross income test applies, and $3,326/mo exceeds SC's 200% FPL BBCE limit, giving $0."
-us,scenario_121,snap,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Relied on the disabled-household medical deduction to zero out net income. The head lacks SSI or SSDI receipt and is not a SNAP disabled member, so gross income of $39,909 fails the 200% FPL gross limit and SNAP is $0."
-us,scenario_121,snap,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Stated that disability permits the net-income-only test. The head's generic disability benefits and above-SGA wages do not make them SNAP-disabled, so the gross income test applies, and $39,909 exceeds the 200% FPL limit, giving $0."
-us,scenario_121,snap,grok-4.6,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Had the disabled one-person unit skip the gross income test and take the excess medical deduction. The head is not a SNAP disabled member, so the gross income test applies, and $3,326/mo exceeds the 200% FPL BBCE limit, giving $0."
-us,scenario_121,snap,grok-4.7,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Waived the gross income test as a disabled unit and took a $31,780 medical deduction. The head is not SNAP-disabled under the benefit-receipt definition, so neither applies, and gross income of $39,909 exceeds the 200% FPL limit, giving $0."
-us,scenario_121,snap,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Applied only the net income test because of the disabled head. The head does not meet SNAP's disabled-member definition, so the gross income test applies, and $3,326/mo exceeds the 200% FPL limit, giving $0 rather than a $3,600 maximum allotment."
-us,scenario_121,snap,inkling,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Treated the household as SNAP-disabled and used the out-of-pocket medical deduction to reach $0 net income. The head lacks qualifying SSI or SSDI receipt, so the gross income test applies, and $39,909 exceeds the 200% FPL limit, giving $0."
-us,scenario_121,snap,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Returned no SNAP value and no explanation, so there is no answer to compare with the $0 result from the failed gross income test."
-us,scenario_121,snap,kimi-k3,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Treated the head as disabled for SNAP, applying the uncapped medical deduction and skipping the gross test. The head is not a SNAP disabled member, so gross income of $3,325.75/mo fails the 200% FPL BBCE limit and SNAP is $0. It also cited an outdated $3,000 resource limit."
-us,scenario_121,snap,muse-wonder,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Took a $2,682/mo medical deduction and never tested $3,326/mo of gross income against the gross limit. The head is not SNAP-disabled, so the gross income test applies and the 200% FPL limit (about $2,608/mo) is exceeded, giving $0."
+us,scenario_121,snap,claude-fable-5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Treated the is_disabled flag as making the household SNAP elderly/disabled, so it waived the gross income test and applied the uncapped excess medical deduction. The head receives no SSI or Social Security disability, so it does not meet the USDA disability definition. The $3,326/mo gross income fails SC's 130% FPL gross limit, which makes SNAP $0, not $3,540."
+us,scenario_121,snap,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Said there was 'no gross income test' because the head is disabled. A generic disability flag with non-SSA disability benefits does not qualify as a USDA elderly/disabled member, so the gross income test applies. $3,326/mo gross income exceeds the ≈$1,700/mo 130% FPL limit, so the benefit is $0, not the $298/mo maximum."
+us,scenario_121,snap,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Correctly saw that $3,326/mo exceeds SC's gross limit, but then said disabled households face only the net test. The head does not meet the USDA disability definition because there is no SSI or Social Security disability receipt. The gross income test therefore disqualifies the household, and SNAP is $0, not $3,168."
+us,scenario_121,snap,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Assumed the disabled household was subject only to the net income test and used the medical deduction to reach a near-maximum benefit. The head is not USDA-disabled because they receive no SSI or Social Security disability, so the gross income test applies. Even its own $3,226/mo gross figure is far above the 130% FPL limit, which gives $0; its $4,860 also exceeds any one-person maximum allotment."
+us,scenario_121,snap,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Applied the disabled-household net-income-only test and the $4,500 elderly/disabled asset limit. The head does not meet the USDA elderly/disabled definition, which requires SSI, Social Security disability, or a similar qualifying program. The household must pass the gross income test, and its ≈$3,326/mo gross income fails it, so SNAP is $0."
+us,scenario_121,snap,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Correctly found that $39,909 fails the 130% FPL gross test, then overrode that result by treating the disabled flag as an exemption. The head receives no SSI or Social Security disability, so the household has no USDA-qualifying disabled member and the gross test failure stands. SNAP is $0, not $3,432."
+us,scenario_121,snap,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Acknowledged that $39,909 exceeds the gross limit but applied the elderly/disabled exemption. The head is not USDA-disabled, so the gross income test disqualifies the household, giving SNAP = $0. It also wrongly counted the $8,389 ESI premium and a shelter deduction from a mortgage balance with no listed payment."
+us,scenario_121,snap,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Treated the head as a SNAP disabled member, skipped the gross income test, and let the medical deduction zero out net income. Without SSI or Social Security disability receipt, the USDA disability definition is not met. The ≈$3,326/mo gross income fails the 130% FPL limit, so the benefit is $0, not $3,576."
+us,scenario_121,snap,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Treated the household as SNAP disabled and applied the uncapped medical deduction without checking gross income. The head does not qualify as USDA-disabled because they receive no SSI or Social Security disability. Gross income of $39,909/yr exceeds SC's 130% FPL gross limit, so SNAP is $0, not $3,588."
+us,scenario_121,snap,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Stated that the disabled household is exempt from the gross income test. That exemption requires a member who is disabled under the USDA definition, such as an SSI or Social Security disability recipient, and this head is not one. Gross income of ≈$3,326/mo fails the gross test, which yields $0, not $3,504."
+us,scenario_121,snap,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Waived the gross income limit because of the disability flag. The head receives no qualifying SSA disability program, so the household is not elderly/disabled for SNAP and the 130% FPL gross limit applies. Gross income of $39,909/yr exceeds that limit, so SNAP is $0, not $3,520.20."
+us,scenario_121,snap,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Waived the gross income test for a 'household with a disabled member' and also added an unsupported shelter deduction. The head does not meet the USDA disability definition, which needs SSI or Social Security disability receipt. The $3,325/mo gross income fails the gross limit, so SNAP is $0."
+us,scenario_121,snap,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Assumed the disabled head exempts the household from the gross income test. The head receives no SSI or Social Security disability, so there is no USDA-qualifying disabled member. Gross income of ≈$3,326/mo exceeds the ≈$1,700/mo limit, which gives $0, not $3,492."
+us,scenario_121,snap,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Waived the gross income limit based on the generic disability flag. SNAP's elderly/disabled exemption requires a qualifying disability program, which this head does not receive. The household's $39,909/yr gross income therefore fails the gross test, and SNAP is $0."
+us,scenario_121,snap,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Exempted the head from the gross income test as a disabled individual and applied a $2,865/mo excess medical deduction. The head is not USDA-disabled because they receive no SSI or Social Security disability. The gross income test applies and fails at ≈$3,326/mo, so SNAP is $0, not $3,504."
+us,scenario_121,snap,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Treated the head as exempt from the gross income test and eligible for the excess medical deduction. Both depend on USDA elderly/disabled status, which requires SSI or Social Security disability receipt, and the head has neither. Gross income of $39,909/yr exceeds the 130% FPL limit, so SNAP is $0."
+us,scenario_121,snap,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Noted that income exceeds the 200% FPL BBCE limit but still applied the disabled exemption and the medical deduction. The head does not qualify as a USDA disabled member without SSI or Social Security disability receipt, so the failed gross income test is decisive. SNAP is $0, not $3,456."
+us,scenario_121,snap,glm-5.3,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Said the disabled member makes the household exempt from the gross income test. The head receives no SSI or Social Security disability, so the USDA disability definition is not met and the gross test applies. Even its understated $38,709 gross income exceeds the limit, so SNAP is $0."
+us,scenario_121,snap,gpt-5.5,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Applied disabled-household treatment, meaning net-income-only eligibility plus the medical deduction, and concluded the maximum $298/mo allotment. The head is not USDA-disabled, so the household must pass the 130% FPL gross test. At ≈$3,326/mo it fails, and SNAP is $0."
+us,scenario_121,snap,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Let the disabled head deduct medical costs to reach zero net income without applying the gross income test. The head does not meet the USDA elderly/disabled definition, which requires SSI or Social Security disability receipt. Gross income of $39,909/yr fails the gross limit, which yields $0, not $3,576."
+us,scenario_121,snap,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Treated the head as a SNAP disabled member whose medical expenses zero out net income. Without a qualifying disability program, the head does not count as USDA-disabled, so the gross income test applies. $3,326/mo of gross income fails it, and SNAP is $0."
+us,scenario_121,snap,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Applied a $32,180 'disability-related medical deduction' and skipped the gross income test. The head receives no SSI or Social Security disability, so the household is not elderly/disabled for SNAP. The $39,909 gross income exceeds the 130% FPL limit, so SNAP is $0, not $3,549.60."
+us,scenario_121,snap,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Relied on medical deductions that are available only to USDA elderly/disabled households, and assumed the gross test did not apply. The head does not meet the USDA disability definition. Gross income of ≈$3,326/mo fails the gross limit, which makes SNAP $0, not $3,576."
+us,scenario_121,snap,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Treated the head as SNAP disabled, so medical expenses zeroed out net income and the gross income test was ignored. The head receives no SSI or Social Security disability and is not USDA-disabled. The $39,909/yr gross income fails the 130% FPL gross limit, so SNAP is $0."
+us,scenario_121,snap,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Stated that 'disability permits the net-income eligibility test.' That exemption applies only to members disabled under the USDA definition, such as SSI or Social Security disability recipients, and this head is not one. The gross income test applies and is failed at $39,909/yr, so SNAP is $0, not $3,549.60."
+us,scenario_121,snap,grok-4.6,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Said a one-person disabled unit skips the gross income test. The head does not meet the USDA elderly/disabled definition because they receive no SSI or Social Security disability. Gross income of ≈$3,326/mo exceeds the 130% FPL limit, so SNAP is $0, not $3,504."
+us,scenario_121,snap,grok-4.7,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Waived the gross income test for a disabled unit and applied a $31,780 medical deduction. The head is not USDA-disabled because there is no SSI or Social Security disability receipt, so the gross test governs. $39,909/yr exceeds the gross limit, which gives $0, not $3,429.60."
+us,scenario_121,snap,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Applied only the net income test because the head is disabled. The SNAP gross-test exemption requires a USDA-qualifying disabled member, and this head receives neither SSI nor Social Security disability. Gross income of ≈$3,326/mo fails the 130% FPL limit, so SNAP is $0, not $3,600."
+us,scenario_121,snap,inkling,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Treated the household as disabled, applied the out-of-pocket medical deduction, and used net income only. The head does not meet the USDA disability definition, which requires SSI or Social Security disability receipt, so the gross income test applies. $39,909/yr fails it, and SNAP is $0."
+us,scenario_121,snap,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"Gave no SNAP value and no explanation, so there was nothing to score. The correct derivation applies the gross income test: the head is not USDA-disabled, and $3,326/mo exceeds the 130% FPL limit, which gives $0."
+us,scenario_121,snap,kimi-k3,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Applied the 'disabled' uncapped medical deduction and skipped the gross income test. The head receives no SSI or Social Security disability, so the household is not elderly/disabled for SNAP and must pass the 130% FPL gross test. Its own $3,325.75/mo countable gross income fails that test, so SNAP is $0, not $3,576."
+us,scenario_121,snap,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Treated the size-1 household as disabled, applied only the asset and net income tests, and used the excess medical deduction. The head does not qualify as USDA-disabled without SSI or Social Security disability receipt, so the gross income test applies. Gross income of $39,909/yr fails it, and SNAP is $0."
+us,scenario_121,snap,muse-wonder,llm_error,age_disability,False,"Correctly computed ≈$3,326/mo gross income but never tested it against the gross limit, and instead applied a disabled-only $2,682/mo medical deduction. The head does not meet the USDA elderly/disabled definition. The gross income test applies and fails, so SNAP is $0, not $3,552."
us,scenario_121,ssi,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_121,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model raised the itemized-deduction question and then dismissed it — ""the standard deduction likely exceeds itemized here"" — when the $32,600 of medical outlays less the 7.5%-of-AGI floor leaves about $30,000 of deduction against a $16,100 standard deduction, zeroing federal taxable income and therefore SC's starting point. It then built its $400 on a $14,600 standard deduction (the 2024 federal figure, not 2026's $16,100), a fabricated $4,610 SC personal exemption (SC grants no exemption for the filer, only for dependents), and a flat 6.2% rate in place of SC's 0%/3%/top-rate schedule."
us,scenario_121,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model gave no derivation, but $686 is exactly 6.2% × $11,065, i.e. wages of $25,665 reduced by a $14,600 standard deduction and taxed at a single flat rate. That path never claims the $32,600 medical expense itemized deduction, which after the 7.5%-of-AGI floor exceeds the standard deduction by roughly $14,000 and drives SC taxable income to zero, and it also ignores SC's zero-rate bracket on the first ~$3,700 and the 3% bracket above it."
@@ -10079,108 +10403,113 @@ us,scenario_121,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,prompt_ambigu
us,scenario_121,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model taxed $38,709 of gross income less a $15,100 standard deduction, never applying the $32,600 medical expense itemized deduction that after the 7.5%-of-AGI floor exceeds that standard deduction by roughly $14,000 and zeroes the SC base. It compounded this with a fabricated bracket schedule containing 6.4% and 6.5% tiers (SC has only a zero-rate bracket, a 3% bracket, and one top rate) and then cut its own $1,395 result to $574 with an unquantified ""exemptions/credits"" adjustment it never identified."
us,scenario_121,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model used the correct 2026 federal standard deduction of $16,100 and correctly kept disability benefits out of the base, but stated that ""no SC subtractions"" apply and never itemized: the $32,600 of medical expenses less the 7.5% floor exceeds its own $25,665 AGI, so federal taxable income is $0, not $9,565. With a zero starting point, SC's 0%/3% schedule produces $0 rather than $180."
us,scenario_121,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The model reduced wages by a $14,600 standard deduction while ignoring the $32,600 medical expense itemized deduction, which after the 7.5%-of-AGI floor eliminates taxable income entirely. It then applied an invented four-tier SC schedule (0%/3%/4%/5.5%) that does not exist — SC has a zero-rate bracket, a 3% bracket, and a single top rate — and its $94.26 does not even follow from that schedule, which would yield about $314 on its own $11,065 base."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its worked computation left out OBBBA's $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, so it reached $44,446 of taxable income and $4,867 of tax instead of $43,446.18 and $4,746.66. It then submitted $6,552, a figure that contradicts its own computation."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It taxed only 50% of Social Security ($16,000), even though provisional income of $61,459 makes the 85% cap ($27,200) apply. It invented a $21,700 base and a 'disabled' add-on to the standard deduction and omitted the $6,000 senior deduction. It then cut its $3,668 tentative tax to $1,065 using nonexistent credits."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the deductions wipe out all tax. In fact, $70,646 of AGI minus $27,200 of deductions (standard, aged/blind, senior and charitable) leaves $43,446 of taxable income, and the ordinary portion is taxed at 10%/12% for $4,746.66."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the correct $20,200 standard deduction but left out the $6,000 OBBBA senior deduction and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction. That raised taxable income to $50,446 and pushed part of the qualified dividends into the 15% rate."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a roughly $25,000 deduction (outdated $15,000 base, no $1,000 charitable deduction) to get $45,646 of taxable income and about $5,011 of tax. It then arbitrarily cut taxable income to about $40,000 and reported an unsupported $1,971."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $17,000 base standard deduction instead of $16,100 and left out the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction. It also miscomputed the bracket tax: it got $2,336 on $41,722 of ordinary income, when 10%/12% yields about $4,759, and it put tax on qualified dividends that fall in the 0% band."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed the TCJA expired in 2026. On that basis it applied a personal exemption, pre-TCJA 10%/15%/25% brackets, and itemized deductions that included miscellaneous employee expenses above a 2% floor. Under OBBBA, 2026 has the $20,200 standard deduction (with aged/blind add-ons), the $6,000 senior deduction and the $1,000 charitable deduction, with 10%/12% brackets."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left the $1,824 of qualified dividends out of AGI (counting only the $3,728 of non-qualified dividends). It also omitted the $6,000 senior deduction and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, which left $48,622 of taxable income instead of $43,446.18."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly applied the $20,200 standard deduction and the $6,000 senior deduction but left out the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction available in 2026. That gave $44,446 of taxable income and $4,867 of tax instead of $43,446.18 and $4,746.66."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used an outdated $15,300 base and a $19,200 standard deduction, and omitted both the $6,000 senior deduction and the $1,000 charitable deduction. That produced $51,446 of taxable income and pushed the qualified dividends into the 15% rate."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied post-TCJA-sunset rules: itemized deductions that included miscellaneous expenses and state income tax, a personal exemption, and the 15% bracket. OBBBA keeps the TCJA standard deduction with aged/blind add-ons, adds the $6,000 senior and $1,000 charitable deductions, and keeps the 10%/12% brackets for 2026."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated 2026 as a TCJA-sunset year, with a $5,300 personal exemption, miscellaneous itemized deductions above 2% of AGI, an uncapped state income tax deduction and the 15% bracket. The correct approach uses OBBBA's $27,200 of standard-type deductions and the 10%/12% brackets."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the $20,200 standard deduction but left out the $6,000 senior deduction and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction. Taxable income came out at $50,446 instead of $43,446.18, and part of the qualified dividends was taxed at 15%."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed TCJA expiration, combining $18,126 of itemized deductions with a $5,200 personal exemption and 15%/25% brackets. Under OBBBA, 2026 uses the $20,200 standard deduction plus the $6,000 senior and $1,000 charitable deductions, leaving $43,446.18 taxed at 10%/12%."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its arithmetic is incoherent. It overstated AGI at $71,468, applied an inflated $29,600 standard deduction yet reported $69,455 of taxable income, and then also subtracted $10,808 of itemized deductions on top of the standard deduction. The correct path is $70,646 AGI minus $27,200 of deductions."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no computation. Its $6,300 is about $1,550 too high, which matches treating 2026 as a TCJA-sunset year (personal exemption, itemizing, 15% bracket) or leaving out the $6,000 senior and $1,000 charitable deductions. The correct deductions bring taxable income to $43,446.18."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset rules: itemized deductions that included $2,097 of miscellaneous employee expenses, a $5,150 personal exemption, and a 15% rate on qualified dividends. Under OBBBA, 2026 has no personal exemption or miscellaneous deductions; the $27,200 of standard-type deductions applies and the qualified dividends fall in the 0% band."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It computed about $4,917 of tax and then reduced it to zero using nonexistent nonrefundable credits. No nonrefundable credit applies, because the elderly/disabled credit is fully phased out at this AGI."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took only the standard deduction with aged/blind add-ons and omitted OBBBA's $6,000 senior deduction and $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, so taxable income was about $7,000 too high."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized under post-sunset rules instead of taking OBBBA's $20,200 standard deduction plus the $6,000 senior and $1,000 charitable deductions. Its reasoning ends with value = 6979, which contradicts the $6,712 it submitted."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used 2025 pre-OBBBA amounts ($15,000 base plus $2,000 x 2 = $19,000) and omitted the $6,000 senior and $1,000 charitable deductions. That gave $51,646 of taxable income and put the qualified dividends at 15% instead of 0%."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left the $1,824 of qualified dividends out of both provisional income and AGI, which cut taxable Social Security below the $27,200 cap. It also omitted the $6,000 senior deduction and the $1,000 charitable deduction and used a $15,450 base deduction."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It computed taxable Social Security as 0.85 x (provisional income - $34,000) = $23,340, leaving out the $4,500 base amount, so it missed that the 85% cap of $27,200 applies. It also used a $3,300 aged/blind add-on instead of $4,100 and a $12,200 bracket edge instead of $12,400."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the standard and aged/blind deductions fully offset income. In fact, after $27,200 of total deductions, $43,446.18 of taxable income remains, and the $41,622 ordinary portion is taxed for $4,746.66."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated tax-exempt income and itemized deductions as eliminating the liability. In fact, $70,646 of AGI (including $27,200 of taxable Social Security) minus $27,200 of deductions leaves $43,446.18 of taxable income and $4,746.66 of tax."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied post-TCJA-sunset rules: about $17,023 of itemized deductions that included miscellaneous expenses, a $5,300 personal exemption and pre-TCJA brackets. Under OBBBA, 2026 has the $20,200 standard deduction plus the $6,000 senior and $1,000 charitable deductions, and 10%/12% brackets."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It identified the correct deduction components but totaled them $100 short ($27,100 instead of $16,100 + $4,100 + $6,000 + $1,000 = $27,200). That gave $43,546 of taxable income and $4,759 of tax instead of $43,446.18 and $4,746.66."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $4,957 is $210 too high, which means taxable ordinary income was about $1,750 too high. That matches leaving out the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction and understating the $20,200 standard deduction with aged/blind add-ons."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the standard, aged/blind and $6,000 senior deductions but left out the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, so it got about $44,465 of taxable income and $4,869 of tax instead of $43,446.18 and $4,746.66."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed taxable income falls below filing thresholds. In fact, $70,646 of AGI minus $27,200 of deductions leaves $43,446.18 of taxable income, taxed at 10%/12% for $4,746.66."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed TCJA sunset, using about $12,400 as the standard deduction, itemizing with miscellaneous expenses and Minnesota income tax, a $5,300 personal exemption and a 15% bracket. Under OBBBA, 2026 has a $20,200 standard deduction plus the $6,000 senior and $1,000 charitable deductions, taxed at 10%/12%."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It itemized with miscellaneous employee expenses above a 2% floor and added a personal exemption under a 15% bracket. All of these assume TCJA expired, whereas OBBBA keeps the TCJA standard deduction structure and adds the $6,000 senior and $1,000 charitable deductions for 2026."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $16,150 base instead of $16,100 and left out the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, so taxable income came out at $44,396. It also ended the 10% bracket at $12,250 instead of $12,400."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied a TCJA reversion: itemizing with miscellaneous expenses and state income tax, and using 10%/15% brackets inflated from 2017. OBBBA keeps the $20,200 aged/blind standard deduction, adds the $6,000 senior and $1,000 charitable deductions, and keeps the 10%/12% brackets for 2026."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used post-sunset rules: about $20,100 of itemized deductions that included Minnesota tax and miscellaneous expenses, a $5,050 personal exemption and the 15% bracket. OBBBA eliminates the personal exemption and miscellaneous deductions and provides $27,200 of standard-type deductions in 2026."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,It produced no answer and no explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits.
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed personal exemptions and credits fully offset tax. In 2026 there is no personal exemption and no nonrefundable credit applies, so $43,446.18 of taxable income produces $4,746.66 of tax."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,other,False,"It reached the correct $43,446 of taxable income but reported a rounded $4,750 instead of computing $1,240 + 12% x $29,222.18 on $41,622.18 of ordinary income, which is $4,746.66."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its reasoning left out the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction and reached $44,446 of taxable income and $4,866.64 of tax. It then submitted $3,491.46, which contradicts its own computation."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $20,050 standard deduction and omitted the $6,000 senior and $1,000 charitable deductions. It also treated the negative $1,447 long-term capital gain as preferentially taxed income, reaching $5,544. It then submitted an unrelated $9,505."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It excluded taxable Social Security from AGI, although 85% ($27,200) is includable, and omitted the $6,000 senior deduction. It also claimed an elderly/disabled credit that is fully phased out at this AGI, and its final $5,065 exceeds its own $3,933.60 tentative tax."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted the standard deduction ($20,200) and the $6,000 senior deduction but left out the $1,000 charitable deduction for non-itemizers, so taxable income came out at $44,446 and its own calculation gave $4,867. It then submitted $6,552, a number its own reasoning doesn't support."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It made only 50% of Social Security taxable ($16,000), even though provisional income of $61,459 is above the $34,000 threshold, which caps taxable benefits at 85% ($27,200). It also invented a 'disabled' add-on to the standard deduction, skipped the senior and charitable deductions, and then cut its $3,668 tax to $1,065 without any rule to support it."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It said deductions wipe out all taxable income. In fact, AGI of $70,646 minus the full $27,200 in deductions (standard, aged/blind, senior, non-itemizer charitable) leaves $43,446 taxable, which produces $4,746.66 of tax."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It deducted only the $20,200 standard deduction and missed both the $6,000 senior deduction and the $1,000 charitable deduction for non-itemizers. That left taxable income at $50,446 instead of $43,446 and pushed part of the qualified dividends into the 15% rate."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a guessed ~$19,000 standard deduction instead of $20,200 and missed the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction. Its own ~$5,011 tax figure was then arbitrarily lowered to $1,971 with no supporting calculation."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"Its taxable income of $43,546 was close, but it applied a 22% bracket and taxed the qualified dividends at 15%. Ordinary income of about $41,622 sits entirely in the 10%/12% brackets (12% runs to $50,400), and the dividends fall in the 0% band, so the tax is $4,746.66, not $2,609."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed TCJA expires in 2026 and used pre-TCJA rules: a personal exemption, miscellaneous itemized deductions above a 2% floor, and the 15%/25% brackets. OBBBA made TCJA permanent, so the correct deductions are the $20,200 standard deduction plus the $6,000 senior deduction and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, taxed at 10%/12%."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the $1,824 of qualified dividends as part of the $3,728 rather than an additional amount, which understated AGI at $68,822. It also skipped the $6,000 senior deduction and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, so taxable income came out at $48,622 instead of $43,446."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted the $20,200 standard deduction and the $6,000 senior deduction but missed the 2026 $1,000 charitable deduction for non-itemizers (the head gave $10,164 in cash). Taxable income was therefore $44,446 instead of $43,446, which overstated tax by $120."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used an outdated ~$19,200 standard deduction and left out the $6,000 senior deduction and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction. Taxable income came out at $51,446 instead of $43,446, and the qualified dividends ended up in the 15% band."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied rules that assume TCJA expired: a personal exemption, a miscellaneous itemized deduction, a state income tax deduction, and a 15% bracket. Under OBBBA, the deductions are the $20,200 standard deduction plus the $6,000 senior deduction and the $1,000 charitable deduction, and the brackets are 10%/12%."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed TCJA expired, so it itemized miscellaneous employee expenses, took a $5,300 personal exemption, and used a 15% bracket. In 2026 there is no personal exemption, and the correct deductions are the $20,200 standard deduction, the $6,000 senior deduction, and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It stopped at the $20,200 standard deduction and left out the $6,000 senior deduction and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction. That gave taxable income of $50,446 instead of $43,446 and put $996 of qualified dividends in the 15% band."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed TCJA expired and used itemized deductions, a $5,200 personal exemption, and a 25% bracket. Under the 2026 law, the deductions are the $20,200 standard deduction plus the $6,000 senior deduction and the $1,000 charitable deduction, giving taxable income of $43,446 taxed at 10%/12%."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a wrong AGI ($71,468 instead of $70,646) and subtracted both an inflated $29,600 standard deduction and itemized deductions. Itemized and standard deductions are alternatives, not additive. Its stated taxable income of $69,455 also doesn't follow from its own subtraction."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It gave no actual derivation. $6,300 implies taxable income around $50,000, which matches leaving out the $6,000 senior deduction and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction from the correct $27,200 total."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed TCJA expired, itemized $17,023 including miscellaneous employee expenses, took a $5,150 personal exemption, and capped the capital loss at $1,500 instead of $1,519. The correct 2026 approach is the $20,200 standard deduction plus the $6,000 senior deduction and the $1,000 charitable deduction, taxed at 10%/12%."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its own estimate was $4,917 of tax, which it then reduced to $0 by citing nonrefundable credits that don't apply. The elderly/disabled credit is fully phased out at this AGI, and no other nonrefundable credit is available."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied only the single standard deduction plus the aged/blind add-ons and missed the $6,000 senior deduction and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction. This overstated taxable income by about $7,000."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It referred to itemized deductions without showing any calculation and submitted $6,712, while its own text ends with value = 6979. Both figures imply taxable income far above the correct $43,446, consistent with skipping the $6,000 senior deduction and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a pre-2026 $15,000 base standard deduction with $2,000 add-ons ($19,000 total instead of $20,200) and left out the $6,000 senior deduction and the $1,000 charitable deduction. That gave taxable income of $51,646 and put qualified dividends at 15%."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its AGI of $70,646 was correct, but its $4,685 answer implies ordinary taxable income of about $41,108. The correct figure is $41,622 ($43,446 taxable minus $1,824 of qualified dividends), so it subtracted about $514 more than the correct $27,200 in deductions."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left the $1,824 of qualified dividends out of provisional income and AGI, which lowered taxable Social Security to $26,290 instead of the 85% cap of $27,200. It also used a guessed $19,570 standard deduction and skipped the $6,000 senior deduction and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It calculated taxable Social Security as 0.85 × (provisional income − $34,000) = $23,340 and dropped the $4,500 second-tier amount; the correct figure is the $27,200 cap. It also used $3,300 instead of $4,100 for the aged and blind add-ons and $12,200 instead of $12,400 for the top of the 10% bracket."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It said the standard deduction and aged/blind add-ons fully offset income. Total deductions are $27,200 against AGI of $70,646, which leaves $43,446 of taxable income and $4,746.66 of tax."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It argued that tax-exempt income and itemized deductions bring tax to zero. But tax-exempt interest only increases provisional income (making 85% of Social Security taxable), and itemized deductions of about $14,600 are smaller than the $20,200 standard deduction, so $43,446 remains taxable."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied rules that assume TCJA expired: $17,023 of itemized deductions including miscellaneous employee expenses, a $5,300 personal exemption, and pre-TCJA brackets. OBBBA kept the TCJA structure, so the correct deductions are the $20,200 standard deduction, the $6,000 senior deduction, and the $1,000 charitable deduction."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It identified the right deductions (aged/blind standard, senior, and $1,000 non-itemizer charitable) but totaled them at $27,100 instead of $27,200 ($16,100 + 2×$2,050 + $6,000 + $1,000). Taxable income came out $100 too high at $43,546."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"$4,957 implies about $43,375 of ordinary taxable income, roughly $1,750 above the correct $41,622. That matches leaving out the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction and also understating the standard or aged/blind amounts."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It counted the standard, aged/blind, and $6,000 senior deductions but missed the $1,000 charitable deduction for non-itemizers. Taxable income was about $44,465 instead of $43,446."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It said income falls below filing thresholds. AGI is $70,646, and after $27,200 in deductions, $43,446 is taxable and produces $4,746.66 at the 10%/12% rates."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed TCJA expired: a ~$12,400 standard deduction, itemized miscellaneous and state income tax deductions, a $5,300 personal exemption, and a 15% bracket. The 2026 standard deduction is $20,200, plus the $6,000 senior deduction and the $1,000 charitable deduction."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed TCJA expired, itemizing miscellaneous employee expenses, adding a personal exemption, and using the 15% bracket. Under OBBBA there is no personal exemption or miscellaneous itemized deduction, and the correct deductions total $27,200."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It missed the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction and used a $16,150 base standard deduction instead of $16,100, giving taxable income of $44,396. It also put the top of the 10% bracket at $12,250 instead of $12,400."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed TCJA expired, itemizing miscellaneous employee expenses and state income tax and using pre-TCJA 15% brackets. The correct 2026 deductions are the $20,200 standard deduction plus the $6,000 senior deduction and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, which leave $43,446 taxable."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It assumed TCJA expired, itemizing MN income tax and miscellaneous employee expenses, taking a ~$5,050 personal exemption, and taxing at 15%. The 2026 law instead gives the $20,200 standard deduction plus the $6,000 senior deduction and the $1,000 charitable deduction, taxed at 10%/12%."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,The model gave no value and no explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits.
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It said the senior standard deduction plus personal exemptions and credits fully offset taxable income. There is no personal exemption in 2026 and no nonrefundable credit available, so $43,446 remains taxable after the $27,200 in deductions."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the aged/blind standard deduction and the $6,000 senior deduction but missed the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, giving taxable income of about $44,596 instead of $43,446."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,other,False,"It reached the correct $43,446 of taxable income with all the right deductions but reported a rounded $4,750. The exact figure is 10% × $12,400 + 12% × ($41,622.18 − $12,400) = $4,746.66, with the qualified dividends at 0%."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It missed the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, so its reasoning landed on taxable income of $44,446 and tax of $4,866.64. It then submitted $3,491.46, a number its own derivation doesn't support."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It skipped the $6,000 senior deduction and the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, and it treated the $1,447 long-term capital loss as preferentially taxed gain. Its own reasoning reached $5,544, but it submitted an unrelated $9,505."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left Social Security out of AGI entirely, even though $27,200 is taxable because provisional income of $61,459 exceeds $34,000. It also claimed an elderly/disabled credit that is fully phased out at this AGI, and its claimed deductions and credits somehow increased the tax from $3,934 to $5,065."
us,scenario_122,federal_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_122,head_medicaid_eligible,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model treated being age 73, blind, and disabled as automatic categorical eligibility and conflated Medicare Savings Programs such as QMB and SLMB with full Medicaid eligibility. It also dismissed resource limits despite the disclosed $44,000 in bank assets and $177,000 in stock assets; the head qualified through none of Minnesota’s Medicaid pathways."
us,scenario_122,head_medicaid_eligible,glm-5.2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"The model correctly found income far above the 138% FPL MAGI limit, then reversed that result solely because the head was elderly, blind, and disabled. Those characteristics do not automatically confer Medicaid eligibility, and the head qualified through no alternative category."
us,scenario_122,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"The model correctly identified that no wage earnings were provided and that payroll tax therefore equals zero, then contradicted that reasoning by imposing an unsupported $1,270.64 tax on unspecified ""taxable income."" Retirement and investment income is not an employee Social Security or Medicare tax base."
us,scenario_122,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model supplied no parseable payroll_tax output or explanation, violating the required structured-output contract."
us,scenario_122,self_employment_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the Minnesota Social Security subtraction was phased out at this income, but AGI of $70,646 is below the single threshold, so the full $27,200 is subtracted. It also itemized instead of taking the $19,300 aged/blind standard deduction plus the $4,977 charitable subtraction. Its ~$52,000 of taxable income spilled into the 6.8% bracket instead of $19,169 at 5.35%."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The structure was right: full Social Security subtraction, aged/blind standard deduction, and the non-itemizer charitable subtraction. But it used a $19,500 standard deduction instead of $19,300. It also computed the charitable subtraction as a plain 50% of contributions over $500 ($5,154), while the engine's figure is $4,977.18. Together these understated taxable income by $377 ($18,792 vs $19,169)."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It left the $27,200 of taxable Social Security out of the income base and used a $13,175 standard deduction, which still leaves about $30,000 of positive taxable income. It then declared $0 tax without applying Minnesota's 5.35% rate. The correct path yields $19,169 of taxable income and $1,025.54 of tax."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It asserted that the standard deduction, the Social Security subtraction and a pension exemption wipe out Minnesota taxable income. Minnesota has no general private-pension subtraction, and after the $27,200 Social Security subtraction, the $19,300 standard deduction and the $4,977 charitable subtraction, $19,169 remains taxable at 5.35%."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,"It reached a taxable income of ~$19,442 and tax of ~$1,040, then zeroed it out with a 'senior/disabled subtraction' and long-term-care credit. Minnesota's elderly/disabled subtraction requires single AGI below roughly $33,700, so it is unavailable at $70,646 AGI, and no long-term-care expense was given."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It never computed taxable income and asserted that the Social Security subtraction plus deductions drive it to about zero. With $43,446 of income after the Social Security subtraction, minus the $19,300 standard deduction and the $4,977 charitable subtraction, $19,169 remains taxable at 5.35%."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the Minnesota Social Security subtraction as only partial, but the full $27,200 is subtracted at this AGI. It also omitted the non-itemizer charitable subtraction, inflating taxable income to ~$44,000 and reaching the 6.8% bracket instead of $19,169 at 5.35%."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It correctly applied the full $27,200 Social Security subtraction and the $19,300 standard deduction, but set the charitable subtraction at $5,154, a plain 50% of contributions over $500. The engine's subtraction is $4,977.18, so taxable income came out $177 too low ($18,992 vs $19,169)."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It started from federal taxable income rather than federal AGI, and invented a $15,000 Minnesota pension/IRA subtraction for seniors. It also itemized with unreimbursed employee expenses instead of taking the $19,300 aged/blind standard deduction plus the $4,977 charitable subtraction. This produced $10,010 of taxable income instead of $19,169."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed that deductions, subtractions and an 'elderly/disabled credit' push taxable income to about zero. After the $27,200 Social Security subtraction, the $19,300 standard deduction and the $4,977 charitable subtraction, $19,169 remains, taxed at 5.35% for $1,025.54. The elderly/disabled subtraction is barred by its AGI limit."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the full Social Security subtraction but omitted Minnesota's non-itemizer charitable subtraction ($4,977.18) and used a $19,400 standard deduction instead of $19,300. That left $24,046 of taxable income instead of $19,169."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It skipped the full $27,200 Social Security subtraction and subtracted a nonexistent personal exemption; Minnesota allows exemptions only for dependents. It also omitted the aged/blind standard-deduction additions and the charitable subtraction, taxing ~$50,146 at 5.35%/6.8% instead of $19,169 at 5.35%."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It never subtracted the $27,200 of taxable Social Security and claimed a personal exemption Minnesota does not allow for the filer. It also itemized ($17,023) instead of taking the $19,300 aged/blind standard deduction plus the $4,977 charitable subtraction, taxing $48,529 instead of $19,169."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the full Social Security subtraction but used an $18,500 standard deduction instead of $19,300. It also omitted the non-itemizer charitable subtraction of $4,977.18, leaving $24,946 of taxable income instead of $19,169."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It invented a $5,000 Minnesota retirement subtraction that does not apply here and used an $18,500 standard deduction instead of $19,300. It also omitted the $4,977.18 charitable subtraction. Its $19,946 taxable income is near the correct figure only because these errors partly offset."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It omitted the full $27,200 Social Security subtraction and the non-itemizer charitable subtraction, and taxed $51,946 using a 7.05% second-bracket rate, while Minnesota's second rate is 6.8%. The correct taxable income is $19,169, taxed entirely at 5.35%."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $2,420 implies about $45,000 of taxable income, which reflects no Minnesota subtraction for the $27,200 of federally taxable Social Security and no charitable subtraction. With both applied plus the $19,300 standard deduction, taxable income is $19,169 and tax is $1,025.54."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied only a 'partial' Social Security subtraction, but AGI is below the single phaseout threshold, so the full $27,200 is subtracted. It also omitted the charitable subtraction, pushing income into the 6.8% bracket instead of $19,169 at 5.35%."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated the Social Security subtraction as partial and taxed $51,665, but the full $27,200 is subtracted at this AGI. With the $19,300 standard deduction and the $4,977 charitable subtraction, taxable income is $19,169, all at 5.35%."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $1,111 implies about $20,770 of taxable income at 5.35%, roughly $1,600 above the correct $19,169. That is consistent with understating the standard deduction or the non-itemizer charitable subtraction ($4,977.18)."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the full Social Security subtraction but used an $18,270 standard deduction instead of $19,300. It also omitted the $4,977.18 non-itemizer charitable subtraction, leaving $25,176 of taxable income instead of $19,169."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It submitted $2,389, which contradicts its own explanation ending in $1,308. Neither figure applies the $4,977.18 non-itemizer charitable subtraction to income after the Social Security subtraction and the $19,300 standard deduction, which would yield $19,169 of taxable income."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the full $27,200 Social Security subtraction but omitted the $4,977.18 non-itemizer charitable subtraction and used a $19,000 standard deduction instead of $19,300. That left $24,446 of taxable income instead of $19,169."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It applied 2.85%/4.80% brackets, which are not Minnesota rates; Minnesota's first bracket is 5.35%. It also chose $14,926 of itemized deductions over a standard deduction that it understated as $14,600 by omitting the aged and blind additions. The correct $19,300 standard deduction plus the $4,977 charitable subtraction leave $19,169 taxable."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It misstated taxable Social Security as $23,340 (it is $27,200), although its Minnesota AGI of $43,446 landed correctly. It used an $18,560 standard deduction instead of $19,300 and omitted the $4,977.18 charitable subtraction, leaving $24,886 of taxable income instead of $19,169."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It asserted that standard and senior/disabled subtractions eliminate taxable income. The Minnesota elderly/disabled subtraction is barred at $70,646 AGI, and after the Social Security subtraction, the $19,300 standard deduction and the $4,977 charitable subtraction, $19,169 remains taxable at 5.35%."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It claimed the tax is non-positive without computing taxable income. Minnesota taxable income is $43,446 (after the Social Security subtraction) minus the $19,300 standard deduction and the $4,977.18 charitable subtraction, which is $19,169 and yields $1,025.54 at 5.35%."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $2,013 of tax-exempt interest as a Minnesota addition, but the engine adds nothing for it. This raised taxable income above the correct $19,169 and produced $1,094 instead of $1,025.54."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its ~$49,900 of taxable income shows it did not subtract the full $27,200 of taxable Social Security, which Minnesota fully subtracts at this AGI. It also omitted the charitable subtraction, pushing income into the 6.8% bracket instead of $19,169 at 5.35%."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added back the $2,013 of tax-exempt interest as a Minnesota addition, which the engine does not do. That raised taxable income to ~$21,055 instead of $19,169 and tax to $1,126 instead of $1,025.54."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $2,640 implies roughly $45,000 of taxable income in the 6.8% bracket, which reflects failing to subtract the full $27,200 of taxable Social Security and the $4,977 charitable subtraction. With both applied, Minnesota taxable income is $19,169, taxed at 5.35%."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $19,400 standard deduction instead of $19,300, and a $5,154 charitable subtraction (a plain 50% of contributions over $500) instead of the engine's $4,977.18. Taxable income came out $277 too low ($18,892 vs $19,169)."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the Social Security subtraction and an aged/blind standard deduction but omitted the $4,977.18 non-itemizer charitable subtraction. That left ~$23,265 of taxable income instead of $19,169."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $18,342 of taxable income means it subtracted about $25,100 in standard deduction plus charitable subtraction from $43,446. The correct total is $24,277.18 ($19,300 standard deduction plus $4,977.18 charitable), so it overstated deductions by about $827."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the full $27,200 Social Security subtraction but omitted the $4,977.18 non-itemizer charitable subtraction and used a $19,400 standard deduction instead of $19,300. That left $24,046 of taxable income instead of $19,169."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It asserted that age-based exemptions eliminate taxable income. Minnesota has no age exemption beyond the standard-deduction additions, and $19,169 remains taxable after the Social Security subtraction, the $19,300 standard deduction and the charitable subtraction."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a $19,600 standard deduction instead of $19,300 and omitted the $4,977.18 non-itemizer charitable subtraction. That left $23,844 of taxable income instead of $19,169."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the Social Security subtraction and a standard deduction but did not include the $4,977.18 non-itemizer charitable subtraction. That left ~$22,000 of taxable income instead of $19,169."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It added the $2,013 of tax-exempt interest as a Minnesota addition, which the engine does not apply. It also used a $19,400 standard deduction instead of $19,300 and a $5,154 charitable subtraction instead of $4,977.18, ending with $20,905 of taxable income instead of $19,169."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It made no Minnesota subtraction for the $27,200 of taxable Social Security, which is fully subtracted at this AGI. It also itemized $17,023 instead of taking the $19,300 aged/blind standard deduction plus the $4,977 charitable subtraction, taxing $53,623 instead of $19,169."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It treated taxable income as near $50,000, meaning it skipped the full $27,200 Social Security subtraction and the charitable subtraction. Applying both plus the $19,300 standard deduction gives $19,169, taxed entirely at 5.35%."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No value or explanation was returned for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there is no answer to score against $1,025.54."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It subtracted a ~$5,330 personal exemption, but Minnesota allows exemptions only for dependents, not the filer. It also omitted the $4,977.18 non-itemizer charitable subtraction. Its $18,690 is near the correct $19,169 only because the two errors largely offset."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It invoked a 'senior age-65 subtraction' to reach zero taxable income. Minnesota's elderly/disabled subtraction is barred at $70,646 AGI, and after the Social Security subtraction, the $19,300 standard deduction and the $4,977 charitable subtraction, $19,169 remains taxable."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It applied the full Social Security subtraction but used a ~$17,950 aged/blind standard deduction instead of $19,300 and omitted the $4,977.18 non-itemizer charitable subtraction. That left $25,496 of taxable income instead of $19,169."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It compared $17,367 of itemized deductions to a $15,300 standard deduction that omits the aged and blind additions; the correct standard deduction is $19,300. It also ignored that non-itemizers get the $4,977 charitable subtraction, so the standard route ($24,277 in total) beats itemizing and leaves $19,169 taxable."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It never subtracted the $27,200 of taxable Social Security, added back tax-exempt interest and pension, and used a $14,600 standard deduction without the aged/blind additions. It then treated the property tax refund as reducing income tax, although that refund is a separate program and not a nonrefundable credit."
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a wrong federal AGI ($52,092) and a fabricated $30,100 standard deduction. It then taxed $21,992 at an effective ~6.6%, although that amount lies entirely in Minnesota's 5.35% bracket. The correct base is $19,169 at 5.35%."
-us,scenario_122,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It computed household income correctly at about $77,500 and even said that was near the income limit. It still applied a 2.4% threshold with a 50% state copayment to $4,800 of rent-as-tax and got about $1,470. It then raised that to $2,265 while saying the phaseout reduces the refund. At this household income the 2026 MN renter's credit is $0, so no refundable state credit applies."
-us,scenario_122,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It found the right household income ($77,459) and rent-as-tax ($4,800). It then applied a mid-schedule bracket: a 2.5% income threshold with a 50% state share, and no maximum-refund cap. The MN renter's credit schedule is fully phased out at this income, so the credit is $0, not $1,431.74."
-us,scenario_122,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It assumed the head qualifies for the Minnesota renter's refund and simply entered a $2,000 'maximum allowable refund'. It never checked the household income of about $77,460 against the renter's credit income schedule. That schedule pays nothing at this income, so state refundable credits are $0."
-us,scenario_122,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It treated 17% of rent (about $4,800) as property tax and applied a senior/disabled income schedule with a high-income copayment, leaving $1,070. The MN renter's credit gives $0 at about $77,460 of household income, so the copayment does not leave any refundable credit."
-us,scenario_122,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It estimated a $2,228 renter's credit using a senior/disabled household-income adjustment and a paying bracket of the schedule. With nontaxable Social Security and tax-exempt interest included, household income is about $77,460. At that income the Minnesota renter's credit is fully phased out and the state refundable credit total is $0."
-us,scenario_122,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"It measured income with federal AGI ($70,646) less an elderly/disabled subtraction. That leaves out the nontaxable Social Security and tax-exempt interest that count toward Minnesota household income, which is about $77,460. The lower income put the household in a paying bracket worth $1,050. At the correct household income the renter's credit is $0."
-us,scenario_122,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no value and no explanation for state_refundable_credits, so there is no answer to score. The correct derivation gives $0 because the Minnesota renter's credit is fully phased out at about $77,460 of household income, and no other refundable state credit applies."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It treated Minnesota's Social Security subtraction as phased out at this income, but the full $27,200 is subtractable at $70,646 AGI. It also itemized instead of taking the larger $19,300 aged/blind standard deduction plus the $4,977.18 non-itemizer charitable subtraction. That gave about $52,000 of taxable income in the 6.8% bracket instead of $19,169 at 5.35%."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The structure was right, but it overstated two amounts. It used a $19,500 standard deduction instead of $19,300, and a $5,154 charitable subtraction (50% of the full $10,308 over $500) instead of $4,977.18. Taxable income came out at $18,792 instead of $19,169."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It took about $43,446 of non-Social Security income, subtracted only a $13,175 standard deduction, and then declared the tax zero even though roughly $30,000 of taxable income remained. The correct path subtracts the $19,300 aged/blind standard deduction and the $4,977.18 charitable subtraction, leaving $19,169 taxed at 5.35%."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It cited a partial pension exemption that Minnesota does not have for private pensions or IRAs, and concluded zero tax. After the $27,200 Social Security subtraction, the $19,300 standard deduction, and the $4,977.18 charitable subtraction, $19,169 of taxable income remains and owes $1,025.54."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It correctly reached about $19,442 of taxable income and about $1,040 of tax. It then zeroed this out with a senior/disabled subtraction and credit that do not apply: Minnesota's elderly/disabled subtraction is fully phased out at roughly $70,000 of AGI. The tax at $19,169 of taxable income stands at $1,025.54."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It asserted that the Social Security subtraction, itemized deductions, and unnamed nonrefundable credits push tax to zero, without computing anything. Federal AGI of $70,646 minus the $27,200 subtraction, the $19,300 standard deduction, and the $4,977.18 charitable subtraction leaves $19,169, which owes $1,025.54 with no offsetting credit."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It treated the Social Security subtraction as limited by income and estimated about $44,000 of taxable income, but at this AGI the full $27,200 is subtracted. It also omitted the $4,977.18 non-itemizer charitable subtraction and used about $18,250 of standard deduction instead of $19,300."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used the correct $19,300 standard deduction and the full Social Security subtraction. However, it computed the charitable subtraction as $5,154 (50% of the full $10,808 minus $500) instead of $4,977.18, which understated taxable income by $177 ($18,992 instead of $19,169)."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It invented a $15,000 Minnesota pension/IRA subtraction for people 65 and older; Minnesota has no such subtraction for private pension or IRA income. It also itemized, including the $3,510 of employee business expenses, instead of taking the $19,300 aged/blind standard deduction and the $4,977.18 charitable subtraction, which ended at $10,010 of taxable income instead of $19,169."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It left the $27,200 of taxable Social Security out of AGI and then subtracted it again. It also relied on a Minnesota elderly/disability credit that is phased out at this income, and reached $0 without computing anything. The correct taxable income is $19,169, taxed at 5.35%."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied the full Social Security subtraction and a $19,400 standard deduction, but omitted Minnesota's $4,977.18 non-itemizer charitable subtraction. Taxable income came out at $24,046 instead of $19,169."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It never applied the $27,200 Social Security subtraction. It used a base standard deduction with no age or blind additions, and subtracted a personal exemption that Minnesota no longer allows for the filer. It also omitted the charitable subtraction, giving about $50,146 of taxable income instead of $19,169."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It skipped the $27,200 Social Security subtraction and subtracted a nonexistent filer personal exemption. It also itemized $17,023, which is less than the $19,300 standard deduction plus the $4,977.18 charitable subtraction, leaving $48,529 of taxable income instead of $19,169."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It correctly subtracted the $27,200 of Social Security. It then used an $18,500 standard deduction instead of $19,300 and omitted the $4,977.18 non-itemizer charitable subtraction, leaving $24,946 of taxable income instead of $19,169."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It subtracted a fictitious $5,000 retirement subtraction in place of the $4,977.18 non-itemizer charitable subtraction, and used an $18,500 standard deduction instead of $19,300. That gave $19,946 of taxable income instead of $19,169."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It omitted the $27,200 Social Security subtraction and the $4,977.18 charitable subtraction, and used an $18,700 standard deduction. It also applied a 7.05% second-bracket rate instead of Minnesota's 6.8%, giving $51,946 of taxable income instead of $19,169."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"With no shown computation, $2,420 implies about $42,500 of taxable income reaching the 6.8% bracket. That is consistent with skipping the full $27,200 Social Security subtraction and the charitable subtraction; the correct base is $19,169, all at 5.35%."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied only a partial Social Security subtraction and put income into the 6.8% bracket. At $70,646 of AGI, Minnesota subtracts the full $27,200, and the $4,977.18 charitable subtraction also applies, leaving $19,169 entirely at 5.35%."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied only a partial Social Security subtraction and reached $51,665 of taxable income. The full $27,200 is subtractable at this AGI, and together with the $19,300 standard deduction and the $4,977.18 charitable subtraction, taxable income is $19,169."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"With no shown computation, $1,111 implies about $20,766 of taxable income at 5.35%, about $1,600 above the correct $19,169. That means its standard deduction and charitable subtraction together fell short of the engine's $19,300 and $4,977.18."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It correctly subtracted the $27,200 of Social Security, but used an $18,270 standard deduction instead of $19,300. It also omitted the $4,977.18 non-itemizer charitable subtraction, leaving $25,176 of taxable income instead of $19,169."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It submitted $2,389 while its explanation says 1308, so the answer contradicts its own work. Both figures exceed $1,025.54 because the model never applied the $4,977.18 non-itemizer charitable subtraction to reach $19,169 of taxable income."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied the full Social Security subtraction, but used a $19,000 standard deduction instead of $19,300 and omitted the $4,977.18 non-itemizer charitable subtraction. Taxable income came out at $24,446 instead of $19,169."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied the $27,200 Social Security subtraction, but $1,365 implies about $25,500 of taxable income. That means it used an understated standard deduction (about $17,900 instead of $19,300) and dropped the $4,977.18 charitable subtraction."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It used a $14,600 standard deduction with no age or blind additions, which made itemizing ($14,926) look better than the $19,300 standard deduction plus the $4,977.18 charitable subtraction. It also applied made-up 2.85%/4.80% rates instead of Minnesota's 5.35% first bracket."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used an inconsistent federal AGI and Social Security figure ($66,786 and $23,340) and an $18,560 standard deduction instead of $19,300. It also omitted the $4,977.18 non-itemizer charitable subtraction, leaving $24,886 of taxable income instead of $19,169."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It claimed the standard deduction and senior/disabled subtractions wipe out all taxable income. Minnesota's elderly/disabled subtraction is phased out at this AGI, and after the $27,200, $19,300, and $4,977.18 reductions, $19,169 remains taxable at 5.35%."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"With no computation shown, it asserted non-positive tax. Federal AGI of $70,646.18 minus the $27,200 Social Security subtraction, the $19,300 standard deduction, and the $4,977.18 charitable subtraction leaves $19,169, which produces $1,025.54 of tax."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It added the $2,013 of tax-exempt interest back to Minnesota income, but the engine has no such addition. That inflated taxable income to about $20,450 instead of $19,169."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its taxable income of about $49,900 shows that it did not subtract the full $27,200 of Social Security, despite saying it did. It also omitted the $4,977.18 charitable subtraction, which pushed income into the 6.8% bracket instead of leaving $19,169 at 5.35%."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It added the $2,013 of tax-exempt interest as a Minnesota addition, but the engine has no such addition. That raised taxable income to about $21,055 instead of $19,169."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"$2,640 implies about $45,800 of taxable income reaching the 6.8% bracket, which is consistent with only a partial Social Security subtraction and no charitable subtraction. The full $27,200 subtraction, the $19,300 standard deduction, and the $4,977.18 charitable subtraction leave $19,169."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It computed the charitable subtraction as $5,154 instead of $4,977.18 and implicitly used a $19,400 standard deduction instead of $19,300. Taxable income came out at $18,892 instead of $19,169."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied the Social Security subtraction and an age/blind standard deduction, but omitted the $4,977.18 non-itemizer charitable subtraction. That left $23,265 of taxable income instead of $19,169."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"Its $18,342 of taxable income implies about $25,100 of combined standard deduction and charitable subtraction, about $825 more than the engine's $19,300 plus $4,977.18. Both the age/blind standard deduction and the charitable subtraction were overstated."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It used the full $27,200 Social Security subtraction and a $19,400 standard deduction, but omitted the $4,977.18 non-itemizer charitable subtraction. Taxable income came out at $24,046 instead of $19,169."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It cited age-based exemptions and credits to reach zero, but no Minnesota senior exemption or credit applies at about $70,000 of AGI. Taxable income of $19,169 remains after the Social Security, standard deduction, and charitable reductions, and owes $1,025.54."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied the full Social Security subtraction and about $19,600 of standard deduction, but omitted the $4,977.18 non-itemizer charitable subtraction. That left $23,844 of taxable income instead of $19,169."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied the Social Security subtraction and a standard deduction, but left about $22,000 taxable because it omitted the $4,977.18 non-itemizer charitable subtraction. The correct taxable income is $19,169."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It added the $2,013 of tax-exempt interest back as a Minnesota addition, but the engine has none. It also used a $5,154 charitable subtraction and a $19,400 standard deduction instead of $4,977.18 and $19,300, giving $20,905 of taxable income instead of $19,169."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It made no Social Security subtraction at all, and it itemized $17,023 even though the $19,300 aged/blind standard deduction plus the $4,977.18 charitable subtraction is larger. That left $53,623 of taxable income in the 6.8% bracket instead of $19,169."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It started near federal AGI and ended with about $50,000 of taxable income, which means it never applied the full $27,200 Social Security subtraction or the $4,977.18 charitable subtraction. The correct base is $19,169, all at 5.35%."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"No value or explanation was returned for state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there was no answer to score."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It subtracted a $5,330 personal exemption that Minnesota does not allow for the filer, and omitted the $4,977.18 non-itemizer charitable subtraction. It also used a $19,425 standard deduction instead of $19,300. These errors partly offset each other, giving $18,690 of taxable income instead of $19,169."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It cited a senior age-65 subtraction and the standard deduction to reach zero, but the elderly/disabled subtraction is phased out at this AGI. After the full $27,200 Social Security subtraction, the $19,300 standard deduction, and the $4,977.18 charitable subtraction, $19,169 remains taxable."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied the Social Security subtraction, but used an $18,200 standard deduction instead of $19,300 and omitted the $4,977.18 non-itemizer charitable subtraction. That left $25,246 of taxable income instead of $19,169."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied the $27,200 Social Security subtraction, but its aged/blind standard deduction was about $17,950 instead of $19,300. It also omitted the $4,977.18 charitable subtraction, leaving about $25,496 of taxable income instead of $19,169."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,llm_error,age_disability,False,"It used a $15,300 standard deduction with no age-65 or blind additions, so itemizing $17,367 looked better. The correct $19,300 standard deduction plus the $4,977.18 non-itemizer charitable subtraction reduces taxable income to $19,169, not $26,079."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It made no Social Security subtraction and added back tax-exempt interest and pension income. It also used a $14,600 standard deduction with no age or blind additions, then subtracted the property tax refund, which is not a credit against income tax. The correct calculation leaves $19,169 taxed at 5.35%."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"It used a wrong federal AGI ($52,092 instead of $70,646) and a made-up $30,100 standard deduction, and its $1,450 does not equal 5.35% of its own $21,992. The correct calculation is $70,646 minus $27,200, $19,300, and $4,977.18, which leaves $19,169."
+us,scenario_122,state_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model computed household income of about $77,500 and noted it was 'near the income limit', but it still paid a renter's credit of $2,265. At this income the 2026 renter's credit is fully phased out. Its stated arithmetic (about $1,470 'reduced by phaseout') also contradicts its larger final number."
+us,scenario_122,state_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model correctly found household income of $77,459. It then applied a 50% copayment with a 2.5% threshold, as if the income were still inside the renter's credit schedule. That income is above the schedule's 2026 ceiling, so the credit is $0, not $1,431.74."
+us,scenario_122,state_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model gave about $2,000, a near-maximum renter's refund, without ever testing household income against the credit's ceiling. With about $77,460 of household income (AGI plus nontaxable Social Security and tax-exempt interest), the 2026 renter's credit is zero."
+us,scenario_122,state_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model treated the $28,235 rent as qualifying for a $1,140 renter's credit. It ignored that household income of about $77,460 is above the 2026 renter's credit income ceiling, which zeroes the credit."
+us,scenario_122,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model applied a 'senior/disabled household-income schedule' to bring income down into a paying bracket and got $1,070. Under PolicyEngine's 2026 computation, household income stays at about $77,460, which is above the renter's credit ceiling, so the credit is $0."
+us,scenario_122,state_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model applied a senior/disabled income adjustment and an income schedule that still paid $2,228. Household income of about $77,460 is past the end of the 2026 renter's credit schedule, so no renter's credit is payable and total state refundable credits are $0."
+us,scenario_122,state_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model started from AGI of $70,646 and took an elderly/disabled subtraction, which moved household income below the phaseout ceiling. PolicyEngine's household income adds back nontaxable Social Security and tax-exempt interest, about $77,460, which exceeds the 2026 renter's credit ceiling. The credit is $0, not $1,050."
+us,scenario_122,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model submitted no value or explanation for state_refundable_credits. The correct derivation gives $0, because household income of about $77,460 is above the Minnesota renter's credit ceiling and no other Minnesota refundable credit applies."
us,scenario_123,child1_chip_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model gave no child1_chip_eligible value and no explanation, so its output is missing rather than a wrong eligibility call. The correct derivation is 0: household MAGI of about $145,002, which includes the child's $45,000 of wages, is over 500% FPL and far above Pennsylvania's 314% FPL CHIP ceiling."
us,scenario_123,child1_chip_eligible,gpt-5.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model counted Pennsylvania's paid CHIP for higher-income families as eligibility and never applied the CHIP income ceiling. PolicyEngine's CHIP eligibility requires household MAGI at or below Pennsylvania's 314% FPL limit. This household is at about $145,002, over 500% FPL for three people, because the child's $45,000 of wages counts in MAGI. The child is therefore ineligible (0), not 1."
us,scenario_123,child1_chip_eligible,gpt-6-sol,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model based eligibility on Pennsylvania's full-cost CHIP option having 'no upper family-income limit'. PolicyEngine's is_chip_eligible does not count that unsubsidized buy-in. It applies the 314% FPL CHIP income ceiling, and household MAGI of about $145,002 (over 500% FPL, including the child's $45,000 of wages) fails it. The answer is 0, not 1."
@@ -10190,53 +10519,55 @@ us,scenario_123,child1_head_start_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missin
us,scenario_123,child1_medicaid_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_123,child1_medicare_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_123,child1_wic_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It left out the 2026 $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, so it got taxable income of $67,802 and $5,440 after the CTC instead of $65,802 and $5,200.24. It then added a separate $3,220 child return and submitted $5,860, which matches neither of its own computations."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It put the dependent child's $45,000 wages into the joint return's AGI ($145,002). The parents' AGI is $100,002. The rest of its method (standard deduction $32,200 + $2,000 non-itemizer deduction, $2,200 CTC) was right, so the extra $45,000 taxed at 12%/22% accounts for the whole $6,400 overstatement."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It used an outdated $29,200 standard deduction and made up about $25,200 of mortgage interest from the loan balance, even though no interest paid was listed. It also counted two CTC-qualifying children when there is only one, and its final $8,316 does not follow from any of its stated steps."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It taxed the combined $145,000 of wages, including the dependent child's $45,000, on the joint return. It also left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction and the $2,200 nonrefundable CTC for the 16-year-old, which together produced a rough $14,500."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It used the 2025 $31,500 standard deduction instead of the 2026 $32,200, left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, and applied a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200. It then cut its own $5,724 to $5,316 with an unexplained bracket adjustment."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It made up $29,400 of mortgage interest from the $420,000 balance, although no interest paid was given (it counts as $0), and chose to itemize because of it. It also wrongly denied the $2,200 CTC on a support-test theory, and its $12,053 does not follow from its own $5,765 computation."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It left out the 2026 $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, so taxable income was $67,802 instead of $65,802. It also miscalculated the bracket tax on that amount ($7,610 instead of $7,640.24), which gave $5,410 after the $2,200 CTC."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It counted the dependent child's $45,000 wages in the joint AGI ($145,002 instead of $100,002), which raised taxable income to $110,802. The deductions and the $2,200 CTC were otherwise right."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It estimated the 2026 parameters by indexing 2025 figures instead of using the OBBBA values: a $30,750 standard deduction instead of $32,200, a 10% bracket ending at $24,450 instead of $24,800, and a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200. It also left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, which gave $5,821."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It wrongly said that $18,557 of itemized deductions beat the $32,200 standard deduction, so it subtracted only $18,557 and left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction. It then submitted $15,300, which contradicts its own estimate of about $7,300."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It gave the head a $13,650 qualified-overtime deduction even though the head is not flagged as paid hourly, so no overtime premium is computed. It then added a separate $3,220 child return, although the output covers only the joint unit, whose tax is $5,200.24."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It included the dependent child's $45,000 wages in the joint AGI. It also used a $30,800 standard deduction instead of $32,200, left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, and applied a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It applied pre-TCJA sunset law (personal exemptions, a 15% bracket, a $1,000 CTC) instead of the 2026 OBBBA rules ($32,200 standard deduction plus $2,000 non-itemizer deduction, 10%/12% brackets, $2,200 CTC). It also added a separate child return to the joint unit's tax."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It used pre-TCJA sunset rules (three $5,300 personal exemptions, a 15% bracket, a $1,000 CTC) instead of 2026 OBBBA law. It also added a $4,896.25 child return to the joint unit's liability."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It applied pre-TCJA sunset law (personal exemptions, itemizing $18,557 against a small restored standard deduction, a $1,000 CTC) instead of the 2026 $32,200 standard deduction, $2,000 non-itemizer deduction and $2,200 CTC. It also added the child's separate $4,855 tax."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It assumed the TCJA had sunset, so it used personal exemptions, 15% brackets and a $1,000 CTC. It also made up $16,800 of mortgage interest from the balance and added the child's separate $4,955 return to the joint unit's tax."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It started from a $145,002 joint AGI that includes the dependent child's $45,000 wages. It also did not apply the $32,200 standard deduction, the $2,000 non-itemizer deduction or the $2,200 CTC to the parents' $100,002 AGI, which produced $17,290."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It applied pre-TCJA 2026 rules (personal exemptions, itemizing, a $1,000 CTC) instead of the OBBBA $32,200 standard deduction, $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction and $2,200 CTC. It then added the child's separate $4,925 tax."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It computed the joint return under expired pre-TCJA law (three exemptions, 15% bracket, $1,000 CTC), which gave $7,784 instead of $5,200.24. It then added a $5,023 child return that does not belong in the joint unit's output."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"With no derivation shown, its $5,304 is $103.76 above the correct $5,200.24 ($65,802 taxable income at 10%/12% gives $7,400.24, minus the $2,200 CTC). That gap equals about $865 of extra taxable income at 12%, which fits approximated deductions or bracket thresholds instead of the exact 2026 $32,200 + $2,000 deductions and $24,800 10% bracket."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It taxed a $145,002 AGI that includes the dependent child's wages. It also applied pre-TCJA personal exemptions and itemizing, and wrongly phased out the CTC, although the $2,200 CTC is fully available at a $100,002 AGI."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It put the child's $45,000 wages into a $145,002 joint AGI and used pre-TCJA itemizing with personal exemptions. The joint AGI is $100,002, with a $32,200 standard deduction, a $2,000 non-itemizer deduction and a $2,200 CTC."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It included the dependent child's $45,000 wages in the joint AGI ($145,002). It also used the 2025 $30,000 standard deduction instead of $32,200, left out the $2,000 non-itemizer deduction, and used a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It added the child's separate $3,312.08 tax to the joint unit's liability. On the joint return it guessed a $30,750 standard deduction and a $24,293 10% bracket, left out the $2,000 non-itemizer deduction, and used a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It treated the CTC as fully refundable and subtracted none of it, although the $2,200 CTC is used nonrefundably against $7,400.24 of liability. It also included the child's $45,000 wages in the joint AGI and subtracted an extra $16,100 dependent standard deduction."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It put the dependent child's wages into the joint income, which gave about $116,751 of taxable income instead of $65,802. Its $7,313 also does not match the bracket tax on its own taxable income."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"With no derivation given, its $14,677 is far above the $5,200.24 that results from taxing $65,802 and subtracting the $2,200 CTC. That level only arises from adding the dependent child's $45,000 wages to the joint return's income."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It used one joint AGI of $145,002 that includes the dependent child's $45,000 wages, although the parents' AGI is $100,002. It also left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, which gave $112,802 of taxable income."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It included the dependent child's $45,000 wages in the joint AGI ($145,002 instead of $100,002), which gave $110,802 of taxable income instead of $65,802. The deductions and the $2,200 CTC were applied correctly."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Its $15,128.44 pre-credit tax implies $115,002 of taxable income. That means it put the child's $45,000 wages into the joint AGI, used the 2025 $30,000 standard deduction instead of $32,200, and left out the $2,000 non-itemizer deduction."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It correctly computed $5,200.24 for the joint unit, then added a separate $3,220 tax on the child's wages. The output is the joint tax unit's liability, so no child return belongs in it."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It added a separate $3,220 child return to the joint unit's tax. It also left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, which gave $67,802 of taxable income and $7,640.24 of tax instead of $65,802 and $7,400.24."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It took a $13,650 qualified-overtime deduction for the head, who is not flagged as paid hourly, and left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction. It also added the child's separate $3,220 tax to the joint unit's output."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It got the joint unit's $5,200.24 right, then added the dependent child's separate $3,220 wage tax. The requested output is only the joint tax unit's liability."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It combined the head's and the child's wages into one $145,002 AGI and claimed a mortgage interest deduction, although no interest paid was listed. The joint AGI is $100,002, and the $32,200 standard deduction plus the $2,000 non-itemizer deduction apply."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It applied 2026 TCJA-sunset rules (personal exemptions, restored 15% bracket, $1,000 CTC) instead of the OBBBA-permanent $32,200 standard deduction, $2,000 non-itemizer deduction and $2,200 CTC. It also added the child's separate $4,851 tax."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It assumed the TCJA had sunset (personal exemptions, 15%/25% brackets, CTC phased out above $110,000) and put the child's $45,000 wages into a $145,002 joint AGI. Under 2026 law the parents' $100,002 AGI keeps the full $2,200 CTC."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It used pre-TCJA sunset law with three $5,400 exemptions, a 15% bracket and a CTC phased out above $110,000, and it included the child's wages in the AGI. The correct base is a $100,002 AGI with the 2026 $32,200 standard deduction, the $2,000 non-itemizer deduction and the $2,200 CTC."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It computed the joint return under expired pre-TCJA law (itemizing $18,557 with three exemptions, 15% bracket, $1,000 CTC) instead of the 2026 $32,200 + $2,000 deductions and $2,200 CTC. It also added a $4,846 child return."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It reached the correct $65,802 taxable income for the joint unit, but then added a separate child tax of about $3,225 to the joint unit's output. It also rounded the joint tax to about $7,410 instead of $7,400.24."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It returned no parseable value or explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, so there is no answer to score."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It made up a $12,000 qualified-overtime deduction for the head, who is not flagged as paid hourly, and included the dependent child's $45,000 wages in the joint AGI. It also left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It counted refundable credits against liability and said the tax rounds to $0. The joint unit has $7,400.24 of pre-credit tax and only a $2,200 nonrefundable CTC, which leaves $5,200.24."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It included the dependent child's $45,000 wages in the joint AGI and took a $13,650 overtime-premium deduction for the head, who is not flagged as paid hourly. It also used a $31,500 standard deduction instead of $32,200."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It put the child's $45,000 wages into a $145,002 joint AGI and took a $12,500 overtime deduction for the head, who is not flagged as paid hourly. It also left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It made up $27,300 of mortgage interest from the $420,000 balance, although no interest paid was given, so it itemized $45,857. It also included the child's wages in the AGI, used 2025 brackets and a $30,000 standard deduction, and applied a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200."
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It made up deductions and credits that do not apply: a QBI deduction on W-2 wages, imputed mortgage interest, a CDCC with no care expenses, and a foreign earned income exclusion. It then reported $0, even though its own figures leave $5,687 of tax after the CTC."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It left out the $2,000 OBBBA non-itemizer charitable deduction, which raised taxable income to $67,802 instead of $65,802. It then added a separate $3,220 child return to reach $8,660. The $5,860 it submitted matches neither that total nor its own parents-only figure of $5,440."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It added the dependent child's $45,000 wages to joint AGI ($145,002), so taxable income came out at $110,802 instead of $65,802. Its deductions ($32,200 standard plus the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction) and its $2,200 CTC were correct."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It imputed about $25,200 of mortgage interest from the $420,000 balance and itemized, even though unlisted interest counts as $0. It also used the outdated $29,200 standard deduction and counted two children instead of one for the CTC. The final $8,316 does not follow from its own steps."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It taxed the head's and the child's wages together as $145,000 of joint income (about $112,000 taxable), when joint AGI is only $100,002. It also never subtracted the $2,200 nonrefundable CTC or the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It used a $31,500 standard deduction instead of the 2026 MFJ amount of $32,200, left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, and took a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200. That gave $5,724, which it then arbitrarily 'adjusted' to $5,316."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It imputed $29,400 of mortgage interest from the loan balance and itemized, but mortgage interest is $0 because none is listed, so the standard deduction plus the $2,000 non-itemizer deduction applies. It also wrongly denied the $2,200 CTC under a support test. The $12,053 it submitted contradicts its own estimate of about $5,765."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It stopped at the $32,200 standard deduction and left out the $2,000 non-itemizer cash charitable deduction that starts in 2026. That made taxable income $67,802 instead of $65,802, and it also understated the tax on that amount ($7,610 instead of $7,640.24)."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It counted the dependent child's $45,000 wages in joint AGI ($145,002), giving $110,802 of taxable income instead of $65,802. Its deductions and $2,200 CTC were otherwise right."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"In its final TCJA-extended calculation it guessed a $30,750 standard deduction and a $24,450 top for the 10% bracket instead of OBBBA's $32,200 and $24,800. It also left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction and used a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It said $18,557 of itemized deductions 'exceeds' the $32,200 standard deduction and itemized, which is backwards, and it skipped the $2,000 non-itemizer deduction. It then submitted $15,300, which contradicts its own after-credit estimate of $7,300."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It gave the head a $13,650 qualified overtime deduction, but the head is not paid hourly, so no overtime deduction applies. It also added a $3,220 separate return for the child, which is not part of this tax-unit output."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It added the child's $45,000 wages to joint AGI ($145,002). It also used a $30,800 standard deduction instead of $32,200, left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, and took a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It assumed TCJA had expired in 2026 and used personal exemptions, 15% brackets and a $1,000 CTC. OBBBA made TCJA permanent, so the $32,200 standard deduction, the 10%/12% brackets and a $2,200 CTC apply. It also added a separate child return."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It used pre-TCJA sunset rules (three $5,300 exemptions, itemizing, a $1,000 CTC) instead of OBBBA's permanent $32,200 standard deduction, $2,000 non-itemizer deduction and $2,200 CTC. It also added a separate $4,896 child return."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It applied pre-TCJA rules (personal exemptions, itemizing $18,557, a $1,000 CTC) instead of the permanent OBBBA rules: $32,200 standard deduction, $2,000 non-itemizer deduction and $2,200 CTC. It also added the child's separate tax."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It assumed TCJA had sunset and used personal exemptions and a $1,000 CTC, and it imputed $16,800 of mortgage interest even though none is listed. It also added a separate child return, when the tax unit's answer is the parents' $5,200.24."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It taxed a joint AGI of $145,002 that included the dependent child's $45,000 wages; the correct AGI is $100,002. Its $17,290 also reflects no $2,200 CTC offset and no $2,000 non-itemizer deduction."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It applied pre-TCJA 2026 rules (personal exemptions, itemizing, a $1,000 CTC) instead of OBBBA's permanent $32,200 standard deduction plus $2,000 non-itemizer deduction and $2,200 CTC. It also added a separate child return."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It used post-TCJA-expiration rules (three exemptions, 15% bracket, $1,000 CTC) instead of OBBBA's permanent TCJA structure. It also added the child's $5,023 separate tax."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"The correct path is $100,002 minus $32,200 standard and $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deductions, giving $65,802 taxable, $7,400.24 of tax, then minus the $2,200 CTC. Its $5,304 is $103.76 too high, which matches about $865 too little deduction at the 12% rate, so it did not fully apply the $34,200 of deductions."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It put the child's wages in a $145,002 joint AGI and used pre-TCJA itemizing plus personal exemptions. It also phased out the CTC, though the $2,200 CTC is fully available on the correct $100,002 AGI."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It put the child's $45,000 wages in joint AGI ($145,002) and used pre-TCJA itemizing and personal exemptions instead of OBBBA's $32,200 standard deduction, $2,000 non-itemizer deduction and $2,200 CTC."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It included the child's wages in a $145,002 AGI. It also used the pre-OBBBA $30,000 standard deduction instead of $32,200, left out the $2,000 non-itemizer deduction, and took a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It had AGI right at $100,002 but left out the $2,000 non-itemizer cash charitable deduction and used a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200. Its vague mention of 'applicable dependent tax liability' also pushed the result away from $5,200.24."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It added a separate $3,312 child return to the parents' tax. For the parents it used a $30,750 standard deduction instead of $32,200, left out the $2,000 non-itemizer deduction, and took a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It added the child's $45,000 wages to joint AGI and subtracted a child standard deduction. It also called the CTC a fully refundable $2,400 and applied no nonrefundable credit. In fact the $2,200 CTC first offsets the $7,400.24 of tax."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It combined the head's and child's wages into $145,002 of joint income, giving taxable income of about $116,751 instead of $65,802 ($100,002 less the $32,200 standard and $2,000 non-itemizer deductions). Its $7,313 does not follow from its own taxable income figure."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It gave no working. The correct path is $100,002 AGI minus $34,200 of deductions, giving $65,802 taxable, $7,400.24 of tax, minus the $2,200 CTC. Its $14,677 fits a joint taxable income that includes the child's $45,000 wages."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It put the child's $45,000 wages in joint AGI ($145,002) and also left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction. That gave $112,802 of taxable income instead of $65,802."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It counted the dependent child's $45,000 wages in joint AGI ($145,002), so it taxed $110,802 instead of $65,802. Its deductions and $2,200 CTC were otherwise correct."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Its $15,128.44 regular tax implies $115,002 of taxable income: the child's wages in a $145,002 AGI, the outdated $30,000 standard deduction, and no $2,000 non-itemizer deduction."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It computed the joint return correctly at $5,200.24, then added a separate $3,220 child return. This output is the single tax unit's liability, and the dependent's wages are not taxed within it."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It added the child's separate $3,220 tax to the tax-unit answer. It also left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, using $67,802 of taxable income instead of $65,802."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It gave the head a $13,650 overtime deduction, but the head is not paid hourly, and it left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction. It then added the child's separate $3,220 tax to the tax-unit liability."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It derived the joint return's $5,200.24 correctly, then added the dependent child's separate $3,220 wage tax. This tax-unit output does not include that amount."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It combined the head's and child's wages into $145,002 of joint income and deducted mortgage interest that is not listed, so it is $0. The correct calculation taxes $65,802 after the $32,200 standard and $2,000 non-itemizer deductions."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It applied TCJA-sunset rules (itemizing, three personal exemptions, restored 15% bracket, $1,000 CTC) instead of OBBBA's permanent $32,200 standard deduction, $2,000 non-itemizer deduction and $2,200 CTC. It also added the child's separate tax."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It assumed TCJA had sunset and used personal exemptions, 10/15/25% brackets and the $110,000 CTC phase-out. It also put the child's wages in joint AGI. Under OBBBA, AGI is $100,002 and the full $2,200 CTC applies."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It used post-TCJA-expiration law (personal exemptions, 15/25% brackets, CTC phased out above $110,000) and included the child's wages in a $145,002 AGI. Current OBBBA law taxes $65,802 at 10/12% and allows the full $2,200 CTC."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It applied pre-TCJA rules (itemizing $18,557, three $5,434 exemptions, a 10% medical floor, a $1,000 CTC) instead of OBBBA's $32,200 standard deduction, $2,000 non-itemizer deduction and $2,200 CTC. It also added a separate child return."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It got close on the parents' joint liability (about $5,210), then added about $3,225 of separate tax on the child's wages. The tax-unit output does not include that, and the answer is the joint return's $5,200.24 alone."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,It gave no value and no explanation for federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits.
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It added the child's $45,000 wages to joint AGI and invented a $12,000 overtime deduction for a head who is not paid hourly. It also left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It claimed credits wipe out the liability, but the joint return's $7,400.24 of tax on $65,802 taxable income is far above the $2,200 nonrefundable CTC. That leaves $5,200.24, not $0."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-spark-1.3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It deducted only the $32,200 standard deduction and left out the $2,000 non-itemizer cash charitable deduction that starts in 2026. That gave $67,802 of taxable income instead of $65,802 and an answer $240 too high."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It put the child's $45,000 wages in joint income ($145,002) and claimed a $13,650 overtime deduction for a head who is not paid hourly. It also used a $31,500 standard deduction instead of $32,200."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It included the child's $45,000 wages in joint AGI and took a $12,500 overtime deduction that does not apply to a head who is not paid hourly. It also left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It included the child's wages in a $145,002 AGI and imputed $27,300 of mortgage interest from the balance, though unlisted interest is $0. It then itemized instead of taking the $32,200 standard deduction plus the $2,000 non-itemizer deduction, and used a $2,000 CTC instead of $2,200."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It made up a QBI deduction on W-2 wages, imputed mortgage interest, and cited a CDCC and a foreign earned income exclusion even though there are no care expenses or foreign income. It then submitted $0, contradicting its own $5,687 after-CTC liability."
us,scenario_123,federal_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model paid out a flat $1,600 ""refundable CTC"" without running the ACTC limitation: the Child Tax Credit is first applied as a nonrefundable credit, and with MFJ taxable income of roughly $112,800 (AGI $145,002 less the 2026 MFJ standard deduction) generating about $14,000 of federal income tax, the entire CTC is absorbed nonrefundably and no additional child tax credit arises. It compounded this by inventing $205 of EITC at $145,002 of AGI, when the one-child EITC for joint filers is fully phased out in the upper $50,000s."
us,scenario_123,federal_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model asserted that satisfying the 15%-of-earnings phase-in makes ""the full credit refundable,"" skipping the step that governs here: the CTC offsets the household's roughly $14,000 federal income tax liability as a nonrefundable credit first, and only the unused remainder — zero — flows to the refundable additional child tax credit, which is separately capped at $1,700 per child in 2026 rather than the full $2,400 the model reported."
us,scenario_123,federal_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The model claimed ""no limitation from the nonrefundable portion,"" which is exactly backwards: the nonrefundable CTC is applied first against the household's roughly $14,000 of federal income tax before refundable credits, exhausting the credit and leaving $0 of additional child tax credit. Its $1,500 figure is also a stale pre-2022 ACTC cap rather than the 2026 $1,700 ceiling."
@@ -10253,95 +10584,98 @@ us,scenario_123,head_wic_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,
us,scenario_123,local_income_tax,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model assumed the household lives in Philadelphia and applied the 3.8712% resident wage tax to the Head's and Child 1's wages, but the facts list only PA with no locality. A PA household with no locality is outside every jurisdiction this output covers, so the liability is $0. Its final $3,545 also does not match its own figures ($3,871.20 + $1,742.04): it lowered the total by an arbitrary amount for a 'limited exemption' it never identified."
us,scenario_123,local_income_tax,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model applied a generic Pennsylvania municipal earned income tax of about 3.67% to $145,000 of combined wages. The output is limited to NYC, Philadelphia, Kansas City and St. Louis taxes, and no locality is listed for this household. Ordinary PA municipal and school-district EITs are not part of local_income_tax, so the correct value is $0."
us,scenario_123,local_income_tax,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"The model said Philadelphia is 'the relevant PA locality' just because the household is in PA, and applied a resident wage tax of about 3.75% to $145,000 of wages. The household has no Philadelphia residence, so no covered local tax applies and the correct value is $0. Its submitted $3,830.90 also contradicts its own stated total of $5,437.50."
-us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its reasoning got the right total of $11,194: FICA on both earners plus the 0.07% PA employee UC contribution ($70 + $31.50). It then submitted an unrelated $11,663.35 that matches nothing in its own work."
-us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It computed only federal FICA at 7.65% ($11,092.50). It left out Pennsylvania's mandatory 0.07% employee unemployment compensation contribution on all $145,000 of wages, which adds $101.50."
-us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It said the head's $100,000 is below the Additional Medicare Tax threshold, then added $648.89 of that tax anyway. It also wrongly said Pennsylvania has no mandatory employee payroll tax, so it missed the $101.50 UC contribution at 0.07% of wages."
-us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"It named the right components (6.2% Social Security and 1.45% Medicare on $145,000), but those come to $11,092.50, not its unsupported $13,500. It also omitted Pennsylvania's 0.07% employee UC contribution ($101.50)."
-us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It correctly computed the PA employee UC contribution as $101.50 (0.07% × $145,000). It then wrongly treated it as $0 in the total and submitted $11,092.50 instead of $11,194."
-us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,other,False,"It correctly derived $11,194 ($7,720 for the head plus $3,474 for the child, including PA UC at 0.07%), then submitted $11,097.50, which contradicts its own arithmetic."
-us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only federal FICA at 7.65% ($11,092.50). It omitted Pennsylvania's mandatory 0.07% employee unemployment compensation contribution on all wages ($101.50)."
-us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It applied only 7.65% FICA to $145,000. It left out Pennsylvania's mandatory 0.07% employee UC contribution on all wages, which adds $101.50 to reach $11,194."
-us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,"It recognized the PA employee UC contribution at 0.07% but capped it at the first $10,000 of wages per worker ($14). Pennsylvania's employee contribution has no wage cap, so it applies to the full $145,000 and comes to $101.50."
-us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly stated that Pennsylvania has no employee UI withholding. Pennsylvania requires a 0.07% employee unemployment compensation contribution on all wages, so its $11,092.50 is missing $101.50."
-us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It said no employee state payroll tax applies, which omits Pennsylvania's mandatory 0.07% employee UC contribution on $145,000 of wages ($101.50)."
-us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It computed only Social Security and Medicare ($11,092.50). It omitted Pennsylvania's 0.07% employee unemployment compensation contribution on all wages ($101.50)."
-us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,It summed only federal FICA for the head and child. It omitted Pennsylvania's mandatory 0.07% employee UC contribution ($70 + $31.50 = $101.50).
-us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It explicitly said no mandatory state payroll tax applies. Pennsylvania levies a 0.07% employee unemployment compensation contribution on all wages, which adds $101.50."
-us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It stopped at Social Security plus Medicare ($11,092.50). It never added Pennsylvania's 0.07% employee UC contribution on $145,000 ($101.50)."
-us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its stated 7.65% of $145,000 comes to $11,092.50, not $11,108, so its arithmetic is off. It also omitted Pennsylvania's 0.07% employee UC contribution ($101.50)."
-us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only Social Security and Medicare, which come to $11,092.50, and its $11,138 does not match that. It also omitted Pennsylvania's mandatory 0.07% employee UC contribution ($101.50)."
-us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It treated household payroll tax as federal FICA only ($11,092.50). It omitted Pennsylvania's 0.07% employee unemployment compensation contribution on all wages ($101.50)."
-us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly stated that Pennsylvania has no mandatory employee-side payroll tax. It missed the 0.07% employee UC contribution on $145,000 of wages ($101.50)."
-us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It asserted that Pennsylvania has no mandatory employee payroll tax and so dropped the 0.07% employee UC contribution ($101.50). Its result is federal FICA alone, $11,092.50."
-us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,other,False,"Its stated components (6.2% OASDI and 1.45% Medicare on $145,000) come to $11,092.50, not its $12,366. It also explicitly assumed no PA employee payroll tax, which drops the 0.07% UC contribution ($101.50)."
-us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"Its $15,399 is far above what its own method produces: 7.65% of $145,000 is $11,092.50. It also excluded Pennsylvania's mandatory 0.07% employee UC contribution ($101.50)."
-us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,It computed only 7.65% FICA on the head's and child's wages. It omitted Pennsylvania's 0.07% employee unemployment compensation contribution on all wages ($101.50).
-us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It correctly included the PA employee UC contribution but computed it as $87, which is a 0.06% rate. Pennsylvania's employee rate is 0.07%, giving $101.50 on $145,000."
-us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It explicitly said no Pennsylvania employee payroll tax applies. It missed the mandatory 0.07% employee UC contribution on $145,000 ($101.50)."
-us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its stated 7.65% on $145,000 is $11,092.50, not $11,107.50, so its arithmetic is wrong. It also omitted Pennsylvania's 0.07% employee UC contribution ($101.50)."
-us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,It wrongly asserted that Pennsylvania has no mandatory employee payroll tax. That drops the 0.07% employee unemployment compensation contribution on all wages ($101.50).
-us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It said Pennsylvania has no mandatory employee-side payroll tax. Pennsylvania withholds a 0.07% employee UC contribution on all wages, which adds $101.50."
-us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,It claimed Pennsylvania has no mandatory employee state payroll tax and so omitted the 0.07% employee UC contribution ($70 head + $31.50 child).
-us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It ruled out any mandatory state employee payroll tax. That misses Pennsylvania's 0.07% employee unemployment compensation contribution on $145,000 ($101.50)."
-us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It set state mandatory employee payroll taxes to zero. Pennsylvania imposes a 0.07% employee UC contribution on all wages, which adds $101.50."
-us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It submitted no value or explanation for payroll_tax, so nothing was available to score against the $11,194 total."
-us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"It acknowledged that $145,000 of wages triggers employee Social Security and Medicare tax, then reported $0 anyway. That drops $8,990 of Social Security, $2,102.50 of Medicare, and the $101.50 PA UC contribution."
-us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,It wrongly asserted that Pennsylvania levies no mandatory employee payroll tax. That omits the 0.07% employee UC contribution on all wages ($101.50).
-us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It stated that Pennsylvania has no state payroll taxes, which misses the mandatory 0.07% employee unemployment compensation contribution on $145,000 ($101.50)."
-us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It recorded $7,650 (the head's full 7.65% FICA) as Social Security and then added $1,450 Medicare again, double-counting Medicare. It invented $270 of Additional Medicare Tax even though wages are well below the $250,000 MFJ threshold. Its final $10,851.95 does not match its own $10,812.50 sum, and it omitted the 0.07% PA employee UC contribution."
+us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5,llm_error,other,False,"Its reasoning correctly added Social Security, Medicare, and the 0.07% PA employee UC contribution ($101.50) to reach $11,194. It then submitted 11,663.35, a number that no step of its own work supports."
+us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,claude-fable-5.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It computed only federal FICA (7.65% × $145,000 = $11,092.50). It left out Pennsylvania's mandatory employee Unemployment Compensation contribution of 0.07% on all wages, which is $101.50."
+us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-4.5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It stated that the head's $100,000 is below the Additional Medicare Tax threshold, then added $648.89 of Additional Medicare Tax anyway. It also wrongly said Pennsylvania has no mandatory employee payroll tax, which dropped the 0.07% UC contribution of $101.50."
+us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,claude-haiku-5.5,llm_error,other,False,"With every wage under the Social Security cap, its stated method (6.2% + 1.45% on $145,000) gives $11,092.50, but it reported $13,500, an arithmetic error. It also left out Pennsylvania's 0.07% employee UC contribution ($101.50), which brings the correct total to $11,194."
+us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It correctly computed the PA employee UC contribution as 0.07% × $145,000 = $101.50, then set it to $0 in the total by wrongly calling it not mandatory. Its answer was $11,092.50 instead of $11,194."
+us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,claude-opus-4.8,llm_error,other,False,"Its reasoning correctly summed Social Security, Medicare, and the 0.07% PA UC contribution to $11,194. It then submitted 11,097.50, which contradicts its own correct calculation."
+us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,It applied only the 7.65% federal FICA rate. It never added Pennsylvania's mandatory employee UC contribution of 0.07% on all wages ($101.50).
+us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,claude-opus-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It took 7.65% of $145,000 and stopped there. It left out Pennsylvania's mandatory 0.07% employee Unemployment Compensation contribution ($101.50), which the question's definition of payroll tax includes."
+us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It recognized the PA employee UC contribution but wrongly capped it at the first $10,000 of each worker's wages, giving $14. Pennsylvania withholds the 0.07% employee contribution on all gross wages with no cap, which is $101.50."
+us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly said Pennsylvania has no UI withholding from employees. Pennsylvania withholds 0.07% of all wages for Unemployment Compensation, which is $101.50 here, so the total is $11,194."
+us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,claude-sonnet-5.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly assumed there is no employee state payroll tax. It left out Pennsylvania's mandatory 0.07% employee UC contribution on the $145,000 in wages ($101.50)."
+us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,It computed only federal Social Security and Medicare. It left out Pennsylvania's mandatory 0.07% employee Unemployment Compensation contribution ($101.50).
+us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It added up per-person FICA to $11,092.50 and never included Pennsylvania's 0.07% employee UC withholding on all wages ($70 for the head + $31.50 for the child = $101.50)."
+us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly said no mandatory state payroll tax applies. Pennsylvania withholds a 0.07% employee Unemployment Compensation contribution on all wages, which adds $101.50."
+us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,deepseek-v4.1-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It computed only 6.2% Social Security and 1.45% Medicare on $145,000. It left out Pennsylvania's mandatory 0.07% employee UC contribution ($101.50)."
+us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its stated method, 7.65% of $145,000, gives $11,092.50, but it reported $11,108, an arithmetic slip. It also left out Pennsylvania's 0.07% employee UC contribution ($101.50)."
+us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It counted only Social Security and Medicare, which come to $11,092.50, and it reported an unsupported $11,138. It left out Pennsylvania's mandatory 0.07% employee UC contribution ($101.50), which brings the total to $11,194."
+us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,gemini-3.8-flash,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,It limited payroll tax to federal FICA. It never added Pennsylvania's 0.07% employee Unemployment Compensation withholding on the head's and child's wages ($101.50).
+us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,gemini-4-argon,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It took 7.65% of the $145,000 in wages. It left out Pennsylvania's mandatory 0.07% employee UC contribution ($101.50), which the question explicitly counts as a state payroll tax."
+us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,glm-5.2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,It wrongly stated that Pennsylvania has no mandatory employee-side payroll tax. Pennsylvania's 0.07% employee UC contribution on all wages adds $101.50.
+us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,glm-5.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly said Pennsylvania has no mandatory employee payroll tax. That dropped the 0.07% UC contribution on $145,000 in wages ($101.50)."
+us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-mini,llm_error,other,False,"Its stated method (Social Security and Medicare on wages below the cap) gives $11,092.50, but it reported $12,366, an arithmetic error. It also wrongly assumed there is no Pennsylvania employee payroll tax, which dropped the 0.07% UC contribution ($101.50)."
+us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,gpt-5.4-nano,llm_error,other,False,"Its stated method of 6.2% plus 1.45% on $145,000 in wages gives $11,092.50, but it reported $15,399, which no part of its reasoning supports. It also left out Pennsylvania's 0.07% employee UC contribution ($101.50)."
+us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,gpt-5.6-terra,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,It applied only 7.65% FICA to each earner. It left out Pennsylvania's mandatory 0.07% employee Unemployment Compensation contribution ($101.50).
+us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,gpt-6-astra,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It included the Pennsylvania employee UC contribution but at 0.06% ($87). The employee rate is 0.07%, which gives $101.50 on $145,000 and a total of $11,194."
+us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,gpt-6-luna,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,It wrongly said no Pennsylvania employee payroll tax applies. It left out the mandatory 0.07% UC contribution on all wages ($101.50).
+us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,grok-4.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Its stated method of 7.65% FICA gives $11,092.50, but it reported $11,107.50, which includes an unexplained extra $15. It also left out Pennsylvania's 0.07% employee UC contribution ($101.50)."
+us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,grok-4.5,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly said there is no mandatory PA employee payroll tax. Pennsylvania withholds 0.07% of all wages for Unemployment Compensation, which adds $101.50."
+us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,grok-4.6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly said Pennsylvania has no mandatory employee-side payroll tax. That dropped the 0.07% employee UC contribution on $145,000 ($101.50)."
+us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,grok-4.7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,It wrongly said Pennsylvania has no mandatory employee state payroll tax. It left out the 0.07% employee UC withholding: $70 on the head's wages and $31.50 on the child's.
+us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,grok-build-0.1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,It wrongly concluded there is no mandatory state employee payroll tax. It left out Pennsylvania's 0.07% employee Unemployment Compensation contribution ($101.50).
+us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,inkling,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly set state mandatory employee payroll taxes to zero. Pennsylvania's 0.07% employee UC contribution on all wages adds $101.50, for a total of $11,194."
+us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"It submitted no value and no explanation for payroll_tax, so there was nothing to score against the $11,194 reference."
+us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,minimax-m3,llm_error,other,False,"It acknowledged that $145,000 in wages creates Social Security and Medicare tax, then submitted $0 without basis. The correct total is $8,990 Social Security + $2,102.50 Medicare + $101.50 PA employee UC = $11,194."
+us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,muse-spark-1.3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,It computed only federal FICA at 7.65%. It left out Pennsylvania's mandatory 0.07% employee Unemployment Compensation contribution ($101.50).
+us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,ox-alpha,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly stated that Pennsylvania levies no mandatory employee payroll tax. That dropped the 0.07% employee UC contribution on $145,000 in wages ($101.50)."
+us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,qwen-3.7-max,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"It wrongly said Pennsylvania has no state payroll taxes. It left out the mandatory 0.07% employee Unemployment Compensation contribution ($101.50) on top of the $11,092.50 in FICA."
+us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"It put the head's Social Security at $7,650 instead of $6,200 and invented $270 of Additional Medicare Tax, even though the couple's wages are far below the $250,000 joint threshold. It then adjusted its total arbitrarily and never applied Pennsylvania's 0.07% employee UC contribution ($101.50)."
us,scenario_123,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_123,spouse_chip_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_123,spouse_medicaid_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,"The model supplied no spouse_medicaid_eligible output, violating the required submission contract and omitting the engine-derived result of 0."
us,scenario_123,spouse_medicaid_eligible,qwen3.8-max,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,"The model incorrectly stated that the spouse's MAGI was below Pennsylvania's adult Medicaid threshold. The spouse's MAGI is 5.31 times FPL, far above the applicable income limits, and the spouse qualifies through no other Medicaid category."
us,scenario_123,spouse_medicare_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_123,spouse_wic_eligible,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It correctly got $3,070.06 for the parents' return. It then added a separate $1,381.50 PA return for the dependent child, but the child's $45,000 of wages is outside the head/spouse tax-unit base. It also submitted $4,453.06, which doesn't match its own $4,451.56."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It applied 3.07% to $145,002, which wrongly includes the dependent child's $45,000 of wages. The tax unit's PA base is only the head and spouse's $100,002, so the tax is $3,070.06."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It made up $15,000 and $8,500 PA standard deductions, but PA has no standard deduction. It also added the dependent child's $45,000 of wages to the base. The correct base is the head and spouse's $100,002 with no deductions, which gives $3,070.06."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It used a base of about $145,000, which includes the dependent child's wages. Even then, $5,900 implies a rate of about 4.07% instead of PA's flat 3.07%. The correct result is 3.07% × the head and spouse's $100,002 = $3,070.06."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It counted the dependent child's $45,000 of wages as PA-taxable for the tax unit, giving a $145,002 base instead of the head and spouse's $100,002. It also submitted $4,452.08, which doesn't match its own $4,451.56."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It added Child 1's $45,000 of wages to the head and spouse's income for a $145,002 base. The dependent's wages don't belong in the tax unit's PA base, which is $100,002 and gives $3,070.06. It also submitted $4,452.61 against its own $4,451.56."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It correctly got about $3,070 for the head and spouse. It then added $1,381.50 for the child as a separate filer, but the dependent child is part of the single tax unit and its wages are excluded from that unit's PA base."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It applied 3.07% to $145,002, which counts the dependent child's $45,000 of wages. The tax unit's PA taxable income is the head and spouse's $100,002, giving $3,070.06."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It correctly found that the joint return gives $100,002 × 3.07% = $3,070.06. It then reversed itself and added the child's $45,000 because everyone is in one tax unit. A dependent's wages are not part of the head/spouse PA base."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It correctly found the base of $100,002 and the tax of $3,070.06. It then cut the answer to $3,060 citing 'interest treatment nuances,' but PA has no such adjustment, so the tax is exactly $3,070.06."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It correctly computed the parents' $3,070.06. It then added a separate child unit owing $1,381.50, but the child is a dependent inside the single tax unit and that unit's PA base excludes the child's wages."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It used $145,002 as the base, which includes the dependent child's $45,000 of wages. The tax unit's PA base is only the head and spouse's $100,002, giving $3,070.06."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It added $1,381.50 of tax on the dependent child's $45,000 of wages, which is excluded from the tax unit's PA base. It also left out the $2 of taxable interest. The correct base is $100,002, giving $3,070.06."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It taxed $145,002, which includes the dependent child's $45,000 of wages. The PA base for the head/spouse tax unit is $100,002, giving $3,070.06."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It subtracted the $16,100 charitable donation, but PA allows no charitable deduction. It also added the dependent child's $45,000 of wages. The correct base is the head and spouse's $100,002 with nothing subtracted."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It counted Child 1's $45,000 of wages in the tax unit's PA taxable income, giving $145,002. The dependent's wages are excluded, so the base is $100,002 and the tax is $3,070.06."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It used a 3% rate instead of PA's 3.07%. It also applied that rate to $145,000, which includes the dependent child's wages. The correct calculation is 3.07% × $100,002 = $3,070.06."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It applied 3.07% to a household total of $145,002 that includes the dependent child's wages. The tax unit's PA base is the head and spouse's $100,002."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It correctly computed about $3,070 for the joint filers. It then added about $1,382 for Child 1 as a separate filer, but the dependent's wages are not part of the tax unit's PA tax."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It gave no derivation. $3,385 implies a 3.07% base of about $110,260, which doesn't match any valid PA income class. The correct base is the head and spouse's $100,000 of wages plus $2 of interest, giving $3,070.06."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It used a household total of $145,002 that includes the dependent child's $45,000 of wages. The tax unit's PA base is $100,002, giving $3,070.06."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It taxed $145,002, which wrongly includes the dependent child's wages. The head/spouse tax unit's PA taxable income is $100,002."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It counted $145,000 of compensation, including Child 1's $45,000. Only the head's $100,000 of wages and the $2 of interest belong in the tax unit's PA base, giving $3,070.06."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It correctly computed $3,070.06 for the joint return. It then added $1,381.50 for the child filing separately, but the dependent child is part of the single tax unit and its wages are excluded from that unit's PA tax."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It summed $100,000 + $45,000 + $2, which wrongly includes the dependent child's wages. The PA base is $100,002, giving $3,070.06."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"At 3.07%, its $4,807 implies a base of about $156,580. That is more than all household income and includes the dependent child's wages. The correct base is the head and spouse's $100,002, giving $3,070.06."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It ran a federal-style calculation using itemized medical and real-estate-tax deductions, but PA allows neither. Its $9,055 is far above 3.07% of any base in this household. The correct result is a flat 3.07% × $100,002 = $3,070.06."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It included Child 1's $45,000 of wages for a $145,002 base. The dependent's wages are excluded from the tax unit's PA income, which is $100,002."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It applied 3.07% to $145,002, which includes the dependent child's wages, and still got the product wrong: it gave $4,455.06 instead of $4,451.56. The correct base is $100,002, giving $3,070.06."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It taxed $145,002, which includes the dependent child's $45,000 of wages. The tax unit's PA base is only the head and spouse's $100,002."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It used $145,002 of household wages and interest. The dependent child's $45,000 of wages is excluded from the tax unit's PA base, which leaves $100,002 and a tax of $3,070.06."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It taxed $145,002 of household income, which includes the dependent child's wages. The PA base is the head and spouse's $100,002."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It correctly taxed the parents' $100,002. It then added tax on the child's $45,000 as a separate return, but the dependent's wages are not part of the single tax unit's PA tax."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It taxed $145,000 of wages, which includes the dependent child's $45,000. Only the head's $100,000 of wages plus $2 of interest belong in the tax unit's PA base."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It included the dependent child's $45,000 of wages in the PA base. The head/spouse tax unit's taxable income is $100,002, giving $3,070.06."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It applied 3.07% to about $145,000 of combined income, which includes the dependent child's wages. The tax unit's PA base is $100,002, giving $3,070.06."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It taxed $145,002 of combined compensation, which counts the dependent child's $45,000 of wages. Those wages are excluded from the head/spouse tax unit's PA base."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It correctly found that PA allows no deductions. However, it used a $145,002 base that includes the dependent child's wages; the correct base is $100,002, giving $3,070.06."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It treated $145,002 as the PA taxable income, which includes Child 1's wages. The dependent's wages are not in the tax unit's base of $100,002."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It explicitly added the child's $45,000 to the head and spouse's income. The tax unit's PA base excludes the dependent's wages and is $100,002."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It treated the child as a second filing unit and added that tax. The output covers only the single head/spouse tax unit, whose $100,002 base gives $3,070.06."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It gave no reasoning. $2,939.86 implies a 3.07% base of about $95,760, about $4,240 below the head and spouse's $100,002, which matches subtracting a deduction PA does not allow. PA taxes the full $100,002 of compensation and interest, giving $3,070.06."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It correctly applied no deductions. However, it used a $145,002 base that includes the dependent child's wages; the tax unit's base is $100,002."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It said PA tax liability is positive and then reported 0 anyway. PA's flat 3.07% applies to the head and spouse's $100,002 with no forgiveness at this income, giving $3,070.06."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It taxed about $145,002, which includes the dependent child's wages. The tax unit's PA base is the head and spouse's $100,002."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It correctly excluded the charitable, medical, and property-tax deductions. However, it added the dependent child's $45,000 of wages, making the base $145,002 instead of $100,002."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It counted Child 1's $45,000 of wages in the tax unit's PA taxable income. The correct base is the head and spouse's $100,002, giving $3,070.06."
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"It started from a federal taxable income of $67,525. PA does not start from federal taxable income and allows no standard or itemized deductions, so the base is the head and spouse's gross $100,002. It also submitted $2,565.30, which doesn't match its own $2,073.02."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Correctly computed the parents' tax as $3,070.06, then added $1,381.50 for a separate return for the child. The single tax unit does not include a separate return for the child, so the child's $45,000 is outside the output. It also misreported its own total of $4,451.56 as $4,453.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-fable-5.1,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Applied 3.07% to $145,002, which counts the dependent child's $45,000 in wages as part of the unit's PA taxable income. The correct base is only the head's and spouse's $100,002, which gives $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Included the child's $45,000 in wages in the household's PA base. It then subtracted a $15,000 and an $8,500 'standard deduction', but Pennsylvania has no standard deduction. The correct tax is 3.07% of the parents' $100,002, or $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-haiku-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Built the base from about $145,000, which wrongly includes the dependent child's wages. Even on that base, 3.07% gives $4,451.56, not $5,900. The correct figure is 3.07% of the parents' $100,002, or $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Added the child's $45,000 in wages to the head's compensation, giving $145,002 of PA income. The dependent's wages are not part of the unit's PA taxable income, which is $100,002 and yields $3,070.06. It also submitted $4,452.08 instead of its own computed $4,451.56."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-4.8,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Treated the dependent child's $45,000 in wages as PA taxable income of the household's tax unit, for a $145,002 base. The correct base is the parents' $100,002, giving $3,070.06. It also submitted $4,452.61 instead of its own $4,451.56."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Correctly computed about $3,070 for the head and spouse, then added $1,381.50 for the child's own return. The single tax unit excludes the dependent's wages, so the answer is $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-opus-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Applied 3.07% to $145,002, which includes the dependent child's $45,000 in wages. Only the head's and spouse's $100,002 is PA taxable income for the unit, giving $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Correctly found that the joint return carries $100,002 and $3,070.06 of tax. It then dropped that result and pooled the child's $45,000 into the tax unit because all three people are listed together. A dependent's wages are never part of the parents' PA taxable income."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Correctly excluded the child's wages and computed 3.07% × $100,002 = $3,070.06. It then arbitrarily changed the answer to $3,060, citing 'interest treatment nuances' that do not exist. PA compensation and interest are both taxed at the same flat 3.07%."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,claude-sonnet-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Correctly computed the parents' $3,070.06, then added $1,381.50 for a separate unit for the child. The single tax unit does not include that separate return, so the tax is $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-flash-0731,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Taxed $145,002, which includes the dependent child's $45,000 in wages. The unit's PA taxable income is the parents' $100,002, and 3.07% of that is $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Added $1,381.50 of tax on the child's $45,000 in wages, which the parents' tax unit does not include. It also left out the $2 of taxable interest that is PA income. The correct figure is 3.07% × $100,002 = $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4-pro-0813,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Applied 3.07% to $145,002 and so counted the dependent child's wages. The unit's PA taxable income is $100,002, giving $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,deepseek-v4.1-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Subtracted the $16,100 charitable donation from the head's income, but Pennsylvania allows no charitable deduction. It also added the child's $45,000 in wages, which are not part of the unit's PA income. The correct base is $100,002, giving $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3-flash-preview,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Summed $145,002 by counting Child 1's $45,000 as household taxable income. The dependent's wages are not included, so the tax is 3.07% × $100,002 = $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Used a 3% rate instead of Pennsylvania's 3.07%. It applied that rate to $145,000, a base that includes the dependent child's wages and leaves out the $2 of interest. The correct tax is 3.07% × $100,002 = $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.1-pro-preview,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Applied 3.07% to the whole household's $145,002, including the dependent child's wages. The unit's PA taxable income is the parents' $100,002, giving $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Correctly computed about $3,070 on the parents' $100,002, then added $1,382 for the child's separate return. That return is not part of the single tax unit's output, so the answer is $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.5-flash-lite,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Gave no derivation. Its $3,385 implies a taxable base of about $110,260, which matches no valid PA base. The correct computation is 3.07% of the parents' $100,002 of compensation and interest, or $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.6-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Applied 3.07% to $145,002 of 'household' income, which counts the dependent child's $45,000 in wages. The unit's base is $100,002, giving $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.7-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Taxed $145,002 by including the dependent child's wages. Only the head's and spouse's $100,002 is the unit's PA taxable income, giving $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-3.8-flash,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Counted $145,000 of compensation, including Child 1's $45,000. The dependent's wages are not PA income of the parents' tax unit, so the tax is 3.07% × $100,002 = $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gemini-4-argon,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Explicitly added Child 1's $45,000 in wages to the head's $100,000. A dependent's wages are excluded from the unit's PA taxable income, so the tax is 3.07% × $100,002 = $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.2,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Correctly computed $3,070.06 on the joint return, then added $1,381.50 for a separate return for the child. The single tax unit does not include that return, so the answer is $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,glm-5.3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Summed $100,000 + $45,000 + $2, counting the dependent child's wages as the household's taxable compensation. The correct base is $100,002, giving $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-mini,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Included the dependent child's wages in the PA base. Even then, its $4,807 does not equal 3.07% of $145,002, which is $4,451.56. The correct tax is 3.07% of the parents' $100,002, or $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.4-nano,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Computed PA tax as if itemized deductions for medical expenses and real estate taxes applied, but Pennsylvania allows neither. Its $9,055 implies a base of about $295,000, far above any real household income. The correct figure is the flat 3.07% on the parents' $100,002, or $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Built the base as $100,000 + $45,000 + $2, including the dependent child's wages. The unit's PA taxable income is $100,002, giving $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Applied 3.07% to $145,002, which includes the child's wages. It also misreported the product as $4,455.06 instead of $4,451.56. The correct tax is 3.07% × $100,002 = $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Taxed $145,002 of wages and interest, which counts the dependent child's $45,000. Only the parents' $100,002 is in the unit's PA base, giving $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-5.6-terra,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Applied the 3.07% rate to all $145,002 of household wages and interest, including the dependent child's wages. The correct base is $100,002, giving $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-astra,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Taxed $145,002 of household wages and interest, which treats the dependent child's $45,000 as the tax unit's PA income. The correct tax is 3.07% × $100,002 = $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-luna,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Correctly taxed the parents' $100,002, then added tax on the child's 'separate' $45,000. The single tax unit has no separate return for the child, so the answer is $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6-sol,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Included $145,000 of wages, which counts the dependent child's $45,000. The unit's PA taxable income is $100,002, giving $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,gpt-6.1-sol,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Taxed $145,000 of wages plus $2 of interest, including the dependent child's earnings. The correct base is the parents' $100,002, giving $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Applied 3.07% to combined household income of about $145,000, which includes the dependent child's wages. The unit's PA tax is 3.07% × $100,002 = $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.5,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Combined the child's $45,000 with the parents' income for a $145,002 base. Dependent wages are excluded, so the tax is 3.07% × $100,002 = $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.6,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Correctly rejected the standard, exemption, and itemized deductions, but set taxable income at $145,002 by including the dependent child's wages. The correct base is $100,002, giving $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-4.7,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Computed 3.07% × $145,002, which counts the dependent child's $45,000 as unit income. Only the parents' $100,002 is taxed, giving $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,grok-build-0.1,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Explicitly added the child's $45,000 to the head's $100,001 and the spouse's $1. The dependent's wages are not part of the unit's PA taxable income, so the tax is $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,inkling,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Summed tax 'across both filing units', adding the child's $45,000 to the parents' $100,002. The single tax unit's output covers only the parents' $100,002, giving $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Gave no reasoning. Its $2,939.86 implies a base of about $95,760, which means it subtracted roughly $4,240 from the parents' income as a deduction. Pennsylvania allows no deduction for medical expenses, property taxes, or similar items, so the base stays $100,002 and the tax is $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,kimi-k3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Correctly applied no deductions, but put taxable income at $145,002 by including the dependent child's wages. The correct base is $100,002, giving $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,minimax-m3,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Stated that PA tax liability is positive yet submitted 0. The flat 3.07% on the parents' $100,002 gives $3,070.06, and no forgiveness or nonrefundable credit reduces it."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,muse-wonder,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Applied 3.07% to $145,002, which counts the dependent child's wages in the household base. The correct base is $100,002, giving $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ox-alpha,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Correctly disallowed the charity, medical, and property-tax deductions, but counted $145,000 of wages including the dependent child's $45,000. The unit's tax is 3.07% × $100,002 = $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen-3.7-max,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Added Child 1's $45,000 in wages to the head's, for a $145,002 base. The dependent's wages are excluded, so the tax is 3.07% × $100,002 = $3,070.06."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,qwen3.8-max,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"Started from federal taxable income of $67,525, but Pennsylvania does not use federal deductions. The PA base is the gross compensation and interest, $100,002, and 3.07% of that is $3,070.06. Its submitted $2,565.30 also contradicts its own computed $2,073.02."
us,scenario_123,state_refundable_credits,kimi-k2.6,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_123,tanf,glm-5.2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
diff --git a/annotations/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/us_case_notes.csv b/annotations/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/us_case_notes.csv
index a3255443..fb85264a 100644
--- a/annotations/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/us_case_notes.csv
+++ b/annotations/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/us_case_notes.csv
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
country,scenario_id,variable,wrong_model_count,case_failure_sources,case_failure_subtypes,reference_suspect,reference_bug_hypothesis,case_annotation
-us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,44,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,,"The head is a widowed person with no dependent child. Qualifying-surviving-spouse status requires a dependent child, so they file as single. That means taxable Social Security is figured with the $25,000/$34,000 thresholds: $4,500 + 85% × ($50,520 − $34,000) = $18,542.70, giving AGI of $50,437.11. Under OBBBA rules for 2026 (TCJA has not expired), deductions are the $16,100 single standard deduction, the $2,050 aged add-on and the $6,000 senior deduction, for $24,150 in total. Taxable income is $26,287.11, taxed at 10% up to $12,400 and 12% above that, which gives $2,906.45. The wrong answers fall into four groups: using joint/QSS thresholds and deductions, applying pre-TCJA sunset law (personal exemption, 15% bracket, no SALT cap), leaving out the $6,000 senior deduction, or miscomputing taxable Social Security."
+us,scenario_000,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,45,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"A surviving spouse with no dependent files as Single. That means single Social Security thresholds of $25,000/$34,000, so taxable Social Security is $18,542.70 and AGI is $50,437.11. Under 2026 OBBBA-permanent TCJA law there is no personal exemption, the deductions are the $16,100 single standard deduction plus the $2,050 aged add-on plus the $6,000 senior deduction ($24,150 total), and the 10% bracket ends at $12,400. That leaves taxable income of $26,287.11 and tax of $2,906.45. The wrong answers come from three main mistakes: using qualifying-surviving-spouse/joint parameters, assuming the TCJA sunset (personal exemption and a 15% bracket), or leaving out the $6,000 senior deduction. Some models also misapplied the Social Security taxability formula."
us,scenario_000,federal_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_000,head_medicaid_eligible,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Texas Medicaid eligibility at age 77 requires qualification through an aged Medicaid pathway; age alone does not establish a qualifying category. This person has no Medicaid eligibility category, receives no SSI, and has MAGI income of 3.98 times FPL, so the immigration-status requirement does not create eligibility by itself."
us,scenario_000,payroll_tax,2,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Employee payroll taxes apply to wage and salary compensation, not to Social Security retirement benefits, pensions, IRA distributions, interest, or veterans benefits. Because the household reports no wages or other employee compensation, the employee Social Security and Medicare tax base is zero and payroll tax is $0."
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ us,scenario_001,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,7,llm_error,state_loc
us,scenario_002,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,11,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"PolicyEngine does not count the $24,000 disability benefits or the $48,000 veterans benefits in gross income. That leaves $18,740 of other income: $18,340 of pension plus $400 of interest. Provisional income is $18,740 plus half of Social Security ($22,040), or $40,780, which is below the $44,000 MFJ second-tier threshold. Only 50% of the excess over $32,000 is taxable, so $4,390 of Social Security is taxable and AGI is $23,130. The 2026 MFJ standard deduction with both spouses 65+ is $35,500, before the $6,000-per-senior deduction, so it wipes out all of that income and tax is $0. Most models counted the disability benefits as taxable, made all of Social Security taxable, or both, and then also understated the deductions. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (taxable_income_or_deductions). The frozen reference is 0.00; the alternative is 1,890.30. The prompt lists disability benefits from employment without saying who paid for the coverage. Benefits from employer-paid coverage are included in gross income (26 U.S.C. 105(a)); benefits from coverage the employee paid for with after-tax money are excluded (26 U.S.C. 104(a)(3)). The reference excludes them; the alternative value includes them. Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (who paid for the coverage behind listed employment disability benefits, which decides whether they are taxable)."
us,scenario_002,payroll_tax,1,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Employee payroll taxes apply to covered wages and other employment compensation, not Social Security retirement benefits, pensions, disability benefits, veterans benefits, or taxable interest. Because the household has no wages or other payroll-taxable earnings, every employee-side payroll-tax component is zero."
us,scenario_002,spouse_medicaid_eligible,1,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,,"Medicaid eligibility for the spouse cannot be established by treating the spouse's lack of individually reported income as zero countable income. The spouse qualifies through no Washington Medicaid pathway: the engine assigns category NONE, records no SSI, and calculates household MAGI at 2.90 times FPL, above the applicable MAGI limits."
-us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,37,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"To match the reference, a model has to: include 85% of Social Security; net the $1,080 short-term gain against the $2,662 long-term loss for a $1,582 deduction; take no traditional 401(k)/IRA deduction because nobody has compensation; and apply the 2026 rules made permanent by OBBBA. Those rules are a $32,200 joint standard deduction (no age-65 or senior add-on, since the head is 64 and the spouse 61), a 10% bracket to $24,800, a 12% bracket to $100,800 and 22% above that, with $3,760 of qualified dividends taxed at 15%. The largest group of wrong answers assumed the TCJA expired, bringing back personal exemptions and the 10/15/25% brackets. Another group used 2025 or earlier standard deductions and bracket limits. The rest invented deductions (retirement contributions without earnings, car-loan interest, age-65 amounts), double-counted capital gains or losses, or submitted a number that did not match their own working."
+us,scenario_003,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,39,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"AGI is $183,290.25: 85% of Social Security is taxable, the net capital loss is $1,582, and there are no wages, so the 401(k)/IRA contributions cannot be deducted. Under OBBBA-permanent TCJA law, the 2026 MFJ standard deduction is $32,200 and neither spouse is 65. That leaves $147,330.25 of ordinary income, taxed through the 2026 brackets (10% to $24,800, 12% to $100,800, 22% above), for $21,836.65, plus 15% on $3,760 of qualified dividends ($564), totaling $22,400.65. Most models went wrong in one of four ways: they assumed the TCJA sunset (personal exemptions and 10/15/25% brackets), used 2025 or estimated bracket and standard-deduction parameters, took deductions that don't apply (the $500 auto-loan interest, or retirement contributions without compensation), or made arithmetic slips in AGI or taxable income."
us,scenario_003,head_medicare_eligible,4,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"Medicare eligibility without disability or ESRD requires age 65. The head is 64 for the whole 2026 tax year, and the prompt says ages and statuses stay constant all year. The head is listed with no disability, no SSDI, and no ESRD, so no non-age pathway applies. Two models correctly reasoned ""64 < 65, not eligible"" but still submitted 1. The other two invented a ""near-term"" or ""projected"" eligibility rule that doesn't exist."
us,scenario_003,payroll_tax,2,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Usual weekly hours and employer-sponsored insurance establish work and coverage facts but do not supply wage income or an hourly rate. Because unlisted numeric inputs are zero, both people have zero wages subject to employee Social Security and Medicare taxes, so employee payroll tax is zero."
us,scenario_003,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"Texas imposes no state individual income tax, and exclusive Texas residency makes every other state's income-tax component zero. The aggregate state income tax before refundable credits is therefore the sum of 51 zero components, yielding $0."
@@ -24,19 +24,19 @@ us,scenario_004,payroll_tax,1,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Payroll tax app
us,scenario_004,spouse_medicaid_eligible,1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"New York's ACA expansion pathway requires the spouse's MAGI income level to be at or below 138% of FPL. The household's applicable MAGI is 2.39 times FPL, and the 51-year-old spouse has no disability, blindness, SSI, age-based, dependent, or other categorical pathway, so the Medicaid category is NONE."
us,scenario_004,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,5,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Both spouses show 40-hour work weeks but no wage amount, and the prompt directs that unlisted numeric inputs be treated as 0, so the household's only non-Social-Security income is $1,200 of taxable interest less a $135 partnership loss = $1,065. Provisional income is $1,065 + half of $51,475 = $26,803, below the $32,000 married-filing-jointly base, so none of the Social Security benefit is federally taxable, and New York subtracts any taxable Social Security from federal AGI regardless. New York AGI of $1,065 is entirely absorbed by the ~$16,050 MFJ standard deduction, leaving $0 of NY taxable income and $0 of tax before refundable credits. Every wrong answer either taxed the $51,475 Social Security benefit, imputed phantom wages from the hours-worked fact, or both."
us,scenario_004,state_refundable_credits,1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"This couple has no wages or rent, so its federal AGI is only about $1,065: $1,200 of interest minus a $135 partnership loss. None of the $51,475 in Social Security is taxable, because provisional income is below the $32,000 joint base. The only NY credit this low income could trigger is the household credit under Tax Law §606(b), and that credit is nonrefundable. It can only reduce NY tax, which is already zero, and it never counts toward state_refundable_credits. None of New York's refundable credits apply either: there is no federal EITC, no qualifying child, and no property tax or rent for the real property tax credit, so the refundable total is $0."
-us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,48,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The reference's $5,163.84 above-the-line deduction is the $3,000 capital-loss deduction plus the full $2,164 of traditional IRA contributions. Under IRC §219(g), the IRA deduction phases out completely for married joint filers above about $149,000 MAGI in 2026 when both spouses actively participate in an employer plan. Both spouses here make 401(k) deferrals and have about $537k of MAGI, so their IRA deduction should be $0, which points to PolicyEngine not applying the §219(g) active-participant phase-out.","The reference reaches AGI of $536,764 from four steps. First, it allows only $41,650 of traditional 401(k) deferrals: the $24,500 elective-deferral limit is split pro rata across each spouse's $27,240 of combined Roth and traditional deferrals. Second, it counts no state-refund income. Third, it takes the $3,000 capital-loss deduction. Fourth, it deducts the $2,164 of IRA contributions. It then subtracts the $32,200 standard deduction plus the $1,070 non-itemizer cash charitable deduction; no mortgage interest is listed, so none is deductible. That leaves $503,495 of taxable income, taxed as $89,096 ordinary tax, plus $11,688 (15% on $77,920 of qualified dividends), plus $5,722 of net investment income tax (NIIT) on $150,578, with no AMT. The closest models differed from the frozen reference in the non-itemizer charitable deduction, 401(k) allocation, refund treatment, or IRA deduction. Omitting the $2,164 IRA deduction agrees with the exclusion's corrected treatment under 219(g); the frozen reference improperly allows it. The record leaves refund taxation and excess 401(k) allocation unresolved. The far misses assumed the TCJA expired (Pease, AMT, uncapped SALT), invented mortgage interest, subtracted employer premiums from wages, or omitted NIIT included in the frozen reference; whether this output includes NIIT also remains unresolved. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated reference_engine_defect (taxable_income_or_deductions). The frozen reference is 106,505.90; the corrected value is 107,198.34. PolicyEngine deducts traditional IRA contributions without the active-participant phase-out. Reference is an engine defect; output excluded from scoring (26 U.S.C. 219(g); IRS Notice 2025-67 (2026 ranges))."
+us,scenario_005,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,50,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The reference applies 2026 law after the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). Combined Roth and traditional 401(k) deferrals are capped at the $24,500 §402(g) limit per person, so traditional deferrals scale down to $20,825 each ($41,650 total) and taxable wages are $388,350. The $2,164 IRA deduction and the $3,000 capital-loss deduction are allowed, the $4,148 state refund is excluded, and AGI is $536,764.50. Subtracting the $32,200 standard deduction and the $1,070 non-itemizer cash charitable deduction leaves $503,494.75 of taxable income. Tax is $89,095.92 at ordinary rates, plus $11,688 (15% on $77,920 of qualified dividends), plus $5,721.98 of net investment income tax (NIIT: 3.8% of $150,578.34, after the capital loss). The wrong answers left out NIIT, assumed the TCJA had expired (Pease, AMT, pre-TCJA brackets, restored miscellaneous deductions), made up mortgage interest from the loan balance alone, subtracted employer insurance premiums from wages, or missed the smaller items: the 401(k) cap, the IRA deduction, the $1,070 charitable deduction and the refund exclusion. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated reference_engine_defect (taxable_income_or_deductions). The frozen reference is 106,505.90; the corrected value is 107,198.34. PolicyEngine deducts traditional IRA contributions without the active-participant phase-out. Reference is an engine defect; output excluded from scoring (26 U.S.C. 219(g); IRS Notice 2025-67 (2026 ranges))."
us,scenario_005,federal_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,44,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"The federal part is simple. Social Security is 6.2% of $180,000 for the head plus 6.2% of $184,500 (the 2026 wage base) for the spouse, giving $22,599. Medicare is 1.45% of $430,000, or $6,235, and the Additional Medicare Tax is 0.9% of the $180,000 above the $250,000 joint threshold, or $1,620. That makes $30,454 (the derivation's ""$28,454"" is a typo; its own components and the $36,044 total add up to $30,454). The step that separates right from wrong answers is California SDI: in 2026 it is 1.3% of all wages with no cap (the cap ended in 2024), so it adds $5,590 on the full $430,000 gross, with no reduction for employer health premiums. Most models left SDI out, used the 1.1% or 1.2% rate, applied an old SDI wage ceiling, used an older Social Security wage base, or cut payroll wages by the health premiums."
+us,scenario_005,payroll_tax,46,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"The federal employee FICA components are simple: Social Security is 6.2% × ($180,000 + $184,500 2026 cap) = $22,599, Medicare is 1.45% × $430,000 = $6,235, and the Additional Medicare Tax is 0.9% × ($430,000 − $250,000 MFJ) = $1,620. Together they come to $30,454. The step that separated the answers was California SDI. For 2026 the rate is 1.3% with no wage ceiling, which gives $5,590 and a total of $36,044. Most models dropped SDI, used the old 1.1% or 1.2% rate, or applied the repealed SDI wage cap. Some also used an outdated Social Security wage base, or subtracted employer-sponsored insurance premiums from the gross wages used for FICA and SDI."
us,scenario_005,self_employment_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,48,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The engine's federal AGI of $543,076 excludes only $41,650 of traditional 401(k) deferrals. Each spouse asked for $23,154 traditional plus $4,086 Roth, which is $27,240 and over the 2026 $24,500 elective-deferral limit, so traditional deferrals scale down to $20,825 each. Subtracting the SALT refund gives CA AGI of $538,928. Itemized deductions cover property tax, charity, and employee expenses above the 2% floor; no mortgage interest is given, so none is deducted. The 6% high-income limitation cuts the total to $20,520, which leaves $518,408 of taxable income, $41,089 of tax, and a $114 exemption credit after phase-down. Most models instead used CA AGI near $534,270 by subtracting the full $46,308 of deferrals, imputed mortgage interest from the loan balance, skipped or over-applied the itemized limitation, or claimed exemption credits without the phase-down."
+us,scenario_005,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,50,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The reference uses federal AGI of $543,076, not $538,418. The couple's Roth plus traditional 401(k) deferrals exceed the combined elective-deferral limit, so about $4,658 of the traditional deferrals stays in wages. California then subtracts only the $4,148 SALT refund, giving CA AGI of $538,928.31. California itemized deductions are property tax, charity and unreimbursed employee expenses above the 2% floor; mortgage interest is excluded because none was listed. A 6% high-income cut reduces the total to $20,519.93, leaving taxable income of $518,408.38 and tax of $41,089.25, less a phased-down $114 exemption credit. Most models excluded all 401(k) deferrals, made up mortgage interest, skipped the employee-expense deduction or the 6% cut, or took exemption credits that were too large or zero."
us,scenario_005,state_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,40,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Provisional income is $35,280 + 50% × $19,285 = $44,922.50. The $284 tax-exempt pension is not tax-exempt interest, so it is not included. Taxable Social Security is the lesser of 85% of benefits ($16,392.25) and 85% × ($44,922.50 − $34,000) + $4,500, which equals $13,784.12. That makes AGI $49,064.12. Under OBBBA, the 2026 single standard deduction is $16,100 and the 10% bracket ends at $12,400, so tax on $32,964.12 of taxable income is $1,240 + 12% × $20,564.12 = $3,707.70, with no nonrefundable credits. The models went wrong in four main ways: they skipped the lesser-of step and taxed the full 85%, left SSDI out entirely, used 2024/2025 or pre-TCJA deductions and brackets, or submitted a number that didn't match their own working. Developer adjudication (2026-09-29): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated llm_error (taxable_income_or_deductions). The judge labeled seven models' rows reference_later_law because they applied the pre-TCJA rules scheduled to return in 2026 (a smaller standard deduction, a personal exemption and a 15% second bracket). The reference applies the permanent TCJA parameters of P.L. 119-21, enacted July 4, 2025, before the July 3, 2026 reference freeze, and the benchmark scores law published before the freeze; the rows are model errors."
+us,scenario_007,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,42,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The correct path has four steps. First, provisional income is $35,280 + $9,642.50 = $44,922.50; the $284 tax-exempt pension is not added. Second, taxable Social Security is the lesser of 85% of benefits ($16,392.25) and 0.85×($44,922.50−$34,000) + $4,500 = $13,784.12, so AGI is $49,064.12. Third, the 2026 single standard deduction under the OBBBA (which kept the TCJA structure permanently) is $16,100, giving taxable income of $32,964.12. Fourth, the 10% bracket ends at $12,400, so tax is $1,240 + 12%×$20,564.12 = $3,707.70, with no nonrefundable credits. The models missed in five ways: they used older or guessed 2026 deductions and brackets, applied TCJA-sunset rules (a personal exemption and a 15% bracket), took the 85% cap instead of the lesser-of formula, added the tax-exempt pension to provisional income, or left Social Security out of income altogether. Developer adjudication (2026-09-29): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated llm_error (taxable_income_or_deductions). The judge labeled seven models' rows reference_later_law because they applied the pre-TCJA rules scheduled to return in 2026 (a smaller standard deduction, a personal exemption and a 15% second bracket). The reference applies the permanent TCJA parameters of P.L. 119-21, enacted July 4, 2025, before the July 3, 2026 reference freeze, and the benchmark scores law published before the freeze; the rows are model errors."
us,scenario_007,federal_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_007,head_medicare_eligible,23,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,,"The head is 56, so the age-65 pathway is closed. Disability-based Medicare requires 24 months of SSDI entitlement (or ESRD/ALS). PolicyEngine tracks this with a months-receiving-SSDI input that is unlisted here, so it defaults to 0, and no disability or ESRD flag is set. Every model treated a positive Social Security disability income amount as proof of Medicare entitlement, and several assumed the 24-month waiting period was met. The prompt only says facts are constant within the tax year, which does not establish 24 prior months of receipt, so the head is not Medicare eligible. Developer adjudication (2026-09-05): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (age_disability). The output is removed from scoring for every model: its reference depends on an engine input the certified household data never carried and the prompt therefore never listed, and a careful reader could take the stated facts the other way. Recomputed with policyengine-us 1.755.4 (the version that produced the references) the reference moves from 0.0 to 1.0 under the alternative reading. Neither reading is established by the facts; rows that matched the frozen value leave the score along with rows that did not. Judge diagnoses are retained as description; the class prompt_ambiguity records that the reference, not the model, is indeterminate here. In law the under-65 route needs 24 months of SSDI entitlement; a year-round recipient has at least 12. The facts do not settle it."
us,scenario_007,payroll_tax,2,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Payroll tax applies to wages and other FICA-covered earned compensation, not to Social Security disability benefits or private pension income. The prompt specifies no wage or self-employment income and requires unlisted numeric inputs to be zero, so the employee payroll-tax base is zero and payroll tax is $0."
us,scenario_007,self_employment_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,48,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"The reference takes federal AGI of $49,064.12 and removes the $13,784.12 of taxable Social Security. It also takes off a $2,080 subtraction for health insurance premiums the household paid that were not otherwise deducted, which gives Idaho AGI of $33,200. After the $16,100 standard deduction, Idaho taxable income is $17,100. Tax is 5.3% on the amount above the $4,811 zero-rate band, or $651.32, and the $10 permanent building fund tax brings the total to $661.32. Most models that got the Social Security subtraction and the $16,100 deduction right still landed on $1,016.54 or $761.56. They missed the health-premium subtraction, and many also missed the zero-rate band and the $10 building fund tax. The other models used the old 5.695%/5.8% rates, the expired $8,550 deduction, or a non-existent personal exemption, or they applied the retirement-benefits deduction to a private pension."
-us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,37,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The whole $155 is the Idaho Grocery Credit. It is fully refundable and has no income phase-out. It is reduced only for months when the person gets SNAP or is incarcerated, and this filer qualifies for all 12 months. Idaho's 2025 legislation (HB 231) raised the per-person amount for filers under 65 from $120 to $155 starting in tax year 2025. The wrong answers split into two groups. One group used outdated per-person amounts: $120 under 2023–2024 law, $100 under earlier law, or $140, which was the old age-65+ amount. The other group answered $0, treating the credit as nonrefundable, phased out by income, repealed, or nonexistent."
+us,scenario_007,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,50,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"Idaho starts from federal AGI of $49,064.12. It subtracts both the $13,784.12 of taxable Social Security and the $2,080 of health insurance premiums the household paid, which gives Idaho AGI of $33,200. After the $16,100 standard deduction, Idaho taxable income is $17,100. Tax is 5.3% of the amount above the $4,811 zero-rate band, or $651.32, and the $10 permanent building fund tax is added for a total of $661.32. Most models correctly removed Social Security but missed the $2,080 health-premium subtraction, the zero-rate band, or the $10 building fund tax. Other models used the old 5.695% or 5.8% rate, an out-of-date standard deduction, or no Social Security subtraction at all."
+us,scenario_007,state_refundable_credits,39,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"The whole $155 comes from Idaho's Grocery Credit. It is refundable on the income tax return, has no income phaseout, and for tax year 2026 pays $155 per qualifying person following the 2025 legislative increase. The head was an Idaho resident for all 12 months and received no SNAP, so they qualified for every month and got the full $155. Wrong answers fell into two groups. One group used outdated credit amounts ($100, $120 or $140). The other gave $0 by wrongly treating the credit as nonrefundable, income-limited or repealed, or by ignoring it."
us,scenario_008,child1_chip_eligible,9,llm_error,health_coverage,False,,"CHIP is a residual program: it covers children who do NOT qualify for Medicaid, so its income band has a floor at the state's children's Medicaid limit, not just a ~350% FPL ceiling. With household income of about $30,915 for a family of eight — roughly 54% of FPL — the 17-year-old clears New Jersey's Medicaid test in the OLDER_CHILD category, and that Medicaid eligibility forecloses CHIP. All nine models tested only the upper CHIP ceiling and read very low income as evidence for CHIP, when low income is exactly what routes the child to Medicaid instead."
us,scenario_008,child1_medicaid_eligible,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"A 17-year-old tax-unit dependent falls within New Jersey's OLDER_CHILD Medicaid category. The household's MAGI is 0.55 times FPL, below the category's income threshold, so the child is eligible without any additional eligibility trigger."
us,scenario_008,child1_wic_eligible,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,WIC child eligibility is restricted to infants and children younger than age five; a 17-year-old is categorically ineligible regardless of household income. Both models incorrectly treated age 17 as within the WIC child age range.
@@ -60,23 +60,23 @@ us,scenario_008,child6_early_head_start_eligible,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibi
us,scenario_008,child6_head_start_eligible,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Head Start requires both preschool-age categorical eligibility and satisfaction of the program's income or another qualifying eligibility pathway. Child 6 is age 1 and therefore belongs in the Early Head Start age category, not the preschool-age Head Start category; the household also exceeds the applicable income cutoff."
us,scenario_008,child6_medicaid_eligible,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"New Jersey Medicaid applies a YOUNG_CHILD eligibility pathway to the 1-year-old dependent. At a MAGI income level of 0.55 times FPL, the child satisfies that category's income test and is eligible without any additional benchmark-triggering fact."
us,scenario_008,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,43,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,,"The reference has two parts. The first is the full 2026 3+-child EITC maximum of $8,231, with no phase-out, because AGI of about $30,632 is below the 2026 joint-filer phase-out start. The second is refundable ACTC of 15% × (earned income − $2,500). Here, earned income is $26,800 in wages plus $4,000 of self-employment income minus the half-SE-tax deduction of $282.59, which gives $30,517.41 and an ACTC of $4,202.61. Only five children are under 17, but the $1,700-per-child cap ($8,500) does not bind, and zero tax liability does not reduce the refundable amount. Most near-misses made one of these errors: they used gross earned income of $30,800 or 0.9235 × SE income ($30,494); they used the pre-TCJA $3,000 ACTC threshold; they used the wrong EITC maximum (for example, the 2025 $8,046); they applied an EITC phase-out that does not apply; or they added a refundable AOTC even though qualified education expenses are zero."
+us,scenario_008,federal_refundable_credits,45,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The reference is the full 2026 three-or-more-child EITC of $8,231 plus the refundable CTC of $4,202.61. The household gets the full EITC because AGI of about $30,632 is below the 2026 MFJ phase-out start. The CTC piece is 15% × (earned income − $2,500). Earned income is $30,517.41: $26,800 in wages plus $4,000 of SE income minus the $282.59 deductible half of SE tax. Only the five children under 17 count, but the earned-income limit binds well below the $1,700-per-child cap. There is no AOTC because no qualified expenses are listed, and taxable income of zero means none of the CTC is used as a nonrefundable credit. Models missed for three main reasons: they used the wrong EITC maximum or applied a phase-out that does not bind, they measured SE earned income as gross $4,000 or as 0.9235 × $4,000 instead of $4,000 minus half of SE tax, or they used the old $3,000 ACTC threshold instead of $2,500."
us,scenario_008,free_school_meals_eligible,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Free school meals do not require an explicitly listed direct-certification indicator in the household inputs. The household qualifies through both routes established by the computation: its school-meal income is 55% of the federal poverty guideline, below the 130% free-tier threshold, and all household members are SNAP-eligible, which supplies categorical eligibility."
us,scenario_008,head_medicaid_eligible,6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"New Jersey expanded Medicaid under the ACA. Any non-elderly adult with household MAGI at or below 138% FPL qualifies in the ADULT category, with no disability requirement. This household has 8 members. Its MAGI is about $30.8k: $26,800 in wages, plus $4,000 in self-employment income minus half of SE tax, plus $115 in interest. That works out to 0.55× FPL, well under the 138% limit, so the 42-year-old head is eligible. Every model answered No for one of three reasons: it assumed non-disabled adults are categorically excluded, it misjudged where the income falls against the threshold, or it made up an exclusion rule."
us,scenario_008,head_wic_eligible,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"WIC categorical eligibility is determined person by person, not conferred on every household member by the presence of an eligible infant or young child. The 42-year-old Head is not pregnant, postpartum, or breastfeeding and is not an infant or child under age 5, so satisfying the household income limit does not make the Head eligible."
us,scenario_008,local_income_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,46,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"Every model computed the federal employee FICA correctly: 7.65% of the spouse's $26,800 wages is $2,050.20. The answers split on New Jersey's mandatory employee payroll contributions, which add $226.46. That is 0.845% of wages, made up of UI at 0.3825% ($102.51), the workforce fund at 0.0425% ($11.39), TDI at 0.19% ($50.92) and FLI at 0.23% ($61.64). About half the models left out the NJ contributions entirely. The rest left out some components or used the wrong 2026 TDI/FLI rates, most often 0% TDI with 0.09% FLI, or the older 0.23% TDI with 0.33% FLI."
+us,scenario_008,payroll_tax,48,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"Federal FICA on the spouse's $26,800 of wages is $2,050.20 ($1,661.60 Social Security plus $388.60 Medicare). The question explicitly counts mandatory employee state payroll taxes, and New Jersey charges four employee contributions, each on the full $26,800 because it is under the wage caps: TDI at 0.19% ($50.92), FLI at 0.23% ($61.64), UI at 0.3825% ($102.51), and the workforce/supplemental fund at 0.0425% ($11.39). Together these come to 0.845%, or $226.46. Most models stopped at the $2,050.20 FICA figure. The models that did add New Jersey contributions used wrong 2026 TDI/FLI rates (zero, 2023–2024-era rates, or 2025's 0.23%/0.33%) or left out one or more of the four pieces."
us,scenario_008,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Reduced-price eligibility is a mutually exclusive lower tier, not a generic indicator that income is below the 185% FPL ceiling. This household is at 55% of the federal poverty guideline and also meets categorical eligibility, so it receives the superior free-meals tier and reduced_price_school_meals_eligible equals 0."
us,scenario_008,self_employment_tax,4,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Self-employment tax is 15.3% of 92.35% of the $4,000 net self-employment income: $4,000 × 0.9235 × 0.153 = $565.18. The deduction for one-half of self-employment tax is an income-tax deduction and does not reduce the self-employment tax liability itself."
-us,scenario_008,snap,47,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The household is categorically eligible through New Jersey's TANF non-cash BBCE, so the $69,500 in bank assets does not count. Monthly gross income is $2,576.25. Subtracting the $299 standard deduction for 6+ people and the $513.33 earned income deduction gives net income of $1,763.92, which rounds to $1,764. There is no shelter deduction: rent is $579/month, below half of adjusted income, and no utilities are listed. There is no medical deduction either, because the spouse's over-the-counter health costs are $25/month, under the $35 threshold. The 30% contribution of $529.20 rounds up to $530, and $1,789 (the FY2026 maximum for 8 people) minus $530 is $1,259 a month, or $15,108 a year. Models missed this by applying an asset test, using stale or wrong maximum allotments and standard deductions, adding shelter deductions that don't apply, subtracting a monthly deduction from annual income, or skipping the monthly rounding of net income and the contribution."
+us,scenario_008,snap,49,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The benefit is a simple monthly chain. Gross income is $2,576.25. Subtract the $299 standard deduction for households of six or more and the 20% earned income deduction of $513.33, which gives $1,763.92; this rounds to $1,764 of net income. There is no excess shelter deduction, because $579 of rent is below half of net income, and there is no medical deduction. Thirty percent of $1,764 is $529.20, which rounds up to a $530 contribution. Subtracting that from the $1,789 FY2026 maximum allotment for 8 people gives $1,259 a month, or $15,108 a year. Most models used stale or invented values for the maximum allotment or standard deduction, or skipped the rounding of net income and the contribution. Others wrongly applied an asset test that New Jersey waives through broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE), or invented shelter or utility deductions."
us,scenario_008,spouse_medicaid_eligible,3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"New Jersey adopted the ACA adult expansion, so a non-elderly adult 19-64 who is not a tax-unit dependent qualifies on the MAGI pathway at or below 138% FPL, with no categorical hook, no asset test, and no benefit-receipt disqualifier. The test compares household MAGI to the FPL for the full household size: roughly $30,900 of wages, self-employment income and interest against the eight-person FPL is 0.55 x FPL, less than half the 1.38 limit. Housing assistance is excluded from MAGI and the $69,500 in bank accounts is irrelevant because MAGI categories carry no resource test. Each wrong answer either skipped this income test entirely or overrode it with a disqualifier that does not exist."
us,scenario_008,spouse_medicare_eligible,6,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"Medicare eligibility here turns on a single age test: the person must be 65 or older, and the Spouse is 41. The trap is the `is_disabled` flag: every wrong model converted it into a disability-based Medicare pathway, but real-world under-65 Medicare entitlement runs through 24 months of SSDI cash benefits (or ESRD/ALS), none of which is present — the household reports no Social Security disability income, and the prompt directs that unlisted income and status inputs be treated as 0/false. A disability flag alone establishes neither SSDI entitlement nor the 24-month qualifying period, so it cannot produce Medicare eligibility for a 41-year-old."
us,scenario_008,spouse_wic_eligible,4,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"WIC eligibility is person-specific: an adult must be pregnant, breastfeeding, or within the applicable postpartum period, while infants and children qualify only through their own age category. Low household income and the presence of a young child do not make the child's mother or caretaker independently eligible."
us,scenario_008,ssi,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,42,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The reference is a straight NJ calculation. NJ gross income is $30,915 (wages, Schedule C profit and interest, with no federal half-SE-tax adjustment). Exemptions total exactly $12,000: $1,000 for each spouse, $1,500 for each of the 6 dependents, and a single $1,000 blind-or-disabled exemption for the spouse, who is both blind and disabled but gets only one. Taxable income is $18,915, all taxed at 1.4%, for $264.81. Nothing else reduces it: NJ has no standard deduction, OTC health spending does not count toward the NJ medical deduction, no renter property-tax deduction applies to this housing-assisted household, and the $50 property-tax credit and the NJ child credit/EITC are refundable, so they are excluded. Most models either miscounted the exemptions or subtracted one of these items that does not apply."
-us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,48,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"The reference has three parts. The first is the NJ EITC: 40% of the full $8,231 federal EITC for three or more children, which is $3,292.40. The second is a $2,500 NJ Child Tax Credit for the two children age 5 and under, using the higher low-income schedule New Jersey enacted on June 30, 2026. The third is the $50 property tax credit, which applies because the household pays $6,949 in rent. The best answers got the EITC right but still used the old $1,000-per-child schedule. Many others tested the CTC against gross income (about $30,915) instead of NJ taxable income, which falls well under $30,000 after the $1,000 personal and $1,500-per-dependent exemptions, so they landed in the $800 or $400 bracket. Others left out the CTC, the $50 credit, or every refundable credit. Developer adjudication (2026-09-29): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned reference_later_law; adjudicated llm_error (state_local_rule). The judge labeled the case, and the rows of claude-opus-5.5 and gpt-6.1-sol, reference_later_law because those models applied New Jersey's pre-2026 child tax credit schedule. The reference applies P.L.2026, c.26, approved June 30, 2026, before the July 3, 2026 reference freeze, and the benchmark scores law published before the freeze; the rows are model errors."
+us,scenario_008,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,44,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The correct NJ calculation is gross income of $30,915 minus exactly $12,000 in exemptions: $1,000 for each spouse, $1,500 for each of the 6 dependents, and one $1,000 blind-or-disabled exemption for the spouse, even though the spouse is both blind and disabled. That leaves $18,915 of taxable income, all in the 1.4% bracket, for $264.81. Nothing else reduces this figure. The 18%-of-rent property-tax deduction is not taken, OTC health expenses produce no medical deduction, and the $50 tenant property tax credit and NJ child tax credit are refundable, so they sit outside this output. Models missed the answer in four main ways: they counted the blind and disabled exemptions twice, used the wrong exemption amounts, took deductions the reference does not allow, or subtracted refundable credits."
+us,scenario_008,state_refundable_credits,50,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"The reference has three NJ refundable credits. The NJ EITC is $3,292.40: 40% of the full $8,231 federal 3+-child EITC, because AGI of about $30,632 is below the 2026 MFJ phase-out start. The NJ child tax credit is $2,500: $1,250 for each of the two children aged 5 and 1, under the schedule NJ enacted June 30, 2026. That schedule applies the lowest NJ taxable-income tier, and NJ taxable income is well under $30,000 after the personal, dependent and blind/disabled exemptions. A $50 renter property tax credit is added, based on the listed $6,949 rent. Even a model that applied pre-June-2026 law perfectly would land at $5,342.40, so the newly enacted CTC schedule is the shared trap. Most models also made their own errors: understating or overstating the EITC, using the gross-income CTC tier, skipping the $50 credit, or claiming NJ has no refundable credits. Developer adjudication (2026-09-29): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned reference_later_law; adjudicated llm_error (state_local_rule). The judge labeled the case, and the rows of claude-opus-5.5 and gpt-6.1-sol, reference_later_law because those models applied New Jersey's pre-2026 child tax credit schedule. The reference applies P.L.2026, c.26, approved June 30, 2026, before the July 3, 2026 reference freeze, and the benchmark scores law published before the freeze; the rows are model errors."
us,scenario_008,tanf,1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"New Jersey's WorkFirst NJ TANF is not a residual top-up: it is gated on countable income falling below the family-size eligibility standard tied to the maximum grant (roughly $770/month for a household of eight) and on countable resources at or below the $2,000 limit. This household's $26,800 in wages plus $4,000 of self-employment income is about $2,576/month, which clears the standard by a wide margin even after New Jersey's 50% earned-income disregard, and the $69,500 bank balance independently fails the resource test. Six children plus a blind and disabled spouse make the household read as categorically needy, which is the trap; family size raises the grant schedule but nowhere near enough to admit income at this level. The grant is therefore $0."
-us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,34,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"AGI is $105,900. That is $60,000 of gross wages, plus $20,400 of taxable pension, plus $25,500 of taxable Social Security, which is the 85% cap because provisional income of $95,400 is far above $44,000. The answer depends on using the OBBBA-permanent TCJA parameters for 2026: a $32,200 MFJ standard deduction, a 10% bracket up to $24,800 and 12% above that. Taxable income of $73,700 then gives $2,480 + $5,868 = $8,348. Most models went wrong in one of three ways: they assumed TCJA expired (personal exemptions and a 15% bracket), they used inflation-projected pre-OBBBA figures ($30,000–$30,900 standard deduction, $23,850–$24,500 bracket), or they subtracted the ESI premium from wages, which are already given as gross W-2 income. Several models worked out $8,348 or close to it and then submitted an unrelated number."
+us,scenario_009,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,36,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The correct AGI is $105,900. It is made up of $60,000 in gross wages, counted in full because the listed employer-sponsored insurance premiums are not subtracted from wages, plus $20,400 of pension income and $25,500 of Social Security, which is 85% of $30,000. Since OBBBA made TCJA permanent, 2026 uses the $32,200 MFJ standard deduction, with no personal exemptions, and the 10% bracket ending at $24,800. That gives tax of $2,480 + 12% × $48,900 = $8,348. Most models got AGI right but then went wrong in one of four ways: they used guessed or 2025 pre-OBBBA deduction and bracket values, assumed the TCJA sunset (exemptions and a 15% bracket), subtracted the ESI premiums from wages, or submitted a number that contradicted their own correct work. Developer adjudication (2026-10-14): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated llm_error (thresholds_rates). The judge labeled eight models' rows reference_later_law (deepseek-v4-pro-0813, deepseek-v4.1-flash, gemini-3.7-flash, gemini-4-argon, grok-4.5, grok-4.6, grok-4.7 and grok-build-0.1) because they applied the pre-TCJA rules scheduled to return in 2026 (a smaller standard deduction, personal exemptions and a 15% second bracket). The reference applies the permanent TCJA parameters of P.L. 119-21, enacted July 4, 2025, before the July 3, 2026 reference freeze, and the benchmark scores law published before the freeze; the rows are model errors, as the 2026-09-29 wave decided for the same rule in scenario_007's federal income tax."
us,scenario_009,free_school_meals_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_009,head_medicare_eligible,2,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"Medicare eligibility requires age 65 or an applicable under-65 pathway such as qualifying disability, ESRD, or ALS. Both adults are 57, and the prompt makes every unlisted disability or health status false, so the listed Social Security retirement income cannot be reclassified as evidence of disability-based Medicare eligibility."
us,scenario_009,head_wic_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
@@ -92,37 +92,37 @@ us,scenario_012,child1_head_start_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,other,False,
us,scenario_012,child1_medicaid_eligible,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Mississippi evaluates a 10-year-old dependent through the Medicaid older-child MAGI category. Household MAGI is 0.81 times FPL, below the applicable eligibility threshold, so the category and income tests produce eligibility."
us,scenario_012,child1_wic_eligible,4,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"To get WIC, a person must fit a category: pregnant, postpartum or breastfeeding woman, infant, or child under 5. In federal rules, the child category ends at the 5th birthday. Child 1 is 10, so the child fails the categorical test no matter how low the household income is, which makes child1_wic_eligible No. Every wrong model let low income decide the answer, or used the wrong age cap, or wrote that the child failed but still submitted 1."
us,scenario_012,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,38,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The household files jointly with exactly one qualifying child; the unborn child and the 18-year-old spouse do not count. Its $22,000 of earnings is above the one-child EITC phase-in end (about $13,020) and below the 2026 MFJ phase-out start, so it gets the full 2026 maximum EITC of $4,427 (34% × $13,020). Tax liability is zero, so the ACTC is 15% × ($22,000 − $2,500) = $2,925. That is capped at the 2026 refundable limit of $1,700, which OBBBA kept even though it raised the CTC to $2,200. Most models missed by using 2025 EITC figures ($4,328) or invented inflation adjustments, by applying the $1,000 post-sunset ACTC instead of the $1,700 limit, by using a $1,800 cap, or by treating the full CTC as refundable."
+us,scenario_012,federal_refundable_credits,40,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"This joint-filing household has one qualifying child and $22,000 of earnings. That income is past the end of the one-child EITC phase-in ($13,020 × 34%) and below the joint-filer phase-out start, so the EITC is the full 2026 maximum of $4,427. Taxable income is zero, so the OBBBA $2,200 CTC comes back entirely as the refundable ACTC, capped at $1,700 for 2026 (15% × ($22,000 − $2,500) = $2,925 is above the cap). The wrong answers fall into five groups: using the 2025 EITC maximum ($4,328) or another made-up maximum; applying TCJA-sunset ACTC rules ($1,000 cap, $3,000 floor); using the wrong refundable cap ($1,800, $2,000 or $2,200); counting the unborn child or the pregnant spouse as a qualifying child; or wrongly putting the household in the EITC phase-out or ruling it ineligible."
us,scenario_012,free_school_meals_eligible,3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"This three-person Mississippi household has $22,000 in wages, which is 81% of the federal poverty guideline. That is far below the 130% free-meal cutoff. The household also receives about $407.90 a month in SNAP, which makes the 10-year-old categorically eligible for free meals, and PolicyEngine treats a 10-year-old as enrolled in K-12. So the engine puts the household in the FREE tier. The wrong answers came from three different errors: one model never ran the income or SNAP test, one treated the child's school enrollment as an unlisted input set to false, and one wrongly claimed income was above 130% of the poverty guideline."
us,scenario_012,head_medicaid_eligible,6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Mississippi Medicaid eligibility for a nondisabled 40-year-old adult requires qualification through a defined categorical pathway; income below 138% FPL does not independently establish eligibility. The head’s MAGI is 0.81 FPL, but the Medicaid category is NONE because the head satisfies none of Mississippi’s available pathways."
us,scenario_012,head_wic_eligible,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"WIC categorical eligibility is determined person by person, not extended to every member of a household containing a pregnant participant. The pregnant spouse satisfies the categorical requirement, but the 40-year-old head is neither pregnant, postpartum, breastfeeding, an infant, nor a child under age five, so the head is not WIC-eligible despite household income below the limit."
us,scenario_012,local_income_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_012,payroll_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_012,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Reduced-price eligibility is mutually exclusive with the superior free-meals tier in this output. At a school-meal FPG ratio of 0.81 and with categorical eligibility, the household is classified as FREE, so it receives no reduced-price support."
-us,scenario_012,snap,47,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The SNAP unit has three members; the unborn child is not counted. Monthly gross income is $1,833.33. Subtracting the $209 standard deduction and the $366.67 earned income deduction leaves $1,258 after rounding. There is no excess shelter deduction because the $411 energy subsidy does not give a household with no elderly or disabled member the standard utility allowance under the 2026 rules, and no utility expenses are listed. Rent alone ($450) is below half of net income ($629). The 30% contribution of 377.4 rounds up to $378, so the allotment is $785 − $378 = $407 a month, or $4,884 a year. Most wrong answers either added an SUA-driven shelter deduction because of the energy subsidy, counted the pregnancy as a fourth member, used outdated FY2025 or earlier standard deductions and maximum allotments, or skipped SNAP's whole-dollar rounding and landed at about $4,890 to $4,896."
+us,scenario_012,snap,49,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The SNAP unit has three people; an unborn child does not count as a member. Net income is $1,833.33 minus the $209 FY2026 standard deduction and the $366.67 earned-income deduction, which rounds to $1,258. Under the 2026 rule, a household with no elderly or disabled member does not get a utility allowance just because it received the $411 energy subsidy. That leaves $450 of rent against half of net income ($629), so there is no excess shelter deduction. The 30% contribution rounds up to $378, giving a benefit of $785 − $378 = $407 a month, or $4,884 a year. Most models went wrong in one of four ways: they applied a LIHEAP-triggered SUA and claimed a shelter deduction; they counted the unborn child as a fourth member; they used FY2025 standard deduction or maximum allotment figures; or they did not round the contribution up, which produced $407.70 or $408 instead of $407."
us,scenario_012,spouse_chip_eligible,7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"CHIP eligibility requires the person not already qualify for Medicaid. At age 18, the spouse is Medicaid-eligible under Mississippi's OLDER_CHILD category, so that Medicaid eligibility precludes CHIP regardless of pregnancy status or how far household income falls below a CHIP-related threshold."
us,scenario_012,spouse_medicaid_eligible,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Mississippi Medicaid applies an OLDER_CHILD eligibility pathway to the 18-year-old spouse. The spouse's MAGI of 0.67 times FPL is below the applicable income threshold, so this category produces eligibility despite the spouse not being a tax-unit dependent."
us,scenario_012,spouse_wic_eligible,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"WIC covers pregnant individuals who satisfy the program's income test. The spouse is pregnant, and the household's approximately $22,000 annual income is below the applicable 185% federal-poverty income limit, so the spouse meets both categorical and financial eligibility requirements."
us,scenario_012,ssi,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_012,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,9,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"Mississippi taxable income for this married-joint household is $22,000 minus the $4,600 MFJ standard deduction, the $12,000 MFJ personal exemption, and the $1,500 exemption for the one dependent child, which leaves $3,900. Mississippi taxes the first $10,000 of taxable income at 0% and applies its flat rate (4.0% in 2026) only above $10,000, so the joint liability is $0. PolicyEngine's per-spouse allocation gives the head $118 (4% of $12,950 minus $10,000), but the unit-level result is $0. Four models computed the $3,900 base correctly and then taxed it from the first dollar. The rest also got the deductions or exemptions wrong, and one of them used another state's credit structure."
+us,scenario_012,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,10,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"Mississippi does not apply a single rate to every dollar of taxable income. The first $10,000 of taxable income is taxed at 0%, and the 2026 rate of 4% applies only to the amount above $10,000. On a joint return, $22,000 minus the $4,600 MFJ standard deduction, the $12,000 MFJ exemption and the $1,500 dependent exemption leaves $3,900 of taxable income, which falls entirely in the 0% band, so the tax is $0. That $0 joint result is lower than the $118 from the individual (combined-separate) computation, so it is the one used. Every model either taxed its taxable income from the first dollar or got the deductions and exemptions wrong, and none applied the $10,000 zero-rate band."
us,scenario_013,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The trap is the Social Security provisional-income test: half of the $23,736 benefit ($11,868) plus the $6,720 pension, $16 of dividends and $72 of capital gain gives provisional income of $18,676, below the $25,000 first base amount for a single filer, so none of the Social Security is includible. AGI is therefore $6,808, which is under the single standard deduction before any age-65 additional amount or the OBBBA senior deduction is even reached, leaving taxable income and tax of $0. A second, independent guardrail is that federal income tax before refundable credits is floored at zero — nonrefundable credits can only zero out liability, never drive it negative."
us,scenario_013,head_medicaid_eligible,3,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"The head is 80, so the 138% FPL MAGI adult expansion group (ages 19-64) is closed to them. The only route left is the aged/blind/disabled pathway, which counts Social Security in full. Social Security of $23,736 plus the $6,720 pension and $88 of investment income comes to about $30,544, or 1.91x FPL. That is far above the SSI benefit rate and the 100% FPL aged/disabled standard, and with SSI at 0 there is no SSI-linked eligibility either, so the engine returns category NONE. All three models answered Yes. One asserted eligibility without testing income, one excluded most of the Social Security, and one used AGI, which leaves out the nontaxable Social Security."
-us,scenario_013,snap,48,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"This household fails SNAP's ordinary tests: net income is $2,138 a month and it has $58,700 in the bank. But from March 2026, Arizona's broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE) covers households with gross income up to 200% of the poverty line, which is $2,608.33 a month ($2,660 from October). The household's gross income of $2,539.33 is under that limit, so the income and asset tests count as met. Because a categorically eligible one-person household gets the $24 minimum allotment even when $298 minus 30% of net income comes out negative, the benefit is $24 for each month from March through December, or $240 a year. Every model either applied the ordinary net-income, gross-income or asset test, used Arizona's old 185% BBCE limit, or stopped at the zero formula result without applying the minimum allotment."
+us,scenario_013,snap,50,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"From March 2026, Arizona's expanded categorical eligibility covers households with gross income up to 200% of the poverty guideline: $2,608.33 a month, rising to $2,660 from October. This household's gross income is $2,539.33 a month, so it qualifies and is treated as passing the net income and asset tests. A categorically eligible one-person household gets the $24 minimum benefit even when the regular formula ($298 minus 30% of net income) comes out at zero, so it receives $24 a month for March through December, $240 in total. Every model either applied only the regular net income and asset tests, used a 185% limit or too low a 200% figure, or stopped at the zero formula result without applying the minimum benefit."
us,scenario_013,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Arizona’s standard deduction eliminates the remaining taxable income after excluding Social Security, so applying the 2.5% rate directly to gross dividends and capital gains is incorrect. The resulting Arizona income tax before refundable credits is zero."
-us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,38,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"The $25 comes from Arizona's Credit for Increased Excise Taxes (A.R.S. §43-1072.01). It is fully refundable and pays $25 for each person in the tax unit (taxpayer, spouse, dependents), up to $100. A single filer qualifies with Arizona AGI at or below $12,500. Social Security is excluded here: provisional income of about $18,676 is under the $25,000 base, so none of it is federally taxable, and Arizona exempts it anyway. That leaves Arizona AGI of about $6,736, well under the limit, so this one-person unit gets $25. The credit does not depend on tax liability, earned income, dependents, rent, or property tax. Almost every model either said Arizona has no applicable refundable credit or ruled it out for those wrong reasons. One model counted age and disability exemptions, which this credit does not use."
-us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,35,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The only taxable income is the spouse's $88,927.65 in wages, and AGI equals that full amount. Veterans benefits are excluded, and the listed ESI premium is not subtracted from the gross wage input. Under OBBBA's permanent 2026 parameters, the MFJ standard deduction of $32,200 leaves taxable income of $56,727.65. Tax is then 10% of the first $24,800 plus 12% of the remaining $31,927.65, which equals $6,311.32, and no nonrefundable credits apply because there are no dependents. Most models went wrong in one of four ways: they assumed the TCJA had sunset (bringing back personal exemptions and a 15% bracket), used stale 2025 deduction and bracket figures, subtracted the ESI premiums from wages, or did the math correctly and then submitted a different number."
-us,scenario_014,federal_refundable_credits,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"The tax unit is a married couple with no dependents, so the refundable Child Tax Credit cannot apply because there is no qualifying child. The childless EITC phases out completely at about $26,820 of earned income/AGI for joint filers in 2026, and the spouse's $88,928 in wages is far above that. Veterans benefits are nontaxable and do not create eligibility for any credit. There are also no education expenses (so no refundable AOTC) and no recovery rebate, so federal refundable credits are $0."
+us,scenario_013,state_refundable_credits,40,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Arizona's Credit for Increased Excise Taxes (A.R.S. §43-1072.01) is refundable and pays $25 for the filer and $25 for each dependent, up to $100. A single filer qualifies if federal AGI is at or below $12,500. It does not require earned income, dependents, tax liability, rent or property tax. This filer's Social Security is not taxable federally, so federal AGI is only $6,736 and the full $25 applies. Most models never applied this credit and wrongly said Arizona's refundable credits need dependents, earnings or property tax. A few found the credit but used the wrong income limit, counted income the wrong way, or counted age and disability exemptions."
+us,scenario_014,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,37,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The reference counts only the spouse's $88,927.65 in wages as income, because all VA benefits are excluded and the employer-sponsored insurance premium input does not reduce the listed gross wages. It then applies the 2026 OBBBA married-filing-jointly parameters: a $32,200 standard deduction, 10% up to $24,800 and 12% up to $100,800. That gives taxable income of $56,727.65 and tax of $2,480 + 12% × $31,927.65 = $6,311.32, with no nonrefundable credits because there are no dependents. The wrong answers come from four mistakes: assuming the TCJA sunset (personal exemptions and a 15% bracket), using stale 2025 or guessed deduction and bracket figures, subtracting the $14,717 ESI premium from wages, and submitting a final number that differs from the model's own correct or nearly correct arithmetic."
+us,scenario_014,federal_refundable_credits,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"The tax unit is a married couple with no dependents, so the refundable Child Tax Credit cannot apply because there is no qualifying child. The childless EITC phases out completely at roughly $26,000 of earned income/AGI for joint filers in 2026, and the spouse's $88,928 in wages is far above that. Veterans benefits are nontaxable and do not create eligibility for any credit. There are also no education expenses (so no refundable AOTC) and no recovery rebate, so federal refundable credits are $0."
us,scenario_014,head_medicaid_eligible,1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Medicaid eligibility for the head uses household tax-unit MAGI rather than only the head's earned income. The household's MAGI is approximately $183,584, or 4.11 times FPL, exceeding every applicable West Virginia Medicaid income limit, and the head has no alternative categorical pathway."
us,scenario_014,payroll_tax,16,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Only the spouse has wages, so the correct answer is the 7.65% employee FICA rate applied to her full $88,928 gross wages: $5,513.51 Social Security plus $1,289.45 Medicare, or $6,802.96. The facts do not say she pays premiums through a salary-reduction (Section 125) plan, so the $14,717 in employer-sponsored insurance premiums does not come out of the FICA wage base. Veterans benefits are not wages, and West Virginia has no employee state payroll tax. The largest group of wrong answers (7 models) assumed a cafeteria plan that the facts never mention and taxed only $74,211. Most of the rest applied 7.65% to $88,928 and then invented an extra tax, made an arithmetic slip, or submitted a number different from their own total."
-us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,48,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"West Virginia taxable income is federal AGI of $88,927.65, which is the spouse's wages only. The veterans benefits are excluded and the $14,717 employer-sponsored insurance premium is not subtracted again. WV has no standard deduction, so the only subtraction is two $2,000 personal exemptions, leaving $84,927.65. The 2026 MFJ schedule cuts the 2025 rates by another 5%, to 2.11% / 2.81% / 3.16% / 4.22% / 4.58% at breakpoints of $10k / $25k / $40k / $60k: 211 + 421.50 + 474 + 844 + 0.0458 × 24,927.65 = $3,092.19. Most models got the $84,928 base right but used the 2025 schedule (2.22–4.82%, giving $3,255.03) or the 2024 schedule (2.36–5.12%, giving $3,459.81). Others shrank the base by subtracting ESI premiums or inventing standard deductions."
-us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,36,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The correct calculation is short. Start with wages of $45,000 minus the $1,042 traditional 401(k) deferral, add $2,000 of interest, subtract the $3,000 capped capital loss and the $49 IRA deduction, and AGI is $42,909. Subtract the $16,100 single standard deduction for 2026 (OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent, so there is no personal exemption) to get taxable income of $26,809. Tax at 10% up to $12,400 and 12% above that is $1,240 + $1,729.13 = $2,969.13. No nonrefundable credits apply: there are no dependents, AGI is above the Saver's Credit limit, and the elderly/disabled credit is phased out. Most models got AGI right and then missed the answer in one of four ways: they used 2024 or 2025 standard deductions and bracket edges ($14,600, $15,000 or $15,750; $11,600, $11,925 or $12,150), assumed the TCJA had expired and applied a personal exemption with a 15% bracket, made up deductions such as mortgage interest or pre-tax health premiums, or made arithmetic and transcription errors after reaching about $2,969."
-us,scenario_015,federal_refundable_credits,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"The head files alone as a single adult with no qualifying children and earns $45,000 in wages, so no refundable credit applies. The refundable CTC/ACTC requires a qualifying child. The childless EITC phases out completely at roughly $19–20k of earned income/AGI in 2026. There are no education expenses, so the refundable AOTC is $0, and the Recovery Rebate and payroll tax credits are $0 in 2026. Any positive figure is incorrect for this household."
+us,scenario_014,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,50,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"WV taxable income is federal AGI of $88,927.65 minus two $2,000 personal exemptions, or $84,927.65. The spouse's gross wages are not reduced by the $14,717 in ESI premiums, WV has no standard deduction, and veterans benefits are excluded. The 2026 MFJ schedule cuts the 2025 rates by another 5%, to 2.11% / 2.81% / 3.16% / 4.22% / 4.58% on the $10k / $25k / $40k / $60k brackets: 211 + 421.50 + 474 + 844 + (24,927.65 × 4.58% = 1,141.69) = $3,092.19. Most models got the $84,928 base right but used the 2025 rates (2.22–4.82%, giving $3,255) or the 2023 rates (2.36–5.12%, giving $3,460). Others subtracted ESI premiums from AGI, made up standard deductions, or invented credits."
+us,scenario_015,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,38,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The correct path is AGI of about $42,909: $45,000 wages, minus about $1,042 in traditional 401(k) deferrals, plus $2,000 interest, minus the $3,000 capital-loss cap, minus the $49 IRA deduction. Workers' comp is excluded, and child support, health premiums, and Roth contributions are not deductible. Subtracting the 2026 single standard deduction of $16,100 (OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent) leaves taxable income of $26,809. Tax is 10% up to $12,400 and 12% above that, which gives $2,969 with no nonrefundable credits. Most models went wrong on the parameters: they used the 2024/2025 standard deduction and bracket thresholds ($14,600, $15,000, $15,400 or $15,750; $11,600, $11,925 or $12,150), or assumed the TCJA had expired, bringing back personal exemptions and a 15% bracket. Others subtracted health premiums, made up mortgage interest to itemize, invented credits, or made arithmetic errors after getting the right taxable income."
+us,scenario_015,federal_refundable_credits,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"The head files alone as a single adult with no qualifying children and earns $45,000 in wages, so no refundable credit applies. The refundable CTC/ACTC requires a qualifying child. The childless EITC phases out completely at roughly $19–20k of earned income/AGI in 2026. There are no education expenses, so the refundable AOTC is $0, and the Recovery Rebate and payroll tax credits are inactive in 2026. Any positive figure means the model either invented a child-based credit or applied the with-children EITC schedule."
us,scenario_015,head_chip_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,other,False,,"CHIP eligibility runs through categorical gates first: coverage is for children under 19 and, at state option, pregnant women, so a 36-year-old head never reaches the income test — PolicyEngine assigns chip_category = 3 (categorically ineligible) and is_chip_eligible = False. The ~$43,450 household income and Indiana's Hoosier Healthwise/CHIP income thresholds are irrelevant to a person who fails the age/pregnancy gate, and the separate Medicaid pathways also return NONE for a non-aged, childless adult at that income in a state whose adult expansion he clears on neither disability-SSI nor MAGI grounds. The single wrong answer stated this categorical rule correctly in prose and then emitted the opposite binary."
-us,scenario_015,head_medicaid_eligible,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"The head is a 36-year-old non-dependent adult with MAGI at 2.69x FPL. That is far above Indiana's 138% FPL expansion-adult limit, so the MAGI pathway fails. The head receives no SSI, and PolicyEngine's aged/blind/disabled pathway in Indiana requires the head to be aged, blind or disabled under SSI's rules, countable income within 100% of the poverty guideline and resources under $2,000. Earnings of $45,000 are above SSI's substantial gainful activity limit, so PolicyEngine does not count the head as disabled for this pathway, and about $585,000 in bank and stock assets is far above the resource cap, so medicaid_category is NONE. One model treated the disability flag by itself as qualifying and the other wrongly asserted that the head met the disability pathway's limits, even though disability opens a pathway only when its income and asset tests are met, and PolicyEngine models a working-disabled buy-in only for California, Illinois and Mississippi, not Indiana."
+us,scenario_015,head_medicaid_eligible,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"The head is a 36-year-old non-dependent adult with MAGI at 2.69x FPL. That is far above Indiana's 138% FPL expansion-adult limit, so the MAGI pathway fails. The head receives no SSI, and PolicyEngine's aged/blind/disabled pathway applies SSI-style income limits plus a small resource cap. Roughly $45,000 of earnings and about $585,000 in bank and stock assets fail both tests, so medicaid_category is NONE. Both models treated the disability flag by itself as qualifying, even though disability opens a pathway only when its income and asset tests are met, and PolicyEngine does not model a working-disabled buy-in with relaxed limits."
us,scenario_015,head_medicare_eligible,4,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"A person under 65 becomes eligible for Medicare on disability grounds only after 24 months of entitlement to Social Security Disability Insurance, or through the ESRD or ALS pathways. Being disabled is not enough on its own. The head is 36, has no Social Security disability benefits, and has no ESRD or ALS status. That means they don't meet the age-65 test or any disability-entitlement pathway, so they are not Medicare eligible. All four models treated the bare 'is disabled' flag as automatic Medicare eligibility and skipped the SSDI-receipt requirement."
-us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,48,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,,"The prompt defines local_income_tax by listing only NYC income tax, Philadelphia wage tax, Kansas City earnings tax and St. Louis earnings tax. PolicyEngine's local_income_tax variable also includes Indiana county income tax. No county was given, so the engine used its default, Adams County, at 1.6%: 1.6% × Indiana AGI of $41,909.38 (federal AGI $42,909.38 minus the $1,000 exemption) = $670.55. That leaves two readings. Reading (a): the output covers only the four listed city taxes, which gives $0. Reading (b): the output is PolicyEngine's full local_income_tax, which includes the Indiana county tax and gives $670.55. Every model chose reading (a), and a few also wrongly said Indiana has no local income tax at all. Developer adjudication (2026-10-10): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned prompt_ambiguity; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (state_local_rule). The prompt places the household in Indiana but states no county. Every Indiana county levies its own local income tax (IC 6-3.6), at rates that differ by county. policyengine-us 2.15.17 left county income tax out of local_income_tax, so the frozen reference was $0.00. From policyengine-us 2.23.1 (PolicyEngine/policyengine-us#9694, which standardized local income tax) the engine counts Indiana county income tax in local_income_tax, at the rate of the county it assigns a household with no stated county. The reference therefore depends on the household's county, which the prompt does not state. Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (county of residence (Indiana county income tax))."
+us,scenario_015,local_income_tax,50,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,,"The prompt defines local_income_tax by naming only NYC income tax, Philadelphia wage tax, Kansas City earnings tax and St. Louis earnings tax, and it gives no county. PolicyEngine's local_income_tax also includes the Indiana county income tax. With no county listed, it assigns Adams County and applies the 1.6% rate to Indiana AGI of $41,909.38 (federal AGI of $42,909.38 minus the $1,000 exemption), giving $670.55. The prompt supports two readings. Under the first, the four named cities are an exhaustive list, so the answer is $0. Under the second, they are examples, so the Indiana county tax counts and the default county applies. Every model took the first reading. Two models also wrongly claimed that Indiana has no local income tax at all. Developer adjudication (2026-10-10): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned prompt_ambiguity; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (state_local_rule). The prompt places the household in Indiana but states no county. Every Indiana county levies its own local income tax (IC 6-3.6), at rates that differ by county. policyengine-us 2.15.17 left county income tax out of local_income_tax, so the frozen reference was $0.00. From policyengine-us 2.23.1 (PolicyEngine/policyengine-us#9694, which standardized local income tax) the engine counts Indiana county income tax in local_income_tax, at the rate of the county it assigns a household with no stated county. The reference therefore depends on the household's county, which the prompt does not state. Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (county of residence (Indiana county income tax))."
us,scenario_015,payroll_tax,9,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Employee FICA applies to the full $45,000 of gross wages: 6.2% Social Security ($2,790, well under the 2026 wage base) plus 1.45% Medicare ($652.50) gives $3,442.50. Indiana has no mandatory employee state payroll tax, and wages are far below the $200,000 Additional Medicare Tax threshold. The most common wrong move was shrinking the FICA base. Four models treated the listed $2,080 health insurance premiums as a Section 125 pre-tax salary reduction, and one subtracted the traditional 401(k) deferral, even though elective 401(k) deferrals stay subject to FICA. The rest reached or approached $3,442.50 and then broke the total with arithmetic slips or made-up add-ons."
-us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,33,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"Indiana's 2026 tax is its flat 2.95% rate applied to federal AGI minus a single $1,000 personal exemption. Federal AGI is $42,909: wages of $45,000, minus the $1,042 traditional 401(k), minus the $49 IRA deduction, plus $2,000 interest, minus the $3,000 capped capital loss. Workers' compensation is excluded. That gives $41,909 × 2.95% = $1,236. Most models missed for one of three reasons. Some used the wrong 2026 rate (3.0%, 3.05%, 2.85%, 2.9%, 2.97%, 3.025%). Some invented exemptions or deductions that do not exist: a disability exemption for a non-blind taxpayer under 65, a health-premium deduction, a child-support deduction, or a standard deduction. Others built AGI incorrectly, for example by deducting the full $4,510 loss, including workers' comp, or skipping the 401(k) exclusion."
+us,scenario_015,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,34,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"Indiana tax here is federal AGI of $42,909.38 (wages minus the $1,042 traditional 401(k), plus $2,000 interest, minus the $3,000 capital-loss cap, minus the $49 IRA deduction; workers' compensation excluded), less the single $1,000 personal exemption, giving $41,909.38. That amount is taxed at Indiana's 2026 flat rate of 2.95%, which gives $1,236.33. Most models used the wrong 2026 rate (3.0%, 3.05%, 2.85%, 2.90%, 2.97%, 3.025%). Others made up deductions that do not apply: a disability exemption for a taxpayer under 65, a health-premium deduction, a child-support deduction, or a 'standard' deduction. A few started from the wrong AGI or from federal taxable income."
us,scenario_015,state_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_016,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The household reports $47,000 of deductible medical outlays — $26,000 of health insurance premiums excluding Medicare Part B, $20,000 of other medical expenses, and $1,000 of over-the-counter health expenses — against an AGI of $32,137.94 (wages of $34,638 less the $2,500 statutory cap on the student loan interest deduction). Net of the 7.5%-of-AGI floor of $2,410, the itemized medical deduction of roughly $44,590 exceeds AGI outright, so itemizing dominates the ~$16,100 standard deduction, taxable income is zero, and federal income tax before refundable credits is $0. Seven of the eight models ran only the standard-deduction path and clustered in the $1,271–$1,873 band; the eighth recognized the medical deduction but reported the unused excess as a large negative liability instead of flooring the tax at zero."
us,scenario_016,federal_refundable_credits,3,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,,"This is a single childless 49-year-old with $34,638 in wages, so the only refundable credit in play is the childless EITC, and its complete phase-out point for a single filer is roughly $19,100 of earned income/AGI in 2026 — barely more than half this filer's wages. With no qualifying children, no education expenses, no recovery rebate, and no excess payroll tax withholding, every component PolicyEngine evaluated (EITC, refundable AOTC, refundable CTC, Recovery Rebate Credit, refundable payroll tax credit) is $0. Both models that produced a number stopped at ""the childless EITC exists"" without applying the terminating phase-out threshold that zeroes the credit far below this income."
@@ -140,15 +140,15 @@ us,scenario_016,ssi,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong res
us,scenario_016,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_016,state_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_016,tanf,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,39,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The reference is a plain 2026 single-filer calculation under current (OBBBA) law. AGI is $61,592.09 after the traditional 401(k), the deductible IRA contribution and the $50 of interest. Subtracting the $16,100 standard deduction leaves taxable income of $45,492.09. Tax is 10% up to $12,400 plus 12% on the rest, or $5,211.05, and no nonrefundable credits apply. Models went wrong in five main ways: (1) they used 2024, 2025 or projected standard deductions and bracket breakpoints instead of $16,100 and $12,400; (2) they assumed TCJA had expired, bringing back personal exemptions and the 15%/25% brackets; (3) they claimed an overtime-premium deduction, even though wages of $68,005 are about $26 × 50 × 52 and include no time-and-a-half premium; (4) they claimed the car-loan interest deduction without a qualifying new vehicle; (5) they inflated itemized medical deductions or claimed credits the filer can't get."
+us,scenario_018,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,41,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The reference is a simple OBBBA-era 2026 single-filer computation. AGI is $61,592.09 after the traditional 401(k), the traditional IRA and $50 of interest. Subtracting the $16,100 standard deduction leaves $45,492.09 of taxable income, taxed at 10% up to $12,400 and 12% above that, for $5,211.05; no nonrefundable credits apply. The wrong answers fall into three groups: (1) stale or invented brackets and standard deductions, including the TCJA-sunset regime with personal exemptions and a 15% bracket; (2) extra OBBBA deductions claimed without the required facts, namely the qualified overtime premium (FLSA non-exempt status is not given) and the car loan interest deduction (a qualifying new vehicle is not given); and (3) phantom credits or itemizing based on double-counted medical premiums."
us,scenario_018,federal_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_018,payroll_tax,7,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Employee FICA applies to the full $68,005 of wages here: $4,216.31 of Social Security tax plus $986.07 of Medicare tax equals $5,202.38. The listed health-insurance premiums were not identified as employee pre-tax salary-reduction contributions, and Arizona's lack of a separate state payroll tax does not remove federal employee FICA."
us,scenario_018,self_employment_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,35,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"Arizona taxes Arizona AGI, here the federal AGI of $61,592.09 (wages minus the traditional 401(k), plus interest, minus the IRA deduction), at a flat 2.5%. The Arizona standard deduction is $16,100 for a single filer in 2026: the $15,750 set by HB 4168, indexed the same way as the federal amount. That beats the $10,637.30 of itemized deductions and leaves taxable income of $45,492.09 and tax of $1,137.30. Most models got the AGI and the 2.5% rate right but used an old or guessed standard deduction ($13,790–$15,750). Others added an exemption a 53-year-old doesn't get, used repealed graduated brackets, took the wrong deduction path, or submitted a number that doesn't match their own work."
+us,scenario_018,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,37,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Most models got Arizona AGI right at about $61,592 and knew the flat 2.5% rate. What separates them is the 2026 Arizona single standard deduction: it is $16,100, which is the $15,750 base set by HB 4168, indexed the same way as the federal basic standard deduction. That leaves taxable income of $45,492.09 and tax of $1,137.30. Most wrong answers used a stale or guessed deduction ($13,790–$15,750). Others added a personal exemption that does not exist, itemized medical costs above PolicyEngine's $10,637.30 itemized total, cut AGI by health premiums, used repealed progressive brackets, or submitted a number that contradicted their own arithmetic."
us,scenario_018,state_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,48,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,,"Texas has no state income tax, so the SALT itemized deduction uses the general sales tax amount instead. The frozen reference projects the sales-tax amount from the IRS's 2023 table, making SALT $17,090.34 and causing it to itemize and disallow the $196 gift under the 0.5%-of-AGI floor. The release's sales tax convention (c_irs_sales_tax_2025) instead uses the IRS 2025 Texas amount of $1,595, leaving SALT below the $16,100 standard deduction, so the filer takes the standard deduction plus the $196 non-itemizer charitable deduction. Under that convention, taxable income is $300,150.19 AGI (after the $5,708.82 alimony deduction) minus $16,296, or $283,854.19; regular tax is $68,112.09, and including the $222.64 NIIT gives $68,334.73. The excluded frozen reference instead uses taxable income of $283,059.84 and regular tax of $67,834.07 plus NIIT, giving $68,056.71. The models near the reference took the standard deduction, as the convention does; those that also took the $196 non-itemizer charitable deduction land within $0.14 of $68,334.73 with NIIT or $68,112.09 without it. Others also dropped the alimony deduction or NIIT, used pre-TCJA rules (personal exemptions and miscellaneous itemized deductions, permanently repealed by OBBBA), or subtracted ESI premiums from the stated gross wages. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (other). The frozen reference is 68,056.71; the alternative is 68,112.09. The prompt defines the output as federal individual income tax after nonrefundable credits and before refundable credits. The reference adds the net investment income tax (26 U.S.C. 1411), which Form 1040 reports on Schedule 2, Part II with self-employment tax, after line 22's tax after nonrefundable credits; read as line 22, the output excludes it. Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (whether federal income tax before refundable credits includes the net investment income tax, which the output's definition does not say)."
+us,scenario_020,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,50,prompt_ambiguity,other,False,,"Texas has no state income tax, so an itemizer can deduct general sales tax instead. PolicyEngine sets that amount from the IRS optional sales tax table, about $3,256. Added to the $13,834 of real estate tax, total SALT is $17,090.34. That is under the $40,400 SALT cap and above the $16,100 standard deduction, so this filer itemizes, and the $196 gift then falls under the 0.5%-of-AGI floor that applies to itemizers. The strongest models took the standard deduction plus the $196 non-itemizer charitable deduction and got taxable income of $283,854 instead of $283,059.84. Others also dropped the alimony deduction that PolicyEngine allows above the line, left out the 3.8% NIIT, removed ESI premiums from the stated gross wages, or applied pre-TCJA (sunset) rules, even though OBBBA kept the suspension of miscellaneous itemized deductions. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (other). The frozen reference is 68,056.71; the alternative is 68,112.09. The prompt defines the output as federal individual income tax after nonrefundable credits and before refundable credits. The reference adds the net investment income tax (26 U.S.C. 1411), which Form 1040 reports on Schedule 2, Part II with self-employment tax, after line 22's tax after nonrefundable credits; read as line 22, the output excludes it. Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (whether federal income tax before refundable credits includes the net investment income tax, which the output's definition does not say)."
us,scenario_020,federal_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,31,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"The reference is $16,689. It applies 6.2% Social Security tax up to the 2026 wage base of $184,500 ($11,439), 1.45% Medicare on the full $300,000 ($4,350), and 0.9% Additional Medicare Tax on the $100,000 above the $200,000 single threshold ($900). The listed employer-sponsored insurance premiums do not reduce FICA wages, and the $42,857 FLSA overtime premium is already inside the $300,000 gross wages. The models went wrong in four main ways: they used an old or guessed wage base ($168,600, $176,100, $180,000–$184,200), cut Medicare wages by the $8,389 premium, added the overtime premium on top of gross wages, or worked out the right total and then submitted a different number."
+us,scenario_020,payroll_tax,33,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The reference is plain FICA arithmetic on the stated $300,000 gross wages: 6.2% Social Security on the 2026 wage base of $184,500 ($11,439), plus 1.45% Medicare on all $300,000 ($4,350), plus 0.9% Additional Medicare Tax on the $100,000 above the $200,000 single threshold ($900). That totals $16,689. Most models missed it in one of three ways. Some used a stale or guessed wage base, such as the 2025 figure of $176,100 or the 2024 figure of $168,600. Some cut FICA wages by the $8,389 ESI premium even though the facts never call it a pre-tax salary reduction. A few added the $42,857 FLSA overtime premium on top of wages that already include it. Several models also derived $16,689 and then submitted a different, unrelated number."
us,scenario_020,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"Texas imposes no individual state income tax, so a Texas resident's state income tax before refundable credits is zero. The nationwide aggregation does not create liability in jurisdictions where the household does not reside."
us,scenario_021,head_chip_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_021,head_medicaid_eligible,6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"At 85 and on Medicare, the head is not in the MAGI adult expansion group, which covers ages 19–64. The only route left is Missouri's aged/blind/disabled (ABD) pathway, and its income test is 85% of the federal poverty level (FPL). For that test, the full $22,000 of Social Security plus about $5,530 of pension counts as unearned income. After the $20 general disregard, countable income is still about 172% of FPL, roughly double the limit, so medicaid_category comes out as none. Every model treated age and disability, plus assets below the limit, as enough to qualify. None compared the head's actual income with the ABD income limit, and PolicyEngine does not let medical expenses or a spend-down bring countable income down."
@@ -158,43 +158,43 @@ us,scenario_021,self_employment_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,Fals
us,scenario_021,snap,1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"An elderly or disabled SNAP household is exempt from the gross-income test but must still satisfy the one-person net-income limit. With monthly net income of approximately $2,063 even under the model’s own deductions, the household fails that test, so the calculation stops at ineligibility and produces $0 rather than an allotment."
us,scenario_021,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Missouri tax is computed from Missouri taxable income after applicable deductions and the 2026 taxable-income threshold, not by applying a flat rate directly to taxable pension income. After those steps, this household has no Missouri taxable income and therefore owes $0 before refundable credits."
us,scenario_021,state_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,48,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The head has no dependent child, so qualifying-surviving-spouse status is unavailable and the 2026 single schedule applies (10% to $12,400, 12% to $50,400, then 22%). With single status, itemizing is the better choice. The prompt lists no state income tax withheld or paid. The frozen reference's SALT adds the engine's $6,058.85 California withholding estimate on federal AGI to $8,829 of real estate tax, totaling $14,887.85 under the $40,400 cap. With charity after the 0.5%-of-AGI floor, itemized deductions are $29,735.52; the phased senior and $910 QBI deductions produce the frozen $74,552.59 taxable income and $11,113.57 tax. These totals depend on unlisted estimated withholding, and the output is excluded from scoring. The exclusion records $11,895.23 when SALT uses the engine's $2,505.87 California liability on policyengine-us 2.15.17, $12,013.38 with the corrected $1,968.81 liability, and $12,192.29 with no state income tax paid ($12,234.66 without the unlisted local sales tax estimate). Models used joint QSS treatment, the old SALT cap or pre-TCJA rules, or omitted deductions; their own California tax estimates or no state tax payment should not be faulted against the unlisted withholding estimate. Developer adjudication (2026-10-05): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (taxable_income_or_deductions). The frozen reference is 11,113.57; the alternative is 11,895.23. The prompt lists no state income tax withheld or paid during 2026; policyengine-us 2.15.17 fills the state income tax part of the federal state and local tax deduction with state_withheld_income_tax, a formula estimate of California withholding on federal AGI ($6,058.85), while read as the household paying its 2026 California income tax during the year the deduction takes the engine's liability ($2,505.87). Found in the 2026-10-05 audit of the state income tax in SALT (reference_audit/2026-10-05, scripts/sweep_salt_withholding.py). Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (state income tax withheld or paid during 2026, which the federal state and local tax deduction takes as its state income tax part; policyengine-us fills it with state_withheld_income_tax, a formula estimate on federal AGI that the household data never set)."
+us,scenario_022,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,50,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The surviving spouse has no dependent child, which qualifying-surviving-spouse (QSS) status requires, so the filer files single and the 2026 single schedule applies, with 22% on taxable income above $50,400. Itemizing beats the $18,150 single 65+ standard deduction only after SALT includes about $6,059 of estimated California income tax withheld. That fits under OBBBA's $40,400 cap alongside $8,829 of property tax, and charity is reduced by the 0.5%-of-AGI floor, giving $29,735.52 itemized. The phased-down $3,951.05 senior deduction and the $910 QBI deduction on rental income then bring taxable income to $74,552.59. The wrong answers fall into three groups: QSS joint brackets, a TCJA sunset that OBBBA cancelled (personal exemptions and 2%-floor miscellaneous deductions), or leaving out CA income tax in SALT, the senior deduction or the QBI deduction. Developer adjudication (2026-10-05): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (taxable_income_or_deductions). The frozen reference is 11,113.57; the alternative is 11,895.23. The prompt lists no state income tax withheld or paid during 2026; policyengine-us 2.15.17 fills the state income tax part of the federal state and local tax deduction with state_withheld_income_tax, a formula estimate of California withholding on federal AGI ($6,058.85), while read as the household paying its 2026 California income tax during the year the deduction takes the engine's liability ($2,505.87). Found in the 2026-10-05 audit of the state income tax in SALT (reference_audit/2026-10-05, scripts/sweep_salt_withholding.py). Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (state income tax withheld or paid during 2026, which the federal state and local tax deduction takes as its state income tax part; policyengine-us fills it with state_withheld_income_tax, a formula estimate on federal AGI that the household data never set)."
us,scenario_022,federal_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_022,head_medicaid_eligible,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Age 77 establishes an aged status but does not itself confer Medicaid eligibility, and Medicare eligibility or assumed enrollment is not a Medicaid eligibility pathway. The head receives no SSI and qualifies under none of California's Medicaid categories, so the aged status cannot overcome the absence of a qualifying pathway."
us,scenario_022,local_income_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,41,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"Every model got federal FICA right: $3,263.37 Social Security plus $763.21 Medicare on $52,635 of wages, with no Additional Medicare Tax. The miss is California's mandatory employee SDI. For 2026 it is 1.3% of all wages, with no wage cap, which gives $684.26 and a total of $4,710.83. Most models used an earlier year's SDI rate: 1.2% from 2025, 1.1% from 2024, or 0.9% from 2023. The rest left SDI out because they said CA has no mandatory employee payroll tax."
+us,scenario_022,payroll_tax,43,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"The federal part is simple: 6.2% Social Security ($3,263.37) plus 1.45% Medicare ($763.21) on $52,635 of wages, with no Additional Medicare Tax. The trap is California's mandatory employee State Disability Insurance (SDI) contribution. For 2026 it is 1.3% of all wages with no cap, which is $684.26, for a total of $4,710.83. Most models either left SDI out and stopped at $4,026.58, or used an earlier year's SDI rate: 1.2% for 2025 ($4,658.20), 1.1% for 2024 ($4,605.57), or 0.9% for 2023 ($4,500.30)."
us,scenario_022,self_employment_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,48,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,,"The head is flagged as a surviving spouse but has no dependent child, so the head files as single. The correct steps are: use the $5,706 single standard deduction, apply the single rate schedule, and take a $306 exemption credit ($153 personal plus $153 senior). California excludes all Social Security, so California AGI is $91,524. California never adopted the TCJA suspension of miscellaneous itemized deductions, so the $8,351 of unreimbursed employee expenses counts after a 2% floor based on federal AGI of $109,149, which leaves $6,168. Total itemized deductions are $30,390, taxable income is $61,134, tax on the single schedule is $2,274.81, and subtracting the $306 credit gives $1,968.81. The wrong answers mostly used joint or surviving-spouse brackets, dropped or overstated the employee-expense deduction, or left out the senior exemption credit."
+us,scenario_022,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,50,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,,"The head is a widow with no dependent, so qualifying surviving spouse status does not apply. California taxes them as a single filer: single brackets, the $5,706 single standard deduction, and $306 of exemption credits ($153 personal plus $153 senior). California does not follow the TCJA suspension of miscellaneous itemized deductions, so the $8,351 of unreimbursed employee expenses is deductible above a 2% floor measured on federal AGI ($109,149, a floor of about $2,183). That leaves $6,168, and itemized deductions total $30,390. Taxable income is $61,134.44, single-bracket tax is $2,274.81, and the $306 credit brings it to $1,968.81. Most models went wrong by using joint/QSS brackets, dropping the employee-expense deduction, measuring the 2% floor on CA AGI instead of federal AGI, or leaving out the senior exemption credit."
us,scenario_022,state_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_023,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,43,llm_error,other,False,,"The base computation is AGI $22,534 (wages minus the traditional 401(k) deferral, plus the $8,000 taxable 403(b) distribution, minus the $130 IRA deduction). Subtracting the 2026 OBBBA single standard deduction of $16,100 leaves $6,434 of taxable income, all taxed at 10%, for $643.43. No nonrefundable credit reduces that amount. The Saver's Credit base is zero because IRC §25B(d)(2) (Form 8880 line 4) subtracts the $8,000 of testing-period 403(b) distributions from the $3,599 of total retirement contributions. The AOTC is zero because no qualified tuition is listed, and the elderly/disabled credit phases out completely at this AGI. Most models wrongly wiped out the tax with a $1,000 Saver's Credit or an AOTC. Others used outdated or TCJA-expiration standard deductions, or excluded the $8,089 ESI premium from wages."
us,scenario_023,federal_refundable_credits,20,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,,"This case has two traps, and a model had to avoid both to reach $0. First, the AOTC eligibility flags do not create a credit. The credit is 100% of the first $2,000 of qualified tuition expenses plus 25% of the next $2,000, and no expenses are listed, so the base is $0 and the refundable 40% portion is also $0. Second, the childless EITC phaseout is measured on the greater of earned income or AGI. AGI is about $22,535: wages of $17,443, minus the $2,778 traditional 401(k) deferral, plus the $8,000 taxable 403(b) distribution, minus the $130 IRA deduction. That is above the 2026 single childless completion point of about $19,540, so the EITC is fully phased out."
us,scenario_023,free_school_meals_eligible,3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"The household qualifies for the FREE meal tier through California’s universal program and categorical eligibility, despite its 1.59 federal-poverty-guideline ratio exceeding the federal income cutoff. The requested output is narrower: it equals 1 only when PolicyEngine returns positive annual free-school-meal support, and this adult-only household has no student receiving meals, so the annual support is zero."
us,scenario_023,head_chip_eligible,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"CHIP eligibility requires being in a covered CHIP category and not already eligible for Medicaid; it is not a general adult coverage pathway based solely on falling below an extended income ceiling. The 28-year-old head qualifies for Medicaid through the WORKING_DISABLED_BUY_IN category, which places them in CHIP category 3 and categorically excludes them from CHIP."
-us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,26,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,,"The head is disabled and employed (24 hours a week at $14/hour), so the engine places them in the working-disabled buy-in category. California runs this as the 250% FPL Working Disabled Program, and it confers Medicaid eligibility even though MAGI is 1.41x FPL, above the 138% adult-expansion limit. Almost every model tested only the 138% FPL expansion limit and an SSI-linked aged/blind/disabled pathway, then answered not eligible. None of them considered the working-disabled buy-in, which has a much higher income ceiling. Two models gave no answer, and one wrote an explanation saying eligible but submitted 0. Developer adjudication (2026-09-29): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (categorical_eligibility). The frozen reference is 1 (eligible); the alternative is 0. The prompt says only that the head is disabled. The head's MAGI is 141.2% of the federal poverty guideline, above the 138% limit for the adult expansion group, so only a disability pathway leads to Medi-Cal. California's 250% Working Disabled Program requires the Social Security definition of disability, which the prompt does not state; policyengine-us 2.15.17 tests the broad is_disabled flag instead and places the head in the program. With the program's test reading the Social Security definition, the head qualifies only by meeting it. The same unlisted input excludes this household's SNAP. Judge diagnoses are retained as description; the class prompt_ambiguity records that the reference, not the model, is indeterminate here. Flagged in the 2026-09-29 engine upgrade (reference_audit/2026-09-28, cluster excl_snap_ssi_disability) and excluded on review of the release. Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (meets_ssi_disability_criteria, the Social Security definition of disability that 42 CFR 435.540(a) and California's 250% Working Disabled Program require)."
-us,scenario_023,head_medicare_eligible,4,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"The head is 28, so age-based Medicare eligibility at 65 does not apply. For someone under 65, disability-based Medicare requires 24 months of Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) entitlement or an end-stage renal disease diagnosis, not just a disability status. This household has no SSDI income and no ESRD, so the head is not eligible. The wrong models treated the `is_disabled` flag by itself as enough for Medicare."
+us,scenario_023,head_medicaid_eligible,28,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,,"The head is disabled and employed, so PolicyEngine places them in the WORKING_DISABLED_BUY_IN Medicaid category, which corresponds to California's 250% FPL Working Disabled Program. That category has its own income limit, well above the 1.41x FPL income here. The models correctly saw that MAGI of about $22,535 (1.41x FPL) is above the 138% adult expansion limit. They then checked only SSI receipt or the aged/blind/disabled SSI-level income test, never the working-disabled buy-in, and concluded the head was ineligible. Developer adjudication (2026-09-29): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (categorical_eligibility). The frozen reference is 1 (eligible); the alternative is 0. The prompt says only that the head is disabled. The head's MAGI is 141.2% of the federal poverty guideline, above the 138% limit for the adult expansion group, so only a disability pathway leads to Medi-Cal. California's 250% Working Disabled Program requires the Social Security definition of disability, which the prompt does not state; policyengine-us 2.15.17 tests the broad is_disabled flag instead and places the head in the program. With the program's test reading the Social Security definition, the head qualifies only by meeting it. The same unlisted input excludes this household's SNAP. Judge diagnoses are retained as description; the class prompt_ambiguity records that the reference, not the model, is indeterminate here. Flagged in the 2026-09-29 engine upgrade (reference_audit/2026-09-28, cluster excl_snap_ssi_disability) and excluded on review of the release. Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (meets_ssi_disability_criteria, the Social Security definition of disability that 42 CFR 435.540(a) and California's 250% Working Disabled Program require)."
+us,scenario_023,head_medicare_eligible,5,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"Medicare eligibility under 65 does not come from a general disability flag. It requires age 65 or older, at least 24 months of Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) entitlement, or end-stage renal disease (ESRD). This head is 28, has no SSDI income or SSDI months (unlisted inputs count as 0), and has no ESRD. The `is_disabled` flag therefore does not create Medicare eligibility. The models that answered treated 'is disabled' as automatically qualifying the head for Medicare, which skipped the SSDI entitlement and 24-month waiting-period step."
us,scenario_023,head_wic_eligible,2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_023,local_income_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,43,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"Payroll tax is employee FICA on the full $17,442.65 of wages (6.2% Social Security plus 1.45% Medicare, which comes to $1,334.36) plus California's mandatory employee SDI. For 2026, SDI is 1.3% of all wages with no cap, which is $226.75. The derivation text calls the rate ""1%"", but the $226.75 figure is 1.3%. Neither employer-sponsored insurance premiums nor traditional 401(k) deferrals reduce this wage base. The wrong answers fall into four groups: they left out CA SDI, used an outdated SDI rate (0.9%, 1.0%, 1.1%, 1.13% or 1.2% instead of 1.3%), subtracted the $8,089 ESI premiums or the 401(k) deferral from the payroll wage base, or made arithmetic errors."
+us,scenario_023,payroll_tax,45,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The payroll tax base is the full gross wage of $17,442.65. Section 125 premiums and 401(k) deferrals do not reduce it, and 403(b) distributions are not wages. On that base: Social Security at 6.2% is $1,081.44, Medicare at 1.45% is $252.92, and California's mandatory employee SDI at the 2026 rate of 1.3% with no wage cap is $226.75 (226.75 / 17,442.65 = 1.3%), for a total of $1,561.12. Models went wrong in one of three ways: they left out CA SDI entirely (FICA-only answers of about $1,334), they used an older SDI rate (1.1% for 2024, 1.2% for 2025, or other guesses), or they subtracted the $8,089 employer-sponsored insurance premium, or 401(k) deferrals, from the wage base."
us,scenario_023,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_023,self_employment_tax,2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_023,snap,48,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,,"For SNAP, the USDA definition of disabled (7 CFR 271.2) requires receiving a qualifying disability-based benefit such as SSI or SSDI. This head has an ""is disabled"" flag but receives no such benefit, so the household is not an elderly/disabled SNAP household: it gets no excess medical deduction, and its excess shelter deduction is capped at $744 a month. Monthly gross income is $2,120.25 ($17,443 in wages plus the $8,000 403(b) distribution, divided by 12). That passes California's 200% FPL broad-based categorical eligibility test. Subtracting the 20% earned-income deduction ($290.72), the $209 standard deduction and the capped $744 shelter deduction leaves net income of about $876.51. The frozen reference gives $298 − $262.80 = $35.20 a month for January–September and $48.18 for October–December under the engine's projected FY2027 parameters, totaling $461.34. The release's c_snap_hold_fy2026 convention holds FY2026 for all 12 months; on this capped reading, the current engine with SNAP rounding fixes gives $34/month ($408/year). Most models gave uncapped shelter and medical deductions because of the disability flag; the rest wrongly zeroed SNAP using a 130% gross income test. Developer adjudication (2026-09-05): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (age_disability). The output is removed from scoring for every model: its reference depends on an engine input the certified household data never carried and the prompt therefore never listed, and a careful reader could take the stated facts the other way. Recomputed with policyengine-us 1.755.4 (the version that produced the references) the reference moves from 461.339722 to 3596.039795 under the alternative reading. Neither reading is established by the facts; rows that matched the frozen value leave the score along with rows that did not. Judge diagnoses are retained as description; the class prompt_ambiguity records that the reference, not the model, is indeterminate here. SSI itself stays $0 under either reading (the head's countable income exceeds the federal benefit rate); SNAP moves because SSI-disabled status switches on the elderly-or-disabled SNAP rules. The 2026-09-22 audit recomputes the alternative as 3,576.00 with every publication convention and upstream fix (the frozen-engine value above was 3,596.04)."
+us,scenario_023,snap,50,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,,"The trap is the bare ""is disabled"" flag. The SNAP elderly/disabled-member definition (7 U.S.C. 2012(j)) depends on receiving a disability-based benefit such as SSI or SSDI, and this household receives none. So the 28-year-old head does not make it an elderly/disabled household: there is no excess-medical deduction, and the excess-shelter deduction is capped at $744. Net income is $2,120.25 − $290.72 (20% earned) − $209 (standard) − $744 (shelter cap) = $876.51/mo. That gives $298 − $262.80 = $35.20/mo for Jan–Sep and $48.18/mo for Oct–Dec under FY2027 parameters, so $461.34 for the year. Most models wrongly used uncapped shelter and medical deductions, which pushed them toward the maximum allotment. The $0 answers applied the 130% FPL gross test instead of California's 200% FPL broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE), which the household gets through TANF non-cash assistance. Developer adjudication (2026-09-05): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (age_disability). The output is removed from scoring for every model: its reference depends on an engine input the certified household data never carried and the prompt therefore never listed, and a careful reader could take the stated facts the other way. Recomputed with policyengine-us 1.755.4 (the version that produced the references) the reference moves from 461.339722 to 3596.039795 under the alternative reading. Neither reading is established by the facts; rows that matched the frozen value leave the score along with rows that did not. Judge diagnoses are retained as description; the class prompt_ambiguity records that the reference, not the model, is indeterminate here. SSI itself stays $0 under either reading (the head's countable income exceeds the federal benefit rate); SNAP moves because SSI-disabled status switches on the elderly-or-disabled SNAP rules. The 2026-09-22 audit recomputes the alternative as 3,576.00 with every publication convention and upstream fix (the frozen-engine value above was 3,596.04)."
us,scenario_023,ssi,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"SSI requires the individual to satisfy the aged, blind, or disabled categorical gate before income exclusions or benefit-rate calculations apply. The head's unlisted SSI disability status is false under the prompt instructions, so `is_ssi_aged_blind_disabled=False` and SSI is $0 without an income calculation."
-us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,48,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"California AGI is $22,534.34: wages minus the 401(k) deferral, plus the $8,000 taxable 403(b) distribution, minus the IRA deduction. Subtracting the $5,706 standard deduction leaves $16,828.34 of taxable income. At 1% up to $11,079 and 2% above that, the tax is $225.78. The nonrefundable credits total $213 ($153 personal exemption credit and $60 renter's credit), so they fall $12.78 short of the tax. Most models went wrong in one of four ways: they assumed the credits wipe out a low-income filer's tax, they dropped the 403(b) distribution or the 401(k)/IRA adjustments, they left out one of the two credits or made up a disability credit, or they used stale or projected parameters instead of the 2025 amounts that the reference carries into 2026."
-us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,47,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,,"California's CalEITC is refundable and open to childless filers aged 18 or older. Its schedule is separate from the federal EITC, and its long phase-out tail runs past $30,000 of income. Because this filer's AGI ($22,534, which includes $8,000 of taxable 403(b) distributions and subtracts the 401(k) and IRA deferrals) is higher than earned income ($17,442.65), the phase-out uses AGI, which leaves a CalEITC of $95.15. The models that answered $0 wrongly treated the filer as ineligible: they said a child was required, tied CalEITC to federal EITC, treated pension income as disqualifying investment income, or placed the cutoff too low. Most of the positive answers worked the phase-out from wages alone or guessed the tail amount loosely."
+us,scenario_023,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,50,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"California AGI is $22,534.34: wages net of the $2,778 traditional 401(k) deferral, plus the $8,000 taxable 403(b) distribution, minus the $130 IRA deduction. Subtracting the $5,706 standard deduction leaves $16,828.34 of taxable income. At 1% up to $11,079 and 2% above that, the tax is $225.78. The two nonrefundable credits, a $153 personal exemption credit and a $60 renter's credit, total $213, so the margin left is only $12.78. That small margin trips models in several ways. Some lower the tax a little by projecting 2026 indexing or using older parameters. Some say the credits fully cancel the tax without doing the math. Some leave out the 403(b) distribution, skip a credit, or invent a disability exemption credit."
+us,scenario_023,state_refundable_credits,49,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,,"The filer is 28, single, has no children and has $17,443 in wages, so they qualify for the childless CalEITC. CalEITC does not depend on the federal EITC, its childless age floor is 18, and its income ceiling is about $33k. Its phaseout is applied to the greater of earned income ($17,442.65) or AGI ($22,534.34). AGI is higher because it includes the $8,000 taxable 403(b) distribution minus the traditional 401(k) and IRA deductions. At $22,534 the credit sits on the shallow final phaseout segment and comes to $95.15. The renter's credit is nonrefundable, and no other California refundable credit applies. Most wrong answers either denied CalEITC entirely (no-children, federal-EITC or investment-income misconceptions), phased it out from earnings alone, or skipped the phaseout."
us,scenario_023,tanf,2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,31,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The OBBBA made the TCJA rate structure permanent, so this case only needs three 2026 MFJ parameters: the $32,200 standard deduction, the 10% bracket ending at $24,800, and the 12% rate after that. AGI is $94,925 (spouse wages plus taxable pension). Taxable income is $62,725, so the tax is $2,480 + 12% × $37,925 = $7,031.04, with no nonrefundable credits. Most models missed for one of three reasons: they assumed the TCJA sunset (personal exemptions, a smaller standard deduction and a 15% bracket); they used 2025 or misestimated 2026 thresholds; or they reached about $7,031 and then submitted a different, unsupported final number."
+us,scenario_025,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,33,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"AGI is $94,925.30 ($62,725.29 wages + $32,200 pension). The 2026 OBBBA married-filing-jointly standard deduction of $32,200 is far larger than the $2,354 in itemized deductions, so taxable income is $62,725.30. Under the 2026 brackets (10% up to $24,800, 12% up to $100,800), tax is $2,480 + 12% × $37,925.30 = $7,031.04, and no nonrefundable credits apply. Most wrong answers used 2025 or pre-OBBBA inflation-projected deduction and bracket amounts, or assumed the TCJA had expired (personal exemptions, a 15% bracket). Several models reached the right figure and then submitted a different number."
us,scenario_025,federal_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_025,head_medicare_eligible,1,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"Medicare eligibility requires age 65 in the absence of a qualifying disability, ESRD, or other explicitly listed pathway. The 61-year-old head has no such condition, so the age test yields 0 (No)."
us,scenario_025,payroll_tax,8,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"The spouse's $62,725 of wages are the only FICA-covered earnings. They are taxed at 6.2% for Social Security and 1.45% for Medicare, which gives $4,798.48 ($3,888.97 + $909.52). The head has no wages. The $32,200 pension is outside the FICA base. The head's ESI premium is not subtracted from the spouse's wages. Ohio has no employee state payroll tax, and Additional Medicare Tax does not apply. Several models got this computation right but submitted a different number. Others added Ohio income tax, subtracted the ESI premium, used the combined employer-plus-employee rate, or counted wages for the head."
-us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,48,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The reference has five steps. First, Ohio's unreimbursed-medical deduction: the $6,500 of premiums plus the $800 of other medical expenses above 7.5% of FAGI gives $180.60, so OAGI is $94,744.70. Second, two $1,900 exemptions (the over-$80k tier). Third, Ohio's schedule taxes taxable income of $90,944.70 at a $332 base amount plus 2.75% of the excess over $26,050, giving $2,116.61. Fourth, the $200 retirement income credit for the spouse's $32,200 pension brings the tax to $1,916.61. Fifth, no joint filing credit applies because the head has no income. The most common wrong answer, $1,589.56, gets the exemptions and the credit right. It drops the $332 base amount and skips the medical deduction. Other answers err on exemption amounts, outdated brackets, an invented standard deduction, or by counting the $21,208 employer premiums as income adjustments or deductions."
+us,scenario_025,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,50,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The reference starts from federal AGI of $94,925.30. It subtracts Ohio's unreimbursed medical care deduction of $180.60: the head has employer coverage available, so the $6,500 of premiums and $800 of other medical expenses ($7,300 total) are deductible only above 7.5% of FAGI. It then subtracts two $1,900 exemptions to reach $90,944.70 of taxable income. That income is taxed under the 2026 schedule as a base of about $332 plus 2.75% above $26,050, which gives $2,116.61, and the $200 retirement income credit brings the tax to $1,916.61. The most common wrong answer, $1,589.56, got the exemptions and the $200 credit right but dropped the roughly $332 base amount and the medical deduction. Other models used outdated brackets, used the wrong exemption amounts, gave a joint filing or senior credit that doesn't apply, or left out the retirement credit."
us,scenario_026,child1_chip_eligible,5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"NC Health Choice merged into NC Medicaid in 2023. North Carolina now covers school-age children up to 211% FPL, plus a 5% disregard, as Medicaid (Medicaid-expansion CHIP) under the OLDER_CHILD category, not as a separate CHIP program. PolicyEngine finds the 11-year-old Medicaid-eligible at this household income. Because CHIP covers only children who fail Medicaid, that Medicaid eligibility makes the child CHIP-ineligible. Every model that answered treated the 211% band as a separate CHIP program sitting above a lower Medicaid limit. Each one called the child CHIP-eligible instead of routing them to Medicaid first and excluding CHIP."
-us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,47,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"Household MAGI is the spouse's $85,209 in wages, which already include overtime, minus the $2,778 traditional 401(k) contribution and the $130 traditional IRA deduction. That gives $82,301, or 2.13x the 2026 FPL for a family of five. In April 2023, North Carolina moved NC Health Choice into Medicaid, so children aged 6-18 now qualify for Medicaid up to 211% FPL, or 216% with the 5-point MAGI disregard. A household at 2.13x FPL falls under that limit. Most models used the old 133%/138% Medicaid limit or treated 211% as a hard cap without the disregard, and some inflated MAGI or wrongly treated employer-sponsored insurance as a bar to Medicaid."
+us,scenario_026,child1_medicaid_eligible,49,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"North Carolina folded NC Health Choice (its separate CHIP) into Medicaid. Children ages 6-18 now qualify for Medicaid up to 211% FPL, or 216% with the 5-point MAGI disregard. Household MAGI is $85,209 in wages minus $2,778 of traditional 401(k) and $130 of traditional IRA contributions, which comes to about $82,301. Against the 2026 poverty guideline for five people, that is 2.13x FPL, so 11-year-old child1 qualifies in the OLDER_CHILD category. Most models used the old 133%/138% federal floor for school-age children. Others overstated MAGI by adding the FLSA overtime premium again, ignoring pre-tax contributions, or using the 2025 FPL. Some wrongly treated employer-sponsored insurance as a bar to Medicaid, when it only matters for CHIP."
us,scenario_026,child2_chip_eligible,5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Child 2 is 11. In the engine, North Carolina's Medicaid OLDER_CHILD category covers this child at the household's income, so the child is Medicaid-eligible. CHIP only covers children who do not qualify for Medicaid, which makes child2_chip_eligible = No. NC folded NC Health Choice into Medicaid, so the income band that the models called ""CHIP, above Medicaid and up to 211-216% FPL"" is Medicaid coverage for a school-age child. All four models that answered found income below the NC children's limit but assigned the child to CHIP instead of Medicaid, and never applied the rule that Medicaid eligibility excludes CHIP."
-us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,47,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"North Carolina folded NC Health Choice (its separate CHIP) into Medicaid in 2023. Since then, the Medicaid limit for older children (ages 6–18) has been 211% FPL, or 216% once the 5-point MAGI disregard is applied, not the old 133%/138% floor. The household's MAGI is 2.13× FPL: the spouse's wages minus the traditional 401(k) and IRA deductions, measured against the 2026 FPL for 5. That is under the limit, so the 11-year-old falls in the OLDER_CHILD Medicaid category and is eligible. Most models applied the outdated 133% Medicaid limit and treated 133–211% as CHIP. Others overstated the FPL ratio by using gross wages or an old poverty guideline, left out the 5% disregard, or wrongly treated employer-sponsored insurance as a bar to Medicaid."
+us,scenario_026,child2_medicaid_eligible,49,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"On April 1, 2023, North Carolina moved NC Health Choice (its separate CHIP) into Medicaid. Since then, children ages 6-18 get Medicaid under the OLDER_CHILD category up to 211% FPL, which becomes 216% once the 5-percentage-point MAGI disregard is applied. Their limit is no longer the old 133%/138%. Household MAGI is $85,209 wages minus the $2,778 traditional 401(k) and the $130 traditional IRA contribution, which gives $82,301, or 2.13× the 2026 FPL for a household of five. That is under the limit, so child2 is eligible. Most models either used the old 133% Medicaid tier, compared against 211% without the disregard using an outdated or wrong FPL, or wrongly treated employer coverage as a bar to Medicaid."
us,scenario_026,child3_chip_eligible,7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Every model placed 9-year-old Child 3 in a CHIP band that sits above Medicaid, using the old 133%-to-211% FPL NC Health Choice structure. North Carolina moved NC Health Choice into Medicaid in 2023, and PolicyEngine finds Child 3 Medicaid-eligible under the OLDER_CHILD category. A Medicaid-eligible child is excluded from CHIP by construction, so the answer is No however each model computed MAGI. The decisive step is the Medicaid-first ordering with North Carolina's older-child Medicaid limit, not any CHIP income ceiling."
-us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,47,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"When NC Health Choice moved into Medicaid in 2023, North Carolina's Medicaid limit for older children (ages 6-18) rose to 211% FPL, or 216% after the 5% MAGI disregard. It is no longer 133%/138%. Household MAGI is $85,209 in wages minus the $2,778 traditional 401(k) and $130 traditional IRA contributions, which is about $82,301. Against the 2026 five-person FPL of about $38,680, that is 2.13x FPL, under the 216% limit, so the 9-year-old is Medicaid-eligible in the OLDER_CHILD category. Most models used the old 133% limit and treated the 133-211% band as separate CHIP. Others compared gross wages instead of MAGI, left out the 5% disregard, used a wrong FPL, or wrongly treated employer coverage as a bar to Medicaid."
+us,scenario_026,child3_medicaid_eligible,49,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"NC Health Choice, the state's separate CHIP, moved into Medicaid in April 2023. Since then, Medicaid covers NC children ages 6-18 up to 211% FPL, and the 5-point MAGI disregard raises that to an effective 216% FPL. The household's MAGI is 2.13x FPL (spouse wages less traditional 401k/IRA contributions), so child3 qualifies in the OLDER_CHILD Medicaid category. Most models used the federal floor of 133%/138% FPL for this age group and sent the child to CHIP. Others used the 210-211% figure but left out the disregard, tested gross wages or an inflated FPL ratio, or wrongly treated employer coverage as a bar to Medicaid."
us,scenario_026,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,22,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"2026 law keeps the TCJA structure — personal exemptions repealed, a $32,200 MFJ standard deduction — and adds the deduction for qualified FLSA overtime premiums, so the $7,746.26 premium comes out of taxable income rather than being stacked onto wages that already include it, leaving $42,354.26 taxable and $4,586.51 of tentative tax. The child tax credit is $2,200 per qualifying child in 2026, and its nonrefundable portion offsets the entire liability first, with the $1,700-per-child ACTC as the residual, so $6,600 of credit for three children drives the answer to exactly $0. The wrong answers split into two clusters: models that applied the expired pre-TCJA regime (a reverted ~$16,600 standard deduction, ~$5,200 personal exemptions, a 15% bracket, a $1,000-per-child credit), and models that got the deduction stack roughly right but capped the nonrefundable CTC at $500–$1,100 per child by treating the refundable ACTC as consumed first. Every wrong model ignored the qualified-overtime deduction, and three double-counted the $7,746 premium on top of the $85,209 gross wage figure."
-us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,41,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"AGI is $82,301: $85,209 in wages, minus the $2,778 traditional 401(k) deferral and the $130 traditional IRA deduction. From that, the 2026 MFJ standard deduction of $32,200 and the OBBBA qualified-overtime deduction for the $7,746 FLSA overtime premium are subtracted, giving taxable income of about $42,355 and pre-credit tax of about $4,586.51. The OBBBA CTC of $2,200 × 3 = $6,600 cuts that tax to zero. The unused $2,013.49 is fully refundable as ACTC because it is under both the $1,700-per-child cap ($5,100) and the 15%-of-earnings-over-$2,500 limit. EITC is zero at this income. Most wrong answers overstated pre-credit tax by skipping the overtime deduction, which shrinks or erases the refundable remainder. Others used the expired $1,000 credit or the pre-OBBBA $2,000 credit, or ignored the rule that ACTC is capped at the unused CTC."
+us,scenario_026,federal_refundable_credits,43,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Under OBBBA for 2026, the household's AGI is $82,301: $85,209 in wages minus the $2,778 traditional 401(k) deferral and the $130 traditional IRA deduction. Taxable income is $42,355 after the $32,200 MFJ standard deduction and the $7,746 qualified overtime (FLSA premium) deduction. That gives pre-credit tax of about $4,586.51. The $6,600 CTC ($2,200 × 3) absorbs that tax, and the remaining $2,013.49 is paid as refundable ACTC. It is below the $1,700-per-child cap and the 15%-of-earnings test, and EITC is zero at this AGI. Most models skipped the overtime deduction, assumed the 2017-law $1,000 or $2,000 CTC, or said the tax fully absorbed the credit without checking. A few added deductions or credits that don't apply here, such as auto-loan interest or the Saver's Credit."
us,scenario_026,free_school_meals_eligible,1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"Free school meals require income within the free-meal limit or categorical eligibility through a qualifying program. This household's countable income of $85,208.82 equals 220% of the $38,680 federal poverty guideline, exceeds even the 185% reduced-price limit, and has no categorical eligibility, so its school-meal tier is paid."
us,scenario_026,head_chip_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_026,head_medicaid_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
@@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ us,scenario_026,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,1,llm_error,categorical_elig
us,scenario_026,self_employment_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_026,spouse_chip_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_026,spouse_medicaid_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,37,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"North Carolina starts from federal AGI. Here that is about $82,301: $85,209 in wages, which already include the $7,746 overtime premium, minus the $2,778 traditional 401(k) and the $130 traditional IRA. From that, NC subtracts the $25,500 joint standard deduction and the income-tiered child deduction. For joint filers with AGI between $80,001 and $100,000, the child deduction is $1,500 per child, or $4,500 for three children. Tax is 3.99% of $52,300.52. Most models either left out the child deduction or used the wrong AGI tier ($500, $1,000, $2,000, $2,500 or $3,000 per child). Others got AGI wrong by adding the overtime premium on top of wages, subtracting it, or subtracting ESI premiums, or they used an outdated NC rate (4.25%, 4.5% or 4.75%)."
+us,scenario_026,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,38,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"North Carolina starts from federal AGI of $82,300.52 (wages of $85,209, which already include overtime, minus the $2,778 traditional 401(k) and $130 traditional IRA contributions). It then subtracts the $25,500 MFJ standard deduction and the NC child deduction. The child deduction is tiered by AGI: for MFJ filers with AGI between $80k and $100k it is $1,500 per child, so $4,500 for three children. That leaves $52,300.52 taxed at the flat 3.99% rate, or $2,086.79. Most models left out the child deduction, used the wrong AGI tier ($500, $1,000, $2,000, $2,500, $3,000 or $4,000 per child), or got AGI wrong by adding back, subtracting, or double-counting the overtime premium or the ESI premiums."
us,scenario_026,state_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_027,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2,llm_error,other,False,,"The household has no positive federal income tax before refundable credits because taxable income and every additional component of that output are zero. A missing submission is a parse-contract failure, while a negative submission contradicts both the model's own zero-tax derivation and the output's nonnegative liability construction."
us,scenario_027,federal_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
@@ -216,55 +216,55 @@ us,scenario_027,local_income_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,
us,scenario_027,payroll_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_027,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_027,self_employment_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_027,snap,47,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Connecticut uses broad-based categorical eligibility through TANF non-cash benefits. Because gross income is $2,536.25 a month, about 1.44 times the poverty guideline and under the 200% limit, the household is categorically eligible. That eligibility waives both the asset test (so the $48,000 doesn't matter) and the 100% FPL net income test. Net income is $2,118 a month, so the expected contribution of $636 is larger than the $546 two-person maximum and the formula benefit is zero. A categorically eligible one- or two-person household still gets the FY2026 minimum allotment of $24 a month, which is $288 a year. Most models either applied the asset limit or the net income test that BBCE waives, or computed a zero formula benefit and never applied the minimum allotment. A few used the old $23 minimum."
+us,scenario_027,snap,49,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Connecticut uses broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE) through TANF non-cash benefits. Gross income of $2,536.25/month is 1.44× the poverty guideline, below the 200% BBCE limit, so the household is categorically eligible. That waives both the 100%-FPL net income test and the $4,500 elderly/disabled asset limit, which means the $48,000 in the bank does not matter. Net income of about $2,118 gives an expected contribution of $636, above the $546 two-person maximum, so the formula benefit is zero. However, eligible one- and two-person households receive the FY2026 minimum allotment of $24/month, or $288 a year. Most models disqualified the household on the net income or asset test, or left out the minimum allotment. Three answered $276 because they used the FY2025 minimum of $23."
us,scenario_027,spouse_chip_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_027,spouse_medicaid_eligible,13,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"The spouse, 39, qualifies through no Medicaid category in the engine. For the adult expansion group, Medicaid MAGI adds back all non-taxable Social Security benefits, so the head's $30,160 SSDI plus $275 interest gives household MAGI of $30,435. That is 1.41x FPL, above the 138% limit. Being blind and disabled confers no separate category either: the spouse receives $0 SSI because the couple's $30,435 income and $48,000 in resources far exceed the SSI couple limits. Models said yes by either dropping Social Security from MAGI or treating blindness and disability as enough on their own under an aged, blind and disabled (ABD, HUSKY C) pathway."
+us,scenario_027,spouse_medicaid_eligible,14,llm_error,asset_resource,False,,"For Medicaid, MAGI adds back all non-taxable Social Security. The household's MAGI is therefore $30,160 SSDI + $275 interest = $30,435, which is 1.41x the 2026 two-person FPL. That is above the 138% adult-expansion limit, which PolicyEngine applies without a 5% disregard. The aged/blind/disabled route also fails: the couple's $48,000 in bank assets is far above Connecticut's ABD resource limit and the $3,000 SSI couple limit, so SSI is $0 and the spouse has no SSI-linked or optional-disabled category. medicaid_category is NONE. Models either left Social Security out of MAGI, got the 138% comparison wrong, or assumed blindness or disability alone qualifies without applying the resource and income tests."
us,scenario_027,spouse_medicare_eligible,12,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"Medicare eligibility requires age 65+, ESRD/ALS, or 24 months of the person's own Social Security disability benefit receipt. A disability flag alone does not qualify anyone. The 39-year-old spouse is flagged blind and disabled but has $0 Social Security disability income of their own; the $30,160 SSDI belongs to the head. The spouse therefore has no Medicare pathway. The models mistook the disability flag for SSDI entitlement, and some credited the head's SSDI to the spouse."
us,scenario_027,spouse_wic_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_027,ssi,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_027,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_027,state_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_027,tanf,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,20,llm_error,health_coverage,False,,"Every model that answered stopped at CHIP's age and income screens. Child 1 is 10, and household MAGI is $60,010 ($60,000 wages plus $10 interest; child support is excluded). For a family of four that is about 187% FPL, which is above PA's child Medicaid limit and below the 314% FPL CHIP ceiling. The step they skipped is CHIP's coverage bar: under 42 U.S.C. 1397jj(b)(1)(C) and 42 CFR 457.310(c)(1)(ii), a targeted low-income child must not be covered under a group health plan. Child 1 has employer-sponsored insurance, so Child 1 fails CHIP's own criteria even though Child 1 is not Medicaid-eligible. claude-opus-4.7, kimi-k3 and ox-alpha went further and said outright that existing coverage has no bearing on CHIP eligibility."
+us,scenario_028,child1_chip_eligible,21,llm_error,health_coverage,False,,"Every model that answered treated CHIP as a simple income band. Each put the family somewhere above Pennsylvania's child Medicaid limit and below its roughly 314% FPL CHIP limit, then called the 10-year-old eligible. In PolicyEngine, Medicaid is denied (category NONE), and the child also fails CHIP's own child test. Age 10 passes, so the failure is in the eligibility comparison, not age. The fact the models overlooked is that every child is already covered by employer-sponsored insurance. Under 42 U.S.C. 1397jj(b)(1)(C) and 42 CFR 457.310(b)(2), a child covered by a group health plan is not a targeted low-income child, so CHIP eligibility is 0. Several models went further and explicitly called ESI an enrollment fact that does not affect eligibility."
us,scenario_028,child1_early_head_start_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_028,child1_head_start_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_028,child1_medicaid_eligible,5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"The decisive step is assigning the child to a Pennsylvania Medicaid eligibility category rather than treating the broader Medicaid/CHIP coverage continuum as Medicaid. At 1.82 times FPL, the child satisfies none of the Medicaid pathways evaluated by the engine, has no disability pathway or SSI receipt, and therefore has medicaid_category NONE and is not Medicaid eligible."
us,scenario_028,child1_medicare_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_028,child1_wic_eligible,4,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"WIC categorical eligibility for children ends at the fifth birthday; it does not extend to school-age children. Child 1 is age 10, so the child fails the categorical age requirement regardless of household income."
-us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,21,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"Every answering model reasoned that child2 is a 10-year-old in a family of four at about 185-192% FPL, above PA's child Medicaid limit and under PA's roughly 314% FPL CHIP ceiling, so it answered Yes. PolicyEngine agrees that child2 is not Medicaid-eligible (category NONE), but it also finds that child2 fails CHIP's own age-or-income criteria. Age 10 meets CHIP's under-19 age rule, so the criterion child2 fails is the CHIP income test as PolicyEngine applies it to this PA household for 2026. The shared wrong step is the models' conclusion that household income falls within the CHIP income limit, which turned a CHIP No into a Yes. glm-5.2 gave no answer at all."
+us,scenario_028,child2_chip_eligible,22,llm_error,health_coverage,False,,"The models treated being under 19 with income around 185–190% FPL, above PA child Medicaid and below PA's roughly 314–319% CHIP ceiling, as all that CHIP eligibility requires. PolicyEngine's CHIP child test returns False for child2. At age 10 the age requirement is met, so the failure comes from CHIP's own child criteria, not from Medicaid. Child2 is also listed with employer-sponsored insurance. A targeted low-income child under 42 USC 1397jj(b)(1)(C) must not be covered by a group health plan, and most models either ignored this input or said it does not count against eligibility. The engine's is_chip_eligible therefore resolves to False even though Medicaid eligibility is also False."
us,scenario_028,child2_early_head_start_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_028,child2_head_start_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_028,child2_medicaid_eligible,6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"A 10-year-old Pennsylvania dependent at 1.82 times FPL does not satisfy any Medicaid eligibility pathway evaluated by PolicyEngine, so the Medicaid category is NONE. CHIP’s higher income ceiling is a separate program and cannot establish Medicaid eligibility."
us,scenario_028,child2_medicare_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_028,child2_wic_eligible,3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"WIC child eligibility is limited to children under age five and also requires household income at or below 185% of the federal poverty guideline. Child 2 is age 10, and the household's approximately $61,277 of income exceeds the applicable four-person limit, so both the categorical age test and the income test fail."
-us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,20,llm_error,health_coverage,False,,"Child 3 passes CHIP's age and income tests: household MAGI of $60,010 is 182% of the $33,000 guideline for four, above Pennsylvania's 138% Medicaid limit for children aged 6 to 18 and below the 319% CHIP limit. What decides the case is the coverage condition. Child 3 has employer-sponsored insurance, and a child covered by a group health plan is not a targeted low-income child (42 U.S.C. 1397jj(b)(1)(C); 42 CFR 457.310(b)(2)(ii)), so the engine's disqualifying-coverage test fails. Every model that answered stopped at the age and income screen and then ignored the listed ESI or, in several cases, stated outright that ESI does not affect CHIP eligibility. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated llm_error (health_coverage). Child 3 has employer-sponsored group coverage, which bars CHIP; the household's income passes Pennsylvania's CHIP limit, so the judge's income-limit hypothesis fails. Reference affirmed (42 U.S.C. 1397jj(b)(1)(C); 42 CFR 457.310(b)(2)(ii); Pennsylvania CHIP state plan 4.1.7)."
+us,scenario_028,child3_chip_eligible,21,llm_error,health_coverage,False,,"Child 3 meets CHIP's age and income tests. The child is 10, and household MAGI is $60,010, which is 182% of the $33,000 guideline: above PA's 138% Medicaid limit for children and below the 319% CHIP limit. The deciding rule is the coverage test. The prompt says Child 3 has employer-sponsored insurance. A child covered by a group health plan is not a targeted low-income child under 42 U.S.C. 1397jj(b)(1)(C) and 42 CFR 457.310(b)(2)(ii), so PolicyEngine's disqualifying-coverage check sets CHIP eligibility to 0. Every model that answered stopped after the age and income checks, and several said outright that ESI does not matter. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated llm_error (health_coverage). Child 3 has employer-sponsored group coverage, which bars CHIP; the household's income passes Pennsylvania's CHIP limit, so the judge's income-limit hypothesis fails. Reference affirmed (42 U.S.C. 1397jj(b)(1)(C); 42 CFR 457.310(b)(2)(ii); Pennsylvania CHIP state plan 4.1.7)."
us,scenario_028,child3_early_head_start_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_028,child3_head_start_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_028,child3_medicaid_eligible,6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Pennsylvania Medicaid and CHIP are separate eligibility outputs, so CHIP coverage at higher income levels does not establish Medicaid eligibility. At 1.82 times FPL, child3 exceeds every applicable Medicaid income threshold and qualifies under no Medicaid category; employer-sponsored insurance and zero SSI provide no alternative Medicaid pathway."
us,scenario_028,child3_medicare_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_028,child3_wic_eligible,3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"WIC child eligibility is limited to children under age five, so a 10-year-old fails the categorical age requirement. The household also has approximately $61,277 of income, exceeding the applicable 185%-of-poverty WIC income limit; Child 3 therefore fails both the categorical and income tests."
us,scenario_028,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,20,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,,"Under 2026 law (OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent), the HoH filer has AGI of $60,010. Child support is not taxable. The $24,150 standard deduction leaves $35,860 of taxable income and $3,949.20 of tax. The full $2,200-per-child CTC ($6,600) is applied first as a nonrefundable credit up to that liability, which zeroes it out. Only the leftover $2,650.80 is refundable ACTC. The wrong answers come from three mistakes: assuming TCJA expired (personal exemptions and a $1,000 CTC), carving the refundable ACTC out of the CTC before applying the nonrefundable portion, or applying only part of the CTC against the liability."
-us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,43,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,,"The reference has two parts. The first is a refundable CTC of $2,650.80: the 2026 CTC is $2,200 per child, or $6,600 for three children. Pre-credit tax is $3,949.20, from the $24,150 HoH standard deduction and the 10%/12% brackets on $35,860 of taxable income. The unused $2,650.80 sits below both the $5,100 cap ($1,700 per child) and the $8,625 earned-income limit, so the unused amount is what binds. The second part is an EITC of $624.13: $8,231 − 21.06% × ($60,010 − $23,890), which stays positive because the three-child phase-out ends near $62,970. Most wrong answers left out the EITC as 'phased out', used the old $2,000 (or $1,000) per-child CTC, skipped the unused-CTC limit by paying the full $1,700 per child, or used a slightly wrong EITC maximum or phase-out threshold."
+us,scenario_028,federal_refundable_credits,45,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,,"The correct answer needs four steps in order. First, the CTC is $2,200 per child under OBBBA, so $6,600 for three children. Second, pre-credit tax is $3,949.20: AGI of $60,010 minus the $24,150 HoH standard deduction leaves $35,860 of taxable income, taxed at 10% up to $17,700 and 12% above that. Third, the refundable CTC is the unused CTC, $6,600 − $3,949.20 = $2,650.80, which is below both the $5,100 per-child cap and the $8,625 earnings limit. Fourth, the three-child EITC is still $624.13 at $60,010 ($8,231 − 21.06% × ($60,010 − $23,890)), because the 2026 phase-out does not end until about $62,974. Most models went wrong in one of four ways: they used the old $2,000 (or a sunset $1,000) CTC, paid the whole $5,100 refundable cap without first subtracting the CTC used against tax, said the EITC was fully phased out, or used the wrong EITC phase-out start."
us,scenario_028,free_school_meals_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_028,head_chip_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_028,head_medicaid_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_028,head_medicare_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_028,head_wic_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_028,local_income_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,37,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"Pennsylvania is one of the few states that requires employees to pay unemployment compensation tax. The employee rate is 0.07% of all wages with no wage cap, which comes to $42 on $60,000. Adding that to FICA ($3,720 Social Security + $870 Medicare) gives $4,632. Almost every model stopped at $4,590 because it assumed PA has no mandatory employee payroll tax. A few others made arithmetic or base errors, or gave no answer."
-us,scenario_028,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,8,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"School-meal countable income is $61,277 because child support received counts alongside wages and interest. Against the $33,000 poverty guideline for a household of four, that is 1.86 times the guideline, $227 above the $61,050 reduced-price cutoff (185%), so the household is in the paid tier. Models that dropped the $1,267 of child support used $60,010, which is 1.82 times $33,000 (the same figure as the trace's school_meal_fpg_ratio), and landed under the line. Models that did count $61,277 overstated the 185% threshold, putting it somewhere between about $61,300 and $61,975 instead of $61,050."
+us,scenario_028,payroll_tax,39,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"The reference is employee Social Security ($3,720) plus Medicare ($870) plus Pennsylvania's mandatory employee unemployment compensation (UC) withholding of 0.07% on all wages, which is uncapped ($60,000 × 0.0007 = $42), for $4,632. Almost every model stopped at FICA ($4,590) and said Pennsylvania has no employee-side payroll tax. Pennsylvania is one of the few states that withholds UC tax from employees. One model correctly reached $4,632 in its reasoning but submitted a different value. Another applied the employer's $10,000 UC taxable wage cap to the employee withholding."
+us,scenario_028,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,9,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"For school meals, countable income includes the $1,267 of child support along with $60,000 of wages and $10 of interest, for a total of $61,277. The 185% reduced-price limit for a household of four, using the $33,000 2026 poverty guideline, is $61,050, so the household is $227 over the limit. Wages plus interest alone ($60,010, 1.82 times the guideline) would fall in the reduced-price band, and that is the trap. The models either left out the child support or set the 185% limit above $61,277 by using an inflated guideline."
us,scenario_028,self_employment_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_028,snap,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_028,ssi,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_028,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,11,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Pennsylvania's personal income tax is a flat 3.07% on the gross amount of each taxable income class. PA has no standard deduction and no personal or dependent exemptions, and child support is not taxable. The correct tax is 3.07% × ($60,000 wages + $10 interest) = $1,842.31. The household gets no tax forgiveness: eligibility income of about $61,277 (child support included) is far above the $35,000 full-forgiveness limit for an unmarried claimant with three dependents ($6,500 + 3 × $9,500), and partial forgiveness ends about $2,250 above that limit. The wrong answers came from invented deductions or exemptions, invented credits or forgiveness, arithmetic slips, or a submitted value that did not match the model's own correct reasoning."
-us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,45,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"Pennsylvania's 2025 budget created the Working Pennsylvanians Tax Credit, a refundable state EITC equal to 10% of the federal EITC, starting in tax year 2025. This head of household has three qualifying children and about $60,010 of AGI. That is still inside the federal three-child EITC phase-out range, so the federal EITC is $624.13 and the PA credit is $62.41. Nearly every model treated PA as having no refundable credit, or only thought about Tax Forgiveness and the child-care credit. One model used the right 10% rule but started from a rounded federal EITC."
+us,scenario_028,state_refundable_credits,47,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"Pennsylvania's 2025 budget created the Working Pennsylvanians Tax Credit, a refundable state EITC worth 10% of the federal EITC, and it applies in 2026. This head of household has three qualifying children and $60,010 of AGI, which keeps them just inside the end of the federal EITC phase-out at $624.13, so the PA credit is $62.41. Almost every model said PA has no refundable credits, or only checked Tax Forgiveness, the CDCC, or the rent rebate. Only gpt-6-luna applied the 10% rule, but it rounded the federal EITC up instead of computing it."
us,scenario_028,tanf,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_029,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The only AGI item in this household is $312 of taxable interest: ""financial assistance"" is a non-taxable assistance receipt in PolicyEngine's income taxonomy and feeds no AGI component, so the $50,000 never reaches the 1040. With AGI of $312 against a 2026 single standard deduction of roughly $16,100 under the permanent OBBBA rules, taxable income is $0 and federal income tax before refundable credits is $0. All three models converted the $50,000 assistance figure into taxable income (wages or other ordinary income) and then ran a full bracket computation on roughly $50,312 of AGI, which is the single step that separates every wrong answer from the reference."
us,scenario_029,head_medicaid_eligible,20,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Oklahoma expanded Medicaid in 2021, so a 21-year-old non-dependent adult qualifies in the ACA adult group if MAGI is at or below 138% FPL. The $50,000 of financial assistance is a non-taxable transfer. It is not part of AGI or MAGI, so MAGI is only the $312 of taxable interest, about 0.02x FPL. MAGI categories have no asset test, and having employer-sponsored insurance does not block Medicaid eligibility. Most models wrongly added the $50,000 to income. The rest wrongly said Oklahoma never expanded Medicaid, required a disability, pregnancy or parent pathway, or applied asset limits."
us,scenario_029,payroll_tax,1,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"The household lists no wages at all: its only income items are $312 of taxable interest and $50,000 of financial assistance, alongside assets and expenses. Employee Social Security and Medicare taxes attach exclusively to wages and salaries under FICA (IRC §3101, on ""wages"" as defined in §3121(a)); interest is unearned investment income and financial assistance is a non-employment transfer, and neither enters the FICA wage base. With a zero wage base, employee OASDI, employee HI, and Additional Medicare Tax are each $0, giving a household employee-side payroll tax of $0."
us,scenario_029,snap,1,llm_error,asset_resource,False,,"SNAP eligibility requires satisfying Oklahoma’s applicable resource test before the benefit formula is applied. This one-person household has $4,250 in bank assets and $50,735 in stock assets, so it fails the resource limit and receives no SNAP benefit regardless of its low interest income or the maximum allotment."
us,scenario_029,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The only taxable income in this household is $312 of taxable interest; the $50,000 of ""financial assistance"" is a non-taxable transfer that never enters federal AGI, and Oklahoma's income tax starts from federal AGI, while the $4,250 bank balance and $50,735 of stock are assets that generate no income under the ""treat any unlisted numeric input as 0"" instruction. Against Oklahoma's single standard deduction plus the $1,000 personal exemption, $312 of interest leaves zero Oklahoma taxable income, so ok_income_tax_before_refundable_credits — and therefore the 51-jurisdiction sum — is $0. Every wrong answer is produced by the same step: adding the $50,000 financial assistance into Oklahoma AGI and then applying the graduated OK rate schedule to roughly $37,000–$43,000 of invented taxable income."
-us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,46,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"The $40 is Oklahoma's refundable Sales Tax Relief Credit (ok_stc): $40 per exemption for a single filer whose gross income is at or below $20,000. PolicyEngine measures that income as $312, which is the taxable interest alone, and does not add the $50,000 of financial assistance. One exemption times $40 gives $40. The credit is refundable whether or not the filer owes any tax, and it does not depend on earned income, dependents, age 65+, or disability. Every model answered $0. Most never considered the sales tax credit and only checked the EITC. Others recognized the credit but wrongly added the $50,000 of financial assistance to gross income, which pushed the filer over the $20,000 limit."
+us,scenario_029,state_refundable_credits,47,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"Oklahoma's refundable Sales Tax Relief Credit (ok_stc) pays $40 per personal exemption to filers whose gross income is at or under the $20,000 limit. The higher $50,000 limit applies only to filers who have dependents, are 65 or older, or are disabled; earned income is not required. PolicyEngine measures the income test with gross income of $312, which is just the taxable interest; the $50,000 of financial assistance is not counted. A single 21-year-old filer with one exemption therefore gets $40. Every model either left out the sales tax credit and looked only at the EITC, counted the $50,000 financial assistance toward the income test, or added a false age, disability or dependent requirement."
us,scenario_030,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Only the $13,000 of wages enters adjusted gross income in this household. The listed educational assistance and financial assistance do not add $17,000 of taxable income, so AGI remains below the 2026 single-filer standard deduction and taxable income and pre-refundable-credit federal income tax are both zero."
us,scenario_030,federal_refundable_credits,12,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"A childless EITC claimant in 2026 must satisfy the minimum-age requirement, and this 23-year-old does not. Pregnancy does not create a qualifying child for EITC or CTC purposes, so every evaluated refundable credit component is zero."
us,scenario_030,head_chip_eligible,5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,The head qualifies for Medicaid under the pregnant-person category. Medicaid eligibility precludes CHIP eligibility under PolicyEngine because CHIP covers qualifying children who do not qualify for Medicaid; the Texas CHIP perinatal income threshold therefore never determines this output.
@@ -273,11 +273,11 @@ us,scenario_030,head_wic_eligible,2,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,Fa
us,scenario_030,local_income_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_030,payroll_tax,1,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Employee payroll tax equals 6.2% Social Security plus 1.45% Medicare on the $13,000 wage base. Those components are $806.00 and $188.50, totaling $994.50 without whole-dollar rounding."
us,scenario_030,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_030,snap,48,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Texas grants broad-based categorical eligibility through TANF non-cash benefits, with a 165% FPL gross limit. That waives the federal 130% gross test and the 100% net test. Countable gross income is $2,083.33/month: $1,083.33 in wages plus $1,000 in financial assistance, with educational assistance excluded. That is 1.60× the $1,304.17 guideline, so the household stays eligible. Net income is $1,658, so the expected contribution is $498. That exceeds the $298 one-person maximum, and an eligible 1–2 person household then gets the $24 minimum allotment, or $288 a year. Most models either applied the waived 130%/100% tests and returned $0, or left out the $12,000 financial assistance and got about $100/month. Others counted the pregnancy as a second household member. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated llm_error (categorical_eligibility). The frozen 287.68 is regenerated as 288.00: it applies the publication rule: SNAP October-December 2026 hold the FY2026 schedule (the SNAP uprating index behind the maximum allotments, deductions, shelter cap and utility allowances), the last USDA published before the 2026-07-03 reference freeze; USDA published FY2027 on 2026-08-21. The poverty guideline is the 2026 HHS guideline, published in January 2026. The engine's SNAP rounding defects are root causes r26, r27, r28 and r31, fixed upstream and applied with the convention.; it corrects an engine defect fixed upstream (fixed in PolicyEngine/policyengine-us#9162 (merged 2026-07-28), after the reference freeze): The minimum benefit is 8% of the maximum allotment for a household of one, rounded to the nearest whole dollar ($24 a month for FY2026, as USDA published). Reference regenerated (7 U.S.C. 2012(u), 2017(a); USDA FY2026 SNAP COLA memorandum (signed 2025-08-14); 7 U.S.C. 2017(a); 7 CFR 273.10(e)(2)(ii)(C))."
+us,scenario_030,snap,50,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Texas grants broad-based categorical eligibility through TANF non-cash benefits, with a gross income limit of 165% FPL. This household's gross income is $2,083.33 per month ($1,083.33 in wages plus $1,000 in financial assistance counted as unearned income; educational assistance is excluded), which is 1.6× FPL, so it is categorically eligible and the 130% gross and 100% net income tests do not apply. Net income is $1,658, so the expected contribution of $498 exceeds the $298 one-person maximum allotment. Because the household is eligible, it still gets the $24 minimum allotment for one- and two-person households, or $288 a year. Most models either used the 130% test, used a wrong 165% limit, or zeroed out the benefit when the contribution exceeded the maximum allotment. A second group left out the $12,000 of financial assistance and calculated a much larger benefit. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated llm_error (categorical_eligibility). The frozen 287.68 is regenerated as 288.00: it applies the publication rule: SNAP October-December 2026 hold the FY2026 schedule (the SNAP uprating index behind the maximum allotments, deductions, shelter cap and utility allowances), the last USDA published before the 2026-07-03 reference freeze; USDA published FY2027 on 2026-08-21. The poverty guideline is the 2026 HHS guideline, published in January 2026. The engine's SNAP rounding defects are root causes r26, r27, r28 and r31, fixed upstream and applied with the convention.; it corrects an engine defect fixed upstream (fixed in PolicyEngine/policyengine-us#9162 (merged 2026-07-28), after the reference freeze): The minimum benefit is 8% of the maximum allotment for a household of one, rounded to the nearest whole dollar ($24 a month for FY2026, as USDA published). Reference regenerated (7 U.S.C. 2012(u), 2017(a); USDA FY2026 SNAP COLA memorandum (signed 2025-08-14); 7 U.S.C. 2017(a); 7 CFR 273.10(e)(2)(ii)(C))."
us,scenario_030,ssi,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_030,tanf,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,Texas TANF requires a family with a dependent child; pregnancy alone does not turn the unborn child into a qualifying dependent child or create a two-person assistance unit for this annual TANF calculation. The single adult therefore has no qualifying child and receives zero TANF.
us,scenario_031,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,4,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The $1,165 alimony expense reduces $14,408 of IRA and pension income to $13,243 of adjusted gross income, while Social Security remains nontaxable. The applicable single-filer standard deduction, including the age-65 addition, exceeds that income, producing zero taxable income and therefore zero federal income tax before refundable credits."
-us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,45,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"The head is 67, so they qualify for California's aged/disabled (senior-or-disabled) pathway on age alone. SSI receipt and disability are not required, and Medicare eligibility bars only the 19–64 expansion group. Under SSI income-counting rules, Social Security, pension and IRA income are all counted in full, for a gross of $23,853.47. California's $230 monthly disregard ($2,760 a year) replaces SSI's $20 general exclusion and brings countable income to $21,093.47, under the 2026 limit of 138% FPL ($22,024.80). Assets of $4,200 are far below the $130,000 limit. Almost every model either compared gross income to the limit, applied only the $20 exclusion, used a stale or understated FPL, used the old $2,000 asset limit, or wrongly assumed that Medicare age rules out Medicaid."
+us,scenario_031,head_medicaid_eligible,47,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"At 67 the head qualifies for California's Aged & Disabled pathway on age alone. That pathway counts income under SSI rules: Social Security counts in full, and alimony paid is not deducted. California then applies a $230/month ($2,760/yr) income disregard in place of SSI's $20 general income exclusion. Gross income of $23,853.47 drops to $21,093.47, which is under the $22,024.80 limit (138% of the 2026 FPL for one person). Resources of $4,200 are well under California's $130,000 limit. Almost every model compared gross income, or income less only the $20 exclusion, to roughly 138% FPL and got 'over the limit.' Others wrongly held that being Medicare-age rules out Medicaid, that a disability or SSI flag is required, or that SSI's $2,000 resource limit applies."
us,scenario_031,snap,6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"The head is 67, so this is an elderly household. PolicyEngine does not let California's 200% FPL broad-based categorical eligibility skip the net income test for this household. Monthly gross income is $1,987.75 (Social Security, pension and IRA). The only deduction is the $209 standard deduction. There are no shelter costs, and the $50/yr OTC medical expense is below the $35/mo threshold, so net income is about $1,779/mo. That is well above the 1-person net limit of about $1,305/mo (100% FPL), so the household is not SNAP-eligible. The one/two-person minimum benefit only applies to eligible households, so SNAP is $0. Five models treated BBCE as automatic eligibility and paid the minimum benefit. The sixth undercounted income."
us,scenario_031,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,1,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,,"California first computes $75.37 of tax on $7,537 of taxable income, then applies $312.93 of nonrefundable credits, including the aged-or-blind exemption credit. Those credits fully eliminate the liability, so state income tax after nonrefundable credits and before refundable credits is $0."
us,scenario_032,child1_chip_eligible,13,llm_error,health_coverage,False,,"CHIP is residual by statute: 42 U.S.C. 1397jj(b)(1)(A) and 42 CFR 457.310 exclude from ""targeted low-income child"" any child who is eligible for Medicaid, so the CHIP question is settled by first running the Medicaid test. Minnesota's Medical Assistance covers children ages 6-18 — PolicyEngine's OLDER_CHILD category — far above this household's $42,664 for three people (~160% FPL), so the child is Medicaid-eligible and thereby barred from CHIP. Every wrong model instead applied a standalone CHIP income ceiling, most of them quoting Minnesota's 275%/283% FPL child limits, which are the Medical Assistance and MinnesotaCare bands rather than CHIP bands. They read ""income below the child-coverage limit"" as qualifying when it is precisely what disqualifies: several stated the Medicaid fact outright and then used it backwards."
@@ -287,37 +287,37 @@ us,scenario_032,child1_medicaid_eligible,4,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,Fal
us,scenario_032,child1_medicare_eligible,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Medicare eligibility is determined separately for each person and does not pass from a Social Security beneficiary to a dependent. The six-year-old child is under age 65, and the stated facts include no end-stage renal disease, ALS, disability-based Medicare entitlement, or other qualifying pathway, so the child's eligibility is No."
us,scenario_032,child1_wic_eligible,6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"WIC child eligibility ends at the child’s fifth birthday; a six-year-old is outside the federally eligible categorical group. Income eligibility cannot override this age restriction, so the child is ineligible regardless of whether household income falls below 185% of the federal poverty guidelines."
us,scenario_032,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,3,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The decisive rule is the 2026 federal parameter regime: the household receives a $2,200 CTC, split into $500 nonrefundable and $1,700 refundable. The $500 nonrefundable portion fully eliminates pre-credit income tax, while the refundable CTC and $4,427 EITC are excluded from federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits."
-us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,38,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The reference has two parts. The first is the full 2026 one-child EITC maximum of $4,427. AGI is $30,916 ($29,000 wages plus $1,916 taxable Social Security, which is 50% of provisional income above the $32,000 joint base). That AGI and the $29,000 of earnings both fall below the 2026 married-filing-jointly phaseout start, so no phaseout applies. The second part is the refundable CTC at the OBBBA $1,700 per-child cap. Pre-credit tax is zero because AGI is below the $32,200 joint standard deduction, so no CTC is absorbed. Models missed mainly in three ways: they used the pre-TCJA/sunset $1,000 ACTC (15% over $3,000), they applied a single-filer or wrong EITC phaseout threshold, or they misprojected the EITC maximum or refundable CTC cap."
-us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,25,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"Minnesota has run a universal free school meals program since the 2023-24 school year, so every K-12 student there gets free breakfast and lunch whatever the family's income. PolicyEngine flags this with state_has_universal_free_school_meals = True and sets school_meal_tier to FREE for the household's one K-12 child. The household's income is 1.56 times the poverty guideline and it has no SNAP/TANF categorical eligibility, so neither fact matters. Every model that answered applied only the federal NSLP test (income at or below 130% FPL, or categorical eligibility) and never checked Minnesota's universal program."
+us,scenario_032,federal_refundable_credits,40,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The household files jointly with one qualifying child. Earned income is $29,000. AGI is about $30,916 because only $1,916 of the Social Security benefits is taxable, using the $32,000 MFJ base amount. That AGI is below the 2026 MFJ one-child EITC phase-out start, so the EITC is the full $4,427 maximum. The 2026 MFJ standard deduction of $32,200 wipes out all tax liability, so the CTC is refundable up to the $1,700 per-child cap under the post-OBBBA law, which makes the $2,200 CTC permanent. Most models missed by assuming the TCJA sunset ($1,000 ACTC), using the wrong refundable cap ($1,800, $2,200 or uncapped), applying the single-filer EITC phase-out start without the joint-filer increase, or misstating the 2026 one-child EITC maximum."
+us,scenario_032,free_school_meals_eligible,27,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"Minnesota has had universal free school meals since the 2023-24 school year (Minn. Stat. §124D.111, as amended in 2023). PolicyEngine encodes this as state_has_universal_free_school_meals = True, so every K-12 child in the state gets the FREE tier regardless of income. The household is at 1.56 times the FPG, above the federal 130% free-meal limit, and has no SNAP/TANF categorical eligibility, but neither fact matters because the state rule overrides the income test. Every model that answered applied only the federal NSLP 130% FPL test and never checked Minnesota's universal free-meals law."
us,scenario_032,head_chip_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_032,head_medicaid_eligible,16,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Medicaid MAGI is AGI plus the non-taxable portion of Social Security benefits (42 CFR 435.603(e)). The head's full $13,664 of Social Security dependent benefits therefore counts along with the $29,000 in wages, for a MAGI of $42,664. That is about 156% of the 3-person FPL ($27,320), which is above Minnesota's 138% FPL Medical Assistance limit. Minnesota's limit for parents and caretakers is the same 133%+5% standard as for expansion adults, and the head is not aged, disabled, pregnant, or receiving SSI, so no category applies. Most models counted only wages, or wages plus the taxable portion of Social Security (about $30,916, roughly 113% FPL). Two models counted the full $42,664 but then invented a higher limit for parents, and one inflated the household size."
us,scenario_032,head_medicare_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_032,head_wic_eligible,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"WIC eligibility is person-specific and requires the applicant to be pregnant, postpartum, breastfeeding, an infant, or a child under age five. A 50-year-old head with all relevant unlisted statuses set to false fails categorical eligibility regardless of household income or another household member's circumstances."
-us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,42,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,,"Most listed models reported employee FICA alone ($1,798 Social Security + $420.50 Medicare = $2,218.50), sometimes rounded to $2,219; others included a Paid Leave share, submitted inconsistent amounts or returned no value. The $127.60 difference between unrounded FICA and the frozen reference is the maximum Minnesota Paid Leave deduction; premiums began January 1, 2026. The total premium is 0.88%, and employers may deduct up to half of it (0.44%) from wages. PolicyEngine assumes the employer withholds that full employee share, so it adds 0.44% × $29,000 = $127.60 as employee state payroll tax. The prompt asks for ""mandatory employee state payroll taxes"" and allows two readings: (1) the withheld Paid Leave share counts, giving $2,346.10; or (2) it does not count, because Minnesota lets the employer pay the whole premium, giving $2,218.50. The prompt never says which choice this employer makes; most listed models reported federal FICA alone, and only grok-4.7 explicitly cited optional paid-leave withholding. Developer adjudication (2026-10-05): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned prompt_ambiguity; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (state_local_rule). The frozen reference is 2,346.10; the alternative is 2,218.50. The prompt counts mandatory employee state payroll taxes; Minnesota Paid Leave contributions are the employer's, which may deduct the employee share from wages but need not (Minn. Stat. 268B.14, subds. 1, 3 and 5a), and policyengine-us 2.15.17 counts the largest share the employer may deduct ($127.60); read as the amount the law requires of the employee, $0, the output is employee federal payroll tax alone. Found in the 2026-10-05 audit of state payroll components (reference_audit/2026-10-05-payroll, program_classification.json). Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (whether the employer deducts the employee share of a state paid-leave or disability premium that the law lets it deduct but does not require, which decides whether that share is a mandatory employee state payroll tax)."
-us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,27,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"Since the 2023-24 school year, Minnesota has provided universal free school meals to every student regardless of income. PolicyEngine therefore puts this household in the FREE tier, and reduced_price_school_meals_eligible is 0 because the free tier supersedes reduced-price. The household's 1.56 FPG ratio falls in the federal 130–185% reduced-price band, but that band never applies in Minnesota. Every model applied the federal NSLP income bands without the state universal-free-meals override."
+us,scenario_032,payroll_tax,44,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,,"The reference includes $1,798 in Social Security tax, $420.50 in Medicare tax and $127.60 for the Minnesota Paid Leave employee contribution, which starts January 1, 2026. That contribution is 0.44% of $29,000, the employee half of the 0.88% premium. PolicyEngine assumes the employer withholds the full employee share. Minnesota also lets the employer pay that share itself, and the prompt's phrase ""mandatory employee state payroll taxes"" doesn't say which case applies. One reading counts the withheld Paid Leave share, giving $2,346.10. The other leaves it out because the employer can choose not to withhold it, giving FICA only at $2,218.50. Most models took the second reading, and many of them also said wrongly that Minnesota has no employee payroll levy in 2026. The outlier answers come from wrong rates, inconsistent numbers or invented adjustments. Developer adjudication (2026-10-05): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned prompt_ambiguity; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (state_local_rule). The frozen reference is 2,346.10; the alternative is 2,218.50. The prompt counts mandatory employee state payroll taxes; Minnesota Paid Leave contributions are the employer's, which may deduct the employee share from wages but need not (Minn. Stat. 268B.14, subds. 1, 3 and 5a), and policyengine-us 2.15.17 counts the largest share the employer may deduct ($127.60); read as the amount the law requires of the employee, $0, the output is employee federal payroll tax alone. Found in the 2026-10-05 audit of state payroll components (reference_audit/2026-10-05-payroll, program_classification.json). Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (whether the employer deducts the employee share of a state paid-leave or disability premium that the law lets it deduct but does not require, which decides whether that share is a mandatory employee state payroll tax)."
+us,scenario_032,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,29,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"Since the 2023-24 school year, Minnesota has provided universal free school meals to all students regardless of income (Minn. Stat. §124D.111). PolicyEngine therefore puts this household in the FREE school_meal_tier, and reduced-price eligibility is 0 because the household gets the better free tier. Every model that answered applied only the federal NSLP income bands: income at about 156% FPL, between 130% and 185%, means reduced-price. None of them checked for Minnesota's state universal free-meals override. The household's income being inside the reduced-price band does not matter once the state universal program assigns the FREE tier."
us,scenario_032,self_employment_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_032,snap,8,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"SNAP eligibility ends at the gross-income screen for this three-person Minnesota household: $29,000 of wages plus $13,664 of Social Security dependent benefits produces $42,664 of annual gross income, above the applicable limit. Take-up assumptions and benefit-allotment calculations do not create eligibility after that screen fails, so the annual benefit is $0."
us,scenario_032,spouse_chip_eligible,4,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"CHIP eligibility requires the person to be ineligible for Medicaid, not merely under age 19 and below the CHIP income ceiling. The 18-year-old spouse qualifies for Minnesota Medicaid under the OLDER_CHILD category, so that Medicaid eligibility precludes CHIP eligibility without regard to whether household income is below the CHIP threshold."
-us,scenario_032,spouse_medicaid_eligible,17,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"The spouse is 18, and under Medicaid rules anyone under 19 falls in the child category, whether or not they are married or claimed as a dependent. PolicyEngine puts the spouse in the OLDER_CHILD category (ages 6-18). Minnesota's income limit for that category is well above the spouse's MAGI of 1.56x FPL, so the spouse is eligible. Nearly every wrong model treated the spouse as an adult and tested household MAGI against the 138% FPL expansion limit, a parent/caretaker limit or a disability/SSI pathway. None of those is the category that decides this case."
+us,scenario_032,spouse_medicaid_eligible,18,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"The spouse is 18, so the engine assesses them under Minnesota's MAGI child coverage group (OLDER_CHILD, ages 6–18), not the adult expansion group. Minnesota Medical Assistance covers children under 19 up to about 275% FPL. A household MAGI of 1.56× FPL is well under that limit, so the spouse is eligible. Most models labeled the 18-year-old spouse an ""adult"" or ""parent/caretaker"" and applied the 138% FPL expansion limit, which the household's roughly 156% FPL income exceeds. The spouse's marital status does not remove them from the age-based child category."
us,scenario_032,spouse_medicare_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_032,spouse_wic_eligible,3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"WIC does not cover every low-income woman of childbearing age or every adult living with a child. An adult woman must be pregnant, breastfeeding, or within the applicable postpartum period; the spouse has none of these statuses because all unlisted statuses are false, so she fails categorical eligibility regardless of the income test."
us,scenario_032,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"Minnesota starts from federal AGI ($29,000 wages plus the $1,916 of Social Security made taxable by the §86 provisional-income formula = $30,916), then applies two Minnesota-specific subtractions the models ignored or undersized: the Minnesota Social Security benefit subtraction, which removes the entire $1,916 for a joint filer at this income (far below the phase-out range), and the Minnesota dependent exemption for Child 1 (roughly $5,300, indexed). That leaves $29,000 of Minnesota income against a 2026 joint standard deduction of roughly $30,700 plus the dependent exemption, so Minnesota taxable income is zero and tax before refundable credits is $0. Every wrong answer pairs a too-small joint standard deduction with a missing Social Security subtraction and a missing dependent exemption, manufacturing a few hundred to a few thousand dollars of phantom taxable income taxed at the 5.35% first-bracket rate."
-us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,48,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"Since 2023, Minnesota has paid a single refundable Child and Working Families Credit (CWFC) in place of the old EITC-linked Working Family Credit. It combines a per-child amount (base $1,750) with a working-family amount equal to 4% of earnings, capped at a base of $350. Both pieces are inflation-indexed, and together they are reduced by one shared 12% phaseout. This joint filer has AGI of $30,916, which is below the indexed joint-filer phaseout threshold, so the full indexed 2026 amounts apply: $2,100 × about 1.042 = $2,187.60 (about $1,823 for the child and about $365 for the working-family cap). Most models fell into one of three errors. Some stacked the old EITC-percentage WFC (often more than $1,000) on top of the child credit. Some used the unindexed $1,750 + $350 = $2,100. Some missed the CWFC entirely and answered $0."
-us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,38,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"AGI is $83,451.23: $79,000 wages + $775 interest + the $243 state tax refund + $16,320 taxable Social Security (85% cap) − $11,400 SE loss − $1,487 HSA. Under post-OBBBA 2026 law, deductions are $47,500: the $32,200 MFJ standard deduction, 2 × $1,650 aged additions, and the $6,000-per-senior deduction for both spouses. That leaves $35,951.23 of taxable income, taxed at 10% up to $24,800 and 12% above it, for $3,818.15. The models mostly went wrong in four ways. Many left out the $12,000 senior deduction. Others assumed TCJA had expired, bringing back personal exemptions and the 15% bracket. Some dropped the $243 refund. Others claimed deductions that don't apply here: auto-loan interest, overtime, or invented itemized deductions. Several also made arithmetic slips or reported numbers that don't match their own working. Developer adjudication (2026-09-29): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (taxable_income_or_deductions). The frozen reference is 3,818.15; the alternative is 3,788.99. The prompt lists state and local tax refund income without saying whether the refunded tax reduced federal tax in the year it was deducted; policyengine-us 2.15.17 counts the whole refund as income (policyengine-us#9422, fixing issue #9122), while under 26 U.S.C. 111(a) none of it is income if the household took no tax benefit from the deduction. Found in the 2026-09-29 engine upgrade (reference_audit/2026-09-28, cluster salt_refund_gross_income_9122). Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (whether the prior-year deduction of the refunded state and local tax reduced federal tax (prior-year itemization, the income-versus-sales-tax election, SALT-cap headroom))."
+us,scenario_032,state_refundable_credits,50,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"Since 2023, Minnesota has paid one combined Child and Working Family Credit (CWFC). It is $1,750 per qualifying child plus a working family credit (WFC) of 4% of earned income, capped at $350. Both amounts are inflation-indexed, and in 2026 they total ($1,750 + $350) × ~1.0417 = $2,187.60. The combined credit phases out at 12% of income above the joint-filer threshold (about $36,000+), and this couple's AGI of $30,916 (wages plus $1,916 of taxable Social Security) is below it, so the full credit is paid. Wrong answers fall into three groups: (1) using the repealed WFC formula tied to a percentage of the federal EITC or to large per-child amounts, which inflates the WFC by $500–$2,000; (2) leaving out the CWFC or one of its two parts (a $0 answer, or only one part); (3) using the 2023 dollar amounts without 2026 inflation indexing ($2,100) or applying a phase-out that does not apply here."
+us,scenario_033,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,40,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The reference uses 2026 OBBBA law. AGI is $83,451.23: $79,000 wages, $775 interest, the $243 state refund, 85% of Social Security ($16,320), minus the $11,400 SSTB loss and the $1,487 HSA deduction. From that it subtracts $47,500: the $32,200 MFJ standard deduction, 2 × $1,650 additional aged amounts, and the 2 × $6,000 senior deduction. That leaves $35,951.23 of taxable income, taxed as $2,480 (10% up to $24,800) plus 12% on the rest, for $3,818.15. Models went wrong in a few common ways. Some assumed the TCJA sunset (personal exemptions and a 15% bracket). Some left out the $12,000 senior deduction or used 2024/2025 deduction and bracket amounts. Some dropped the $243 refund or the $11,400 loss. Others took deductions the engine doesn't apply, such as $1,225 of auto-loan interest or an overtime deduction inferred from the hourly wage. Developer adjudication (2026-09-29): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (taxable_income_or_deductions). The frozen reference is 3,818.15; the alternative is 3,788.99. The prompt lists state and local tax refund income without saying whether the refunded tax reduced federal tax in the year it was deducted; policyengine-us 2.15.17 counts the whole refund as income (policyengine-us#9422, fixing issue #9122), while under 26 U.S.C. 111(a) none of it is income if the household took no tax benefit from the deduction. Found in the 2026-09-29 engine upgrade (reference_audit/2026-09-28, cluster salt_refund_gross_income_9122). Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (whether the prior-year deduction of the refunded state and local tax reduced federal tax (prior-year itemization, the income-versus-sales-tax election, SALT-cap headroom))."
us,scenario_033,federal_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_033,payroll_tax,11,llm_error,other,False,,"This is a simple calculation: employee FICA of 7.65% (6.2% Social Security plus 1.45% Medicare) on combined wages of $79,000 gives $6,043.50. Both spouses earn well under the Social Security wage base, the $250,000 joint Additional Medicare Tax threshold doesn't apply, South Dakota has no employee state payroll tax, and the negative self-employment income doesn't touch employee payroll tax. Almost every model either reached $6,043.50 and then submitted a different number (arbitrary rounding, an invented adjustment, or an unexplained replacement) or multiplied 7.65% × $79,000 wrong. One model gave no answer."
us,scenario_033,self_employment_tax,1,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Self-employment tax is a nonnegative liability assessed only on positive net earnings from self-employment. The listed negative SSTB amount does not create a negative self-employment tax or refundable tax offset, so the self-employment tax base and liability are both zero."
-us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,33,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The tax is set entirely by the 2026 parameters under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). The single standard deduction is $16,100 and the 10% bracket ends at $12,400, with 12% above that. That gives taxable income of $59,220 − $16,100 = $43,120 and tax of $1,240 + 12% × $30,720 = $4,926.40, with no nonrefundable credits. Many models assumed the TCJA would sunset and used an $8,300 standard deduction, a personal exemption and a 15% bracket. Others used stale 2024 or 2025 deductions and bracket thresholds. Several worked out $4,926 exactly and then replaced it with a different number for no stated reason."
+us,scenario_036,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,35,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The One Big Beautiful Bill Act made the TCJA structure permanent. For a single filer in 2026, that means a $16,100 standard deduction, no personal exemption, a 10% bracket up to $12,400 and a 12% bracket up to $50,400. Taxable income is $59,220 − $16,100 = $43,120, so tax is $1,240 + 12% × $30,720 = $4,926.40. The filer is 56, so the age-65 senior deduction does not apply. No mortgage interest is listed, and medical costs fall below the 7.5% floor, so the standard deduction controls. Wrong answers fall into four groups: a TCJA-sunset structure (personal exemption plus a 15% bracket), 2024 or 2025 parameters, imputed itemized deductions, or arbitrary changes to a correct $4,926 result."
us,scenario_036,head_medicaid_eligible,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"New Jersey Medicaid requires both membership in a qualifying eligibility category and satisfaction of that category's financial rules. This 56-year-old has medicaid_category NONE, and MAGI income of 3.71 times FPL exceeds the limits for all applicable MAGI pathways; the listed expenses and assets do not create another pathway."
us,scenario_036,payroll_tax,1,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Taxable private pension income is not wages and is excluded from the employee Social Security, Medicare, and mandatory state payroll-tax bases. With no wages or other earned income listed, every employee-side payroll-tax component is zero."
us,scenario_036,self_employment_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,32,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The head is 56 and not disabled, so New Jersey's pension exclusion doesn't apply; it requires age 62 or older, or disability. The full $59,220 pension is NJ gross income. The $1,000 single exemption is the only subtraction, which leaves $58,220 of taxable income. The single brackets give $280 + $262.50 + $175 + 5.525% × $18,220 = $1,724.16. No medical-expense deduction enters NJ taxable income. The ""$1,000 excluding Part B"" line restates the $1,000 of other premiums rather than adding to it. The $7,389 of ESI premiums and the OTC spending are not counted as deductible out-of-pocket costs. That leaves $1,100 of countable expenses, which is below the 2% floor of $1,184.40. Most models went wrong in one of three ways: they applied the age-62 pension exclusion at 56, they built a medical deduction by stacking ESI premiums, duplicate premium lines, or OTC costs, or they invented a standard deduction or rates that NJ doesn't have."
+us,scenario_036,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,33,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The head is 56 and not disabled, so New Jersey's pension exclusion, which requires age 62 or older, does not apply. The full $59,220 pension is NJ gross income, less only the $1,000 single exemption, which leaves $58,220 taxed at 1.4% / 1.75% / 3.5% / 5.525% for $1,724.16. There is no NJ medical deduction. The ESI premiums are not out-of-pocket expenses, and the two $1,000 premium fields are one $1,000 premium (the aggregate and its component), so they must not be added twice. The remaining qualifying expenses do not exceed the 2% floor of $1,184.40. Most models went wrong in one of two ways: some applied the age-62 pension exclusion, and others built a large medical deduction by counting the $7,389 ESI premiums and/or counting the $1,000 premium twice."
us,scenario_036,state_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,37,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The correct path starts with AGI of $41,539, which is wages minus the $386 traditional 401(k) and the $18 traditional IRA. The ESI premiums are not subtracted again. Taxable income then subtracts both the $16,100 2026 OBBBA standard deduction and the $9,629 qualified overtime deduction. The overtime deduction comes off below the line, so it does not lower AGI. That leaves $15,810 of taxable income, taxed at 10% on the first $12,400 and 12% on the rest, for $1,649.25. Most models missed the overtime deduction or assumed the TCJA sunset. Others subtracted ESI premiums from wages, used 2024/2025 brackets, or claimed a Saver's Credit, even though the $41,539 AGI is above the single filer's eligibility ceiling."
+us,scenario_037,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,38,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The question tests the 2026 OBBBA rules. TCJA is permanent: the single standard deduction is $16,100 and the 10% bracket runs to $12,400. The qualified overtime deduction removes the full $9,629 FLSA overtime premium, which is under the $12,500 cap. It is taken below the line, so AGI stays at $41,539.45, from wages less the $386 401(k) and $18 IRA. That AGI is above the 2026 Saver's Credit limit for single filers, and ESI premiums are not subtracted from the listed gross wages. Taxable income is $15,810.43, so the tax is $1,240 + 12% × $3,410.43 = $1,649.25. Most models made one or more of these errors: they dropped the overtime deduction, assumed TCJA had sunset, used stale 2024/2025 parameters, subtracted ESI premiums, or claimed a Saver's Credit."
us,scenario_037,federal_refundable_credits,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"A 44-year-old single filer with no dependent children or qualifying education expenses and $41,943 of wages receives neither EITC nor refundable CTC. All other refundable federal credit components evaluated to zero, so federal refundable credits total $0."
us,scenario_037,head_medicaid_eligible,1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"North Carolina’s Medicaid expansion does not make every adult aged 19–64 eligible; the expansion pathway applies an income limit. At 2.60 times FPL, the head exceeds the applicable MAGI threshold and qualifies through no other Medicaid category, so the eligibility category is NONE."
us,scenario_037,payroll_tax,15,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"The FICA base is the full $41,943 of gross wages, so 6.2% Social Security ($2,600.49) plus 1.45% Medicare ($608.18) gives $3,208.67. The household facts never say the $5,789 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums is paid through a Section 125 salary-reduction plan, and the prompt says unlisted status inputs are false. Even so, the largest group of models (eight) subtracted that amount from FICA wages and landed on $2,765.78. The other wrong answers started from the right 7.65% × gross-wages calculation and then broke it by changing the number arbitrarily, rounding loosely, giving a placeholder, or giving no answer at all."
-us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,35,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"North Carolina starts from federal AGI. AGI is gross wages of $41,943 minus the traditional 401(k) contribution ($386) and the traditional IRA deduction ($18), which gives $41,539.45. NC then subtracts its $12,750 single standard deduction and applies the flat 2026 rate of 3.99% to $28,789.45, for $1,148.70 with no nonrefundable credits. The most common mistake was subtracting the $5,789 employer-sponsored insurance premium from the listed gross wages, which gives an AGI of $35,750. Another group subtracted the $9,629 federal overtime-premium deduction, which comes off federal taxable income, not AGI, and so never reaches the NC base. Other models used the wrong rate (4–4.5% instead of 3.99%), used the wrong standard deduction ($10,750, $13,750, $15,400, $15,500 or $21,500), or made arbitrary final adjustments."
+us,scenario_037,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,36,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"North Carolina's 2026 tax is a flat 3.99% on federal AGI minus the $12,750 single standard deduction. Federal AGI is gross wages of $41,943 minus only the traditional 401(k) ($386) and traditional IRA ($18) contributions, which gives $41,539.45. Taxable income is $28,789.45, and 3.99% of that is $1,148.70. The most common error was subtracting the $5,789 employer-sponsored insurance premium from wages, which produced an AGI of $35,750 and a tax of $917.70. A second group subtracted the $9,629 federal overtime-premium deduction, which produced an AGI of $31,910 and a tax of about $764. That deduction is taken below the line, after AGI, and North Carolina does not adopt it. The remaining models used outdated or invented rates (4.0%–4.5%) or standard deductions ($10,750–$21,500), or made up adjustments after already reaching about $1,149."
us,scenario_038,child1_chip_eligible,9,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Under PolicyEngine, CHIP only covers children who do not qualify for Medicaid, so CHIP is mutually exclusive with Medicaid. Child 1 is 7, and household income is about $22,992, roughly 70–73% FPL for a family of 4. That is well within Louisiana's Medicaid limit for children aged 6–18, so the engine puts the child in the OLDER_CHILD Medicaid category, and that Medicaid eligibility sets is_chip_eligible to False. Every model that answered checked only whether income was below a CHIP ceiling and marked the child CHIP-eligible. None of them checked first whether the child already qualified for Medicaid."
us,scenario_038,child1_head_start_eligible,3,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"Head Start for preschool-age children requires the child to fall within the program’s preschool age range; a seven-year-old does not satisfy that categorical requirement. Income eligibility cannot override the age restriction, so Child 1 is ineligible even under an income calculation that falls below a poverty guideline."
us,scenario_038,child1_medicaid_eligible,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Louisiana evaluates a 7-year-old under the Medicaid older-child category. The household's MAGI is 0.66 times FPL, below that category's 2026 income limit, so the child qualifies; the listed assets do not alter this MAGI eligibility determination."
@@ -327,7 +327,7 @@ us,scenario_038,child2_head_start_eligible,4,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,F
us,scenario_038,child2_medicaid_eligible,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Louisiana evaluates the 6-year-old under the older-child Medicaid category using household MAGI relative to the applicable child income limit. The household's MAGI is 0.66 times FPL, so the child satisfies that category's income test; the listed assets do not disqualify a MAGI-category child."
us,scenario_038,child2_wic_eligible,4,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"WIC child eligibility ends at the child’s fifth birthday, so a six-year-old is categorically ineligible regardless of household income. All four models incorrectly treated age six as falling within the WIC child category; the models that also evaluated income therefore never reached the correct result because they first misapplied the age rule."
us,scenario_038,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2,llm_error,other,False,,"The requested amount cannot fall below zero: taxable income and income tax before credits are zero, and nonrefundable credits used are capped at the existing tax liability. Refundable credits are excluded from this output, so the resulting federal income tax before refundable credits is $0."
-us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,42,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The reference is the 2026 two-child EITC at its maximum of $7,316 plus the refundable CTC of $2,909.35. Earned income is about $21,896, which is in the EITC plateau and below the joint-filer phase-out start. The refundable CTC follows 2026 law: $1,700 refundable per child, so the cap is $3,400, but it is limited to 15% of earned income above $2,500. Earned income here means wages plus self-employment income minus the deductible half of SE tax, so 15% × ($21,896 − $2,500) ≈ $2,909. Most models went wrong in one of three ways: they used a stale or invented EITC maximum, they applied the expired pre-2018 $1,000-per-child ACTC (a $2,000 cap) or the full $3,400 cap without the 15% earnings limit, or they measured earned income incorrectly (gross SE income, 92.35% of SE income, or a double reduction)."
+us,scenario_038,federal_refundable_credits,44,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The reference has two parts. The first is the 2026 two-child EITC plateau maximum of $7,316: earned income of about $21,896 is above the ~$18,290 point where the credit is fully phased in and below the MFJ phase-out start. The second is the refundable CTC under 2026 law ($2,200 CTC, $1,700 refundable cap per child), which is limited by the 15% phase-in: 0.15 × ($21,896 − $2,500) = $2,909.35. Earned income here is wages plus SE income minus half of SE tax, so the $3,400 cap does not bind. The models mostly went wrong in four ways. Some used pre-TCJA sunset rules ($1,000 per child, $3,000 threshold, $2,000 total). Some gave a flat $3,400 or $3,600 and skipped the 15% earned-income limit. Some computed earned income incorrectly, using gross earnings or 92.35% of SE income. Many used a stale or invented EITC maximum instead of $7,316."
us,scenario_038,free_school_meals_eligible,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"The household qualifies for the free tier through two independent routes: SNAP receipt confers categorical eligibility, and school-meal income is 70% of the federal poverty guideline, below the 130% cutoff. The two K–12 children therefore generate positive annual free-school-meal support, so the binary output is Yes."
us,scenario_038,head_chip_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_038,head_medicaid_eligible,4,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"Louisiana has run the ACA adult expansion since 2016, so a 25-year-old non-dependent adult who does not receive SSI falls in the MAGI-based ADULT category, which has a 138% FPL limit. The head's household MAGI is about $22,992 from $7,468 in wages plus $15,525 in self-employment income. For a household of four that is 0.66x FPL, far below 138%, so the head is eligible. All four models said the income was above the limit. None of them compared household MAGI to the poverty guideline for four people, and some confused the expansion limit with Louisiana's much lower pre-expansion parent limit."
@@ -335,19 +335,19 @@ us,scenario_038,head_wic_eligible,3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"WI
us,scenario_038,payroll_tax,5,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"The requested payroll-tax output includes only employee-side FICA on the head’s wage earnings; self-employment income belongs in the separate self-employment-tax output. PolicyEngine applies the underlying wage amount and component-level calculations to produce $462.98 of Social Security tax plus $108.28 of Medicare tax, totaling $571.26."
us,scenario_038,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"Reduced-price eligibility is a mutually exclusive lower tier, not a general test of whether income is below 185% of the federal poverty guideline. At 70% of the guideline, and with categorical eligibility, this household receives the superior free-meals tier, so reduced-price support is zero."
us,scenario_038,self_employment_tax,9,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"The calculation is a single step: net earnings from self-employment = $15,525 × 0.9235 = $14,337.34. That amount plus the $7,468 in wages is far below the Social Security wage base, so the full 15.3% rate applies and SE tax = $14,337.34 × 0.153 = $2,193.61. The deduction for half of SE tax lowers AGI only. It does not lower the SE tax base again, because the 92.35% factor already accounts for it. Most models used the right method but made arithmetic or transcription slips. One wrongly applied the half-SE-tax deduction a second time, and one gave no answer."
-us,scenario_038,snap,40,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The setup is simple. The household has $1,916.04 a month of earned income and no shelter, dependent-care or countable medical costs. The 20% earned income deduction ($383.21) and the FY2026 four-person standard deduction of $223 leave net income of $1,310. The FY2026 four-person maximum allotment is $994, and $994 − 30% × $1,310 ($393) = $601 a month, or $7,212 a year. Most models used the right formula but wrong parameter values: older standard deductions ($198–$217), maximum allotments other than $994 ($879–$1,050), or no whole-dollar rounding. Others made up shelter or dependent-care deductions, or wrongly found the household ineligible even though its income is far below both income tests and it is categorically eligible through BBCE."
+us,scenario_038,snap,42,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The benefit math is simple: $1,916 monthly earned income, minus the 20% earned income deduction ($383.21) and the FY2026 four-person standard deduction ($223), gives net income of $1,310. The family contribution is 30% of that, $393. Subtracting it from the FY2026 four-person maximum allotment of $994 gives $601 a month, or $7,212 a year. There is no shelter deduction, because no rent, mortgage payment or utility costs were listed, and there are no medical or dependent-care deductions. Most models got the formula right but used FY2025 or made-up parameters, such as a $975 or $1,000+ maximum or a $198–$217 standard deduction. A minority invented deductions, denied eligibility outright, or submitted numbers that don't follow from their own arithmetic."
us,scenario_038,spouse_chip_eligible,4,llm_error,health_coverage,False,,"CHIP eligibility requires the person to be ineligible for Medicaid, not merely under age 19 and below the CHIP income ceiling. The spouse qualifies for Medicaid under Louisiana's OLDER_CHILD category, so Medicaid eligibility precludes CHIP eligibility without regard to whether other coverage was listed."
us,scenario_038,spouse_medicaid_eligible,3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"The trap is that the 18-year-old is labeled \""spouse,\"" and all three models let that label override the age-based pathway: PolicyEngine assigns her the OLDER_CHILD medicaid_category, which covers ages 6-18 in Louisiana and does not require being a tax dependent or an unmarried child. The income test is not close either — household MAGI is 0.66 x FPL, below Louisiana's ~142% FPL older-child limit and below the 138% FPL adult expansion limit, so both the child pathway and the adult pathway the models invoked return eligible. Every wrong answer therefore combines a category error (adult instead of older child) with an unperformed or inverted FPL comparison, and one model additionally imported a nonexistent asset test into a MAGI category."
us,scenario_038,spouse_wic_eligible,5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"WIC income eligibility does not independently confer eligibility: a person must also be pregnant, breastfeeding, postpartum, an infant, or a child under age five. The spouse is 18, all unlisted statuses are false, and the only children are ages six and seven, so neither parenthood, childbearing age, nor low household income places the spouse in a WIC categorical group."
us,scenario_038,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,10,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"Louisiana's 2024 tax reform took effect in 2025. It replaced the graduated brackets and the old combined personal exemption–standard deduction ($9,000 MFJ, plus $1,000 per dependent) with a flat 3% rate and a $25,000 standard deduction for joint filers. Federal AGI is $21,896: $22,993 of wages and SE income minus the half-SE-tax deduction of about $1,097. That is below the $25,000 MFJ deduction, so Louisiana taxable income is zero and so is the tax. Most models used pre-reform exemptions and brackets (1.85%, 2%/4%) or applied only the $12,500 single-filer deduction to a joint return, which left positive taxable income. One model reached $0 in its reasoning but submitted a different number."
-us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,38,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"Louisiana's EITC equals 5% of the federal EITC and is refundable, so it pays out even when the household owes no Louisiana tax. Earned income is about $21,896: $7,468 in wages plus $15,525 of self-employment income, minus about $1,097 (half the SE tax). That puts this married-filing-jointly household with two children on the 2026 federal EITC plateau, so the federal credit is the maximum of $7,316. Five percent of that is $365.80. About half the models said Louisiana has no refundable credit, or that its EITC is nonrefundable or repealed, and answered $0. Most of the rest used the right 5% rate but got the federal EITC maximum wrong, or used a 3.5% or 50% rate."
-us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,43,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,,"The case turns on filing status. Qualifying-surviving-spouse status under IRC §2(a) requires keeping a home for a dependent child. No dependent is listed, so the 'surviving spouse' flag does not unlock joint rates, and the head files single. That gives 85% of Social Security taxable under the single thresholds ($30,689.25), AGI of $79,209.22, the 2026 OBBBA single standard deduction of $16,100, and taxable income of $63,109.22. Single brackets (10% to $12,400, 12% to $50,400, 22% above) then produce $8,596.03. Most wrong answers used qualifying-surviving-spouse joint brackets and the $32,200 joint deduction. A second group assumed the TCJA sunset (which OBBBA repealed) or used stale 2025 deductions and brackets. A few invented credits or extra deductions that zeroed out the tax."
+us,scenario_038,state_refundable_credits,39,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"The household's only state refundable credit is Louisiana's refundable EITC, which equals 5% of the federal EITC. The couple files jointly with two children and has about $21,900 of EITC earned income (wages plus SE income minus half of SE tax). That puts them on the plateau, below the MFJ phase-out start of about $31k, so the federal EITC is the 2026 two-child maximum of $7,316, and 5% of it is $365.80. About half the models said Louisiana has no EITC or that it is nonrefundable, so they answered $0. Most of the others used the right 5% rate but a wrong federal EITC: a prior-year maximum, an overstated or understated guess, a phase-out figure, or the three-child maximum. A few used the wrong Louisiana percentage."
+us,scenario_039,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,45,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,,"The head is a widowed filer with no dependent. Qualifying surviving spouse status under IRC §2(a) requires a dependent child, so the head files Single. Single filing means $25k/$34k Social Security thresholds, which put 85% ($30,689.25) of benefits in taxable income. AGI is $79,209.22. The 2026 post-OBBBA single standard deduction is $16,100 (no extra amount for disability, and no senior deduction under age 65), leaving $63,109.22 of taxable income, taxed at 10% to $12,400, 12% to $50,400 and 22% above, for $8,596.03. Most models took QSS status and used the $32,200 joint standard deduction and joint brackets, which gives about $4,500–$5,200. Others applied TCJA-sunset exemptions and 15%/25% rates, or 2025 or guessed bracket and deduction values."
us,scenario_039,federal_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_039,head_medicaid_eligible,3,llm_error,health_coverage,False,,"Every Virginia Medicaid pathway open to a 61-year-old is income-tested: the ACA expansion adult group caps MAGI at 138% FPL, and the SSI-linked aged/blind/disabled group sits far below that and keys off SSI receipt, which is $0 here. This head's Medicaid MAGI counts the full $36,105 Social Security benefit (untaxed portion included) plus $26,800 in IRA distributions, $2,030 in pension, and $25,950 in estate income, offset only by a $6,260 self-employment loss, landing at 368% FPL — 2.7x the expansion limit — so the engine assigns medicaid_category NONE. All three models either asserted without arithmetic that MAGI fell under 138% FPL or treated the ""is disabled"" flag as a categorical pass that skips the income test entirely. Disability and the expansion group's waived asset test change which income test applies, never whether one applies."
-us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,20,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"Before age 65, Medicare eligibility through disability requires 24 months of receiving Social Security Disability Insurance. Being flagged as disabled is not enough. PolicyEngine checks age ≥ 65, at least 24 months of SSDI receipt, or end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The head is 61, has no listed SSDI months (unlisted inputs count as 0), and has no ESRD. Their $36,105 of Social Security is retirement income, not disability benefits. Every model treated the disabled flag by itself as enough for Medicare, and that is why they answered 1 instead of 0."
+us,scenario_039,head_medicare_eligible,22,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"PolicyEngine makes a person Medicare eligible only through one of these routes: age 65 or older, at least 24 months of Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) receipt, or a listed qualifying condition such as ESRD. A generic `is_disabled` flag is not one of them. The head is 61. Their only Social Security income is retirement income, not SSDI, and no months of SSDI receipt are listed, so that input defaults to 0 and the 24-month disability route fails. Every model wrongly treated the disabled flag alone (sometimes together with the retirement benefits or surviving-spouse status) as enough for Medicare under 65."
us,scenario_039,payroll_tax,2,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Employee payroll tax applies to wage and salary income, not estate income, Social Security retirement benefits, IRA distributions, private pensions, or self-employment income. No wages were listed, and the prompt requires unlisted numeric inputs to be zero, so the employee Social Security, Medicare, Additional Medicare, and mandatory state payroll-tax bases are all zero."
us,scenario_039,self_employment_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,45,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"Virginia starts from federal AGI of $79,209.22 and subtracts all federally taxable Social Security ($30,689.25), leaving VA AGI of $48,519.97. The head is 61 with no qualifying dependent, so she files as single (Virginia has no surviving-spouse status) and gets no age deduction or disability subtraction. The correct deductions are the 2026 single standard deduction of $8,750 and the $930 personal exemption, giving taxable income of $38,839.97 and tax of $720 + 5.75% × $21,839.97 = $1,975.80. The largest group of wrong answers used the older $8,500 deduction and landed on $1,990.18. Other groups used the $17,500 joint deduction for a ""surviving spouse"" ($1,472.68), skipped the Social Security subtraction (about $3,740), or invented age or disability exclusions (about $0)."
+us,scenario_039,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,47,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"Virginia AGI is $48,519.97: federal AGI of $79,209.22 minus only the federally taxable Social Security of $30,689.25. The head has no dependent, so they file as single. That gives the 2026 Virginia single standard deduction of $8,750 and one $930 personal exemption, so taxable income is $38,839.97 and tax is $720 + 5.75% × $21,839.97 = $1,975.80. Most models got Virginia AGI right but then used an outdated standard deduction ($8,500, $8,000 or $3,000) or applied the $17,500 joint deduction because of the surviving-spouse fact. Others left out the Social Security subtraction or invented age, disability or retirement subtractions that a 61-year-old with no disability income does not get."
us,scenario_039,state_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_040,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,9,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Every model got the same AGI the engine used ($28,000 wages + $4,300 taxable Social Security = $32,300, since workers' compensation is excluded and provisional income of $40,600 falls in the 50% tier between the $32,000 and $44,000 MFJ thresholds) or missed it, and then lost the case on the deduction side. For tax year 2026 the TCJA structure is permanent: personal exemptions remain repealed, the MFJ standard deduction is $32,200, the aged additional standard deduction is $1,650 per 65+ spouse ($3,300), and the OBBBA senior deduction adds $6,000 per spouse aged 65+ ($12,000) for a total of $47,500 — well above the $32,300 AGI, so taxable income and tax are $0. Six of the nine models instead applied a TCJA-sunset 2026 with a ~$16,500–$20,000 standard deduction plus revived personal exemptions of ~$10,200–$10,600, a combination that leaves a small positive taxable income taxed at 10%. The two that used a post-OBBBA standard deduction still failed by inflating includible Social Security or by treating the senior deduction as a tax offset rather than a $6,000-per-spouse deduction."
us,scenario_040,federal_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
@@ -359,22 +359,22 @@ us,scenario_040,spouse_medicaid_eligible,4,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,Fal
us,scenario_040,spouse_medicare_eligible,1,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"Medicare eligibility applies at age 65, so the 69-year-old spouse qualifies through the age pathway without needing disability-based eligibility or 24 months of SSDI receipt. The spouse’s workers’ compensation and disability facts do not alter that age-based result."
us,scenario_040,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,6,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The case turns on two Arizona-specific rules: Arizona subtracts from federal AGI all Social Security benefits included there, and Arizona's standard deduction conforms to the base federal married-filing-jointly amount (about $32,200 for 2026) with no additional age-65 amount. Removing the $4,300 of taxable Social Security leaves $28,000 of wages as Arizona AGI, which is more than $4,000 below the standard deduction, so taxable income is zero and the 2.5% flat tax yields nothing before refundable credits; itemizing is worse at $16,324 of mortgage interest plus real estate taxes. The wrong answers all manufacture a positive base either by shrinking the deduction — inventing $20,000, $22,000, or an unstated ~$22,700 figure, in two cases by grafting a federal-style age-65 add-on Arizona does not have — or by leaving Social Security in the Arizona base. One model produced the zero result and then overrode it, and one returned nothing at all."
us,scenario_040,state_refundable_credits,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Arizona’s refundable credits are not awarded merely because a married filer is elderly and has income below a general threshold. The household satisfies no applicable Arizona refundable-credit eligibility pathway in 2026, so az_refundable_credits and the aggregate state_refundable_credits are both zero; the other failure is a missing required output."
-us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,48,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The head is widowed but has no dependent child, so they file as single. That means single Social Security thresholds of $25k/$34k, which make $16,846 of benefits taxable. AGI is $50,580.71. Deductions are the $18,150 standard deduction for an aged single filer plus the $6,000 OBBBA senior deduction, for a total of $24,150 and taxable income of $26,430.71. The $4,681 of qualified dividends and gains is taxed at 0%, and the $21,749.71 of ordinary income is taxed at 10% up to $12,400 and 12% above, giving $2,361.96. Most of the wrong answers came from three mistakes: using qualifying-surviving-spouse joint parameters, leaving out the $6,000 senior deduction, or applying the expired pre-TCJA schedule with personal exemptions and a 15% bracket. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated llm_error (taxable_income_or_deductions). The frozen 1,979.16 is regenerated as 2,361.96: it corrects an engine defect fixed upstream (fixed in PolicyEngine/policyengine-us#8839 (issue #8828), after the reference freeze): Capital gain distributions are long-term capital gain in gross income and in the preferential-rate base. Reference regenerated (26 U.S.C. 61(a)(3), 852(b)(3)(B); Form 1040 line 7)."
+us,scenario_042,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,50,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The correct answer comes from four steps. (1) Filing status is Single. A surviving spouse with no dependent child does not qualify for QSS. (2) Taxable Social Security is $16,846.25: provisional income is $48,525, so the amount is 0.85×($48,525−$34,000)+$4,500, below the 85% cap. (3) Under 2026 OBBBA law the deductions total $24,150: the $16,100 standard deduction, the $2,050 aged add-on and the $6,000 senior deduction. (4) The $4,681 of qualified dividends and capital gains is taxed at 0%, and the remaining $21,749.71 runs through the 10%/12% brackets with the 10% band ending at $12,400, giving $2,361.96. The wrong answers split into three main groups: about 13 models used QSS/joint parameters, about 14 left out the $6,000 senior deduction, and 7 applied the pre-TCJA sunset rules (personal exemption, 15% bracket), even though OBBBA made the TCJA rules permanent. Others overstated taxable Social Security by taking a flat 85%. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated llm_error (taxable_income_or_deductions). The frozen 1,979.16 is regenerated as 2,361.96: it corrects an engine defect fixed upstream (fixed in PolicyEngine/policyengine-us#8839 (issue #8828), after the reference freeze): Capital gain distributions are long-term capital gain in gross income and in the preferential-rate base. Reference regenerated (26 U.S.C. 61(a)(3), 852(b)(3)(B); Form 1040 line 7)."
us,scenario_042,federal_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_042,payroll_tax,2,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Payroll tax uses employee wages as its base, and the prompt lists no wage or salary income. The pension, IRA distributions, investment income, Social Security benefits, and farm loss do not generate employee-side Social Security or Medicare tax, so employee payroll tax is $0."
us,scenario_042,self_employment_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,31,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The 79-year-old filer qualifies for Wisconsin's retirement income exclusion for filers 67 and older (Schedule SB line 16). It has no income limit and removes up to $24,000 of pension and IRA income for a single or surviving-spouse filer. Here the full $24,000 cap applies against $24,086 of retirement income. That drops Wisconsin AGI from $32,608.81 to about $8,609, which the standard deduction and $950 of exemptions fully cover, so tax is $0. The filer elects that path over the standard path's $408.70. Nearly every model stopped at the standard path: subtract Social Security, sometimes the 30% capital-gain exclusion, apply the sliding standard deduction and exemptions, then sometimes the $300 school property tax credit. Their answers cluster around $400–$1,000 because none applied the $24,000 exclusion."
+us,scenario_042,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,33,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"Starting in 2025, Wisconsin lets filers aged 67 or older exclude up to $24,000 of retirement income (Schedule SB line 16), with no income limit. The filer has $19,200 of IRA distributions and $4,886 of pension income, so $24,000 is subtracted. That drops Wisconsin AGI from $32,608.81 to about $8,609, which the sliding-scale standard deduction and the $950 of exemptions wipe out, so tax is $0. Nearly every model stopped after subtracting Social Security (and sometimes 30% of capital gains). They taxed about $19,000–$21,000 at the 3.5%/4.4% rates instead, landing near $700–$1,000, or about $400 after the $300 school property tax credit. A few applied the old $5,000 retirement subtraction with its AGI limit."
us,scenario_042,state_refundable_credits,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"The Wisconsin homestead credit requires qualifying household income and property-tax circumstances to be computed from the stated annual inputs under the 2026 rules. The household receives substantial Social Security, IRA, pension, dividend, interest, and capital-gain income, so reducing household income to roughly $14,420 and applying a maximum-credit shortcut creates a refundable credit that the full eligibility computation does not allow."
us,scenario_043,federal_refundable_credits,4,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"The single trap is the upper age limit on the childless EITC: IRC §32(c)(1)(A)(ii)(II) allows the no-qualifying-children credit only to filers at least 25 and under 65 at the close of the tax year, and the American Rescue Plan's one-year suspension of that ceiling applied to 2021 only. The head is 66 in tax year 2026, so the EITC is $0 regardless of the $4,088 in earnings sitting squarely in the phase-in range, and with no children, no education expenses, and no Recovery Rebate or refundable payroll tax credit, total federal refundable credits are $0. All four models jumped straight to the phase-in arithmetic on earned income and never applied the age test, three of them landing on 7.65% × ~$4,088 ≈ $312–313 and one on a fabricated 15.3% rate."
us,scenario_043,free_school_meals_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_043,head_chip_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_043,head_medicaid_eligible,9,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Low income alone does not place this 66-year-old into a Colorado Medicaid category. The MAGI adult expansion pathway has an age limit, while the aged pathway applies separate categorical and resource rules; with no SSI, no disability status, and $2,800 in bank assets, the engine assigns Medicaid category NONE."
+us,scenario_043,head_medicaid_eligible,10,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Medicaid eligibility in PolicyEngine requires a covered category first, and low income does not qualify anyone on its own. At age 66 the head is outside the ACA expansion adult group, which covers ages 19–64. The head receives no SSI: none is listed, and the $2,800 bank balance is over the $2,000 SSI resource limit. Colorado also has no optional poverty-level pathway for seniors in the engine, so medicaid_category is NONE. The wrong models treated income at 0.29× FPL as enough on its own and skipped the category check."
us,scenario_043,head_medicare_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_043,head_wic_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_043,local_income_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,31,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,,"Federal FICA on $4,088 is $312.74 ($253.47 Social Security plus $59.28 Medicare). The rest of the reference is Colorado's FAMLI employee premium: 0.44% (half of the 0.88% 2026 premium) × $4,088.15 = $17.99, for a total of $330.73. The prompt asks for 'mandatory employee state payroll taxes', and it can be read two ways. Under one reading, the FAMLI employee share counts because the law lets the employer withhold it from wages, which is how PolicyEngine treats it. Under the other, it is excluded because Colorado lets the employer pay that share instead, and the prompt never says which the employer does. Almost every model chose the second reading and landed on about $312.73. The few others made genuine errors: a wrong FAMLI rate, an arithmetic slip, or wrongly cutting FICA wages by health premiums. Developer adjudication (2026-10-05): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned prompt_ambiguity; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (state_local_rule). The frozen reference is 330.73; the alternative is 312.74. The prompt counts mandatory employee state payroll taxes; Colorado FAMLI contributions are the employer's, which may deduct the employee share from wages but need not (C.R.S. 8-13.3-507(2) and (5); 7 CCR 1107-1 s. 1.4(6)(A)), and policyengine-us 2.15.17 counts the largest share the employer may deduct ($17.99); read as the amount the law requires of the employee, $0, the output is employee federal payroll tax alone. Found in the 2026-10-05 audit of state payroll components (reference_audit/2026-10-05-payroll, program_classification.json). Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (whether the employer deducts the employee share of a state paid-leave or disability premium that the law lets it deduct but does not require, which decides whether that share is a mandatory employee state payroll tax)."
+us,scenario_043,payroll_tax,32,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,,"Federal FICA is the easy part: 7.65% of about $4,088 in wages, or about $312.74. The models split on Colorado's FAMLI premium, which PolicyEngine counts as an employee payroll tax: 0.44% (half of the 2026 0.88% premium) on $4,088.15 of FAMLI wages, or $17.99, for a total of $330.73. The prompt asks for 'mandatory employee state payroll taxes' but doesn't say who pays the FAMLI share. Under reading (1), the employee share is withheld from wages and counts. Under reading (2), the employer is allowed to cover it, so it isn't mandatory for the employee and only FICA counts. Most models took reading (2) or didn't know FAMLI exists. A few models used the wrong FAMLI rate, made an arithmetic slip, or wrongly cut the FICA wage base. Developer adjudication (2026-10-05): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned prompt_ambiguity; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (state_local_rule). The frozen reference is 330.73; the alternative is 312.74. The prompt counts mandatory employee state payroll taxes; Colorado FAMLI contributions are the employer's, which may deduct the employee share from wages but need not (C.R.S. 8-13.3-507(2) and (5); 7 CCR 1107-1 s. 1.4(6)(A)), and policyengine-us 2.15.17 counts the largest share the employer may deduct ($17.99); read as the amount the law requires of the employee, $0, the output is employee federal payroll tax alone. Found in the 2026-10-05 audit of state payroll components (reference_audit/2026-10-05-payroll, program_classification.json). Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (whether the employer deducts the employee share of a state paid-leave or disability premium that the law lets it deduct but does not require, which decides whether that share is a mandatory employee state payroll tax)."
us,scenario_043,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_043,snap,33,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"This one-person elderly Colorado household has monthly gross income of $387.35. The deductions bring net income to $0: 20% of earned income ($68.14), the $209 standard deduction, and the excess medical deduction for an elderly member ($5,000/12 − $35 = $381.67). With net income at $0, SNAP pays the full one-person contiguous-states maximum allotment, which is $298/month, or $3,576 for the year. Assets are not a barrier: Colorado's broad-based categorical eligibility applies, and $2,800 is also under the elderly asset limit. Most models did reach net income of $0 but then used the wrong maximum allotment (often $291, $292 or ~$300). Others wrongly said the household fails the asset test, or cut the benefit below the maximum for no reason."
+us,scenario_043,snap,35,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"This one-person Colorado household has an elderly 66-year-old head. It has $387 a month of gross income and $2,800 in assets, so it passes the elderly asset test and is categorically eligible through Colorado's broad-based TANF non-cash eligibility. Its deductions bring countable net income to zero, so the benefit equals the full one-person maximum allotment for the contiguous states: $298 a month, or $3,576 a year. Most models correctly found that the household gets the maximum allotment but used an outdated or invented figure ($291, $292, $299–$305, $328). A smaller group wrongly zeroed the benefit by applying a non-elderly asset limit or ignoring take-up, and a few arbitrarily cut the allotment below the maximum even though net income was zero."
us,scenario_043,ssi,4,llm_error,period_annualization,False,,"SSI eligibility is determined for the individual, not by subtracting annualized countable income from twelve times a monthly federal benefit rate. The head’s approximately $4,642 of individual income exceeds the applicable SSI income limit, so the income-eligibility gate fails and no SSI is payable despite aged categorical eligibility and assumed take-up."
us,scenario_043,state_refundable_credits,7,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"Colorado's refundable credits available to this filer depend on two things. The TABOR surplus mechanisms (the sales tax refund and the senior housing credit) pay only when the state has excess revenue. The Colorado EITC is a percentage of the federal EITC. Forecasts showed FY2025-26 below the Referendum C cap, so no TABOR-funded refund exists for tax year 2026. The head is 66, above the federal childless-EITC age ceiling of 64, so there is no federal EITC for Colorado to match. Every wrong answer either paid a TABOR-contingent refund that is not triggered in 2026 or matched a federal EITC the head cannot claim because of age."
us,scenario_043,tanf,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
@@ -383,7 +383,7 @@ us,scenario_044,payroll_tax,1,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Employee payrol
us,scenario_044,spouse_medicare_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,other,False,,"The spouse is age 61 and has no listed disability or other Medicare-qualifying status, so the spouse is not Medicare eligible in 2026. The model’s explanation correctly derives 0, but its submitted numeric value is 1, creating an internally inconsistent contract output."
us,scenario_044,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,3,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Kansas subtracts federally taxable Social Security benefits from Kansas adjusted gross income, so the household’s only reported income does not enter the Kansas income-tax base. With no remaining Kansas taxable income, state income tax before refundable credits is $0; applying Kansas deductions, exemptions, brackets, or credits to the $56,806 benefit is the wrong computation path."
us,scenario_044,state_refundable_credits,3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"All three models awarded the Kansas food sales tax credit of $125 per exemption (2 x $125 = $250). Kansas cut its state sales tax on food to 0% on January 1, 2025, and ended that refundable credit after tax year 2024, so it does not exist in tax year 2026. Kansas's other refundable credit, the state EITC (17% of the federal EITC), is also $0 because the household has no earned income: its only income is Social Security. That leaves Kansas refundable credits, and state_refundable_credits, at $0."
-us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,34,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The correct calculation is simple. AGI equals the full $36,275.59 in gross wages. Subtract the post-OBBBA 2026 single standard deduction of $16,100 to get taxable income of $20,175.59. Tax is 10% on the first $12,400 plus 12% on the remaining $7,775.59, or $2,173.07, and no nonrefundable credits apply. The models failed in four main ways: (1) they subtracted the $21,208 employer-sponsored insurance premiums from the gross wages; (2) they assumed the TCJA expired, bringing back personal exemptions and the 15% bracket, even though OBBBA made TCJA permanent; (3) they used outdated 2024/2025 standard deductions and bracket thresholds; or (4) they correctly calculated about $2,173 but then submitted an unrelated number, or reduced the tax to zero with credits that don't exist or with the refundable EITC."
+us,scenario_045,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,35,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The correct path is short. AGI equals gross wages of $36,275.59, because the employer-sponsored insurance premiums are not subtracted from the stated gross wages. The 2026 single standard deduction after OBBBA is $16,100, which exceeds itemized deductions of $1,541.71, so taxable income is $20,175.59. Tax is 10% of the first $12,400 plus 12% of the rest, which gives $2,173.07, and no nonrefundable credits apply. The wrong answers fall into four groups: (1) subtracting the $21,208 ESI premiums from wages or itemizing them; (2) applying a TCJA sunset with personal exemptions and a 15% bracket, even though OBBBA made the TCJA rate structure permanent; (3) using stale 2024/2025 standard deductions or bracket edges; and (4) computing about $2,173 and then submitting an unrelated number."
us,scenario_045,federal_refundable_credits,10,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,,"The full $36,276 of annual gross wages enters the childless EITC income test; the separately listed employer-sponsored insurance premiums do not reduce earned income or AGI because no pre-tax payroll treatment is stated. At that income, the childless EITC is fully phased out, and the household has no qualifying child or other basis for a refundable federal credit."
us,scenario_045,free_school_meals_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_045,head_chip_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
@@ -393,25 +393,25 @@ us,scenario_045,payroll_tax,10,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"The trap is th
us,scenario_045,self_employment_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_045,snap,4,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"This household has one person with no elderly or disabled member, so it must pass a gross income screen before net income matters. Michigan counts child support paid in SNAP gross income and deducts it only at the net income step, so gross income is the full $3,022.97 a month. That is about 232% of the poverty guideline, which fails both the 130% gross income test and the 200% limit for Michigan's TANF non-cash categorical eligibility. SNAP is therefore $0 in every month. The wrong answers subtracted items before the gross test, reached a benefit after their own reasoning said the household was ineligible, or gave no answer."
us,scenario_045,ssi,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,41,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"Michigan tax here is 4.25% × (federal AGI of $36,275.59 − the 2026 personal exemption of $5,900) = $1,290.96. Michigan has no standard deduction and no nonrefundable credit that applies to this filer. The largest group of models used an outdated or guessed exemption ($5,000, $5,200, $5,600, $5,800 or $6,000) or the 2023-only 4.05% rate. A second group subtracted the $21,208 employer insurance premiums from the stated gross wages, which brought AGI down to $15,068. Others got to $0 by inventing a standard deduction, deducting child support, or treating the refundable Homestead Property Tax Credit as nonrefundable. A few computed a number close to the reference and then submitted a different value."
-us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,44,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"The whole $760.79 is Michigan's refundable Homestead Property Tax Credit, which renters can claim. The calculation is 23% of the $10,560 rent ($2,428.80), minus 3.2% of total household resources ($36,275.59, i.e., full wages with no deduction for child support paid or ESI premiums), which leaves $1,267.98, times 60% = $760.79. Federal EITC is $0 for this childless filer at $36k, so the Michigan EITC adds nothing. The wrong answers fall into four groups: models that ignored the homestead credit or thought renters can't claim it; models that used the wrong rent share (20% or 17%), the wrong threshold (3.5%) or the wrong credit rate; models that shrank household resources by subtracting the $21,208 ESI premiums or the $5,200 child support; and models that invented a positive EITC."
+us,scenario_045,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,42,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"Michigan applies a flat 4.25% rate to AGI ($36,275.59, which is gross wages; the employer-sponsored insurance premiums are not subtracted) minus the 2026 personal exemption of $5,900. That gives $30,375.59 × 0.0425 = $1,290.96, and no nonrefundable credits apply. Most models used the right method but the wrong exemption amount ($5,000–$6,200), and a few used a 4.05% rate. A second group subtracted the $21,208 ESI premiums to get an AGI of $15,068. The models that answered $0 either invented a standard deduction or treated the refundable Homestead Property Tax Credit as an offset."
+us,scenario_045,state_refundable_credits,46,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"The entire $760.79 is Michigan's refundable Homestead Property Tax Credit for a renter. The calculation is 60% × (23% of $10,560 rent, which is $2,428.80, minus 3.2% of total household resources of $36,275.59, which is $1,160.82). Child support paid and employer-sponsored insurance premiums are not subtracted from household resources. The federal childless EITC is fully phased out at $36k, so the Michigan EITC is $0. Most wrong models either looked only at the EITC and returned $0, or got one parameter of the homestead formula wrong: 20% or 17% of rent instead of 23%, a 3.5% threshold instead of 3.2%, a missing or wrong 60% multiplier, or household resources reduced by premiums or child support."
us,scenario_046,child1_chip_eligible,1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"Oklahoma covers school-age children through Medicaid (SoonerCare), not through a separate CHIP. The engine therefore gives a 10-year-old in Oklahoma no CHIP pathway on age grounds. The household's MAGI of about $92,003 (wages plus interest) is also far above any Oklahoma children's income limit for a family of four. A wrong Yes comes from applying a generic, high CHIP income limit and understating MAGI, instead of Oklahoma's own CHIP rules for this child's age and income."
us,scenario_046,child1_medicaid_eligible,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"A dependent child qualifies for Oklahoma Medicaid only through an applicable eligibility category. At age 10 and MAGI income of 2.79 times FPL, child1 exceeds the income limits for the regular children's group, CHIP, and every other applicable pathway, so the Medicaid category is NONE and eligibility is No."
us,scenario_046,child2_chip_eligible,1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Child2's CHIP eligibility depends on the family's Medicaid/CHIP MAGI measured against the federal poverty line for a family of four. That MAGI is the full $92,003 of wages plus interest, which is about 280% FPL. The $14,839 FLSA overtime premium is already inside the $92,000 of wages. The 2025-2028 overtime deduction is taken below the line, in computing taxable income, so it never lowers AGI or MAGI. Once the overtime premium is subtracted from MAGI, income falls into the CHIP band. Kept in, income is above Oklahoma's CHIP ceiling for a 9-year-old, and child2 is ineligible because Medicaid is also unavailable."
us,scenario_046,child2_medicaid_eligible,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Oklahoma Medicaid eligibility requires the child to qualify through an available categorical pathway and its applicable income limit. Child 2 has no qualifying Medicaid category, receives no SSI, and the household's MAGI income of 2.79 times FPL exceeds every applicable child Medicaid threshold, so eligibility is No."
-us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,38,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Under OBBBA rules for 2026, the household takes the $32,200 MFJ standard deduction plus the below-the-line qualified overtime deduction of about $14,839. The overtime deduction is under the $25,000 joint cap and AGI is far below the phase-out. That gives taxable income of $44,964.29 and tax of $2,480 + 12% × $20,164.29 = $4,899.71. The full $4,400 CTC ($2,200 × 2) is used as a nonrefundable credit, which leaves $499.71. Most wrong answers left out the overtime deduction, used pre-TCJA law (personal exemptions, $1,000 CTC), itemized after double-counting the duplicated $12,000 premium field and non-deductible OTC costs, claimed an AOTC with no qualified expenses, or did not subtract the CTC."
+us,scenario_046,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,39,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The correct path applies 2026 OBBBA-permanent TCJA law. AGI is $92,003. It is reduced by the $32,200 MFJ standard deduction, which beats itemizing because the $12,000 health premium counts only once. It is also reduced by the $14,838.71 qualified overtime deduction, which falls under the $25,000 joint cap. That leaves $44,964.29 of taxable income, taxed at $2,480 + 12% × $20,164.29 = $4,899.71. Subtracting the full $4,400 CTC ($2,200 × 2) as a nonrefundable credit gives $499.71. Most wrong answers made one of these mistakes: they skipped the overtime deduction, assumed the TCJA sunset (personal exemptions, pre-TCJA brackets, $1,000 CTC), counted the $12,000 premium twice to justify itemizing, made up an AOTC with no qualified expenses, or split the CTC so that only part of it counted as nonrefundable."
us,scenario_046,federal_refundable_credits,14,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"None of the refundable credits pays out, so federal refundable credits are $0. The EITC is fully phased out at $92,003 AGI for a two-child joint return. The American Opportunity Credit needs qualified tuition and related expenses, and none are listed, so both its nonrefundable and refundable parts are $0. The $4,400 CTC (2 x $2,200) is fully used against tax owed before credits. Even after the $32,200 standard deduction and the $14,839 overtime deduction, that tax is about $4,900, and the refundable CTC only pays back CTC left over after tax, so it is $0. The wrong answers fall into three groups: some made up tuition to claim a $1,000 refundable AOTC, some paid the $1,700-per-child refundable cap without first applying the CTC to tax, and some put tax below $4,400 so a small slice of CTC looked refundable."
us,scenario_046,head_chip_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_046,payroll_tax,17,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"The head's $92,000 of gross wages is the FICA base. Employee Social Security is 6.2% × $92,000 = $5,704 and employee Medicare is 1.45% × $92,000 = $1,334, for a total of $7,038. There is no Additional Medicare Tax and no Oklahoma employee payroll tax. The most common mistake was subtracting the $9,208 employer-sponsored insurance premium as if it were a Section 125 pre-tax reduction, which the household facts never state, giving $6,334. The other wrong answers came from counting the overtime premium twice, inventing a state payroll tax, arithmetic or transcription slips, or giving up with $0."
us,scenario_046,self_employment_tax,2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,47,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"Oklahoma starts from federal AGI of $92,003. The household does not itemize federally because the $32,200 federal standard deduction is larger than its itemized deductions, so Oklahoma requires its own fixed $12,700 MFJ standard deduction, even though its state itemized total would be higher. Subtracting that deduction and four $1,000 exemptions leaves $75,303 of taxable income. The 2026 restructured MFJ schedule is 0% up to $7,500, 2.5% to $9,800, 3.5% to $14,400 and 4.5% above that. It gives $57.50 + $161 + $2,740.64 = $2,959.14, and the nonrefundable credit of 5% of the $4,400 federal CTC ($220) brings tax to $2,739.14. Most models used the old 0.25%–4.75% brackets, itemized on the Oklahoma return, borrowed the federal standard deduction or overtime deduction, or dropped or undercounted the $220 credit."
+us,scenario_046,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,49,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"Oklahoma taxable income is $92,003 AGI minus the $12,700 OK joint standard deduction and $4,000 in exemptions, which gives $75,303. OK allows itemizing only when the filer also itemizes federally, and the $32,200 federal standard deduction for 2026 exceeds this household's roughly $22,430 in itemized deductions, so the OK standard deduction applies. The restructured 2026 joint brackets are 0% up to $7,500, 2.5% to $9,800, 3.5% to $14,400 and 4.5% above that. They produce $2,959.14 of tax. That is then reduced by the OK child credit of 5% of the $4,400 federal CTC ($2,200 per child), or $220. Most models used the old 0.25%–4.75% schedule or a 4.5% top rate on top of the old lower brackets, itemized on the OK return, used $2,000-per-child CTC figures, or left out the credit."
us,scenario_046,state_refundable_credits,2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_048,head_medicaid_eligible,6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Age 85 establishes membership in an aged population but does not itself confer Medicaid eligibility. The head receives no SSI, is not a dependent, and qualifies through none of the Medicaid pathways; the 2.17-times-FPL MAGI level also does not establish eligibility in a MAGI category. Low assets cannot substitute for satisfying a pathway's income and categorical requirements."
us,scenario_048,head_medicare_eligible,1,llm_error,other,False,,"Medicare eligibility is satisfied because the head is age 85, well above the age-65 threshold. The model’s prose reached that result but its submitted binary value reversed it: eligible must be encoded as 1, not 0."
us,scenario_048,payroll_tax,2,llm_error,other,False,,"Payroll tax here is just employee FICA on $7,656 of wages: 6.2% Social Security ($474.67) plus 1.45% Medicare ($111.01), for $585.68. Ohio has no mandatory employee state payroll tax. Social Security survivor benefits are not covered wages. Both models arrived at about $586 in their reasoning but then put a different, unsupported number in the numeric value field. The failure is in transcribing the answer, not in the tax rule."
us,scenario_048,snap,5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The household’s $34,626 annual income exceeds the applicable $17,420 SNAP eligibility threshold for a one-person Ohio household in 2026, so SNAP eligibility ends before any minimum-allotment calculation. A minimum benefit applies only to an otherwise eligible household; it cannot override a failed income test."
us,scenario_048,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The trap is Ohio's zero-tax bracket. Ohio's individual income tax schedule imposes no tax on Ohio taxable nonbusiness income at or below roughly $26,050, so this filer's $7,656 in wages — the only Ohio-taxable income, since the $26,970 in Social Security survivor benefits stays out of federal AGI at a provisional income of $21,141, below the $25,000 base amount — produces $0 of liability before any credit. Both models correctly excluded the Social Security benefits and then applied the 2.75% rate starting at the first dollar of taxable income, converting a below-threshold filer into a taxpayer. Their differing answers ($106 vs. $94.54) come only from downstream inventions — a fictitious Ohio standard deduction in one case, a recharacterized exemption credit plus the $50 senior citizen credit in the other — layered on the same missing zero bracket."
-us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,44,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"AGI is $247,385: wages minus only the $15,436 traditional 401(k), plus interest and dividends. The $16,408 ESI premium does not reduce wages, the $721 IRA deduction is phased out, and Roth contributions are not deductible. Under OBBBA rules for 2026, three deductions apply: the $32,200 standard deduction, the $25,000 joint-capped qualified overtime deduction, and the $579.76 non-itemizer cash charitable deduction. The auto-loan interest deduction is fully phased out above $200k MAGI. On the resulting $189,605.23 of taxable income, the 2026 joint brackets give $29,771.39, and 15% on $6,208 of qualified dividends adds $931.20. Most models missed the overtime deduction or used TCJA-sunset rules. The rest either excluded the ESI premiums from wages or got the charitable or auto-loan deduction wrong."
+us,scenario_049,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,46,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The 2026 result depends on applying OBBBA deductions on top of AGI of $247,385. That AGI is wages minus only the $15,436 traditional 401(k). The ESI premium is not subtracted, and neither the IRA nor the auto-loan interest is deductible. From AGI you subtract the $32,200 joint standard deduction, the full $25,000 joint cap on the qualified overtime deduction (MAGI is under the $300,000 phase-out), and about $580 of cash charity for non-itemizers. Most wrong answers made one of three mistakes. Some left out the $25,000 overtime deduction or used TCJA-sunset rules (personal exemptions, pre-TCJA brackets). Some cut wages by the $16,408 employer-sponsored premium. Others claimed the vehicle-loan interest deduction, which is fully phased out above $200,000 MAGI, or dropped the non-itemizer charitable deduction."
us,scenario_049,federal_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_049,free_school_meals_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_049,head_chip_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
@@ -431,24 +431,24 @@ us,scenario_049,ssi,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong res
us,scenario_049,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,9,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"New Hampshire does not tax wages. Its only personal income levy, the Interest and Dividends Tax, produces no liability on this household in 2026. The trap is the rate schedule. The 2021 law cut the rate one point a year and would have left it at 1% in 2026. The 2023 law (HB 2) replaced that schedule and ended the tax for taxable periods beginning after December 31, 2024. PolicyEngine computes the same $5,021 base the models used ($9,821 of interest and dividends minus the $4,800 joint exemption) and assesses $0. Almost every wrong model found that base correctly and then applied a superseded nonzero rate: 1%, or in one case 3%."
us,scenario_049,state_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_049,tanf,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,40,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"Under the 2026 OBBBA parameters for a single filer, the standard deduction is $16,100 and the 10% bracket ends at $12,400. That leaves $23,900 of ordinary taxable income from the $40,000 of wages, taxed at $1,240 + 12% × $11,500 = $2,620. The $180 of non-Schedule D capital gains (capital gain distributions) adds no tax: it is either left out of gross income or taxed at the 0% long-term rate, well below the roughly $49,450 threshold. The most common wrong answer, $2,641.60, taxes that $180 at 12%. Most other wrong answers use outdated 2025 or pre-OBBBA deduction and bracket figures, assume the TCJA expired (bringing back the personal exemption and the 15% bracket), subtract ESI premiums that were never stated as pre-tax, or invent nonrefundable credits."
+us,scenario_051,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,41,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The reference applies the post-OBBBA 2026 single parameters: a $16,100 standard deduction, the 10% bracket up to $12,400, and 12% above that. It taxes ordinary income of $40,000 − $16,100 = $23,900, which gives $1,240 + 12% × $11,500 = $2,620. The $180 of non-Schedule-D capital gains adds nothing to the tax, and the $5,389 ESI premium is not subtracted from wages. Most models missed for one of three reasons: they used stale or expired-law parameters (2024/2025 deductions and brackets, or a pre-TCJA reversion with personal exemptions and a 15% bracket), they taxed the $180 at 12% (giving $2,641.60), or they submitted a number that contradicts their own arithmetic."
us,scenario_051,federal_refundable_credits,4,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"A childless single filer with approximately $40,000 of earnings is above the 2026 EITC phaseout endpoint, so the EITC is $0. With no qualifying children and no facts supporting another refundable federal credit, all five refundable-credit components are $0."
us,scenario_051,head_medicaid_eligible,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Louisiana Medicaid eligibility requires qualification through a specific categorical pathway, not merely acceptable immigration status or the absence of an expressly listed disqualification. This 25-year-old, nondependent adult has MAGI income of 2.51 times FPL, receives no SSI, and falls into Medicaid category NONE, so no MAGI or alternative state-program pathway confers eligibility."
us,scenario_051,payroll_tax,10,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Employee Social Security and Medicare taxes apply to the full $40,000 of wages here, producing $2,480 and $580 respectively, for a $3,060 total. The dominant error was subtracting the listed employer-sponsored insurance premium without any fact establishing a pre-tax salary-reduction arrangement; several other models derived $3,060 correctly but then submitted a different number."
us,scenario_051,self_employment_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,48,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Louisiana's 2025 reform set a flat 3% rate and a $12,500 single standard deduction, indexed from 2026 under R.S. 47:294(B). PolicyEngine computed $12,835 from published CPI-U, giving the retained reference of 3% × ($40,180 − $12,835) = $820.35. Louisiana's first published 2026 return deduction was $12,838 in RIB 26-019 on 2026-09-28, giving $820.26; this output is excluded under d994. Louisiana AGI equals federal AGI of $40,180 because the ESI premiums do not reduce wages here. The largest final-answer group, 22 of the 48 models, used $12,500 and answered $830.40 or $830; four more computed about $830 using that deduction and then submitted another amount. Fourteen used repealed rules, including the $4,500 exemption or deduction, the 1.85%/3.5% brackets, or the deduction for federal income tax; six of these also subtracted the $5,389 ESI premium from AGI. The remaining eight claimed no tax or an offsetting deduction, gave no calculation, or gave no answer. Developer adjudication (2026-10-06): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated reference_later_law (taxable_income_or_deductions). The frozen 814.95 is regenerated as 820.35: it corrects an engine defect fixed upstream (fixed in PolicyEngine/policyengine-us#8839 (issue #8828), after the reference freeze): Capital gain distributions are long-term capital gain in gross income and in the preferential-rate base. The frozen reference is 820.35; the value under the published figure is 820.26. The reference rests on a 2026 Louisiana standard deduction of $12,835, which policyengine-us computed from published CPI-U under R.S. 47:294(B) but which no Louisiana publication stated before the 2026-07-03 freeze; Louisiana's first 2026 return amount, $12,838, came in Revenue Information Bulletin 26-019 on 2026-09-28. Excluded under decision d994, which keeps the published-amounts convention for every other reference (reference_audit/2026-10-05-louisiana). Reference depends on law published after the reference freeze; output excluded from scoring (Louisiana Department of Revenue, Revenue Information Bulletin 26-019, dated 2026-09-28: Louisiana's 2026 standard deduction is $12,838 for single and separate filers and $25,676 for the other statuses, the first 2026 return amount Louisiana published)."
+us,scenario_051,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,50,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"After the 2024 reform, Louisiana taxes income at a flat 3% and allows a single standard deduction of $12,500 for 2025. That deduction is indexed for inflation, so it rises to $12,835 in 2026. Taxable income is $40,180 − $12,835 = $27,345, and 3% of that is $820.35. Most models had the structure right but used the 2025 figure of $12,500 without inflating it, which gives $830.40. Others used pre-2025 Louisiana law: the $4,500 exemption, the 1.85%/3.5% brackets, and the federal income tax deduction. Some also took the $5,389 ESI premium out of AGI. Developer adjudication (2026-10-06): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated reference_later_law (taxable_income_or_deductions). The frozen 814.95 is regenerated as 820.35: it corrects an engine defect fixed upstream (fixed in PolicyEngine/policyengine-us#8839 (issue #8828), after the reference freeze): Capital gain distributions are long-term capital gain in gross income and in the preferential-rate base. The frozen reference is 820.35; the value under the published figure is 820.26. The reference rests on a 2026 Louisiana standard deduction of $12,835, which policyengine-us computed from published CPI-U under R.S. 47:294(B) but which no Louisiana publication stated before the 2026-07-03 freeze; Louisiana's first 2026 return amount, $12,838, came in Revenue Information Bulletin 26-019 on 2026-09-28. Excluded under decision d994, which keeps the published-amounts convention for every other reference (reference_audit/2026-10-05-louisiana). Reference depends on law published after the reference freeze; output excluded from scoring (Louisiana Department of Revenue, Revenue Information Bulletin 26-019, dated 2026-09-28: Louisiana's 2026 standard deduction is $12,838 for single and separate filers and $25,676 for the other statuses, the first 2026 return amount Louisiana published)."
us,scenario_051,state_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,47,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"PolicyEngine takes the head's $43.28 traditional IRA contribution as an above-the-line deduction (AGI $504,778.56) without applying the IRC §219(g) active-participant phase-out ($129,000–$149,000 MAGI for 2026 MFJ). That phase-out removes the deduction entirely for a head who makes 401(k) elective deferrals and has about $504k of MAGI; without the deduction the value is $104,225.30.","The reference applies OBBBA's permanent 2026 parameters ($32,200 MFJ standard deduction; 24% bracket up to $403,550, then 32%) to taxable income of $472,578.56. Wages are reduced only by the $926.16 401(k) deferral and the $43.28 IRA deduction. Capital losses are capped at $3,000, and the $16,208 ESI premium is not subtracted. The engine then adds 15% tax on $848 of qualified dividends and 3.8% NIIT on $5,748 of net investment income, giving $103,865.78 + $127.20 + $218.42. Common gaps to the frozen reference involved assuming the TCJA sunset (personal exemptions and the old 28%/33% schedule), subtracting the ESI premium from wages, adding the Additional Medicare Tax to income tax, or differing from the reference's NIIT treatment; the exclusion record leaves whether this output includes NIIT unresolved. The closest answers ($104,225.30) differ only by disallowing the $43.28 IRA deduction. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated reference_engine_defect (taxable_income_or_deductions). The frozen reference is 104,211.41; the corrected value is 104,225.26. PolicyEngine deducts traditional IRA contributions without the active-participant phase-out. Reference is an engine defect; output excluded from scoring (26 U.S.C. 219(g); IRS Notice 2025-67 (2026 ranges))."
+us,scenario_052,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,49,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"PolicyEngine subtracts the $43.28 traditional IRA contribution above the line without applying the IRC §219(g) active-participant MAGI phaseout ($129,000–$149,000 for MFJ in 2026). The head's $926 traditional 401(k) deferral makes them an active participant, so at roughly $504,800 MAGI the deduction should be $0 and the tax $13.85 higher (about $104,225.26).","The reference taxes $471,730.56 of ordinary income under the 2026 MFJ brackets that OBBBA made permanent (32% from $403,550), after a $32,200 standard deduction. It adds 15% on $848 of qualified dividends and 3.8% NIIT on $5,748 (interest plus dividends minus the $3,000 allowable capital loss). AGI of $504,778.56 reflects the $926.16 401(k) exclusion, the $3,000 capital-loss limit and a $43.28 IRA deduction. Most wrong models assumed TCJA expired (personal exemptions, pre-TCJA rates), used old standard deductions, subtracted ESI premiums from wages, added the payroll-side Additional Medicare Tax, or left out or overstated NIIT; the closest answers ($104,225.30) differ only by disallowing the $43.28 IRA deduction. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated reference_engine_defect (taxable_income_or_deductions). The frozen reference is 104,211.41; the corrected value is 104,225.26. PolicyEngine deducts traditional IRA contributions without the active-participant phase-out. Reference is an engine defect; output excluded from scoring (26 U.S.C. 219(g); IRS Notice 2025-67 (2026 ranges))."
us,scenario_052,federal_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_052,head_medicare_eligible,1,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"Standard Medicare eligibility requires age 65 unless a separate qualifying pathway, such as disability or end-stage renal disease, applies. The head is 59 and all unlisted disability and health-status facts are false, so no Medicare eligibility pathway applies."
us,scenario_052,payroll_tax,32,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Only the head earns wages. The reference applies three components to the full $500,000: 6.2% Social Security on the 2026 wage base of $184,500 ($11,439), 1.45% Medicare on all $500,000 ($7,250), and 0.9% Additional Medicare Tax above the $250,000 married-filing-jointly threshold ($2,250), for $20,939. Two errors account for most misses. Some models used an outdated or guessed Social Security wage base, such as $168,600, $176,100 or about $180,000. Others shrank Medicare wages by subtracting the employer-sponsored insurance premium or the traditional 401(k) deferral, even though the facts never describe a cafeteria plan and 401(k) deferrals stay subject to FICA. Other models used the $200,000 single threshold, made arithmetic slips, or submitted numbers that did not match their own work."
us,scenario_052,spouse_medicare_eligible,1,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"Medicare eligibility requires age 65 or an applicable disability or other qualifying pathway. The 55-year-old spouse has no listed disability or other Medicare-qualifying status, so the spouse is not eligible."
-us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,36,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"This calculation uses 2026 law after OBBBA, which kept the TCJA structure permanently. AGI equals the full $66,968.68 in wages, with no subtraction for employer-plan premiums and no deduction for auto loan interest. The $16,100 single standard deduction leaves $50,868.68 of taxable income. The 2026 brackets (10% up to $12,400, 12% up to $50,400, 22% above) give $1,240 + $4,560 + $103.11 = $5,903.11, and no nonrefundable credits apply. The models went wrong in three main ways: they assumed the TCJA had expired (adding personal exemptions and 15%/25% brackets), they used 2024 or 2025 thresholds, or they subtracted the $3,389 in ESI premiums or the $950 of auto loan interest from income. Several models also worked out a number near the reference and then submitted a different one."
+us,scenario_053,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,38,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"AGI is the full $66,968.68 of wages. There are no above-the-line adjustments, and the $950 of auto loan interest gives no deduction. The 2026 OBBBA standard deduction of $16,100 leaves taxable income of $50,868.68. Under the permanent 2026 single brackets, tax is 10% up to $12,400 plus 12% up to $50,400 plus 22% on the last $468.68, which totals $5,903.11. No nonrefundable credits apply. The wrong answers come from four errors: assuming the TCJA expired, using stale 2023–2025 deductions or brackets, subtracting the ESI premiums or auto loan interest from income, or working out about $5,903 and then submitting a different number."
us,scenario_053,federal_refundable_credits,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"A single 25-year-old filer with no children and $66,969 of wages receives neither a refundable Child Tax Credit nor an Earned Income Tax Credit in 2026. With the other enumerated refundable-credit components also equal to zero, federal refundable credits total $0."
us,scenario_053,payroll_tax,10,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"PolicyEngine applies the employee FICA rates to the full $66,969 of gross wages: 6.2% Social Security ($4,152.06) plus 1.45% Medicare ($971.05) equals $5,123.10. The listed employer-sponsored insurance premium ($3,389) does not reduce the payroll-tax wage base. The household facts never say the premium is paid through a Section 125 cafeteria plan, and the prompt forbids inferring unlisted facts. Eight models subtracted the premium anyway and taxed $63,580, which gives $4,863.87. The two GPT-5.4 models used the correct base and rates but multiplied them out wrong."
us,scenario_053,self_employment_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,48,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The reference uses four Idaho-specific steps. First, Idaho subtracts the $5,000 of health insurance premiums the household pays, which brings Idaho AGI to $61,968.68. Next, the $16,100 conforming standard deduction leaves taxable income of $45,868.68. Idaho then taxes that income at its 2026 flat rate of 5.3%, but only above the roughly $4,811 single zero-rate bracket, which gives $2,176.06. Finally, it adds the $10 permanent building fund tax, for a total of $2,186.06. Most models multiplied a flat rate (often the outdated 5.695% or 5.8%) by $50,869 or by an AGI reduced for employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) premiums. They missed the zero bracket, the $5,000 Idaho health-insurance subtraction, or both. Even the closest model left out the $10 building fund tax."
-us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,40,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"Idaho's grocery credit is a refundable per-person income tax credit with no income limit or phase-out. For 2026, after the 2025 increase (HB 231), the amount is $155 for a resident under 65. This full-year, 25-year-old resident who received no SNAP qualifies for all 12 months, so state refundable credits equal $155. About half the models said $0, either calling the credit nonrefundable or inventing an income limit. Most of the rest knew it was refundable but used an older amount: $100, $120, or $150."
+us,scenario_053,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,50,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"The reference uses four Idaho-specific rules. First, Idaho subtracts the $5,000 of self-paid health insurance premiums from federal AGI ($66,968.68), which gives Idaho AGI of $61,968.68. Next comes the $16,100 standard deduction, leaving taxable income of $45,868.68. That income is taxed at 5.3% above the $4,811 single zero-rate bracket, giving $2,176.06. Finally, the $10 permanent building fund tax is added, for a total of $2,186.06. Most models stopped at 5.3% (or the old 5.695%/5.8% rate) on $50,869 with no zero bracket. Almost all skipped the Idaho health-premium subtraction, and only one added the $10 PBF tax, and that model subtracted it instead of adding it."
+us,scenario_053,state_refundable_credits,42,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"The whole $155 is Idaho's grocery credit, which is a refundable credit. It has no income phase-out, and PolicyEngine reports it in full in state_refundable_credits however much Idaho tax the filer owes. Idaho's 2025 legislation set the per-person amount at $155 for 2026. A full-year resident under 65 who received no SNAP in any month and was not incarcerated gets the full $155. Models that answered 0 either called the credit nonrefundable, said it only offsets tax, or applied a nonexistent income limit. Models that answered $120, $100 or $150 knew the credit applies but used an old or wrong per-person amount."
us,scenario_054,child1_chip_eligible,7,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"CHIP eligibility requires the child to be ineligible for Medicaid; satisfying a CHIP income ceiling alone is not sufficient. At this very low household income, the 10-year-old qualifies for Medicaid under North Carolina’s OLDER_CHILD category, and that Medicaid eligibility excludes the child from CHIP."
us,scenario_054,child1_medicaid_eligible,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Child 1 qualifies through the ordinary children's MAGI pathway: at age 10 he falls in the OLDER_CHILD category (ages 6–18), whose North Carolina income limit is 133% FPL plus the 5-percentage-point disregard, and NC folded its separate NC Health Choice tier into Medicaid so school-age children are covered under Medicaid rather than being pushed to CHIP. The household's only income is $17,100 of self-employment earnings, which after the deductible half of SE tax leaves MAGI at 0.58 × FPL for a family of three — a fraction of the applicable limit. Both models returned 0 without ever performing that categorical-plus-income test: one asserted an income failure that the arithmetic contradicts, the other treated unlisted household facts as missing prerequisites even though the prompt instructs that unlisted booleans are false and take-up is assumed."
us,scenario_054,child1_wic_eligible,2,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"WIC categorical eligibility covers pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding women, infants, and children under age five; it does not extend to nutritionally at-risk school-age children. Child 1 is age 10, so income eligibility and another household member’s WIC receipt cannot make Child 1 eligible."
@@ -458,41 +458,41 @@ us,scenario_054,child2_head_start_eligible,4,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"Pr
us,scenario_054,child2_medicaid_eligible,3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"A 2-year-old qualifies for Medicaid through the age-based YOUNG_CHILD MAGI category, whose North Carolina income standard for ages 1-5 exceeds 200% FPL; this household sits at 0.58 x FPL, so the income test is satisfied outright. The trap is that Medicaid, unlike CHIP, imposes no bar on children who already hold employer-sponsored insurance, and it requires no disability, SSI, or other special categorical status beyond age. All three wrong answers refused the category: one swapped in CHIP's other-coverage exclusion, one measured the child against an adult-level FPL cutoff, and one defaulted to 0 for want of an extra eligibility flag that the children's pathway never requires."
us,scenario_054,child2_wic_eligible,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"WIC eligibility for a child turns on two things only: falling in the child category (age 1 through the fifth birthday) and household income at or below 185% of the federal poverty guideline, with adjunctive eligibility through Medicaid, SNAP, or TANF as an independent qualifying path. This three-person North Carolina household has at most $17,100 of self-employment income against a 185% FPL limit near $49,000 for 2026, so the income screen is cleared with enormous margin, and the head's listed WIC receipt reflects a household already certified under that same screen. Both wrong answers denied a child who satisfies the age category and the income test — one by inventing an income ceiling the household never approaches, the other by treating an unlisted enrollment flag as dispositive of eligibility."
us,scenario_054,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,36,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"For a self-employed filer, earned income for both the EITC and the ACTC is SE profit minus the deduction for half of SE tax: $17,100 − ($17,100 × 0.9235 × 0.153 / 2 = $1,208.07) = $15,891.93. That amount is still in the two-child EITC phase-in, so the EITC is 40% × $15,891.93 = $6,356.77. Because regular tax is $0, the refundable CTC is 15% × ($15,891.93 − $2,500) = $2,008.79. The $2,500 floor was made permanent by OBBBA, and the result is below the $1,700-per-child cap. Most models went wrong in one of three ways: they used the wrong earned-income base (gross $17,100, the 92.35% net-earnings figure of $15,791.85, or a double-reduced $14,584); they used the expired $3,000 ACTC threshold or the $1,000-per-child CTC; or they dropped one of the two credits entirely."
+us,scenario_054,federal_refundable_credits,38,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"For self-employment, earned income for both the EITC and the refundable CTC is SE profit minus the deductible half of SE tax: $17,100 − $1,208.07 = $15,891.93. That puts the two-child EITC in its phase-in, so EITC = 40% × $15,891.93 = $6,356.77. The 2026 refundable CTC (under OBBBA: $2,500 threshold, $1,700-per-child cap, which doesn't bind here) is 15% × ($15,891.93 − $2,500) = $2,008.79, for a total of $8,365.56. The wrong answers mostly used the wrong earned-income base: gross $17,100, the 92.35% figure of $15,791.85, or both reductions stacked to get $14,584. Others used the expired pre-TCJA $3,000 threshold or the old $1,000-per-child CTC, or left out the EITC or ACTC entirely."
us,scenario_054,free_school_meals_eligible,2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The decisive step is the free-meal income test: $17,100 of self-employment income for a household of three is 63% of the federal poverty guideline, less than half the 130% ceiling for free meals, and the household is independently categorically eligible through SNAP ($524.80/month), which by itself confers free-meal status for the 10-year-old K-12 student. NC has no universal free school meal program, so the household qualifies through the standard free tier rather than a statewide waiver, and PolicyEngine values the benefit at $7.15/day for one enrolled child ($1,130.96/year). Both wrong models denied eligibility for a household at less than one-third of the free-meal income limit — one by asserting the income exceeded the threshold, the other by treating the absence of an explicit eligibility flag in the prompt as a negative."
us,scenario_054,head_medicaid_eligible,6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"The head is a 40-year-old living with two of their own children, which places them in the parent/caretaker-relative Medicaid category (medicaid_category = PARENT), a mandatory MAGI pathway that exists in every state independent of expansion status. Their only income is $17,100 of self-employment earnings, which after the deductible half of SE tax gives MAGI at 0.58 x FPL for a household of three — far below both the parent/caretaker limit and the 138% FPL adult limit North Carolina adopted when it implemented expansion on December 1, 2023 (S.L. 2023-7), in force for 2026. Every wrong model either declared the head a childless/non-categorical adult despite two listed children, or asserted NC is still a non-expansion state, and so answered 0 on a household that clears the income test by a wide margin on two independent pathways."
us,scenario_054,head_wic_eligible,17,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"WIC eligibility depends on a person's own category: pregnant, postpartum (up to 6 months after delivery), breastfeeding (up to 12 months), infant, or child under 5. Low income alone doesn't qualify anyone. The head is a 40-year-old adult with no pregnancy flag, and the youngest child is 2, so the postpartum and breastfeeding windows ended long ago. The head therefore fits no WIC category, and only Child 2 is eligible. The 'receives wic' fact is a receipt/take-up input and does not make anyone eligible. Every model treated that receipt flag, or the head's role as parent of a child under 5, as a pathway to eligibility."
us,scenario_054,payroll_tax,2,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Employee payroll tax applies to wages, not SSTB self-employment income; that income instead enters the separate self-employment-tax calculation. With no reported wages and all unlisted numeric inputs set to zero, every component of the requested employee-side payroll tax is zero."
us,scenario_054,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Reduced-price eligibility is mutually exclusive with the superior free-meals tier in this output. The household is in the FREE tier because it meets categorical eligibility through SNAP or TANF and its school-meal income is 63% of the federal poverty guideline, below the 130% free-meals threshold; therefore reduced-price support is zero."
us,scenario_054,self_employment_tax,7,llm_error,other,False,,"This is a plain SECA calculation. Net SE earnings are $17,100 × 0.9235 = $15,791.85, which is far below the Social Security wage base, so the full 15.3% applies: $15,791.85 × 0.153 = $2,416.15. Every model either picked the right method and then made an arithmetic or rounding slip, or worked out about $2,416 and then submitted some other number. Two models subtracted things that do not reduce SE tax at all, such as the deduction for half of SE tax, which only lowers income-tax AGI."
-us,scenario_054,snap,46,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The household gets $505 a month: the $785 FY2026 maximum allotment for three people, minus an expected contribution of $280. That contribution is 30% of $931 net income ($1,425 gross, less the $285 earned-income deduction and the $209 standard deduction), which is $279.30, rounded up to the next whole dollar. The models that came closest used the right inputs but subtracted the unrounded $279.30 (or rounded the benefit instead), getting $505.70 or $506. Most of the others used FY2025 or made-up values for the maximum allotment or standard deduction. Several applied a resource limit that NC's broad-based categorical eligibility (via TANF non-cash eligibility) removes, and a few subtracted SE tax or an assumed business-cost share, even though SNAP counts the full $17,100 when no expenses are listed."
+us,scenario_054,snap,48,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The reference counts the full $17,100 of self-employment income, so gross income is $1,425 a month. It subtracts the $285 earned income deduction (20%) and the $209 FY2026 standard deduction for three people, which leaves $931 of net income. The expected contribution is 30% of that, $279.30, rounded up to $280, and the FY2026 maximum allotment for three is $785, so the benefit is $505 a month, or $6,060 a year. NC's TANF non-cash categorical eligibility (BBCE) means the $14,000 bank balance does not disqualify the household. The wrong answers fall into three groups: models that applied an asset limit or wrongly failed the household on income and gave $0; models that used outdated or guessed maximum allotments and standard deductions ($766, $768, $781, $800, $816 and others); and models that had every parameter right but skipped the rule that rounds the 30% contribution up to a whole dollar, giving $505.70 a month ($6,068.40 a year) instead of $505."
us,scenario_054,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,4,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Two independent paths lead to $0 of North Carolina tax. First, the only income fact listed is the SSTB *component* input; total self-employment income is unlisted and therefore 0 under the prompt's ""treat any unlisted numeric input as 0"" rule, so the engine's trace shows essentially no income entering nc_income_tax. Second, even crediting the full $17,100 as net self-employment earnings, federal AGI is $17,100 − $1,208 (half of SE tax) = $15,892, and North Carolina's 2026 head-of-household standard deduction of $19,125 — the head has two qualifying children — exceeds that, driving NC taxable income to $0 and the 3.99% 2026 flat rate onto a zero base. Every wrong model produced a positive liability; two of them derived exactly $0 in their own reasoning and then submitted a different number anyway."
-us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,38,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The 2026 result follows OBBBA law. AGI is $156,275.86, with 85% of Social Security taxable. The filer takes the $18,150 standard deduction ($16,100 base plus $2,050 aged add-on). The $6,000 senior deduction phases down by 6% of MAGI above $75,000, leaving $1,123.45. The new §170(p) charitable deduction for non-itemizers adds $1,000 for a single filer. That leaves taxable income of $136,002.41, taxed at the OBBBA-reset brackets (10% to $12,400, 12% to $50,400, 22% to $105,700, then 24%). The closest models handled everything except the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction and came out exactly $240 high. A large group applied TCJA-sunset law (personal exemption, 15/25/28% brackets), which OBBBA repealed. Others left out the senior deduction, did not phase it out, or used inflation-projected parameters."
+us,scenario_055,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,40,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"AGI is $156,275.86, with Social Security at the 85% maximum ($4,880.71). Under OBBBA law for 2026, the filer gets a $16,100 basic standard deduction, a $2,050 aged add-on, a $6,000 senior deduction cut by 6% of MAGI above $75,000 (leaving $1,123.45), and the new $1,000 charitable deduction for people who don't itemize. Together these come to $20,273.45, which leaves $136,002.41 of taxable income. Tax on that amount under the 2026 brackets (12,400/50,400/105,700) is $25,238.58. The closest models ($25,479) left out only the $1,000 charitable deduction for non-itemizers. Many others assumed the TCJA expired after 2025 and used personal exemptions with the old 15/25/28% brackets, or they skipped the phased senior deduction or applied the full $6,000."
us,scenario_055,payroll_tax,5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The only FICA-taxable income here is the $83,635 of wages: the $67,760 taxable pension and $5,742 Social Security retirement benefit are outside the payroll tax base, the wage is far below the 2026 Social Security wage base, age 70 does not exempt wages from FICA, and Florida levies no mandatory employee state payroll tax. The answer is therefore exactly 6.2% × $83,635 = $5,185.37 plus 1.45% × $83,635 = $1,212.71, or $6,398.08. What separates the reference from the wrong answers is execution of that single multiplication at the employee-side rate: two models stated the right rule and then mis-multiplied or rounded, one submitted a number contradicting its own correct explanation, one used the combined 12.4%/2.9% employer-plus-employee rates before guessing, and one submitted a placeholder zero."
us,scenario_056,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The HSA deduction and other applicable adjustments reduce adjusted gross income to -$5,882.05, and taxable income remains zero after the standard deduction. With zero income tax before credits and no other included tax components, federal income tax before refundable credits is $0."
us,scenario_056,head_medicaid_eligible,12,llm_error,health_coverage,False,,"New Jersey’s ACA expansion covers this 20-year-old as a MAGI-based adult because the person satisfies the immigration rule and the engine’s MAGI income level is 0.00 times FPL. Employer-sponsored insurance does not disqualify an otherwise eligible adult from Medicaid; it affects other health-coverage calculations, including ACA premium assistance. The wrong answers either imposed that nonexistent ESI exclusion or replaced the Medicaid MAGI calculation with a sum of inputs that the engine does not count as MAGI in that manner."
us,scenario_056,head_wic_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_056,local_income_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_056,payroll_tax,1,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Employee payroll tax applies to wage earnings, and the household has no reported wages or salary. The listed SSTB self-employment income belongs in the separately requested self-employment-tax calculation, while alimony and financial assistance are not employee FICA wages."
-us,scenario_056,self_employment_tax,6,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Self-employment tax applies because $4,340 exceeds the $400 filing threshold. Multiplying the 92.35% net-earnings base by the combined 15.3% Social Security and Medicare rate yields $613.22; the threshold does not reduce the taxable base or eliminate liability."
-us,scenario_056,snap,47,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,,"The $1,140 annual amount is a frozen reference excluded from scoring because work hours and occupied-home mortgage status are unlisted. Its historical derivation assumed 40 weekly work hours and property-tax-only shelter costs, producing a $63.18 formula benefit raised to New Jersey's $95 monthly minimum. Mortgage payments including interest count as SNAP shelter costs if the household occupies the mortgaged home. Some $0 answers used the zero-hours ABAWD reading recognized by the developer decision. The sidecar's 2026-09-29 recheck reproduces $1,908/yr with 40 weekly hours and mortgage interest counted, and $95/yr under the engine's zero-hours and county defaults; later rechecks retain $95 while preserving the frozen $1,140 and exclusion. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (categorical_eligibility). The frozen reference is 1,140.00; the alternative is 0.00. The prompt lists no hours worked and says to treat unlisted numeric inputs as 0; the reference assumed 40 hours a week, which clears the SNAP work requirement for able-bodied adults without dependents. Under the zero-hours reading the time limit applies, which ends benefits after three countable months unless an exemption or area waiver applies; the alternative value is the engine's zero-hours result, not a certified entitlement. The prompt also lists home mortgage interest without saying the mortgaged home is the household's residence; if it is, SNAP counts the mortgage payment, interest included, as a shelter cost (7 CFR 273.9(d)(6)(ii)(A)), which is the reading under the alternative value. Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (weekly_hours_worked_before_lsr and whether the listed home mortgage interest is on the home the SNAP household occupies)."
+us,scenario_056,self_employment_tax,7,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"The calculation is $4,340 SSTB self-employment income × 92.35% = $4,007.99 in net SE earnings. That is above the $400 filing floor and well below the Social Security wage base, so the full 15.3% applies, giving $613.22. The models went wrong in three ways. Some dropped or misread the SE income and said it fell below the $400 threshold. Some applied roughly half the combined rate. One came within about $1 but rounded or computed loosely. The alimony, financial assistance, HSA deduction and itemized deductions do not change the SE tax base."
+us,scenario_056,snap,49,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,"The reference's $395.49 excess shelter deduction equals the $11,949 property taxes alone ($995.75/mo) minus half of the $1,200.53 adjusted income, so the engine left the listed $6,773 home mortgage interest out of SNAP shelter costs. 7 CFR 273.9(d)(6)(ii)(A) explicitly counts mortgage payments, including interest, as shelter costs. Counting the interest would hit the shelter cap and give about $169/mo (~$2,000/yr), not the $95 minimum.","The engine counts the $1,000/mo financial assistance, the alimony and the self-employment income, for $1,486.54 gross (112% FPL). It subtracts the $213.68 standard deduction and the $72.33 earned-income deduction, then builds shelter costs from the $11,949 property taxes only. That gives a $395.49 excess shelter deduction, $805.03 net income and a $63.18 formula benefit, which New Jersey's $95/mo state minimum benefit raises to $1,140/yr. Most $0 answers missed that this income-eligible one-person household gets a minimum allotment; others wrongly failed it on income, assets or ABAWD rules. The $276 answers used the federal $23 minimum instead of NJ's $95. The ~$1,700–$1,916 cluster added the $6,773 mortgage interest to shelter costs and took the capped deduction. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned reference_model_issue_fixed; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (categorical_eligibility). The frozen reference is 1,140.00; the alternative is 0.00. The prompt lists no hours worked and says to treat unlisted numeric inputs as 0; the reference assumed 40 hours a week, which clears the SNAP work requirement for able-bodied adults without dependents. Under the zero-hours reading the time limit applies, which ends benefits after three countable months unless an exemption or area waiver applies; the alternative value is the engine's zero-hours result, not a certified entitlement. The prompt also lists home mortgage interest without saying the mortgaged home is the household's residence; if it is, SNAP counts the mortgage payment, interest included, as a shelter cost (7 CFR 273.9(d)(6)(ii)(A)), which is the reading under the alternative value. Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (weekly_hours_worked_before_lsr and whether the listed home mortgage interest is on the home the SNAP household occupies)."
us,scenario_056,ssi,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_056,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"New Jersey's gross income tax exempts a single filer entirely when New Jersey gross income falls at or below the $10,000 minimum filing threshold, and this household's NJ gross income is $5,838.53 (alimony $1,498.53 plus self-employment $4,340.00; the $12,000 of financial assistance is not NJ gross income). PolicyEngine therefore computes the bracket tax as an intermediate figure — $4,838.53 of taxable income after the $1,000 regular exemption, times the 1.4% first-bracket rate, equals $67.74 — and then zeroes it out under the below-threshold exemption, leaving $0.00. Every wrong model stopped at the 1.4% bracket arithmetic and never applied the threshold exemption; three of them also mis-specified the NJ income and deduction base along the way."
-us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,48,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"The engine's $265.60 equals 40% of the full $664 2026 federal childless EITC maximum, not 40% of the $308.55 phased-in amount shown in its own trace. N.J.S.A. 54A:4-7 sets the credit for a childless filer aged 18–24 at 40% of the federal-formula credit, so it cannot exceed 7.65% × $4,033.39. The likely cause is a phase-out reduction computed on the negative AGI (−$5,882.05) that is not floored at zero, which pushes the credit up to the $664 cap.","The case turns on New Jersey extending its 40% EITC match to childless filers aged 18–24. NJ computes that credit as the federal-formula EITC the filer would get without the federal age-25 minimum. Most models applied the federal age test and returned $0. Models that applied the NJ age-18 rule computed 40% × 7.65% × $4,033.39 of net self-employment earnings = $123.42, while the engine's $265.60 equals 40% × the $664 2026 childless maximum, the amount its reduction step produced on the −$5,882.05 AGI. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned reference_engine_defect; adjudicated llm_error (credit_phaseout). New Jersey bases the earned income credit for filers 18 and older who fail only the federal age test on the federal maximum credit for filers without a qualifying child, and pays it as a flat yearly amount: 40% of the 2026 $664 maximum is $265.60. The judge's phase-in reading fails. Reference affirmed (N.J.S.A. 54A:4-7(a)(4); Rev. Proc. 2025-32)."
+us,scenario_056,state_refundable_credits,50,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,"PolicyEngine's NJ young-childless EITC branch pushes the federal-formula credit from its $308.55 phase-in amount up to the $664 2026 maximum childless credit, likely through an unfloored reduction on AGI of -$5,882.05 or by using the maximum instead of the phased-in amount, so the 40% match gives $265.60 instead of 40% × $308.55 = $123.42 under N.J.S.A. 54A:4-7.","The key rule is that New Jersey extends its refundable EITC to childless filers age 18 and older (N.J.S.A. 54A:4-7), so this 20-year-old qualifies even though the federal 25–64 age floor makes them ineligible for the federal EITC. Most models used the federal age floor, or an outdated NJ floor of 21, and answered $0. Earned income is $4,340 of self-employment income minus half of SE tax ($306.61), which is $4,033.39. At the 7.65% phase-in rate that gives a $308.55 federal-formula credit, and NJ's 40% match on that is $123.42. The engine's $265.60 equals exactly 40% of the $664 2026 maximum childless credit, an amount that needs earned income of at least $8,680. So even models that applied the NJ age rule correctly could not reach the reference value. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned reference_model_issue_fixed; adjudicated llm_error (credit_phaseout). New Jersey bases the earned income credit for filers 18 and older who fail only the federal age test on the federal maximum credit for filers without a qualifying child, and pays it as a flat yearly amount: 40% of the 2026 $664 maximum is $265.60. The judge's phase-in reading fails. Reference affirmed (N.J.S.A. 54A:4-7(a)(4); Rev. Proc. 2025-32)."
us,scenario_056,tanf,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"TANF is categorically limited to assistance units containing a dependent child: New Jersey's WorkFirst NJ/TANF requires a needy child under 18 (or 18 and a full-time secondary student) in the unit, and childless adults are served instead by WFNJ General Assistance, which is not TANF. This household is a single 20-year-old head with no children, so the benefit is $0 regardless of the income test. The second trap is that `financial_assistance` is an input income line in the household facts, not a computed program output; echoing it back as the TANF benefit both invents categorical eligibility and confuses an input with the requested computed value."
-us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,36,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The household's only refundable credit is the no-qualifying-child EITC, and it gets the full 2026 maximum of $664. The joint return passes the age test because one spouse, the head at 43, is between 25 and 64; only one spouse has to qualify. Earned income is about $9,665: $10,400 of self-employment income minus the deductible half of self-employment tax. That is above the 2026 phase-in ceiling of about $8,680 and well below the married-filing-jointly phase-out start of about $18,000, so the credit sits on the plateau. Models split two ways. Some denied the credit outright, citing the age test, treating self-employment income as non-earned, or claiming the household was in the phase-out. The rest found the plateau but used a stale or mis-indexed maximum ($649 for 2025, or $666–$667) or made arithmetic and phase-out errors."
+us,scenario_057,federal_refundable_credits,37,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The whole $664 is the no-qualifying-child EITC. Head's $10,400 of self-employment income, after the deduction for half of SE tax (about $9,665), counts as earned income. That is above the 2026 earned-income amount of about $8,680 and well below the joint-filer phase-out start of about $18,000, so the couple gets the full 2026 childless maximum of $664. For a joint return, the 25–64 age test needs only one spouse to qualify, and Head (43) does, so the 20-year-old spouse does not block the credit. Most wrong answers either used a stale or misindexed maximum ($620–$667), placed the couple in the phase-in or phase-out range by mistake, or wrongly denied eligibility over the spouse's age or over self-employment income not counting as earned income."
us,scenario_057,head_medicaid_eligible,4,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"The head is blind and disabled, with very low countable income ($10,400 of self-employment income, $14 of disability benefits) and only $912 in assets. That makes the head an SSI recipient, receiving about $7,231 a year. Louisiana gives automatic Medicaid to SSI recipients, so the engine puts the head in the SSI_RECIPIENT category. The head would also qualify under Louisiana's adult expansion, because household MAGI is only 0.45× FPL, far below the 138% limit. All four models missed the SSI pathway, and none of them checked the head's income against the expansion limit correctly."
us,scenario_057,head_medicare_eligible,10,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"Before 65, a person qualifies for Medicare only after 24 months of Social Security disability (SSDI) entitlement, or through the ESRD/ALS pathways. PolicyEngine checks this with months of Social Security disability receipt, and it does not use the is_disabled or is_blind flags. The head is 43. Their only disability income is $14 of generic ""disability benefits"", which is not Social Security disability. No months of SSDI receipt are listed, so that input is 0, and neither ESRD nor ALS is listed either. Every model treated disability status plus a nominal disability-benefit amount as enough for Medicare under 65. That skips both the SSDI-entitlement requirement and the 24-month waiting period."
us,scenario_057,local_income_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_057,self_employment_tax,7,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The whole case reduces to one canonical computation: net earnings from self-employment are 92.35% of the $10,400 SSTB profit ($9,604.40), and the combined OASDI/HI rate of 15.3% applies in full because $9,604.40 is far under the 2026 Social Security wage base, giving 0.153 × 9,604.40 = $1,469.47. The $400 figure in §1402(b) is the floor at which SE tax begins, not a ceiling below which it is waived, and no other floor exists; the one-half-of-SE-tax figure is an above-the-line deduction under §164(f), not the liability. The prompt further defines this output as SE tax excluding Additional Medicare Tax, and the 0.9% AMT threshold for joint filers is $250,000 of combined earnings, so nothing is added on top. Every wrong answer comes from inverting the $400 floor, inventing a different floor, truncating the 0.9235 base factor, reporting the deduction instead of the tax, or bolting on a nonexistent AMT."
-us,scenario_057,snap,48,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"PolicyEngine's SSI of $602.58/month equals the $994 individual FBR minus only the head's $391.42 countable income, so the disabled 20-year-old spouse was treated as SSI-ineligible; under 42 U.S.C. 1382(b)(2) and 20 CFR 416.412, a married couple who are both disabled, with $912 in resources, is an eligible couple at the $1,491 couple FBR, which gives SSI of about $1,098.58/month and SNAP of about $880/year.","PolicyEngine counts SSI of $602.58/month (the $994 individual FBR minus $391.42 of the head's countable self-employment earnings) as unearned SNAP income. Adding $866.67 of self-employment income and $3.17 of disability benefits gives gross income of $1,472.42. Subtracting the 20% earned-income deduction ($173.33) and the $209 standard deduction leaves net income of $1,090.08, so the benefit is $546 − $327 = $219 for January–September and $558.24 − $325.50 = $232.74 for October–December under FY2027 parameters, totaling $2,669.22. Most wrong answers either left out SSI (about $4,700–4,800), counted SSI at the roughly $1,099 eligible-couple rate (about $840), or wrongly denied eligibility outright. Developer adjudication (2026-09-05): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (age_disability). The output is removed from scoring for every model: its reference depends on an engine input the certified household data never carried and the prompt therefore never listed, and a careful reader could take the stated facts the other way. Recomputed with policyengine-us 1.755.4 (the version that produced the references) the reference moves from 2669.217041 to 883.617065 under the alternative reading. Neither reading is established by the facts; rows that matched the frozen value leave the score along with rows that did not. Judge diagnoses are retained as description; the class prompt_ambiguity records that the reference, not the model, is indeterminate here. Moves with the additional SSI counted as household income. The 2026-09-22 audit recomputes the alternative as 840.00 with every publication convention and upstream fix (the frozen-engine value above was 883.62). Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(A); 20 CFR 416.905)."
+us,scenario_057,snap,50,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,,"SNAP gross income includes the household's computed SSI. PolicyEngine pays SSI only to the head, at the individual rate: $994 minus countable income of $391.42 = $602.58/month. Gross income is therefore $866.67 SE + $602.58 SSI + $3.17 disability = $1,472.42. Subtracting the 20% earned-income deduction ($173.33) and the $209 standard deduction leaves net income of $1,090.08, so the benefit is $546 − $327 = $219/month for January–September and $232.74/month for October–December under FY2027 parameters, totaling $2,669.22. Most wrong models either left SSI out entirely and landed near $4,600–$4,800, or counted a couple-rate SSI of about $1,099/month and landed near $840. None of them switched to FY2027 parameters for the last quarter of calendar 2026. Developer adjudication (2026-09-05): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (age_disability). The output is removed from scoring for every model: its reference depends on an engine input the certified household data never carried and the prompt therefore never listed, and a careful reader could take the stated facts the other way. Recomputed with policyengine-us 1.755.4 (the version that produced the references) the reference moves from 2669.217041 to 883.617065 under the alternative reading. Neither reading is established by the facts; rows that matched the frozen value leave the score along with rows that did not. Judge diagnoses are retained as description; the class prompt_ambiguity records that the reference, not the model, is indeterminate here. Moves with the additional SSI counted as household income. The 2026-09-22 audit recomputes the alternative as 840.00 with every publication convention and upstream fix (the frozen-engine value above was 883.62). Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(A); 20 CFR 416.905)."
us,scenario_057,spouse_chip_eligible,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"CHIP requires the person to be outside Medicaid eligibility; a low income alone does not establish CHIP eligibility. The spouse is Medicaid-eligible in Louisiana's adult category, so the Medicaid exclusion makes `spouse_chip_eligible` false without applying a CHIP income threshold."
us,scenario_057,spouse_medicaid_eligible,3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Louisiana adopted the ACA adult expansion effective July 1, 2016, so any non-elderly adult aged 19–64 who is not otherwise eligible qualifies for Medicaid on income alone at or below 138% FPL under MAGI methodology — no pregnancy, parenthood, or disability category is required. The spouse is 20 with household MAGI at 0.45 x FPL (the only income is the head's $10,400 SSTB self-employment plus $38 of disability benefits, against a two-person 2026 FPL near $21,150 and a 138% cutoff near $29,200), placing the household roughly a third of the way to the expansion limit. Every wrong model either invented an income excess that does not exist or applied pre-ACA categorical gatekeeping that Louisiana abolished, and each therefore returned 0 where the ADULT expansion pathway returns eligible."
us,scenario_057,spouse_medicare_eligible,8,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"To be eligible for Medicare before age 65, a person must be entitled to Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and have received it for 24 months, or have ESRD or ALS. Being disabled is not enough on its own. The spouse is 20 and has only $24 of generic `disability_benefits`. That is private or other disability income, not SSDI. Months of SSDI receipt and ESRD/ALS status are not listed, so they default to 0/false. The spouse fails both the age-65 test and the disability pathway. Every model read ""is disabled"" plus a small disability-benefit amount as satisfying the disability pathway."
us,scenario_057,spouse_wic_eligible,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"WIC does not cover women merely because they are young, disabled, or income-eligible. A woman must be pregnant, breastfeeding, or postpartum; the spouse has none of these statuses, and the household has no infants or children under age five."
-us,scenario_057,ssi,48,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,,"The engine counts only the head (age 43, blind) as SSI aged/blind/disabled. It treats the 20-year-old spouse as an ineligible spouse, so the head is paid as an eligible individual at the 2026 individual FBR of $994/month, not the eligible-couple rate of about $1,491/month. The spouse's $24/yr of unearned income is too small to produce deemed income. The head's own countable income is $391.42/month: the $1.17/month disability benefit is absorbed by the $20 general exclusion, the remaining $18.83 and the $65 earned exclusion come off the $866.67/month of self-employment earnings, and the rest is halved. That gives $994 − $391.42 = $602.58/month, or $7,231/yr. Most models applied the couple FBR and got about $12,400–$13,600. The models that answered zero skipped the one-half earned-income exclusion, misread the resource or take-up facts, or gave no computation. Developer adjudication (2026-09-05): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (age_disability). The output is removed from scoring for every model: its reference depends on an engine input the certified household data never carried and the prompt therefore never listed, and a careful reader could take the stated facts the other way. Recomputed with policyengine-us 1.755.4 (the version that produced the references) the reference moves from 7231.001465 to 13182.999023 under the alternative reading. Neither reading is established by the facts; rows that matched the frozen value leave the score along with rows that did not. Judge diagnoses are retained as description; the class prompt_ambiguity records that the reference, not the model, is indeterminate here. An aged or blind member already receives SSI; the disabled 20-year-old would add a second federal benefit under the alternative reading. Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(A); 20 CFR 416.905)."
+us,scenario_057,ssi,50,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,,"The engine does not classify the 20-year-old spouse as SSI aged/blind/disabled, so this is an eligible individual (the blind and disabled head) with an ineligible spouse. The individual federal benefit rate of about $994/month applies, not the couple rate of about $1,491/month. The spouse's $2/month of unearned income is far below the deeming threshold, so only the head's income counts. The head's $1.17/month of disability benefits uses part of the $20 general exclusion, and the remaining $18.83 plus the $65 earned-income exclusion and the one-half disregard apply to $866.67/month of self-employment income. That leaves $391.42 of countable income, so SSI is $602.58/month, or $7,231/year. Most models instead treated the household as an eligible couple, pooled both spouses' income and used the couple rate (typically $13,183). Others zeroed the benefit by skipping the 50% earned-income disregard or by inventing disqualifying limits. Developer adjudication (2026-09-05): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (age_disability). The output is removed from scoring for every model: its reference depends on an engine input the certified household data never carried and the prompt therefore never listed, and a careful reader could take the stated facts the other way. Recomputed with policyengine-us 1.755.4 (the version that produced the references) the reference moves from 7231.001465 to 13182.999023 under the alternative reading. Neither reading is established by the facts; rows that matched the frozen value leave the score along with rows that did not. Judge diagnoses are retained as description; the class prompt_ambiguity records that the reference, not the model, is indeterminate here. An aged or blind member already receives SSI; the disabled 20-year-old would add a second federal benefit under the alternative reading. Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(A); 20 CFR 416.905)."
us,scenario_057,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"The trap is Louisiana's flat-tax reform, effective tax year 2025: Act 11 of the 2024 Third Extraordinary Session replaced the graduated 1.85/3.5/4.25% schedule and the $4,500-per-filer personal exemptions with a single 3% rate and a $25,000 standard deduction for married filing jointly (indexed from 2026), and Louisiana taxable income starts from federal AGI. This household's only taxable income is $10,400 of SSTB self-employment income, yielding federal AGI of about $9,665 after the deductible half of self-employment tax — far below the joint standard deduction — so Louisiana taxable income and tax are both zero. Both wrong answers subtracted $9,000, the repealed exemption figure, manufacturing a $665 taxable base that the current deduction fully absorbs."
-us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,35,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"This joint-filing couple with no children qualifies for the federal childless EITC. The head is 43, and on a joint return only one spouse has to be 25–64. The household's earned income is about $9,665 ($10,400 of self-employment income minus half of the roughly $1,469 SE tax). That is above the childless phase-in ceiling and below the joint-return phase-out start, so they get the full 2026 maximum of $664. Louisiana's refundable EITC is 5% of the federal EITC, or $33.20. Most models wrongly said Louisiana has no refundable EITC, or no income tax at all, or set the federal EITC to zero. The rest used the wrong year's federal maximum or the wrong state match rate."
+us,scenario_057,state_refundable_credits,36,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"This is a married-filing-jointly couple with no children. The head is 43, which is inside the 25–64 age window for the childless federal EITC, and on a joint return only one spouse has to meet that age test. EITC earned income is $10,400 of SE income minus half of SE tax (about $735), so roughly $9,665. That is above the 2026 childless phase-in end point, so the federal EITC is the 2026 maximum of $664. Louisiana pays a refundable state EITC of 5% of the federal EITC, which gives $33.20. Most models missed it in one of three ways: they said Louisiana has no refundable EITC or that it needs children, they set the federal EITC to zero, or they used the wrong year's federal maximum or the wrong Louisiana match rate."
us,scenario_059,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,13,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Provisional income is $25,600 + $18,552 = $44,152, only $152 above the $44,000 MFJ second-tier threshold. Taxable Social Security is therefore $6,000 + 0.85 × $152 = $6,129.20, which makes AGI $31,729.20. For 2026, OBBBA made the TCJA standard deduction permanent: $32,200 for MFJ plus $1,650 for each spouse aged 65+, for a total of $35,500. Each spouse also gets the new $6,000 senior deduction, adding $12,000. Total deductions of about $47,500 are far above AGI, so taxable income and tax are $0. Most models went wrong in one of two ways: they assumed the TCJA would sunset and used the pre-TCJA standard deduction plus personal exemptions (about $29–30.5k), or they overstated taxable Social Security by applying 85% to all benefits instead of using the tiered formula."
us,scenario_059,payroll_tax,1,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Employee payroll tax applies to wages and other covered earnings, not Social Security retirement benefits or taxable IRA distributions. With no wages or self-employment income listed, the employee payroll-tax base is zero and the resulting payroll tax is $0."
us,scenario_060,federal_refundable_credits,1,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"For 2026, the temporary 2021 removal of the upper age limit for the childless EITC has expired. A taxpayer without a qualifying child must be under age 65, so this 70-year-old receives no EITC and all other refundable credit components are also zero."
@@ -512,14 +512,14 @@ us,scenario_064,child1_medicaid_eligible,9,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"Th
us,scenario_064,child1_medicare_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_064,child1_wic_eligible,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"WIC eligibility requires both a categorical status and an income test, and this household fails both. Categorically, the ""child"" category covers children from their first birthday only until their fifth birthday; Child 1 is 12 and falls outside every WIC category (pregnant, postpartum, breastfeeding, infant, child under 5). Independently, the income test caps countable household income at 185% of the federal poverty guideline, and this household's roughly $98,810 of income for a 5-person unit is far above that ceiling. Both gates independently force is_wic_eligible = False."
us,scenario_064,dependent1_chip_eligible,2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,32,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,,"The engine places Dependent 1 (age 27, under 65) in the MAGI-based adult category and measures their Medicaid income level from their own income, which is zero. That gives 0.00 x FPL, well under the adult limit, so they are eligible. Almost every wrong model gave the 27-year-old the head's roughly $100k+ tax-unit MAGI, or applied an ABD/SSI-related asset test that does not apply to MAGI categories. None of them checked the adult category against Dependent 1's own zero income. Having employer-sponsored insurance also does not bar Medicaid eligibility. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (household_unit_or_filing_status). The frozen reference is 1.00; the alternative is 0.00. The prompt lists an adult 'Dependent' without saying whether that person is the claiming filers' child. If the dependent is their child, 42 CFR 435.603(f)(2) puts the dependent in the parents' Medicaid household, whose combined MAGI decides eligibility; the reference treats the dependent as a non-child whose household is their own (42 CFR 435.603(f)(2)(i), (f)(3)). Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (the relationship of an adult tax dependent to the filers who claim them)."
+us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,34,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,,"PolicyEngine measures Dependent 1's Medicaid MAGI income level at 0.00 × FPL because the 27-year-old has no income of their own. It places them in the ACA adult expansion category (MAGI-based, under 65), where 0% FPL is under the threshold, so they are eligible. Almost every model made the same mistake: it gave the head's roughly $100k+ tax-unit income to the dependent and concluded that income was over the limit. Several also added an aged/blind/disabled (ABD) asset test, but the MAGI adult category has no asset test and does not take employer-sponsored insurance into account. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (household_unit_or_filing_status). The frozen reference is 1.00; the alternative is 0.00. The prompt lists an adult 'Dependent' without saying whether that person is the claiming filers' child. If the dependent is their child, 42 CFR 435.603(f)(2) puts the dependent in the parents' Medicaid household, whose combined MAGI decides eligibility; the reference treats the dependent as a non-child whose household is their own (42 CFR 435.603(f)(2)(i), (f)(3)). Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (the relationship of an adult tax dependent to the filers who claim them)."
us,scenario_064,dependent1_medicare_eligible,6,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"A person under 65 qualifies for Medicare only after 24 months of entitlement to Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), or through end-stage renal disease (ESRD) or ALS. Having a disability flag alone does not qualify anyone. Dependent 1 is 27. The household lists no SSDI or other Social Security benefits and no months of SSDI receipt, and all unlisted numeric inputs are 0, so Dependent 1 has no path to Medicare. The five models that answered treated the ""is disabled"" flag as Medicare eligibility and skipped the SSDI-entitlement step. The sixth model gave no usable answer."
us,scenario_064,dependent1_wic_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_064,dependent2_chip_eligible,10,llm_error,health_coverage,False,,"Dependent 2 fails CHIP on two independent grounds. First, Dependent 2 is enrolled in employer-sponsored insurance, and CHIP excludes a child already covered by a group health plan. Second, household income is 321.5% of the federal poverty guideline, above Wisconsin's 306% CHIP limit. Every model that answered checked only the age-under-19 test and an income test it had underestimated (273-300% FPL), and none applied the rule that existing ESI coverage disqualifies the child. Dependent 2 is also not Medicaid-eligible, so no Medicaid pathway rescues the answer."
us,scenario_064,dependent2_medicaid_eligible,6,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,,"Dependent 2 is 18, so the only pathway open is the older-child MAGI category. It is income-tested against the five-person tax household's MAGI, which the engine puts at 3.22× FPL (322%). That is above Wisconsin's Medicaid limit for ages 6–18, above the roughly 306% BadgerCare/CHIP ceiling the models quoted, and above that ceiling plus the 5-point disregard (about 311%). No other pathway applies: there is no disability, pregnancy, caretaker status or SSI. Every model that answered Yes assumed or computed household MAGI below about 300–306% FPL and treated the CHIP ceiling as the Medicaid child limit. Its income measure fell short of the engine's 322%. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (household_unit_or_filing_status). The frozen reference is 0.00; the alternative is 1.00. The prompt lists an 18-year-old 'Dependent' separately from the household's children without saying whose child they are. Read as a non-child tax dependent, the dependent's Medicaid household is their own under 42 CFR 435.603(f)(2)(i), with $0 of MAGI; the reference places them in the claiming filers' household. Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (the relationship of an adult tax dependent to the filers who claim them)."
us,scenario_064,dependent2_medicare_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_064,dependent2_wic_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,45,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The correct path starts from AGI of $114,421. That figure comes from wages less the $2,315 traditional 401(k) deferral, plus the $19,350 partnership income (the $14,000 SE partnership amount is part of it, not extra income), plus the $20,000 distribution, less the $16,800 farm loss, the $3,000 capital-loss limit and the $108 IRA. From there it subtracts three 2026 OBBBA items: the $32,200 MFJ standard deduction, the $13,899 FLSA overtime-premium deduction, and a $510 QBI deduction (20% of the $2,550 net business income). That gives $67,812 of taxable income and $7,641 of tax, less the $2,200 CTC and two $500 other-dependent credits. Most models missed at least one of these: they left out the overtime deduction, applied the pre-TCJA sunset (personal exemptions, $1,000 CTC), counted the $14,000 SE partnership income twice, deducted the repealed DPAD or employer insurance premiums, or added an early-withdrawal penalty or SE tax that is not part of this output."
+us,scenario_064,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,47,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The correct 2026 computation follows the OBBBA rules, under which the TCJA structure is permanent. AGI is $114,421.41: wages net of the 401(k) deferral, plus $19,350 of partnership income (the $14,000 SE partnership amount is part of it, not extra income), plus the $20,000 distribution, less the $16,800 farm loss, the $3,000 capital-loss limit and the $108 IRA deduction. From that, subtract the $32,200 standard deduction, a $510 QBI deduction (20% of $2,550 net business income) and the $13,899.29 overtime-premium deduction. That gives $67,812.12 of taxable income and $7,641.46 of tax, and $3,200 of CTC/ODC brings it to $4,441.46. Most models went wrong in one of these ways: they left out the overtime deduction, applied the expired TCJA-sunset rules, counted the $14,000 SE partnership income twice, subtracted the repealed $1,796 domestic production deduction, or added items that aren't part of this output, such as SE tax or the 10% early-withdrawal penalty."
us,scenario_064,federal_refundable_credits,6,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The refundable child credit is a residual, not an automatic payment: the $2,000-per-child CTC first offsets federal income tax, and only the portion left unused is refundable, subject to the $1,700-per-child ceiling and 15% of earned income above $2,500. This MFJ household's ~$98,810 of income (wages $97,295, $20,000 of 401(k) distributions, $19,350 partnership income, against a farm loss and a $3,000-capped capital loss) produces federal income tax before refundable credits far above $2,000, so the single under-17 child's entire CTC is absorbed nonrefundably, and the 18- and 27-year-old dependents generate only the $500 nonrefundable other-dependent credit. EITC is zero because income is multiples of the MFJ one-child phaseout ceiling, and no refundable AOTC (no students), recovery rebate, or refundable payroll tax credit applies, leaving $0. Every wrong model reported either the full CTC or the $1,700 ACTC ceiling as if refundability were automatic rather than conditional on unused credit."
us,scenario_064,free_school_meals_eligible,2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The National School Lunch Program income test counts gross income by source — wages plus taxable retirement distributions — with no netting of farm losses, capital losses, or other tax-code offsets, and no deduction for premiums or medical expenses. PolicyEngine's countable income is $97,295 in wages plus $20,000 in taxable 401(k) distributions = $117,295 against an SPM-unit FPG of $38,680, a ratio of 3.03, far above the 130% free line ($50,284) and the 185% reduced-price line ($71,558). Wisconsin has no universal free meals and no SNAP/TANF categorical eligibility exists here, so the household lands in the PAID tier. The trap is importing tax-return netting (the -$16,800 farm loss and -$18,235 long-term capital loss) into a gross-income benefit test."
us,scenario_064,head_chip_eligible,2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
@@ -536,35 +536,39 @@ us,scenario_064,spouse_medicaid_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output
us,scenario_064,spouse_medicare_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_064,spouse_wic_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_064,ssi,19,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,,"Every substantive wrong answer assumes that Dependent 1's generic ""is disabled"" flag satisfies SSI's aged/blind/disabled requirement. In the engine, is_ssi_aged_blind_disabled is False for all five members: Head is 48, Spouse 47, Dependent 1 27, Dependent 2 18 and Child 1 12. Because no member passes that test, SSI is $0 before any income, resource, deeming or living-arrangement test applies. The models' later steps (the full federal benefit rate, the one-third or PMV reduction, the Wisconsin supplement, the parental-deeming analysis) all compute a benefit for a person the engine does not count as SSI-disabled. Developer adjudication (2026-09-05): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (age_disability). The output is removed from scoring for every model: its reference depends on an engine input the certified household data never carried and the prompt therefore never listed, and a careful reader could take the stated facts the other way. Recomputed with policyengine-us 1.755.4 (the version that produced the references) the reference moves from 0.0 to 11928.0 under the alternative reading. Neither reading is established by the facts; rows that matched the frozen value leave the score along with rows that did not. Judge diagnoses are retained as description; the class prompt_ambiguity records that the reference, not the model, is indeterminate here. Under the alternative reading nine of the twelve models that paid SSI land within 10% of the $11,928 federal benefit (five exactly); deepseek-v4-pro, deepseek-v4-pro-0813 and inkling also applied a one-third in-kind reduction the facts do not support."
-us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,47,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The correct path starts from Wisconsin AGI equal to federal AGI of $114,421.41. That is wages after the $2,315 401(k) deferral, plus the $20,000 401(k) distribution and $19,350 partnership income. The $14,000 self-employment partnership income is part of the $19,350, not added on top. From that come the $16,800 farm loss, a $3,000 capital loss and the $108 IRA deduction. There is no self-employment tax deduction, because the farm loss wipes out net self-employment earnings. Next it subtracts the $8,953.27 sliding-scale standard deduction and five $700 exemptions, giving taxable income of $101,968.14. That is taxed under the 2026 joint schedule, whose 4.4% bracket runs to roughly $69,000, for $4,599.62, with no nonrefundable credits. Most models went wrong in one of these ways: they added back $2,500 under a $500 capital-loss cap, double counted the self-employment partnership income, used the wrong standard deduction or number of exemptions, used old bracket widths or rates, or invented nonrefundable credits."
+us,scenario_064,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,49,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,"Wisconsin caps the net capital loss deduction at $500 a year (Wisconsin Schedule WD; DOR Publication 103). The engine instead treats Wisconsin's joint limit as $3,000 and adds back nothing. With the $2,500 add-back, Wisconsin AGI would be about $116,921, the sliding-scale deduction about $8,459, taxable income about $104,963 and tax about $4,758, not $4,599.62.","Wisconsin AGI equals federal AGI of $114,421. That is wages less the $2,315 traditional 401(k) deferral, plus $19,350 of partnership income and the $20,000 401(k) distribution, less the $16,800 farm loss, a $3,000 capital loss and the $108 IRA deduction. There is no SE-tax deduction because the farm loss more than wipes out the $14,000 of SE earnings, and the overtime premium is not excluded. The joint sliding-scale standard deduction phases down to $8,953 at that income, and five $700 exemptions come off income, leaving $101,968. That amount is taxed under the 2026 joint schedule, which includes the 4.4% bracket expanded by 2025 Act 15, and no nonrefundable credit applies. Models missed by mis-sizing the sliding deduction, dropping exemptions or treating them as tax credits, inventing itemized, school-property or married-couple credits, double-counting the SE partnership income, or using the older, narrower 4.4% bracket. Developer adjudication (2026-10-14): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated llm_error (state_local_rule). The judge flagged the reference on the hypothesis that Wisconsin limits the net capital loss deduction to $500, and labeled claude-opus-5.5's row reference_model_issue_fixed because it applied that limit. The $500 limit is Wis. Stat. 71.05(10)(c)1., which covers only taxable years beginning before January 1, 2023; for 2026, subd. 2. allows $3,000 on a joint return, the $3,000 the reference deducts, so Wisconsin adds nothing back and the reference's Wisconsin AGI of $114,421 stands. The rows are model errors. Reference affirmed (Wis. Stat. 71.05(10)(c)2. (for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2022, a net capital loss offsets ordinary income up to $3,000, or $1,500 for married persons filing separately); 2025 Wisconsin Schedule WD, line 28)."
us,scenario_064,state_refundable_credits,4,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"Wisconsin's refundable individual income tax credits are the Homestead Credit, the Wisconsin EITC, the Farmland Preservation Credit, and the Veterans and Surviving Spouses Property Tax Credit; this household qualifies for none, so wi_refundable_credits and therefore state_refundable_credits are $0. The WI EITC is a flat percentage of the federal EITC (4%/11%/34% by number of qualifying children), and the federal EITC is $0 at $97,295 of wages plus partnership and 401(k) distribution income, so the WI EITC is $0. The Homestead Credit is barred both by its household-income ceiling near $24,680 and by the absence of any rent or property tax paid (only a mortgage balance is listed), and the Farmland Preservation Credit requires a farmland preservation agreement or certified zoning, which is unlisted and therefore false. The trap is arriving at an exact $0 rather than assuming that a household with a farm loss and Wisconsin residency picks up some small residual refundable credit."
us,scenario_064,tanf,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_066,federal_refundable_credits,10,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,,"The childless EITC has no minimum earned-income floor. It phases in at 7.65% from the first dollar of earnings, and a 40-year-old single filer falls inside the 25–64 age window. With $520 of wages and no investment income, the credit is 0.0765 × $520 = $39.78, and the other refundable credits are all zero. Nine models wrongly assumed the EITC needs a minimum or ""substantial"" earned income, or that it depends on tax liability, so they answered $0. One model got $39.78 and then replaced it with a made-up $234 from a table lookup."
us,scenario_066,head_medicaid_eligible,10,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Virginia expanded Medicaid, so a 40-year-old non-disabled citizen qualifies in the ACA adult expansion category if MAGI is at or below 138% FPL. Here MAGI is the actual $520 of wages, about 0.03x FPL. Eligibility does not depend on current enrollment: the 'other means-tested health coverage at interview' flag does not disqualify the head. The MAGI adult category has no asset test, so the $14,000 bank balance is irrelevant. The hourly rate and weekly hours do not replace the stated annual wages. Most models said No because they treated current coverage as a bar, applied an asset limit, or annualized $32/hour × 40 hours into income the head never earned."
-us,scenario_066,snap,32,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"This one-person Virginia household is categorically eligible for SNAP through Virginia's broad-based categorical eligibility, which uses the TANF non-cash tests. That test does not disqualify $14,000 in bank assets, so the federal $3,000 resource limit never applies. Earned income is $43.33 a month, so after the standard and shelter deductions net income is $0 and the household receives the full one-person maximum allotment of $298 a month (the FY2026 contiguous-US figure), or $3,576 a year. Models failed in two main ways. Some applied the federal asset limit and gave $0. Others used a stale or guessed maximum allotment, such as $292 (the FY2025 figure), $291, $294, $297 or $300, instead of $298. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated llm_error (thresholds_rates). The frozen 3,596.04 is regenerated as 3,576.00: it applies the publication rule: SNAP October-December 2026 hold the FY2026 schedule (the SNAP uprating index behind the maximum allotments, deductions, shelter cap and utility allowances), the last USDA published before the 2026-07-03 reference freeze; USDA published FY2027 on 2026-08-21. The poverty guideline is the 2026 HHS guideline, published in January 2026. The engine's SNAP rounding defects are root causes r26, r27, r28 and r31, fixed upstream and applied with the convention. Reference regenerated (7 U.S.C. 2012(u), 2017(a); USDA FY2026 SNAP COLA memorandum (signed 2025-08-14))."
-us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,35,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"With $520 of wages and no children, the head gets a federal EITC in the phase-in range: 7.65% × $520 = $39.78. Virginia's refundable EITC pays a share of the federal EITC whether or not the filer owes any Virginia tax, and since tax year 2024 that share is 20%, not the older 15%. That gives 20% × $39.78 = $7.96. Most models wrongly said Virginia has no refundable EITC, that it had expired, or that the federal EITC was zero. The models that did find the credit used the outdated 15% rate and got $5.97–$6."
-us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,20,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,,"PolicyEngine puts dependent1, age 23, in Indiana's ACA adult expansion group with a MAGI income level of 0.00×FPL. The parents' $82,360 in wages and $4,942 in pension never enter dependent1's Medicaid income measure, and dependent1's own $10,800 in disability benefits are not MAGI income. So dependent1 is far below the 138% FPL limit and eligible. All 20 models fell into the same trap in some form. Most added the parents' roughly $87K–$98K to a 3-person ""household MAGI"" of about 317% FPL. A few applied SSI-style or parental income and asset tests that the ACA adult category does not use, or counted the disability benefits as income that fails the limit. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (household_unit_or_filing_status). The frozen reference is 1.00; the alternative is 0.00. The prompt lists an adult 'Dependent' without saying whether that person is the claiming filers' child. If the dependent is their child, 42 CFR 435.603(f)(2) puts the dependent in the parents' Medicaid household, whose combined MAGI decides eligibility; the reference treats the dependent as a non-child whose household is their own (42 CFR 435.603(f)(2)(i), (f)(3)). Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (the relationship of an adult tax dependent to the filers who claim them)."
-us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicare_eligible,11,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"Under age 65, PolicyEngine grants Medicare eligibility only for end-stage renal disease or for at least 24 months of Social Security Disability Insurance receipt. The `disability_benefits` input here is a generic disability-benefit income amount, not SSDI. ESRD status and months of SSDI receipt are not listed, so the prompt's default rule sets them to false and 0. A 23-year-old with a disabled flag and $10,800 of generic disability benefits therefore fails every Medicare pathway. Every model treated ""disabled + disability benefits"" as enough for disability-based Medicare, either equating the benefits with SSDI or assuming the 24-month waiting period was already met."
-us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,40,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The correct path uses 2026 law after OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent. AGI is $87,302 (wages plus taxable pension; the dependent's $10,800 disability benefits are left out), the MFJ standard deduction is $32,200, and taxable income is $55,102. Tax is 10% on the first $24,800 plus 12% on the remaining $30,302, or $6,116.24. Subtracting the $500 nonrefundable credit for other dependents for the 23-year-old disabled dependent gives $5,616.24. Most models missed at least one step: some applied the pre-TCJA rules (personal exemptions, 15% bracket), some used a 2025 or estimated standard deduction or bracket, some took the auto-loan-interest deduction even though no qualifying-vehicle facts were given, some added the dependent's disability benefits to taxable income, and some dropped or inflated the dependent credit."
+us,scenario_066,snap,33,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"This one-person Virginia household earns $520 a year, or $43.33 a month. That income is wiped out by the standard deduction, so net income is $0 and the benefit equals the full one-person maximum allotment of $298 a month, which totals $3,576 for the year. Models went wrong in two main ways. Eleven returned $0, mostly because they applied the regular SNAP asset limit to the $14,000 bank balance. They missed that Virginia's broad-based categorical eligibility, through a TANF-funded non-cash benefit, removes the asset test. Eighteen applied the right zero-net-income logic but used an outdated or guessed maximum allotment ($275–$300, most often $292 or $291) instead of $298. The rest made other errors: an invented income offset, an ABAWD time limit the household doesn't trigger because the head works 40 hours a week, or treating the annual wage as weekly. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated llm_error (thresholds_rates). The frozen 3,596.04 is regenerated as 3,576.00: it applies the publication rule: SNAP October-December 2026 hold the FY2026 schedule (the SNAP uprating index behind the maximum allotments, deductions, shelter cap and utility allowances), the last USDA published before the 2026-07-03 reference freeze; USDA published FY2027 on 2026-08-21. The poverty guideline is the 2026 HHS guideline, published in January 2026. The engine's SNAP rounding defects are root causes r26, r27, r28 and r31, fixed upstream and applied with the convention. Reference regenerated (7 U.S.C. 2012(u), 2017(a); USDA FY2026 SNAP COLA memorandum (signed 2025-08-14))."
+us,scenario_066,state_refundable_credits,37,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Virginia offers a refundable EITC equal to 20% of the federal EITC. It is paid even when Virginia tax liability is zero, and the prompt's take-up assumption means it is claimed. The head is a 40-year-old childless filer with $520 of wages, so the federal EITC is 7.65% × $520 = $39.78, and 20% of that is $7.96. Most models either said Virginia has no refundable credit, that the credit had expired, or that the federal EITC is zero. The rest found the credit but used the old 15% rate, which gives about $5.97–$6."
+us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,22,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,"PolicyEngine sets dependent1's Medicaid MAGI income level from the dependent's own income, which is 0.00x FPL, instead of using the household of the parents who claim them on a joint return. Under 42 CFR 435.603(f)(2) and (d), that household's income includes the parents' roughly $87,302 MAGI, about 3x FPL for a household of 3, so the dependent would be above Indiana's 138% FPL expansion limit.","The answers split on whose income sets dependent1's Medicaid MAGI level. All 22 models counted the parents' joint-return MAGI of about $87,302 (wages plus pension) toward the 23-year-old tax dependent, which put them at about 3x FPL and ruled out expansion coverage. PolicyEngine puts dependent1's MAGI income level at 0.00x FPL because it does not count the $10,800 disability benefits or the parents' income. That places dependent1 in Indiana's ACA expansion adult category, which has a 138% FPL limit and no resource test. A few models made separate mistakes: some said $10,800 alone was over the single-adult limit, and some looked only at SSI-linked or asset-tested pathways. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned reference_engine_defect; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (household_unit_or_filing_status). The frozen reference is 1.00; the alternative is 0.00. The prompt lists an adult 'Dependent' without saying whether that person is the claiming filers' child. If the dependent is their child, 42 CFR 435.603(f)(2) puts the dependent in the parents' Medicaid household, whose combined MAGI decides eligibility; the reference treats the dependent as a non-child whose household is their own (42 CFR 435.603(f)(2)(i), (f)(3)). Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (the relationship of an adult tax dependent to the filers who claim them)."
+us,scenario_067,dependent1_medicare_eligible,12,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"For anyone under 65, Medicare's disability pathway requires at least 24 months of entitlement to Social Security disability benefits (SSDI), or end-stage renal disease or ALS. Disability status by itself does not qualify a person. PolicyEngine checks age ≥ 65, then months receiving Social Security disability against the 24-month minimum, then ESRD. Dependent 1 is 23. Their 'disability benefits' input is a generic disability-benefit income line, not Social Security disability. Their months of SSDI receipt are not listed, so they count as 0, and ESRD is not listed, so it is false. Every model treated 'is disabled + receives disability benefits' as enough for Medicare. In doing so, each one assumed unlisted SSDI receipt or a satisfied waiting period, which the prompt explicitly says not to infer."
+us,scenario_067,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,42,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The reference uses current law, under which OBBBA made the TCJA structure permanent. AGI is $87,302 (wages plus pension). The dependent's own $10,800 of disability benefits is not on the parents' return. The 2026 MFJ standard deduction of $32,200 is larger than itemizing, because no mortgage interest is listed and net medical is only about $16,621. That leaves taxable income of $55,102, taxed at 10% up to $24,800 and 12% above it, for $6,116.24. The household then gets a $500 nonrefundable Credit for Other Dependents for the permanently disabled 23-year-old qualifying child, giving $5,616.24. The models went wrong in three main ways: using stale standard deduction or bracket figures (2024/2025 values, or a TCJA-sunset regime with personal exemptions and a 15% bracket); deducting the listed auto loan interest, which no fact makes qualified vehicle loan interest; and either dropping the $500 ODC or adding the dependent's benefits to the parents' income."
us,scenario_067,federal_refundable_credits,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"The 23-year-old disabled household member does not generate a refundable Child Tax Credit because the CTC requires a qualifying child under age 17. With no CTC-qualifying child and no eligibility for the other refundable credit components, federal refundable credits equal $0."
us,scenario_067,head_medicare_eligible,1,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"Ordinary age-based Medicare eligibility begins at age 65, and the 60-year-old head is below that threshold. No qualifying disability-based Medicare pathway or other exception is supplied, so the head is not Medicare eligible."
-us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,48,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,,"The prompt defines local_income_tax by listing only NYC income tax, Philadelphia wage tax, Kansas City earnings tax and St. Louis earnings tax. It also gives no Indiana county. Read as a closed list, that wording excludes Indiana's county income tax. PolicyEngine's local_income_tax, however, includes the Indiana county tax, and with no county given it uses Adams County at 1.6%: Indiana AGI is $87,302 minus $3,000 of exemptions for three people, or $84,302, and 1.6% of that is $1,348.83. Almost every model took the closed-list reading and answered $0. Three of them also wrongly said Indiana has no local income tax at all. One model applied a county tax but at the wrong rate. Developer adjudication (2026-10-10): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned prompt_ambiguity; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (state_local_rule). The prompt places the household in Indiana but states no county. Every Indiana county levies its own local income tax (IC 6-3.6), at rates that differ by county. policyengine-us 2.15.17 left county income tax out of local_income_tax, so the frozen reference was $0.00. From policyengine-us 2.23.1 (PolicyEngine/policyengine-us#9694, which standardized local income tax) the engine counts Indiana county income tax in local_income_tax, at the rate of the county it assigns a household with no stated county. The reference therefore depends on the household's county, which the prompt does not state. Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (county of residence (Indiana county income tax))."
+us,scenario_067,local_income_tax,50,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,,"The prompt describes local_income_tax as covering 'NYC income tax, Philadelphia wage tax, Kansas City earnings tax, and St. Louis earnings tax where applicable.' Almost every model read that list as complete. PolicyEngine's local_income_tax also includes Indiana county income tax. It applied a default county (Adams, 1.6%) to Indiana AGI of $84,302, which is $87,302 federal AGI minus $1,000 per person in exemptions, giving $1,348.83. The prompt supports two readings: the four cities are the only taxes counted, or they are examples and any local income tax 'where applicable' counts. On top of that, the prompt never names a county, so even a model that counts Indiana county tax has no stated rate to apply. Developer adjudication (2026-10-10): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned prompt_ambiguity; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (state_local_rule). The prompt places the household in Indiana but states no county. Every Indiana county levies its own local income tax (IC 6-3.6), at rates that differ by county. policyengine-us 2.15.17 left county income tax out of local_income_tax, so the frozen reference was $0.00. From policyengine-us 2.23.1 (PolicyEngine/policyengine-us#9694, which standardized local income tax) the engine counts Indiana county income tax in local_income_tax, at the rate of the county it assigns a household with no stated county. The reference therefore depends on the household's county, which the prompt does not state. Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (county of residence (Indiana county income tax))."
us,scenario_067,payroll_tax,6,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"The head is the only person with wages. Their $82,360 is taxed at 6.2% for Social Security ($5,106.32) and 1.45% for Medicare ($1,194.22), for $6,300.54 total. Those wages are below the 2026 Social Security wage base and the $250,000 Additional Medicare Tax threshold, and Indiana has no employee state payroll tax. The spouse has no listed wages, so the spouse's wages are $0, and neither the pension nor the disability benefits are FICA wages. The models went wrong by adding wages for the spouse, putting non-wage income into the tax base, or making rounding and arithmetic errors in the simple 7.65% calculation."
us,scenario_067,self_employment_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_067,ssi,18,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,"The question explicitly lists Dependent 1 as ""is disabled"" with no earnings, which satisfies the disability criterion in 42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3). The trace still says no member is ""flagged as blind or disabled in the engine's inputs"" and returns is_ssi_aged_blind_disabled=False. This points to the benchmark's disability flag never reaching the engine's SSI disability input (is_ssi_disabled), so SSI fell to $0 instead of ($994 − $880) × 12 = $1,368.","The deciding step is SSI's aged/blind/disabled test. The engine evaluates every member with is_ssi_aged_blind_disabled=False: the head is 60, the spouse is 58, and Dependent 1 is not SSI-disabled under the engine's inputs. So SSI is $0 no matter what the income is. Every model instead took the prompt's 'is disabled' flag as proof that Dependent 1 meets the SSI disability test, then ran the benefit formula against $900/month of disability income. Twelve models arrived at ($994 − $880) × 12 = $1,368. The rest also misstated the federal benefit rate or the general income exclusion. Developer adjudication (2026-09-05): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned reference_data_issue_fixed; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (age_disability). The output is removed from scoring for every model: its reference depends on an engine input the certified household data never carried and the prompt therefore never listed, and a careful reader could take the stated facts the other way. Recomputed with policyengine-us 1.755.4 (the version that produced the references) the reference moves from 0.0 to 1368.0 under the alternative reading. Neither reading is established by the facts; rows that matched the frozen value leave the score along with rows that did not. Judge diagnoses are retained as description; the class prompt_ambiguity records that the reference, not the model, is indeterminate here. Under the alternative reading 14 of the 17 models on the 46-model board that paid SSI land within 10% of $1,368 (11 exactly; nine of twelve, six exactly, when the output was excluded on 2026-09-05); glm-5.2, grok-build-0.1 and minimax-m3 used wrong rates or annualised the monthly exclusion. Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(A); 20 CFR 416.905)."
us,scenario_067,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,39,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"Indiana starts from federal AGI of $87,302 (wages plus taxable pension; the dependent's disability benefits are not in the filers' AGI). It allows only three $1,000 personal exemptions, for the head, spouse and the 23-year-old dependent, totaling $3,000. Indiana has no standard deduction and no extra exemption for a disabled dependent. The $1,500 additional dependent-child exemption applies only to a child under 19 or a full-time student under 24, so this dependent does not get it. That leaves $84,302, taxed at the 2026 statutory flat rate of 2.95%, for $2,486.91. Most models used an outdated or future rate (3.05%, 3.0%, 2.9% or 2.75%), invented a $1,500 disabled-dependent or qualifying-child exemption, or added deductions Indiana does not allow."
us,scenario_067,state_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,36,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"PolicyEngine sets AGI equal to wages of $34,083.53. The $73,000 of educational assistance is not included in income, and the ESI premiums are not subtracted from the stated gross wages. It then applies the 2026 OBBBA single standard deduction of $16,100, which leaves $17,983.53 of taxable income. Under the 2026 brackets, that is 10% on the first $12,400 plus 12% on the remaining $5,583.53, or $1,910.02, with no nonrefundable credits. Most models missed for one of three reasons: they added the educational assistance above the §127 $5,250 cap to wages; they applied pre-TCJA sunset rules (personal exemption and 15% bracket) or 2024/2025 parameters; or they netted the EITC or made-up credits against the tax."
+us,scenario_068,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,37,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The reference uses wages of $34,083.53 as AGI. The $73,000 of educational assistance is excluded entirely, and the ESI premiums are not subtracted from the listed gross wages. It then subtracts the 2026 OBBBA single standard deduction of $16,100, leaving taxable income of $17,983.53. Tax is 10% of the first $12,400 plus 12% of the remaining $5,583.53, which gives $1,910.02, with no nonrefundable credits. The wrong answers fall into three groups. Some models put part or all of the educational assistance into income. Some used TCJA-sunset rules or 2024/2025 standard deductions and brackets instead of the permanent 2026 amounts. Others subtracted the refundable EITC, or credits the filer doesn't have, from a tax line measured before refundable credits."
us,scenario_068,federal_refundable_credits,4,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,,"The decisive rule is the 2026 EITC income limit for a single filer with no qualifying children. At $34,084 of wages, the head is above the childless EITC phaseout endpoint, and the household has no qualifying child or other facts generating any refundable federal credit, so every component is zero."
us,scenario_068,head_medicaid_eligible,1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"Maryland Medicaid eligibility for this 31-year-old requires qualification through a specific MAGI or non-MAGI category. The head's MAGI income is 2.14 times FPL, above the applicable adult MAGI limit, and the head qualifies through no non-MAGI pathway, so the eligibility output is 0."
us,scenario_068,payroll_tax,14,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"PolicyEngine's payroll_tax here is simply the employee FICA pair on the head's $34,084 of employment income: 6.2% Social Security ($2,113.18) plus 1.45% Medicare ($494.21), with the small cent-level offset from the engine's float32 wage representation. The trap has three parts: the FICA wage base is gross wages with no reduction for the $8,389 employer-sponsored insurance premium (PolicyEngine applies payroll tax to employment_income, not to a section 125 net-of-premium wage), the $73,000 educational assistance is student financial assistance rather than employment compensation and never enters the FICA base, and Maryland imposes no mandatory employee payroll contribution in 2026 — the FAMLI employee contribution is not in effect and is not part of this output. Every wrong answer comes from adding one of those three phantom adjustments, or from arithmetic that contradicts the model's own stated components."
-us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,43,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Maryland's 2025 reform replaced the old 15%-of-AGI standard deduction, with its roughly $1,800–$2,700 cap, with a flat $3,350 deduction for single filers. Maryland AGI here is just the wages ($34,083.53). It is not reduced by employer-sponsored insurance premiums, and none of the $73,000 educational assistance is added. That gives taxable income of $34,083.53 − $3,350 − $3,200 = $27,533.53 and tax of $90 + 4.75% × $24,533.53 = $1,255.34. Most models still used the old capped deduction (about $2,350–$2,900) and landed at about $1,276–$1,303. Others put some or all of the educational assistance into AGI ($4,100–$5,600), subtracted the ESI premiums (about $895–$900), or claimed the tax was zero."
+us,scenario_068,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,45,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"Maryland AGI is just the $34,083.53 of wages. Educational assistance is not added to income, and the employer insurance premiums are not subtracted from the listed gross wages. Maryland's 2025 law replaced the old standard deduction (15% of AGI, capped at about $2,350–$2,850) with a flat $3,350 for single filers. That leaves $27,533.53 taxable after the $3,200 exemption, taxed at $90 + 4.75% × $24,533.53 = $1,255.34. Most models used the old capped deduction. Others added $67,750–$73,000 of educational assistance to income, subtracted the $8,389 of premiums from wages, added county tax, or wrongly zeroed out the tax."
us,scenario_068,state_refundable_credits,2,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,,"Maryland’s refundable EITC is tied to federal EITC eligibility, and a single 31-year-old filer with no qualifying children and $34,084 of wages is above the childless EITC phaseout ceiling. The federal EITC is therefore zero, producing no Maryland refundable EITC or other applicable refundable Maryland credit."
-us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,39,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,,"To get the reference, start with AGI of $36,270: $38,000 wages minus the $1,485 traditional 401(k), plus $100 interest, minus $69 traditional IRA and $276 student loan interest. Subtract the 2026 single standard deduction of $16,100 (post-OBBBA, with no personal exemption) to get taxable income of about $20,170. Tax at 10% up to $12,400 and 12% above gives $2,172.36. Then subtract a 10%-rate Saver's Credit of $192.40, figured on $1,924 of contributions that include the Roth 401(k) and Roth IRA, to reach $1,979.96. The wrong answers split into three groups: models that left out the Saver's Credit, models that got its rate or contribution base wrong, and models that used the wrong 2026 parameters (stale or projected standard deduction and brackets, or TCJA-sunset rules with personal exemptions and a 15% bracket)."
+us,scenario_070,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,40,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,,"The correct path runs as follows. AGI is $36,270: wages minus the traditional 401(k), plus interest, minus the traditional IRA and student loan interest. Subtracting the 2026 single standard deduction of $16,100 (OBBBA, no personal exemption) leaves taxable income of about $20,170. Tax at 10% up to $12,400 and 12% above that is $2,172.36. The Saver's Credit then applies at the 10% rate, because AGI falls in the single 10% tier. It is 10% of $1,924, which counts traditional and Roth 401(k)/IRA contributions and is under the $2,000 cap, so $192.40, leaving $1,979.96. The models split into a few error groups:
+- Several dropped the Saver's Credit entirely.
+- Several used TCJA-sunset law (personal exemption, 15% bracket) or pre-OBBBA/2025 standard deductions and bracket edges.
+- Some used the wrong credit rate (50%) or a wrong contribution base (traditional only).
+- A few invented credits that wiped out the whole liability."
us,scenario_070,federal_refundable_credits,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"The refundable Child Tax Credit requires at least one qualifying child; this household contains only a single 57-year-old adult. With no qualifying child and income above the childless EITC phaseout range, every refundable federal credit component is zero."
us,scenario_070,head_medicaid_eligible,1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"Illinois’s ACA adult Medicaid pathway requires income no greater than 138% FPL, while the head’s MAGI income is 2.27 times FPL. The head also qualifies through no non-MAGI pathway, so the Medicaid category is NONE and eligibility is No."
us,scenario_070,payroll_tax,5,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Employee Social Security and Medicare taxes apply to the full $38,000 of wages because the prompt lists $300 of health insurance premiums but never identifies them as a pre-tax cafeteria-plan deduction from FICA wages. The correct computation is $38,000 × 6.2% = $2,356 plus $38,000 × 1.45% = $551, totaling $2,907; the Additional Medicare Tax and Illinois employee payroll taxes are zero."
-us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,37,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"Illinois tax here is the flat 4.95% rate applied to federal AGI (about $36,270: wages less the traditional 401(k), plus interest, less the IRA and student loan interest deductions) minus one inflation-indexed personal exemption. That exemption is $2,925 for tax year 2026. Most models used an older exemption amount: $2,850 (2025), $2,775 (2024), or $2,425/$2,450 (2023 or earlier), so they overstated taxable income by $75 to $500. Other models invented an Illinois standard deduction, a renter's credit, or retirement subtractions. Some treated the exemption as a dollar-for-dollar credit, or changed AGI by subtracting health premiums or leaving out student loan interest."
+us,scenario_070,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,38,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The Illinois calculation is simple. Base income is federal AGI of about $36,270 (wages minus the traditional 401(k), plus interest, minus the traditional IRA and student loan interest deductions). Subtract one inflation-indexed 2026 personal exemption of $2,925 and apply the flat 4.95% rate. There are no nonrefundable credits for this renter. Most models got the base right but used an older exemption amount: $2,850 (2025), $2,775 (2024) or $2,425 (2023). Others made structural errors: inventing a standard deduction, treating the exemption as a credit, adding back above-the-line deductions, excluding the health premium from AGI, or claiming a renter's credit."
us,scenario_070,state_refundable_credits,1,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,,"Illinois's Earned Income Credit is calculated as a percentage of the federal EITC, so expanding the eligible age range does not create a credit when the federal EITC amount is zero. At this childless filer's income, the federal EITC has fully phased out, making the Illinois refundable credit zero."
us,scenario_071,head_medicaid_eligible,8,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Age 76 does not itself establish Medicaid eligibility, and this person qualifies through none of the Medicaid pathways represented by the engine. Their MAGI income is 2.28 times FPL, they receive no SSI, and the engine assigns medicaid_category = NONE; Medicare eligibility, housing assistance, and the mere availability of aged or spend-down programs do not create Medicaid eligibility."
us,scenario_071,payroll_tax,1,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Payroll tax applies to listed wages and other covered earnings, not to work hours by themselves. The household has no listed wage or self-employment income, so the employee Social Security, Medicare, Additional Medicare, and mandatory state payroll tax bases are all zero, yielding payroll_tax of $0."
@@ -573,15 +577,15 @@ us,scenario_072,head_medicare_eligible,1,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"Standa
us,scenario_072,payroll_tax,3,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Employee Medicare tax applies at 1.45% from the first dollar of covered wages; the high-income threshold applies only to the 0.9% Additional Medicare Tax. On $20,000 of wages, employee Social Security tax is $1,240 and regular Medicare tax is $290, totaling $1,530 with no rounding adjustment."
us,scenario_072,snap,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"The household's SNAP gross income is $73,974: $20,000 in wages, $34,608 in Social Security, $19,200 in veterans benefits and $166 in dividends and interest. That is far above the gross income limit for a two-person household in Michigan in 2026, so PolicyEngine finds the household ineligible and the benefit is $0. The model applied no gross income test at all. It went straight to a net-income calculation, used a medical deduction that wiped out almost all of the income, and so produced a positive benefit."
us,scenario_072,spouse_medicare_eligible,1,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"Standard Medicare eligibility applies at age 65. The spouse is age 77 in 2026, so the age-based pathway yields Medicare eligibility without any separately listed enrollment or eligibility flag."
-us,scenario_072,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,17,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"The head is 80 and the spouse is 77 in 2026, so they were born in 1946 and 1949. Both fall in Michigan's Tier 2 birth cohort (1946-1952) and are past age 67. That qualifies the couple for the Michigan standard deduction of $40,000 on a joint return, which applies against all income, wages included. Their only Michigan-taxable income is $20,000 of wages plus $166 of interest and dividends; Social Security is subtracted and veterans benefits are exempt. The $40,000 deduction wipes out that $20,166 entirely, so tax before refundable credits is $0. Every wrong model left a positive base: most subtracted only the ordinary personal exemptions, one used the wrong birth cohort, and one found the $40,000 deduction but shrank it by Social Security benefits."
+us,scenario_072,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,18,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"Both spouses fall in Michigan's Tier 2 birth cohort (head born 1946, spouse born 1949) and both are past age 67. That makes them eligible for the Michigan standard deduction of $20,000 per person, or $40,000 on a joint return, and it applies against all income, wages included. Social Security is subtracted separately, and veterans benefits are exempt. That leaves Michigan income of about $20,166 (wages, interest and dividends), which the $40,000 deduction wipes out, so Michigan taxable income and tax are $0. Almost every model applied only the regular personal exemptions, and sometimes the special senior exemption, to that $20,166, so each ended up with a small positive tax."
us,scenario_073,head_medicaid_eligible,8,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Medicaid MAGI (42 CFR 435.603(e), which follows IRC 36B(d)(2)(B)) adds the untaxed portion of Social Security benefits back into income. That means the full $22,646 of SSDI counts, on top of the $3,108 pension. The head has no wages, so the traditional 401(k) and IRA contributions reduce nothing. MAGI is about $25,754, or 1.60 times FPL, which is above Michigan's 138% FPL limit for the adult expansion group. No other category applies: the head is 57, gets no SSI, is not pregnant, has no dependent children and has no disability flag, so the engine assigns medicaid_category NONE. Six models wrongly left untaxed SSDI out of MAGI or simply called the income 'low'. One subtracted 401(k) deferrals the head cannot make without wages. One treated SSDI receipt on its own as a disability route into Medicaid."
-us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,19,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,,"The head is 57, so they miss the age-65 Medicare test. Under 65, Medicare eligibility requires at least 24 months of SSDI receipt (or ESRD). In PolicyEngine this is a separate months-of-SSDI-receipt input, and here it is unlisted, so it is 0 under the prompt's rule that unlisted numeric inputs are zero and unlisted status facts are false. Every model read the $22,646 SSDI amount as proof that the 24-month waiting period was met. Even the full-year constant-status framing only shows 12 months of receipt, which is under 24, and no ESRD is listed, so the head is not Medicare eligible. Developer adjudication (2026-09-05): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (age_disability). The output is removed from scoring for every model: its reference depends on an engine input the certified household data never carried and the prompt therefore never listed, and a careful reader could take the stated facts the other way. Recomputed with policyengine-us 1.755.4 (the version that produced the references) the reference moves from 0.0 to 1.0 under the alternative reading. Neither reading is established by the facts; rows that matched the frozen value leave the score along with rows that did not. Judge diagnoses are retained as description; the class prompt_ambiguity records that the reference, not the model, is indeterminate here. In law the under-65 route needs 24 months of SSDI entitlement; a year-round recipient has at least 12. The facts do not settle it."
+us,scenario_073,head_medicare_eligible,20,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,,"The head is 57, so the only route to Medicare is the disability pathway. That pathway needs 24 months of SSDI entitlement (or ESRD/ALS). PolicyEngine gates it on a separate count of months receiving SSDI, and the prompt says unlisted numeric inputs are 0 and unlisted statuses are false. With months of SSDI receipt at 0 and no disability or ESRD flag set, is_medicare_eligible is False. Every model treated the SSDI dollar amount alone as proof of Medicare eligibility, assuming or ignoring the 24-month waiting period instead of using the default of 0 months. Developer adjudication (2026-09-05): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (age_disability). The output is removed from scoring for every model: its reference depends on an engine input the certified household data never carried and the prompt therefore never listed, and a careful reader could take the stated facts the other way. Recomputed with policyengine-us 1.755.4 (the version that produced the references) the reference moves from 0.0 to 1.0 under the alternative reading. Neither reading is established by the facts; rows that matched the frozen value leave the score along with rows that did not. Judge diagnoses are retained as description; the class prompt_ambiguity records that the reference, not the model, is indeterminate here. In law the under-65 route needs 24 months of SSDI entitlement; a year-round recipient has at least 12. The facts do not settle it."
us,scenario_073,payroll_tax,1,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Employee payroll taxes apply to wages and other covered earnings, not Social Security disability benefits or taxable private pension income. With no wage, salary, or self-employment income listed, the employee Social Security, Medicare, Additional Medicare, and mandatory state payroll-tax components are all zero."
-us,scenario_073,snap,45,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Michigan's broad-based categorical eligibility (TANF non-cash) makes this one-person household categorically eligible because its $2,146 monthly gross income is below 200% FPL. Categorically eligible households skip the net income test, and the resource test does not bind. Net income is $1,755, so the 30% expected contribution ($527) exceeds the $298 maximum allotment. Because categorically eligible one- and two-person households get the minimum allotment, the benefit is $24 a month, or $288 a year. Most models either ran the 100% FPL net income test, or did not know the minimum allotment and returned $0. A few used the old $23 or a wrong $25 minimum, or overstated medical deductions."
+us,scenario_073,snap,47,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Michigan's broad-based categorical eligibility (TANF non-cash) makes this one-person household eligible regardless of the net income test. Eligible one- and two-person households get the minimum allotment even when 30% of net income exceeds the maximum. Here net income is $1,755, so the $527 contribution exceeds the $298 maximum and the benefit drops to the $24 minimum (8% of $298), or $288 a year. Most models applied the 100% FPL net income test or set the benefit to $0 once the contribution exceeded the maximum. Three models used the FY2025 $23 minimum, one used $25, and two inflated the medical deduction or the maximum allotment."
us,scenario_074,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_074,federal_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_074,head_medicaid_eligible,6,llm_error,health_coverage,False,,"Medicaid MAGI is not taxable income: 26 U.S.C. §36B(d)(2)(B) adds back to AGI all Social Security benefits excluded from gross income, so the head's $33,640 SSDI counts in full alongside the $384 taxable IRA distribution, producing 2.13 x FPL — roughly 213% of poverty against Louisiana's 138% FPL expansion-adult ceiling. Every wrong model shrank that base: four dropped SSDI entirely as ""non-taxable,"" one halved it using the §86 provisional-income 50% factor, and one asserted a disability pathway. The non-MAGI routes are also closed: the SSI-related aged/blind/disabled categories require SSI receipt (SSI = $0) or age 65+ (the head is 54), and the head is not a tax-unit dependent, so medicaid_category resolves to NONE."
-us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,29,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,,"PolicyEngine makes a person Medicare-eligible in one of three ways: age 65 or older, at least 24 months of receiving Social Security disability benefits (a separate months-of-receipt input), or ESRD. A positive SSDI amount does not satisfy the disability route by itself. The head is 54, and neither SSDI duration nor ESRD is listed. The prompt says to treat unlisted numeric inputs as 0 and unlisted status inputs as false, so the head has 0 months of SSDI receipt and does not meet the 24-month test. Every model either assumed the waiting period was met or treated SSDI income alone as enough, and answered Yes. Developer adjudication (2026-09-05): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (age_disability). The output is removed from scoring for every model: its reference depends on an engine input the certified household data never carried and the prompt therefore never listed, and a careful reader could take the stated facts the other way. Recomputed with policyengine-us 1.755.4 (the version that produced the references) the reference moves from 0.0 to 1.0 under the alternative reading. Neither reading is established by the facts; rows that matched the frozen value leave the score along with rows that did not. Judge diagnoses are retained as description; the class prompt_ambiguity records that the reference, not the model, is indeterminate here. In law the under-65 route needs 24 months of SSDI entitlement; a year-round recipient has at least 12. The facts do not settle it."
+us,scenario_074,head_medicare_eligible,30,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,,"The head is 54, which is below Medicare's age-65 threshold. Disability-based Medicare starts only after 24 months of SSDI entitlement, or through ESRD or ALS. The prompt does not say how long the head has received SSDI, so that duration counts as 0 under the instruction to treat unlisted numeric inputs as 0 and to infer no unlisted facts. That leaves no route to eligibility. Every model either assumed the 24-month wait had already passed or treated any SSDI income as enough for Medicare, which turned an unlisted duration fact into eligibility. Developer adjudication (2026-09-05): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (age_disability). The output is removed from scoring for every model: its reference depends on an engine input the certified household data never carried and the prompt therefore never listed, and a careful reader could take the stated facts the other way. Recomputed with policyengine-us 1.755.4 (the version that produced the references) the reference moves from 0.0 to 1.0 under the alternative reading. Neither reading is established by the facts; rows that matched the frozen value leave the score along with rows that did not. Judge diagnoses are retained as description; the class prompt_ambiguity records that the reference, not the model, is indeterminate here. In law the under-65 route needs 24 months of SSDI entitlement; a year-round recipient has at least 12. The facts do not settle it."
us,scenario_074,payroll_tax,2,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Employee payroll tax applies to wages and other covered employment earnings, not to Social Security disability benefits, pension income, IRA distributions, or tax refunds. The household has no listed wages, and the prompt requires unlisted numeric inputs to be zero, so the employee payroll-tax base is zero and the resulting payroll tax is $0."
us,scenario_075,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,28,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The 2026 tax falls under the OBBBA, which made the TCJA structure permanent. That means a $16,100 single standard deduction, no personal exemption, and single brackets of 10% up to $12,400, 12% up to $50,400 and 22% up to $105,700. Ordinary taxable income of $86,960 is therefore taxed at $13,843, and the $6,226 of long-term gains and qualified dividends stacked on top is taxed at 15% ($934), for a total of $14,777. Nothing else applies: a 62-year-old gets no age-65 additional deduction or senior deduction, disability does not raise the standard deduction, and the Credit for the Elderly or Disabled is fully phased out at $109,286 AGI. The largest group of models assumed the TCJA sunset (personal exemption plus 10/15/25% brackets). Another group used 2025 or undersized 2026 standard deductions and bracket thresholds. A few computed $14,777 correctly but then submitted a different number."
us,scenario_075,federal_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
@@ -589,36 +593,36 @@ us,scenario_075,head_medicaid_eligible,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False
us,scenario_075,head_medicare_eligible,16,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"Medicare covers people aged 65 or older. Under 42 USC 426(b), people under 65 qualify through disability only after 24 months of entitlement to Social Security disability benefits, and there are separate ESRD and ALS pathways. PolicyEngine follows this rule: the age test fails at 62, and the disability pathway requires 24 or more months of SSDI receipt. This head has no Social Security disability income, since unlisted numeric inputs are 0, and has no ESRD or ALS, so the head is not eligible. Every model treated the generic 'is disabled' flag alone as enough for Medicare and skipped the requirement to have received SSDI for 24 months."
us,scenario_075,payroll_tax,5,llm_error,other,False,,"Only the $12,656 in wages is subject to payroll tax. Pension income, dividends and capital gains are not FICA wages. Employee Social Security at 6.2% plus employee Medicare at 1.45% comes to about $968. Wages are far below the Additional Medicare Tax threshold, and Florida has no employee state payroll tax. No model was misled by the tax base. The errors are arithmetic slips, a final value that contradicts the model's own correct working, and missing or unparsed answers."
us,scenario_076,child2_wic_eligible,1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"WIC serves children only through their fifth birthday and generally requires household income at or below 185% of the federal poverty guideline. The model also inverted the income comparison: $173,820 is far above 185% of the poverty guideline for a three-person household, not 184% of the guideline."
-us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,42,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The correct 2026 calculation applies the permanent OBBBA parameters. AGI is $164,220 (wages, rent and interest; child support is excluded, and the ESI premium is not subtracted from the listed gross wages). Subtracting the $24,150 head-of-household standard deduction and the $800 QBI deduction on the rental income leaves taxable income of $139,270. The 2026 HoH brackets (10% to $17,700, 12% to $67,450, 22% to $105,700, then 24%) give $24,211.80. The full $4,400 CTC ($2,200 × 2) and the $200 CDCC are nonrefundable and are fully absorbed by that tax. Models missed this in several ways: assuming the TCJA sunset (personal exemptions, the $1,000 CTC with its phase-out), using 2025 or made-up brackets and standard deductions, leaving out the QBI deduction, subtracting the ESI premium, choosing the wrong filing status, imputing mortgage interest, or misreading the CTC so that most of it was treated as refundable instead of nonrefundable."
+us,scenario_076,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,44,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The reference uses post-OBBBA 2026 law for a head of household. AGI is $164,220 (wages counted at the gross $160,000, child support excluded). Taxable income is $139,270 after the $24,150 HoH standard deduction and an $800 QBI deduction on the rental income. Exact 2026 HoH brackets (10% to $17,700, 12% to $67,450, 22% to $105,700, then 24%) give $24,211.80, and subtracting the fully usable $4,400 CTC ($2,200 per child) and the $200 CDCC leaves $19,611.80. Models went wrong in several ways: assuming TCJA expired (personal exemptions, $1,000 or phased-out CTC), using 2025 or older brackets and deductions, leaving out the QBI deduction, taking $6,480 of ESI premiums off the gross wages, itemizing with mortgage interest they made up, treating most of the CTC as refundable, or using the wrong filing status."
us,scenario_076,federal_refundable_credits,6,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,,"The Additional Child Tax Credit is not an entitlement of $1,700 per child; it is only the portion of the $2,200-per-child CTC that survives after the credit offsets tax liability, and it is further capped at 15% of earned income over $2,500 and at $1,700 per child. This head-of-household filer has AGI of $164,220 (wages $160,000 + rents $4,000 + interest $220; child support is not taxable), below the $200,000 HoH phase-out threshold, so the full $4,400 CTC is available — but taxable income near $140,000 after the 2026 HoH standard deduction and the QBI deduction produces federal tax well above $25,000, so the entire CTC is absorbed nonrefundably and nothing spills into refundable_ctc. EITC is zero on this income, and there is no AOTC, recovery rebate, or refundable payroll tax credit here, so federal refundable credits are $0. Every wrong model computed the ACTC cap and then reported the cap itself as a payment, skipping the tax-liability offset that defines the refundable portion."
us,scenario_076,payroll_tax,12,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Employee Social Security and Medicare taxes are calculated on the full $160,000 of wages in the computation trace; the listed $6,480 employer-sponsored insurance premium is not subtracted from the payroll-tax base. This yields $9,920 of Social Security tax plus $2,320 of Medicare tax, for $12,240 total, with no Additional Medicare Tax or mandatory Idaho employee payroll tax."
us,scenario_076,self_employment_tax,2,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Self-employment tax applies only to net earnings from a trade or business, and the prompt lists no self-employment income. The $4,000 of rental income remains rental income and does not create a self-employment tax base, so the computation yields $0."
-us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,48,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"Idaho's 2026 tax starts from federal AGI of $164,220. Subtracting the $24,150 HoH standard deduction, the $1,000 Idaho dependent-care subtraction and the $800 QBI deduction (20% of the $4,000 rental income) leaves $138,270 of Idaho taxable income. Head-of-household filers use the joint rate schedule, so the 5.3% flat rate applies only above the $9,622 zero-rate amount: 5.3% × $128,648 = $6,818.34. No nonrefundable credit reduces that figure, and the $10 permanent building fund tax is added on top for $6,828.34. Most models skipped one or more of these steps: they taxed from the first dollar or used the single $4.8k–5k threshold, used the old 5.695%/5.8% rates, left out the dependent-care and QBI subtractions, subtracted a $410 child credit, or forgot the $10 building fund tax. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated llm_error (state_local_rule). Idaho's $205 child tax credit applies only to taxable years beginning in 2018 through 2025, so it does not reduce 2026 tax; the judge's missing-credit hypothesis fails. The reference applies the Idaho zero-rate threshold held at its published 2025 amount. Reference affirmed (Idaho Code 63-3029L (taxable years 2018 through 2025); Idaho Administrative Bulletin, July 1, 2026, Docket 35-0101-2601)."
-us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,41,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"Idaho's grocery credit is refundable, has no income phase-out for a household like this one, and is paid per person for the filer and each dependent. In 2026 it is $155 for each member under 65, so this three-person household gets 3 × $155 = $465. Models that gave $0 wrongly treated the credit as nonrefundable or limited by income. The $360, $300 and $510 answers used old or invented per-person amounts ($120, $100, $170) instead of the $155 that applies after the 2025 increase. The $410 answers used Idaho's child tax credit, which is nonrefundable, in place of the grocery credit."
-us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,30,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The correct path is short. AGI is $26,006 in wages minus the $3,000 cap on net capital losses, which gives $23,006. Under OBBBA, the TCJA structure is permanent, so the 2026 single standard deduction is $16,100 with no personal exemption. That leaves $6,906 of taxable income, all taxed at 10%, for $690.62. No nonrefundable credits apply. Most models went wrong in one of three ways: they used a stale or guessed standard deduction ($15,000, $15,350, $15,750, and so on), they applied TCJA-sunset rules ($8,300 standard deduction plus a $5,300 exemption), or they subtracted the ESI premiums from wages that were already stated as gross. Several others computed about $691 and then submitted a different number or zeroed out the tax for no reason."
+us,scenario_076,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,50,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"Idaho taxable income is $164,220 AGI minus the $24,150 2026 head-of-household standard deduction, the $1,000 Idaho dependent-care subtraction and the $800 QBI deduction on rental income, which gives $138,270. Idaho taxes head-of-household filers on the joint bracket: 5.3% on income above a $9,622 zero-rate amount, which comes to $6,818.34. No nonrefundable credits are subtracted, and the $10 permanent building fund tax is added, for $6,828.34. Most models used a repealed rate (5.695% or 5.8%), taxed the full taxable income with no zero-rate amount or used the single-filer amount instead, skipped the childcare and QBI subtractions, subtracted a $410 child credit, or left out the $10 building fund tax. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated llm_error (state_local_rule). Idaho's $205 child tax credit applies only to taxable years beginning in 2018 through 2025, so it does not reduce 2026 tax; the judge's missing-credit hypothesis fails. The reference applies the Idaho zero-rate threshold held at its published 2025 amount. Reference affirmed (Idaho Code 63-3029L (taxable years 2018 through 2025); Idaho Administrative Bulletin, July 1, 2026, Docket 35-0101-2601)."
+us,scenario_076,state_refundable_credits,43,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"Idaho's grocery credit is a refundable credit with no income phase-out, paid per household member (the filer and each dependent). Idaho HB 231 (2025) set it at $155 per person for 2026, so 3 × $155 = $465. About half the models used the old $120 rate (giving $360) or the even older $100 rate (giving $300). The other half wrongly called the credit nonrefundable or income-limited and answered $0. A few confused it with Idaho's $205 nonrefundable child tax credit."
+us,scenario_077,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,31,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The answer comes from a few steps. Wages are $26,006.18 and the net capital loss of $7,968 is capped at $3,000, so AGI is $23,006.18. The 2026 single standard deduction under the OBBBA-extended rules is $16,100, which beats $1,037 of itemized deductions. That leaves $6,906.18 of taxable income, taxed entirely at 10%, for $690.62 with no nonrefundable credits. Most models got this wrong in one of four ways: they used a stale or guessed standard deduction ($15,000, $15,350–$15,750), assumed the TCJA sunset ($8,300 plus a $5,300 personal exemption), took the $8,389 ESI premiums out of wages, or worked out about $691 and then submitted a different number."
us,scenario_077,federal_refundable_credits,13,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,,"The only potentially applicable refundable credit is the childless EITC, and its phaseout uses the greater of earned income or adjusted gross income. The $26,006 of wages is earned income; employer-sponsored insurance premiums do not reduce that amount, and at this earnings level the childless EITC is fully phased out. With no qualifying child or student and no applicable rebate or payroll credit, every refundable component is zero."
us,scenario_077,head_medicaid_eligible,10,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Louisiana's expansion pathway requires MAGI at or below the applicable adult limit, but the engine computes the head's MAGI income level as 1.44 times FPL, so that pathway fails. The listed employer-sponsored insurance premium is not established as a pre-tax payroll deduction and cannot simply be subtracted from wages; after the applicable MAGI computation, the head qualifies through no Medicaid category."
us,scenario_077,head_wic_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_077,payroll_tax,9,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Employee Social Security and Medicare taxes are computed from the applicable payroll-tax wage base, and the reference calculation applies the 6.2% and 1.45% employee rates to the full $26,006 of wages. The employer-sponsored insurance premium input does not reduce that wage base in this calculation, producing $1,612.38 of Social Security tax plus $377.09 of Medicare tax, or $1,989.47."
us,scenario_077,self_employment_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_077,snap,5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Louisiana’s broad-based categorical eligibility gross-income screen does not itself guarantee a SNAP allotment; the household must still produce an eligible benefit under the net-income and allotment calculations. SNAP countable income does not subtract capital losses, a mortgage balance is not a shelter expense, and a non-elderly, nondisabled household cannot deduct medical expenses. With no listed deductible shelter payment and countable wages of $26,006, this one-person household receives $0."
-us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,48,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Louisiana's 2025 reform set a flat 3% rate and a $12,500 single standard deduction, indexed from 2026 under R.S. 47:294(B). PolicyEngine computed $12,835 from published CPI-U, giving the frozen reference of 3% × ($23,006.18 − $12,835) = $305.14. Louisiana first published its 2026 return deduction, $12,838, in RIB 26-019 on September 28, 2026; that gives $305.05, and this output is excluded from scoring under d994. Of the 48 models, 20 answered $315.18 or $315, amounts consistent with the $12,500 deduction and flat 3% rate; three more initially reached about $315 that way before raising their submitted answers to $446–$496. Other models used repealed graduated brackets or personal exemptions, deducted federal income tax despite that deduction ending after 2021, subtracted ESI premiums from wages, ignored the $3,000 capital-loss cap, or claimed Louisiana has no income tax. Developer adjudication (2026-10-06): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated reference_later_law (taxable_income_or_deductions). The frozen reference is 305.14; the value under the published figure is 305.05. The reference rests on a 2026 Louisiana standard deduction of $12,835, which policyengine-us computed from published CPI-U under R.S. 47:294(B) but which no Louisiana publication stated before the 2026-07-03 freeze; Louisiana's first 2026 return amount, $12,838, came in Revenue Information Bulletin 26-019 on 2026-09-28. Excluded under decision d994, which keeps the published-amounts convention for every other reference (reference_audit/2026-10-05-louisiana). Reference depends on law published after the reference freeze; output excluded from scoring (Louisiana Department of Revenue, Revenue Information Bulletin 26-019, dated 2026-09-28: Louisiana's 2026 standard deduction is $12,838 for single and separate filers and $25,676 for the other statuses, the first 2026 return amount Louisiana published)."
+us,scenario_077,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,50,reference_later_law,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Louisiana's post-2025 reform taxes Louisiana AGI at a flat 3% after a single standard deduction. That deduction is indexed for inflation starting in 2026, so the 2026 amount is $12,835, not the base-year $12,500. Here AGI is $23,006.18: wages of $26,006 less the $3,000 capital-loss limit. Subtracting $12,835 leaves $10,171.18, and 3% of that is $305.14. Most models used the un-indexed $12,500 and got $315.18. The rest fell into other traps: pre-reform law (the $4,500 personal exemption, graduated 1.85%/3.5% brackets, or the deduction for federal income tax), subtracting employer health premiums from the listed wages, or claiming Louisiana has no income tax. Developer adjudication (2026-10-06): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated reference_later_law (taxable_income_or_deductions). The frozen reference is 305.14; the value under the published figure is 305.05. The reference rests on a 2026 Louisiana standard deduction of $12,835, which policyengine-us computed from published CPI-U under R.S. 47:294(B) but which no Louisiana publication stated before the 2026-07-03 freeze; Louisiana's first 2026 return amount, $12,838, came in Revenue Information Bulletin 26-019 on 2026-09-28. Excluded under decision d994, which keeps the published-amounts convention for every other reference (reference_audit/2026-10-05-louisiana). Reference depends on law published after the reference freeze; output excluded from scoring (Louisiana Department of Revenue, Revenue Information Bulletin 26-019, dated 2026-09-28: Louisiana's 2026 standard deduction is $12,838 for single and separate filers and $25,676 for the other statuses, the first 2026 return amount Louisiana published)."
us,scenario_077,state_refundable_credits,4,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"The models applied Louisiana’s former refundable earned income tax credit, equal to 5% of the federal EITC, to tax year 2026. Louisiana no longer provides that refundable credit in 2026, so the Louisiana refundable-credits computation returns zero regardless of an estimated federal EITC amount."
us,scenario_077,tanf,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,48,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Under OBBBA, the 2026 SALT cap is $40,400. MAGI here is about $200k, well below the $505k phase-down threshold. The SALT deduction counts the $26,460 of real estate tax plus both Maryland state income tax and Maryland county (local) income tax. Together these exceed $40,400, so SALT is capped at $40,400. Adding $28,210 of mortgage interest gives $68,610 in itemized deductions and $131,526.91 of taxable income, which produces $24,164.46 of tax under the OBBBA-era 2026 single brackets (12,400/50,400/105,700). The models went wrong in three main ways: they used the old $10,000 TCJA cap, they left state and local income taxes out of SALT (or counted only the state portion), or they assumed TCJA had expired, bringing back personal exemptions and pre-2018 brackets. Developer adjudication (2026-09-29): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (taxable_income_or_deductions). The frozen reference is 24,164.46; the alternative is 23,772.80. The prompt lists state and local tax refund income without saying whether the refunded tax reduced federal tax in the year it was deducted; policyengine-us 2.15.17 counts the whole refund as income (policyengine-us#9422, fixing issue #9122), while under 26 U.S.C. 111(a) none of it is income if the household took no tax benefit from the deduction. Found in the 2026-09-29 engine upgrade (reference_audit/2026-09-28, cluster salt_refund_gross_income_9122). Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (whether the prior-year deduction of the refunded state and local tax reduced federal tax (prior-year itemization, the income-versus-sales-tax election, SALT-cap headroom))."
+us,scenario_078,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,50,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"AGI is $200,136.91: wages plus the taxable $1,632 state refund. Under OBBBA the 2026 SALT cap is $40,400, and the $505k MAGI phase-down does not apply at this income. The engine's SALT deduction counts the $26,460 in real estate taxes plus Maryland state and county income tax, and that total is above the cap, so SALT equals the full $40,400. Add $28,210 of mortgage interest and itemized deductions come to $68,610, leaving taxable income of $131,526.91. The 2026 OBBBA single brackets (10/12/22/24% with breakpoints at $12,400, $50,400 and $105,700) then give $24,164.46. Most models went wrong on SALT in one of four ways: they counted only the property tax, counted only part of the Maryland income tax, used the expired $10,000 cap, or assumed the TCJA had sunset (personal exemptions, pre-2018 brackets). Developer adjudication (2026-09-29): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (taxable_income_or_deductions). The frozen reference is 24,164.46; the alternative is 23,772.80. The prompt lists state and local tax refund income without saying whether the refunded tax reduced federal tax in the year it was deducted; policyengine-us 2.15.17 counts the whole refund as income (policyengine-us#9422, fixing issue #9122), while under 26 U.S.C. 111(a) none of it is income if the household took no tax benefit from the deduction. Found in the 2026-09-29 engine upgrade (reference_audit/2026-09-28, cluster salt_refund_gross_income_9122). Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (whether the prior-year deduction of the refunded state and local tax reduced federal tax (prior-year itemization, the income-versus-sales-tax election, SALT-cap headroom))."
us,scenario_078,federal_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_078,local_income_tax,1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"The requested local_income_tax output is limited to the separately modeled local taxes listed in the prompt: NYC, Philadelphia, Kansas City, and St. Louis. Maryland county income tax is not included in this output, so a Maryland household outside those modeled jurisdictions has a value of zero."
us,scenario_078,payroll_tax,27,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The correct payroll tax uses the 2026 Social Security wage base of $184,500: 6.2% × $184,500 = $11,439, plus 1.45% Medicare on all $198,505 of wages ($2,878.32), for $14,317.32. Wages are below the $200,000 Additional Medicare Tax threshold, and Maryland charges no mandatory employee payroll tax in 2026. Most wrong answers used an outdated or wrongly projected wage base. Others added a Maryland FAMLI contribution, which is not collected in 2026, or invented a Maryland payroll tax. Several models worked out exactly $14,317.32 and then submitted a different number."
-us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,36,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The correct 2026 Maryland calculation has five steps. First, subtract the $1,632 state tax refund from federal AGI to get MD AGI of $198,505. Second, itemize $28,210 of mortgage interest and $26,460 of real estate taxes; the property taxes sit under the OBBBA SALT cap, not a $10,000 cap. Third, reduce that total by 7.5% of federal AGI over $200,000 ($10.27). Fourth, apply a $0 personal exemption, because single filers above $150,000 get none. Fifth, run the 2%–5.25% brackets on $143,845.27. Most wrong answers either used the small MD standard deduction instead of itemizing, kept the $1,632 refund in the base, capped property taxes at $10,000, kept a partial exemption, used the wrong itemized phase-out, or added county tax."
+us,scenario_078,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,38,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Maryland AGI subtracts the $1,632 state tax refund, which brings it to $198,505. Maryland itemized deductions are the $28,210 of mortgage interest plus the full $26,460 of property tax, with no federal $10,000 SALT cap. That $54,670 is reduced by 7.5% of federal AGI above $200,000 ($10.27), leaving $54,659.73. The personal exemption is fully phased out above $150,000, so it is $0. That gives taxable income of $143,845.27. The state brackets (2/3/4/4.75/5/5.25%) on that amount give $6,936.88, and county income tax is not included. Most wrong answers took the small standard deduction instead of itemizing, applied the federal SALT cap to the Maryland deduction, kept the $1,632 refund in Maryland AGI, claimed an exemption that had already phased out, or added county tax."
us,scenario_078,state_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_079,head_medicaid_eligible,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"The operative rule is categorical, not income-based: the head's blindness, disability, and $7,560 of SSDI leave countable income below the SSI federal benefit rate, producing $5,286 of SSI, and Arizona is a 1634 state where SSI receipt automatically confers Medicaid with no MAGI test. Both models ran an income/coverage screen instead of the SSI-recipient category, and neither recognized that SSI here is a computed output of the listed facts rather than an unlisted input. The screen they ran also points to eligibility rather than away from it — 0.35 x FPL is far under Arizona's 138% FPL expansion threshold — so 'No' is unreachable by either the categorical or the MAGI route."
-us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,25,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,,"Under 65, Medicare eligibility through disability requires 24 months of Social Security disability entitlement. ESRD and ALS are the only exceptions, and neither is listed. The household facts give no duration of SSDI receipt, and the prompt says unlisted numeric inputs are 0, so Head has 0 months of receipt and has not met the waiting period. At age 58, Head also fails the age-65 test, so Head is not eligible. Every model treated current SSDI receipt, or disability status alone, as enough for Medicare. Several of them explicitly assumed the 24-month waiting period was already met. Developer adjudication (2026-09-05): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (age_disability). The output is removed from scoring for every model: its reference depends on an engine input the certified household data never carried and the prompt therefore never listed, and a careful reader could take the stated facts the other way. Recomputed with policyengine-us 1.755.4 (the version that produced the references) the reference moves from 0.0 to 1.0 under the alternative reading. Neither reading is established by the facts; rows that matched the frozen value leave the score along with rows that did not. Judge diagnoses are retained as description; the class prompt_ambiguity records that the reference, not the model, is indeterminate here. In law the under-65 route needs 24 months of SSDI entitlement; a year-round recipient has at least 12. The facts do not settle it."
+us,scenario_079,head_medicare_eligible,26,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,,"Under 65, Medicare eligibility through disability requires 24 months of Social Security disability entitlement, or an ESRD/ALS pathway. In PolicyEngine this is a separate input for months of SSDI receipt. The household facts give only one year of SSDI income and no SSDI history, and the prompt says unlisted numeric inputs are 0 and unlisted statuses are false. So the Head is 58, has 0 qualifying months and does not meet the age-65 test, which makes them not Medicare eligible. Every model treated current SSDI receipt and disability status as enough on their own, and several explicitly assumed the 24-month waiting period was already met, which the prompt does not allow. Developer adjudication (2026-09-05): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (age_disability). The output is removed from scoring for every model: its reference depends on an engine input the certified household data never carried and the prompt therefore never listed, and a careful reader could take the stated facts the other way. Recomputed with policyengine-us 1.755.4 (the version that produced the references) the reference moves from 0.0 to 1.0 under the alternative reading. Neither reading is established by the facts; rows that matched the frozen value leave the score along with rows that did not. Judge diagnoses are retained as description; the class prompt_ambiguity records that the reference, not the model, is indeterminate here. In law the under-65 route needs 24 months of SSDI entitlement; a year-round recipient has at least 12. The facts do not settle it."
us,scenario_079,local_income_tax,2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_079,snap,48,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"Getting this right takes two steps. First, the couple qualifies for SSI: both are blind and disabled, and the 2026 couple FBR of about $1,491 minus $610 of countable SSDI ($630 less the $20 disregard) leaves $881/month. That SSI counts as unearned income for SNAP, so gross income is $1,511. Second, because the household's actual medical costs ($61/month) exceed the $35 threshold, Arizona replaces the actual $26 excess with its $145 Standard Medical Deduction. That gives net income of $1,157, a contribution of $348, and $546 − $348 = $198/month ($2,376/year). Most models left out SSI and landed at about $4,900–5,200. The best group included SSI but used the actual $26 excess instead of Arizona's $145 SMD, which gives about $163/month ($1,956). The $0 answers wrongly applied asset, income, shelter-cost, or SSI-exclusion rules."
+us,scenario_079,snap,50,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The reference counts $881/month of SSI as unearned income. Both members are blind or disabled, their $1,045 in assets is under the couple limit, and the 2026 couple rate of $1,491 minus ($630 SSDI − $20) leaves $881, so gross income is $1,511. Because an elderly/disabled member has medical costs above $35/month, Arizona's standard medical deduction of $145 applies in place of the $26 actual excess. Net income is then $1,511 − $209 − $145 = $1,157, 30% of that rounds up to $348, and $546 − $348 gives $198/month, or $2,376 a year. About half the models left out SSI and landed near $5,000. Most of the rest counted SSI but used the $26 actual excess instead of the $145 Arizona deduction and landed near $1,950. The zero answers wrongly rejected the household on assets, income, or shelter costs, or because it receives SSI."
us,scenario_079,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"The spouse is blind and disabled with zero countable income and $1,045 in resources, so she receives SSI ($5,286 in the household trace); Arizona is a 1634 state, where SSI receipt confers automatic Medicaid through the SSI-recipient category with no separate income test. Both models evaluated only an income/MAGI-style adult pathway and never checked the SSI-recipient categorical route that the engine actually used (medicaid_category = SSI_RECIPIENT). The error is compounded because even the MAGI route qualifies here: household MAGI is 0.35 × FPL, far under Arizona's 138% FPL expansion-adult ceiling, and Indian Health Service coverage is not minimum essential coverage that bars Medicaid. Zero-income, SSI-receiving disabled adults in an expansion state are Medicaid-eligible on two independent pathways, so ""No"" is unreachable from the stated facts."
us,scenario_079,spouse_medicare_eligible,4,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"The spouse is 55, so the only route to Medicare is the disability pathway. That route needs 24 months of Social Security disability (SSDI) entitlement, or ESRD/ALS. Being disabled or blind does not qualify anyone for Medicare by itself. The spouse has no Social Security disability income at all (the $7,560 belongs to the head), and no months of SSDI receipt or ESRD are listed, so all of these inputs default to zero or false. Every model treated ""is disabled"" as enough for Medicare and skipped the SSDI entitlement and 24-month waiting-period requirement."
-us,scenario_079,ssi,34,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"Both spouses are blind and disabled, so they form an eligible SSI couple. Their countable resources are $1,045 in the bank, because the home and one vehicle are excluded, which is under the $3,000 couple limit. The head's $630/month SSDI minus the $20 general exclusion leaves $610/month of countable income. The 2026 couple federal benefit rate is $1,491/month, so the benefit is $1,491 − $610 = $881/month, or $10,572/year. Most models got the structure right but used a stale or misprojected couple rate ($1,415, $1,450, $1,482–$1,490, or inflated values). The rest wrongly found the couple ineligible, refused to compute SSI, or made arithmetic or submission errors."
-us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,41,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Arizona's Increased Excise Tax Credit (A.R.S. 43-1072.01) is refundable. It pays $25 for each taxpayer, spouse and dependent, up to a $100 cap, when federal AGI is no more than $25,000 for joint filers. It does not depend on earned income, children or any tax liability. This couple's only income is $7,560 of SSDI, so their AGI is far below the limit, and the credit is 2 × $25 = $50. Nearly every model either did not know the credit exists, thought it was nonrefundable, or wrongly assumed it requires taxable income, earnings or children. As a result, they answered $0."
+us,scenario_079,ssi,35,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"Both spouses are blind and disabled, so they are an eligible SSI couple. Their only income is the head's $630/month SSDI, which becomes $610/month countable after the $20 general exclusion. Their $1,045 bank balance is under the $3,000 couple resource limit, and the vehicle and home are excluded. The 2026 couple federal benefit rate is $1,491/month, so the benefit is $881/month ($440.50 per spouse) and $10,572 a year. Nearly every wrong answer comes from using a stale or mis-projected couple rate ($1,415 from 2024, $1,450 from 2025, or $1,482–$1,490). The remaining wrong answers come from wrongly finding the couple over the income or resource limit, submitting a value that differs from the model's own reasoning, or giving no output."
+us,scenario_079,state_refundable_credits,42,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Arizona's Increased Excise Tax Credit (A.R.S. 43-1072.01) is refundable. It pays $25 per personal and dependent exemption, up to $100, to married-filing-jointly units with federal AGI of $25,000 or less. It has no earned-income, tax-liability, child, or minimum-income requirement. This couple has only $7,560 of SSDI, which is far under the AGI ceiling, and two exemptions, so the credit is 2 × $25 = $50. Almost every model decided that zero AZ tax liability, no wages, or no children meant there was no refundable credit. One model found the $50 and then submitted $200 anyway."
us,scenario_080,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_080,federal_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_080,free_school_meals_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
@@ -630,30 +634,30 @@ us,scenario_080,local_income_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,
us,scenario_080,payroll_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_080,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_080,self_employment_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_080,snap,48,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Getting to the reference takes three steps. First, Pennsylvania's broad-based categorical eligibility through its TANF non-cash program waives the SNAP asset test, so the $19,828 bank balance does not disqualify the household. Second, the $2,000 energy subsidy triggers Pennsylvania's $857 standard utility allowance (heat-and-eat). Together with the standard deduction, the excess shelter deduction brings the $301.33 monthly countable income ($300 assistance + $1.33 dividends) down to $0 net income. Third, the household gets the one-person maximum allotment of $298 for January–September and the uprated $304.68 for October–December, which totals $3,596.04. Nineteen models wrongly returned $0, mostly by applying the asset limit. Twelve skipped the utility-allowance-driven shelter deduction and subtracted 30% of net income. Sixteen got to the maximum but used a stale monthly maximum or held it flat all year without the October 2026 increase. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated reference_engine_defect (categorical_eligibility). The frozen reference is 3,596.04; the corrected value is 3,240.00. PolicyEngine grants the heat-and-eat standard utility allowance to households without an elderly or disabled member, which P.L. 119-21 sec. 10103 ended. Reference is an engine defect; output excluded from scoring (7 U.S.C. 2014(e)(6)(C)(iv)(I), as amended by P.L. 119-21 sec. 10103(a) (approved 2025-07-04))."
+us,scenario_080,snap,50,reference_engine_defect,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Getting the reference takes three steps. First, the household is categorically eligible through Pennsylvania's TANF non-cash broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE), so the $19,828 bank balance is never tested. Second, the $2,000 energy subsidy triggers Pennsylvania's $857 standard utility allowance through heat-and-eat. That allowance creates an uncapped excess shelter deduction for this disabled household and brings net income to $0 in every month. Third, the benefit is the one-person maximum allotment, which is $298 for January–September and rises to the uprated $304.68 for October–December: 9×298 + 3×304.68 = $3,596.04. The $0 answers missed step one, the roughly $2,870–$3,240 answers missed step two, and the near-maximum answers missed step three by using an old or single-year maximum for all 12 months. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated reference_engine_defect (categorical_eligibility). The frozen reference is 3,596.04; the corrected value is 3,240.00. PolicyEngine grants the heat-and-eat standard utility allowance to households without an elderly or disabled member, which P.L. 119-21 sec. 10103 ended. Reference is an engine defect; output excluded from scoring (7 U.S.C. 2014(e)(6)(C)(iv)(I), as amended by P.L. 119-21 sec. 10103(a) (approved 2025-07-04))."
us,scenario_080,ssi,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"SSI requires the individual to be aged 65 or older, blind, or disabled under the program's categorical determination. The engine input sets the sole person's SSI aged/blind/disabled status to false, so benefit-rate and countable-income calculations never produce an award."
us,scenario_080,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,8,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,,"Pennsylvania first applies its 3.07% rate to the $940 of taxable dividends and gains, then applies the nonrefundable Tax Forgiveness credit in computing income tax before refundable credits. The household's eligibility income remains within the range for 100% forgiveness, so the credit eliminates the preliminary tax and yields $0."
us,scenario_080,state_refundable_credits,2,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"Pennsylvania Schedule SP tax forgiveness is a nonrefundable credit that reduces Pennsylvania income-tax liability; it is not included in state refundable credits. With no qualifying Pennsylvania refundable credit, the requested aggregate is $0."
us,scenario_080,tanf,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,48,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The answer depends on how the itemized SALT deduction is built. 2026 law keeps TCJA brackets and has no personal exemption. The OBBBA SALT cap is $40,400, so SALT is not limited here. It equals the $5,643 of real estate tax plus PolicyEngine's estimated Massachusetts income tax withholding of 5% × ($174,088.12 − $4,400) = $8,484.41. With $16,900 of mortgage interest, itemized deductions total $31,027.41. Subtracting those and a $1.24 QBI deduction gives taxable income of $143,059.47, and 2026 single brackets produce $26,932.27. Models fell into four groups: some left state income tax out of SALT, some applied the old $10,000 cap, some assumed the TCJA sunset (personal exemption plus 15/25/28% brackets), and some used a slightly different MA tax figure than the $8,484.41 withholding estimate. Developer adjudication (2026-10-05): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (taxable_income_or_deductions). The frozen reference is 26,932.27; the alternative is 26,991.31. The prompt lists no state income tax withheld or paid during 2026; policyengine-us 2.15.17 fills the state income tax part of the federal state and local tax deduction with state_withheld_income_tax, a formula estimate of Massachusetts withholding on federal AGI ($8,484.41), while read as the household paying its 2026 Massachusetts income tax during the year the deduction takes the engine's liability ($8,238.41). Found in the 2026-10-05 audit of the state income tax in SALT (reference_audit/2026-10-05, scripts/sweep_salt_withholding.py). Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (state income tax withheld or paid during 2026, which the federal state and local tax deduction takes as its state income tax part; policyengine-us fills it with state_withheld_income_tax, a formula estimate on federal AGI that the household data never set)."
+us,scenario_081,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,50,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The reference uses current 2026 law, where TCJA rates are permanent under OBBBA: the single brackets are 12,400/50,400/105,700/201,775 and the SALT cap is $40,400. It itemizes $16,900 of mortgage interest plus uncapped-in-practice SALT of $14,127.41. That SALT figure is the $5,643 property tax plus a Massachusetts income tax deduction of $8,484.41, which is 5% of the $174,088.12 AGI above the $4,400 exemption. Taxable income comes to $143,059.47. The wrong answers fall into four groups: (1) leaving MA income tax out of SALT entirely; (2) applying the old $10,000 SALT cap; (3) assuming the TCJA sunset (personal exemption with 10/15/25/28% brackets) or subtracting ESI premiums from the stated gross wages; and (4) using a slightly different MA tax figure, such as the ~$8,238 liability instead of the $8,484.41 estimate, which leaves the tax off by about $10–$230. Developer adjudication (2026-10-05): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (taxable_income_or_deductions). The frozen reference is 26,932.27; the alternative is 26,991.31. The prompt lists no state income tax withheld or paid during 2026; policyengine-us 2.15.17 fills the state income tax part of the federal state and local tax deduction with state_withheld_income_tax, a formula estimate of Massachusetts withholding on federal AGI ($8,484.41), while read as the household paying its 2026 Massachusetts income tax during the year the deduction takes the engine's liability ($8,238.41). Found in the 2026-10-05 audit of the state income tax in SALT (reference_audit/2026-10-05, scripts/sweep_salt_withholding.py). Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (state income tax withheld or paid during 2026, which the federal state and local tax deduction takes as its state income tax part; policyengine-us fills it with state_withheld_income_tax, a formula estimate on federal AGI that the household data never set)."
us,scenario_081,federal_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,39,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,,"Federal FICA is simple here: 6.2% Social Security on all $175,002, since it is under the 2026 wage base, gives $10,850.12. Medicare at 1.45% gives $2,537.53, and no Additional Medicare Tax applies below $200,000. The reference then adds the Massachusetts PFML employee contribution of 0.46% ($805.01), which is the 0.18% family rate plus 40% of the 0.70% medical rate, on the engine's assumption that the employer withholds the maximum employee share. The prompt asks for 'mandatory employee state payroll taxes' but never says whether the employer passes the PFML share to the employee, so there are two readings: include the maximum $805.01 share ($14,192.66), or exclude it as employer-optional ($13,387.65). About a dozen models took the second reading. Most of the rest included PFML at a stale or wrong rate, or broke the FICA base or arithmetic. Developer adjudication (2026-10-05): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned prompt_ambiguity; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (state_local_rule). The frozen reference is 14,192.66; the alternative is 13,387.65. The prompt counts mandatory employee state payroll taxes; Massachusetts PFML contributions are the employer's, which may deduct the employee share from wages but need not (M.G.L. c. 175M, s. 6(a) and (c); 458 CMR 2.05(5)), and policyengine-us 2.15.17 counts the largest share Massachusetts's published 2026 rates let the employer deduct ($805.01); read as the amount the law requires of the employee, $0, the output is employee federal payroll tax alone. Found in the 2026-10-05 audit of state payroll components (reference_audit/2026-10-05-payroll, program_classification.json). Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (whether the employer deducts the employee share of a state paid-leave or disability premium that the law lets it deduct but does not require, which decides whether that share is a mandatory employee state payroll tax)."
+us,scenario_081,payroll_tax,41,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,,"The reference has two parts. First, employee FICA on the full $175,002 of wages: $10,850.12 Social Security plus $2,537.53 Medicare, with no Additional Medicare Tax because wages are under $200,000. Second, the Massachusetts PFML employee contribution of $805.01: 0.46% (the full 0.18% family rate plus 40% of the 0.70% medical rate) × $175,002. The prompt's phrase 'mandatory employee state payroll taxes' can be read two ways. Under one reading the PFML employee share counts, which is what the engine does by assuming the employer withholds the maximum. Under the other it doesn't, because Massachusetts lets employers deduct less of it or none, so the FICA-only $13,387.65 cluster follows from that reading. The remaining models included PFML at a stale or misallocated rate, cut FICA wages by the ESI premium, used a wrong Medicare rate, or submitted numbers that don't match their own arithmetic. Developer adjudication (2026-10-05): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned prompt_ambiguity; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (state_local_rule). The frozen reference is 14,192.66; the alternative is 13,387.65. The prompt counts mandatory employee state payroll taxes; Massachusetts PFML contributions are the employer's, which may deduct the employee share from wages but need not (M.G.L. c. 175M, s. 6(a) and (c); 458 CMR 2.05(5)), and policyengine-us 2.15.17 counts the largest share Massachusetts's published 2026 rates let the employer deduct ($805.01); read as the amount the law requires of the employee, $0, the output is employee federal payroll tax alone. Found in the 2026-10-05 audit of state payroll components (reference_audit/2026-10-05-payroll, program_classification.json). Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (whether the employer deducts the employee share of a state paid-leave or disability premium that the law lets it deduct but does not require, which decides whether that share is a mandatory employee state payroll tax)."
us,scenario_081,self_employment_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,45,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Massachusetts Part B income is wages of $175,002 plus $56 of interest, for $175,058. Two Part B deductions come off that: the $2,000 Social Security/Medicare deduction cap and the renter deduction, which is 50% of the $44,400 rent capped at $4,000. That leaves $169,058, and the $4,400 single exemption brings it to $164,658, which is $8,232.90 at 5%. Part A dividends of about $110 add $5.51 at 5%, and the short-term capital loss does not offset ordinary income or dividends. Most models got one or more of these steps wrong. Common errors were leaving out the $2,000 FICA deduction or the $4,000 rent deduction, using the old $3,000 rent cap, cutting wages by the $7,389 employer insurance premiums, deducting federal itemized items such as mortgage interest, or netting the $1,080 capital loss against income. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated reference_engine_defect (taxable_income_or_deductions). The frozen reference is 8,238.41; the corrected value is 8,232.90. PolicyEngine taxes Massachusetts Part A dividends gross, without the short-term capital loss offset its own Part A AGI computes. Reference is an engine defect; output excluded from scoring (M.G.L. c. 62 sec. 2(b), 2(c)(2)(a), 2(c)(4), 2(f); DOR TIR 02-21)."
+us,scenario_081,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,46,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Massachusetts Part B income is wages of $175,002 plus $56 of interest. From that, subtract the $2,000 cap on the Social Security/Medicare deduction and the renter deduction (50% of the $44,400 rent, capped at $4,000). That gives $169,058; after the $4,400 personal exemption, Part B taxable income is $164,658. The $110 of dividends is Part A income taxed at 5%, and the short-term capital loss does not reduce either base. So the tax is 5% × (164,658 + 110.12) = $8,238.41. Most models left out the $2,000 FICA deduction, used the old $3,000 rent cap, ignored the rent deduction, used the capital loss to cancel the interest and dividends, or subtracted deductions Massachusetts does not allow, such as federal itemized deductions, ESI premiums, or employee business expenses. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated reference_engine_defect (taxable_income_or_deductions). The frozen reference is 8,238.41; the corrected value is 8,232.90. PolicyEngine taxes Massachusetts Part A dividends gross, without the short-term capital loss offset its own Part A AGI computes. Reference is an engine defect; output excluded from scoring (M.G.L. c. 62 sec. 2(b), 2(c)(2)(a), 2(c)(4), 2(f); DOR TIR 02-21)."
us,scenario_081,state_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_082,child1_chip_eligible,3,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"The decisive rule in the engine trace is CHIP's age criterion: child1 is age 1 and falls outside the applicable CHIP age range. The alternative Medicaid pathway also returns ineligible, so neither route produces CHIP eligibility."
us,scenario_082,child1_early_head_start_eligible,6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Early Head Start eligibility is a conjunction: the child must be under 3 (or the household must contain a pregnant person) AND the household must pass the means test — income at or below the federal poverty guideline, with limited over-income slots up to 130% FPL, or a categorical pathway such as TANF/SSI receipt, foster-care placement, or homelessness. Every wrong model treated the birth-to-3 age band as sufficient and either skipped or explicitly discarded the income screen. This household's countable income of ~$90,132 is more than four times the two-person poverty guideline (~$21k, ~$28k at 130%), no listed fact establishes TANF, SSI, foster care, or homelessness, and there is no pregnancy, so both the categorical and income conditions evaluate False and eligibility is No."
us,scenario_082,child1_medicaid_eligible,6,llm_error,health_coverage,False,,"The trap is that New York's generous children's coverage above 154% FPL runs through Child Health Plus — the state's separate CHIP program — not through Medicaid: NY Medicaid covers a child age 1–5 only up to 154% FPL, and the 400–405% FPL figures the models cited are the CHIP ceiling. The second half of the trap is income: Medicaid MAGI here is about $117.8k (543% FPL for a two-person household) because the $33,000 long-term capital loss is limited to a $3,000 deduction against ordinary income and because $20,580 of qualified and non-qualified dividends, taxable interest, short-term gain, and the state tax refund all count, while the $21,208 ESI premium is not subtracted from MAGI. Every model either imported a CHIP-scale threshold into Medicaid, understated MAGI to roughly $90k–$99k, or asserted child eligibility with no income test at all. At 543% FPL the child clears no Medicaid category (medicaid_category = NONE), so is_medicaid_eligible is False."
us,scenario_082,child1_medicare_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_082,child1_wic_eligible,2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"WIC requires both categorical eligibility and financial eligibility; being age 1 satisfies only the categorical test. The household's approximately $90,132 annual income exceeds the 2026 WIC limit of 185% of the federal poverty guideline for a two-person household, so the child is not eligible."
-us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,47,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The 2026 computation follows the OBBBA version of the law. The TCJA structure is permanent, so there are no personal exemptions, the head-of-household standard deduction is $24,150, the child tax credit is $2,200, and the 10%/12% brackets top out at $17,700/$67,450. OBBBA also adds a deduction for non-itemizers' charitable gifts, worth the full $700 here. The other rules are that the net capital loss is capped at $3,000; the $8 traditional IRA deduction is fully phased out for a 401(k) participant at this AGI; and the employer-sponsored insurance premiums are neither subtracted from wages nor itemized as medical costs. That gives $92,811.12 of taxable income, $12,379.77 of regular tax, and $9,579.77 after the $600 CDCC and $2,200 CTC. The largest near-miss group ($9,734) omitted only the $700 non-itemizer charitable deduction ($154 at 22%). Other models used TCJA-sunset rules (personal exemptions, a $1,000 CTC), stale brackets or deduction amounts, the full capital loss, or itemized deductions inflated by the insurance premiums."
+us,scenario_082,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,49,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The correct 2026 computation follows current law as amended by OBBBA. Starting from AGI of $117,661.12, the steps are: (1) include the $67.50 SALT refund; (2) allow only the $3,000 capital-loss deduction; (3) allow no deduction for the $8 traditional IRA, because the head is an active 401(k) participant and is above the HoH phase-out; (4) do not reduce wages by ESI premiums. The deductions are the $24,150 HoH standard deduction plus the new $700 non-itemizer charitable deduction, which gives taxable income of $92,811.12. Tax on $79,387.12 of ordinary income at the 2026 HoH brackets (10% to $17,700, 12% to $67,450, 22% above) is $10,366.17, and the $13,424 of qualified dividends at 15% adds $2,013.60. Subtracting the $2,200 CTC and $600 CDCC gives $9,579.77. The models that came closest missed only the $700 charitable deduction (giving $9,734) or took the $8 IRA deduction. Most of the others used pre-TCJA sunset law (personal exemptions, $1,000 CTC), outdated brackets or standard deductions, a $2,000 CTC, ESI premiums subtracted from wages or counted as itemized medical costs, or an uncapped capital loss."
us,scenario_082,federal_refundable_credits,8,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,,"The separating step is that the Additional Child Tax Credit is a residual, not a per-child entitlement: the 2026 CTC of $2,200 is first applied nonrefundably against tax liability, and only the unused remainder — capped at $1,700 and further limited to 15% of earned income over $2,500 — becomes refundable. This head-of-household filer has roughly $117,650 of AGI (wages net of the $181 traditional 401(k) deferral, plus $20,480 of dividends and $100 of interest, less the $3,000 capital-loss limitation on a $30,711 net loss and the $8 IRA deduction), which produces federal tax before credits many times larger than $2,200, so the entire credit is consumed nonrefundably and nothing spills into the refundable bucket. EITC is zero on income grounds and independently on the investment-income limit, and no American Opportunity Credit, Recovery Rebate Credit, or refundable payroll tax credit applies. Every wrong model quoted a statutory refundable ceiling as the answer instead of computing the leftover after the nonrefundable CTC."
us,scenario_082,head_medicare_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_082,local_income_tax,6,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"The household facts give only state = NY and never say the household lives in New York City. The prompt says to treat any unlisted status input as false, so NYC residence is false. In New York, only NYC residence triggers the separate local income tax output, so local_income_tax is $0. Every wrong model assumed NYC residence and ran NYC resident brackets on NY taxable income, which turned a state-only fact pattern into an NYC tax bill."
-us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,44,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,,"Federal FICA on the full $100,195 of gross wages is $7,664.92 (SS $6,212.09 + Medicare $1,452.83). Neither the traditional 401(k) deferral nor the ESI premium input reduces that base. The reference adds the maximum New York employee contributions: Paid Family Leave at 0.432% capped at $411.91, and DBL at $0.60/week, or $31.20. That brings the total to $8,108.03. The prompt says ""mandatory employee state payroll taxes,"" and New York lets the employer collect less of these contributions or none, so FICA-only answers of $7,664.92 follow a second reasonable reading. Other answers differed from the frozen reference by using outdated or uncapped PFL rates, including only PFL or DBL, or reducing the engine's FICA wage base by ESI premiums or 401(k) deferrals; omitting either optional New York contribution is not itself a model error. Developer adjudication (2026-10-05): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned prompt_ambiguity; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (state_local_rule). The frozen reference is 8,108.03; the alternative is 7,664.92. The prompt counts mandatory employee state payroll taxes; New York disability and Paid Family Leave contributions are the employer's, which may deduct the employee share from wages but need not (N.Y. Workers' Compensation Law ss. 209(3)-(4) and 210(1)), and policyengine-us 2.15.17 counts the largest share the employer may deduct ($443.11); read as the amount the law requires of the employee, $0, the output is employee federal payroll tax alone. Found in the 2026-10-05 audit of state payroll components (reference_audit/2026-10-05-payroll, program_classification.json). Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (whether the employer deducts the employee share of a state paid-leave or disability premium that the law lets it deduct but does not require, which decides whether that share is a mandatory employee state payroll tax)."
+us,scenario_082,payroll_tax,46,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,,"Federal employee FICA on the full $100,195 is $7,664.92: Social Security $6,212.09 plus Medicare $1,452.83, with no Additional Medicare Tax. The reference adds New York's employee contributions at their legal maximum: Paid Family Leave at 0.432% capped at $411.91, and disability benefits (DBL) at $0.60 a week, or $31.20. That brings the total to $8,108.03. ""Mandatory employee state payroll taxes"" can be read two ways: (1) NY PFL/DBL count at the maximum employee contribution, or (2) they are left out because a NY employer can choose to pay them instead of withholding. About 20 models took reading (2) and landed at or near $7,664.92. The other wrong answers came from three kinds of mistakes: using an older PFL rate or cap (0.388%, $354.53, $333), leaving the PFL uncapped ($432.84), or wrongly taking ESI premiums or 401(k) deferrals out of FICA wages. Developer adjudication (2026-10-05): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned prompt_ambiguity; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (state_local_rule). The frozen reference is 8,108.03; the alternative is 7,664.92. The prompt counts mandatory employee state payroll taxes; New York disability and Paid Family Leave contributions are the employer's, which may deduct the employee share from wages but need not (N.Y. Workers' Compensation Law ss. 209(3)-(4) and 210(1)), and policyengine-us 2.15.17 counts the largest share the employer may deduct ($443.11); read as the amount the law requires of the employee, $0, the output is employee federal payroll tax alone. Found in the 2026-10-05 audit of state payroll components (reference_audit/2026-10-05-payroll, program_classification.json). Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (whether the employer deducts the employee share of a state paid-leave or disability premium that the law lets it deduct but does not require, which decides whether that share is a mandatory employee state payroll tax)."
us,scenario_082,self_employment_tax,2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,48,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"The correct path files head of household. Federal AGI is $117,661, using wages net of the 401(k), the $3,000 capital-loss cap, no deductible IRA and no reduction for ESI premiums. New York subtracts the $67.50 state tax refund, takes the $11,200 HOH standard deduction because NY itemized deductions are only $9,328, and subtracts one $1,000 dependent exemption, for taxable income of $105,394. The 2026 reduced-rate HOH schedule (3.9/4.4/5.15/5.4%) gives $5,442.63. Because NY AGI exceeds $107,650, a $156.51 supplemental recapture tax applies, and no nonrefundable credit reduces the result, since the NY child and dependent care credit and the Empire State Child Credit are refundable. Most models went wrong on one of four points: they left out the recapture, used pre-2026 rates, used the wrong filing status or deduction (single $8,000, inflated itemized deductions, ESI premiums subtracted, uncapped capital loss), or subtracted refundable credits."
-us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,48,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"To get the reference, a model needed two current New York rules. The first is the enhanced Empire State Child Credit: $1,000 for a child under 4, reduced by $16.50 per $1,000 of federal AGI above the $75,000 head-of-household threshold (42 × $16.50 = $693), which leaves $307. The second is the new child and dependent care credit under Tax Law 606(c-2), which applies from 2026: an applicable percentage of about 29.35% at NY AGI of roughly $117.6k is applied directly to the $3,000 of qualifying expenses, giving $880.55. Almost every model either used the old ESCC formula ($100 minimum or 33% of the federal CTC), skipped the phase-out, or zeroed out the ESCC. Almost all also used the pre-2026 care credit (20% of the $600 federal CDCC = $120) or treated it as nonrefundable."
+us,scenario_082,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,50,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The filer is head of household. NY AGI is $117,593.62: federal AGI with the capital loss capped at $3,000, no IRA deduction, minus the $68 refund subtraction. Subtracting the $11,200 HOH standard deduction (larger than $9,328 of itemized deductions) and the $1,000 dependent exemption leaves $105,393.62 of taxable income. The 2026 HOH rates after the cut (3.9%/4.4%/5.15%, then 5.4% from $20,900 to $107,650) give $5,442.63 of main tax, and NY AGI above $107,650 adds a $156.51 supplemental (tax-benefit recapture) tax. No nonrefundable credit applies: the NY child-care credit and the Empire State Child Credit are refundable, and the household credit is fully phased out. Models mostly failed by using pre-2026 or single-filer rates, leaving out the supplemental tax, mis-stating the deductions (filing as single, uncapped capital losses, ESI premiums), or subtracting refundable credits."
+us,scenario_082,state_refundable_credits,50,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"For 2026, New York's refundable credits have two parts. First, the expanded Empire State Child Credit gives a child under 4 a $1,000 base, reduced by $16.50 for each full $1,000 of federal AGI above the $75,000 head-of-household threshold, which leaves $307. Second, the new Tax Law 606(c-2) child and dependent care credit applies an applicable percentage of about 29.352% at NY AGI of $117,594 to the $3,000 one-child expense cap, which gives $880.55. Almost every model used the old NY CDCC rule (20% of the $600 federal credit, or $120) or left the care credit out. Most also used the pre-2025 ESCC rule (33% of the federal CTC, the $100 minimum, or no credit for children under 4), skipped the phase-out, or treated the household as income-ineligible."
us,scenario_083,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The 2026 single-filer standard deduction exceeds the household’s $11,010 AGI, leaving zero taxable income. With no other federal tax components or nonrefundable credits affecting the result, federal income tax before refundable credits is $0."
us,scenario_083,federal_refundable_credits,9,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"A childless filer must satisfy the EITC age requirement, and the 20-year-old head does not. With no qualifying children and no applicable refundable education, recovery rebate, or payroll tax credit, every component of federal refundable credits is zero."
us,scenario_083,head_medicaid_eligible,3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Texas did not adopt ACA Medicaid expansion, so income below 138% of FPL does not create Medicaid eligibility for a nondependent adult. The 20-year-old head has no qualifying Texas category—such as pregnancy, parent/caretaker status, disability, or SSI eligibility—so `medicaid_category` is NONE regardless of the 0.69 FPL MAGI level."
@@ -662,23 +666,23 @@ us,scenario_083,payroll_tax,6,llm_error,other,False,,"The correct answer is the
us,scenario_083,self_employment_tax,1,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Ordinary rental income is generally excluded from net earnings from self-employment and therefore does not enter the self-employment tax base. With no reported self-employment earnings, the $400 filing threshold is not met and self-employment tax is zero."
us,scenario_083,snap,18,llm_error,asset_resource,False,,"This one-person Texas household passes every SNAP income test: gross income is $917.50 a month, well under 130% and 165% of FPL, and net income is about $591, under 100%. What makes it ineligible is its resources. Texas's broad-based categorical eligibility keeps a $5,000 asset limit, and the federal standard for a non-elderly household is about $3,000. The head's $6,620 bank balance exceeds both, so SNAP is $0. Every model ran the income-based benefit formula, getting about $110-$245 a month. None applied the resource test, and several said outright that Texas BBCE waives the asset test."
us,scenario_084,head_medicaid_eligible,6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Disability, blindness, SSDI receipt, and qualifying immigration status do not independently establish Medicaid eligibility; the person must satisfy a specific North Carolina coverage pathway and its financial rules. The head qualifies through no Medicaid category, and Medicaid MAGI is 1.56 times FPL, above the expansion threshold."
-us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,35,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,,"PolicyEngine's is_medicare_eligible is true only if the person is 65 or older, has ESRD, or has months_receiving_social_security_disability of at least the 24-month waiting period. The Head is 62. No SSDI duration is listed, so under the prompt's rule that unlisted numeric inputs are 0, the SSDI month count is 0. Being disabled and receiving SSDI in 2026 therefore does not meet the disability pathway, and the Head is not eligible. Every model treated disability status plus SSDI receipt as enough, or assumed the 24-month waiting period was already met, which the prompt never states. Developer adjudication (2026-09-05): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (age_disability). The output is removed from scoring for every model: its reference depends on an engine input the certified household data never carried and the prompt therefore never listed, and a careful reader could take the stated facts the other way. Recomputed with policyengine-us 1.755.4 (the version that produced the references) the reference moves from 0.0 to 1.0 under the alternative reading. Neither reading is established by the facts; rows that matched the frozen value leave the score along with rows that did not. Judge diagnoses are retained as description; the class prompt_ambiguity records that the reference, not the model, is indeterminate here. In law the under-65 route needs 24 months of SSDI entitlement; a year-round recipient has at least 12. The facts do not settle it."
+us,scenario_084,head_medicare_eligible,36,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,,"PolicyEngine grants Medicare eligibility in three ways: age 65 or older, end-stage renal disease, or at least 24 months of Social Security disability receipt, counted from a separate months-of-receipt input. The head is 62 and has no ESRD. The months-of-SSDI-receipt input is not listed, so the prompt's rule sets it to 0, and the year-long constancy instruction covers only 12 months anyway. The 24-month waiting period is therefore not met, so the head is not eligible. Every model treated a disabled flag plus positive SSDI income as enough, or assumed the waiting period was already satisfied, which infers an unlisted fact the prompt says to treat as 0. Developer adjudication (2026-09-05): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (age_disability). The output is removed from scoring for every model: its reference depends on an engine input the certified household data never carried and the prompt therefore never listed, and a careful reader could take the stated facts the other way. Recomputed with policyengine-us 1.755.4 (the version that produced the references) the reference moves from 0.0 to 1.0 under the alternative reading. Neither reading is established by the facts; rows that matched the frozen value leave the score along with rows that did not. Judge diagnoses are retained as description; the class prompt_ambiguity records that the reference, not the model, is indeterminate here. In law the under-65 route needs 24 months of SSDI entitlement; a year-round recipient has at least 12. The facts do not settle it."
us,scenario_084,snap,2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The single-person household has $33,233 of gross annual income ($2,769/month), which exceeds North Carolina's broad-based categorical eligibility gross cap of 200% FPL (about $2,680/month for one person in 2026), and after the ~$204 standard deduction and the elderly/disabled excess-medical deduction its net income of roughly $1,738/month still exceeds the 100%-FPL net income limit of about $1,340/month; the $56,500 bank balance also exceeds the elderly/disabled resource limit of roughly $4,650. Ineligibility ends the calculation at $0. Both models stopped at the observation that the gross income test is waived when an elderly or disabled member is present and never tested net income against the 100%-FPL ceiling, then manufactured a benefit — one by overriding its own $0 formula result, the other by applying the one-to-two-person minimum allotment, which is a floor for households already found eligible, not a substitute for eligibility."
-us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,35,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The correct path starts with taxable Social Security of about $14,051, which is $4,500 plus 85% of provisional income above $34,000. That gives AGI of about $45,574. Under OBBBA, the TCJA structure is permanent, so 2026 has no personal exemption and a $16,100 single standard deduction plus $2,050 for being 65 or older, for $18,150. The $6,000 OBBBA senior deduction also applies because MAGI is under $75,000, bringing total deductions to $24,150. Taxable income is $21,423.74, taxed at 10% up to $12,400 and 12% above that, for $2,322.85, and there are no nonrefundable credits. Most models either left out the $6,000 senior deduction, assumed TCJA had expired (personal exemption and a 15% bracket), miscalculated taxable Social Security, or submitted a number that didn't match their own correct work."
+us,scenario_085,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,37,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"This is a single filer, age 67. AGI is $45,573.74, which includes $14,050.74 of taxable Social Security: provisional income is $45,236, and the taxable amount is $4,500 plus 85% of the excess over $34,000. Under OBBBA's 2026 permanent-TCJA law, the deduction is $24,150: the $16,100 single standard deduction, the $2,050 aged addition, and the $6,000 senior deduction, which does not phase out at this MAGI. Tax on $21,423.74 of taxable income at 10% up to $12,400 and 12% above is $2,322.85, and no nonrefundable credits apply. Most wrong answers either left out the $6,000 senior deduction, applied a TCJA-sunset regime with personal exemptions and a 15% bracket, miscomputed the taxable share of Social Security, or submitted a number that contradicts their own correct reasoning."
us,scenario_085,federal_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_085,local_income_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_085,payroll_tax,2,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Employee payroll tax applies to wages and other covered employment earnings, not Social Security survivor benefits, retirement distributions, pension income, or taxable interest. Because the household has no listed wages or other payroll-taxable earnings, the employee-side payroll-tax base is zero and payroll tax is $0."
us,scenario_085,snap,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_085,ssi,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,35,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"Pennsylvania does not tax Social Security or retirement distributions (pension, IRA, 401(k)) received after retirement age, so this 67-year-old's only PA-taxable income is $1,675 of interest, which gives a gross tax of $51.42. The Tax Forgiveness credit (Schedule SP) is nonrefundable, and its eligibility income also leaves out Social Security and those retirement distributions. That puts eligibility income near $1,675, well under the $6,500 single-filer limit for 100% forgiveness, so the liability goes to $0. Most models stopped at $51.42 and skipped forgiveness, often because they counted Social Security and pensions toward the forgiveness limit. A smaller group taxed the retirement distributions, which PA exempts."
+us,scenario_085,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,36,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"Pennsylvania exempts Social Security and retirement distributions (pension, IRA, 401(k)) for a retiree aged 67. That leaves $1,675 of interest, which would produce a $51.42 gross tax at 3.07%. The deciding step is PA Tax Forgiveness (Schedule SP), a nonrefundable credit. Its eligibility income does not count Social Security or exempt retirement distributions, so it is only the $1,675 of interest. That is far below the $6,500 single-filer limit for 100% forgiveness, so the tax goes to $0. Most models stopped at $51.42, either skipping forgiveness entirely or wrongly counting Social Security and pensions in eligibility income. A few also taxed the retirement distributions themselves."
us,scenario_086,child1_chip_eligible,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"CHIP requires Medicaid ineligibility and satisfaction of CHIP’s independent age and income criteria. Child 1 is age 12, so age is not the failing criterion; the household income exceeds Georgia’s applicable CHIP income threshold for 2026."
us,scenario_086,child1_medicaid_eligible,5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"The models conflated Georgia’s separate PeachCare/CHIP pathway with Medicaid or assumed that being a child creates Medicaid eligibility at higher income levels. At 3.44 times FPL, child1 exceeds Georgia’s child Medicaid thresholds and qualifies for no Medicaid category, so employer-sponsored coverage and non-MAGI expense deductions do not create eligibility."
-us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,44,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"PolicyEngine deducts the full $337.50 educator expense above the line instead of capping it at the IRC §62(a)(2)(D)/(d)(3) limit of $300 per educator. That limit is $250 indexed and rounded down to a $50 multiple, so it is still $300 for 2026. The excess deduction understates taxable income by $37.50 and tax by $4.50; the capped result is about $3,260.05.","The reference files head of household and attributes the $12,824 of Social Security dependent benefits to the head. Provisional income is about $68,075, far above the $34,000 upper base, so 85% ($10,900.40) is taxable. It then subtracts $337.50 of educator expenses and OBBBA's permanent 2026 HoH standard deduction of $24,150, taxes $48,412.90 at 10% up to $17,700 and 12% above that ($5,455.55), and subtracts the full $2,200 CTC. The models went wrong in five ways: treating the benefits as the child's non-taxable income, assuming TCJA expired (personal exemptions, 15% bracket, $1,000 CTC), using stale standard deduction and CTC amounts ($22,500 to $23,350 and $2,000), using single or MFJ status, or deducting the $275 of auto loan interest, which the engine does not allow here. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated llm_error (taxable_income_or_deductions). The 2026 educator expense cap is $350, so the head's $337.50 is fully deductible; the judge's $300 cap is not the law. Reference affirmed (26 U.S.C. 62(a)(2)(D), 62(d)(3); Rev. Proc. 2025-32 section 3.12)."
-us,scenario_086,federal_refundable_credits,11,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,,"The 2026 Child Tax Credit for one child is $2,200. The refundable Additional CTC equals only the part of that credit left over after it offsets income tax, capped at $1,700 and at 15% of earnings over $2,500. This Head of Household filer has $62,000 in wages, so taxable income is at least about $37,500 after the $24,150 standard deduction. That gives pre-credit tax of about $4,100 or more, which absorbs the whole $2,200 credit and leaves $0 of ACTC. Earnings of $62,000 are also above the one-child EITC phase-out end of about $51,000, so EITC is $0. The most common error treated the $1,700 refundability cap as the amount payable and skipped the step that limits ACTC to unused credit after tax liability."
+us,scenario_086,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,46,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The $12,824 of Social Security dependent benefits is listed under Head, so it counts as Head's benefit income. Provisional income is about $68,074.50 ($62,000 − $337.50 + $6,412), well above the $34,000 head-of-household upper threshold, so the 85% cap applies and $10,900.40 is taxable. Current 2026 law (OBBBA, which made TCJA permanent) then gives the $24,150 HoH standard deduction, no personal exemptions, a 10% bracket up to $17,700 and 12% above it, and a $2,200 CTC that is fully usable against tax. Taxable income is $72,562.90 − $24,150 = $48,412.90, tax is $5,455.55, and after the CTC the result is $3,255.55. The models mostly went wrong in one of four ways: leaving the benefits out of AGI, assuming TCJA expired (exemptions, 15% bracket, $1,000 CTC), using the wrong filing status, or adding the OBBBA auto-loan-interest deduction even though no qualifying vehicle facts were given. Smaller misses came from capping the educator expense at $300 and from using pre-OBBBA brackets or deductions. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated llm_error (taxable_income_or_deductions). The 2026 educator expense cap is $350, so the head's $337.50 is fully deductible; the judge's $300 cap is not the law. Reference affirmed (26 U.S.C. 62(a)(2)(D), 62(d)(3); Rev. Proc. 2025-32 section 3.12)."
+us,scenario_086,federal_refundable_credits,11,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,,"The 2026 Child Tax Credit for one child is $2,200. The refundable Additional CTC equals only the part of that credit left over after it offsets income tax, capped at $1,700 and at 15% of earnings over $2,500. This Head of Household filer has $62,000 in wages, so taxable income is at least about $37,500 after the $24,150 standard deduction. That gives pre-credit tax of about $4,100 or more, which absorbs the whole $2,200 credit and leaves $0 of ACTC. Earnings of $62,000 are also above the one-child EITC phase-out end of about $51,000, so EITC is $0. Most models treated the $1,700 refundability cap as the amount payable and skipped the step that limits ACTC to unused credit after tax liability."
us,scenario_086,head_chip_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_086,head_medicaid_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_086,payroll_tax,8,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Employee payroll tax is $3,844 of Social Security tax plus $899 of Medicare tax on the head’s full $62,000 wage amount, totaling $4,743. The listed insurance premiums do not reduce the FICA wage base in this computation, Georgia unemployment insurance is employer-paid rather than a mandatory employee payroll tax, and the dependent child has no wages."
-us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,47,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"Georgia AGI starts from federal AGI ($72,562.90, which includes $10,900.40 of taxable Social Security). Subtracting that taxable Social Security gives $61,662.50. PolicyEngine then takes the $15,000 head-of-household standard deduction and a $5,000 dependent exemption, leaving $41,662.50 of taxable income, and applies the 2026 flat rate of 4.99% to get $2,078.96. Almost every model used an outdated rate (5.09%, 5.19%, 5.29%, 5.39% or 5.49%), the $12,000 single deduction with a $3,000 or $4,000 dependent exemption, or the personal exemptions that existed before HB 1437. Several also mishandled the Social Security subtraction or the federal AGI starting point."
+us,scenario_086,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,49,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"The reference starts from federal AGI and subtracts taxable Social Security to get Georgia AGI of $61,662.50. It then subtracts the 2026 Georgia standard deduction of $15,000 and the $5,000 dependent exemption, leaving taxable income of $41,662.50. That amount is taxed at the 2026 flat rate of 4.99%, giving $2,078.96. Almost every model used outdated Georgia figures: a $12,000 (or $24,000) standard deduction, a $3,000–$4,000 dependent exemption, a repealed taxpayer exemption, or a rate between 5.09% and 5.49%. Several models also mishandled the Social Security exclusion or the educator-expense adjustment."
us,scenario_086,state_refundable_credits,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Georgia does not provide the claimed $260 refundable credit for each dependent child under age 17. With no applicable Georgia refundable credit, the state-level refundable-credit aggregate is $0."
us,scenario_088,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,4,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The decisive computation step is the 2026 deduction for qualified tip income: the $9,600 of tips included in wages reduces taxable income in addition to the applicable standard deduction. The state income-tax refund is also excluded because no prior-year itemized-deduction tax benefit is established. These deductions reduce taxable income to zero, so federal income tax before refundable credits is $0 and cannot be negative."
us,scenario_088,federal_refundable_credits,7,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,,"The only refundable credit in play is the childless EITC, and IRC §32(a)(2)(B) phases it out against the GREATER of earned income or AGI. Earned income is $18,577, but AGI is $24,035 once the $2,733 unemployment compensation, $1,862 taxable pension, $675 state tax refund, $140 interest and $48 dividends are added; the tip deduction is below-the-line and does not reduce AGI. The 2026 childless EITC completes its phase-out below $20,000, so an AGI of $24,035 zeroes the credit, and with no qualifying children, no education expenses and no rebate, every other refundable component is $0. Every wrong model ran the phase-out on earned income alone, or on a max-credit shortcut, and never applied the AGI leg of the test."
@@ -686,39 +690,39 @@ us,scenario_088,head_medicaid_eligible,5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False
us,scenario_088,head_medicare_eligible,6,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"Medicare eligibility for a person under 65 is not conferred by disability status itself: it requires 24 months of entitlement to Social Security Disability Insurance (or RRB disability benefits), or an ESRD/ALS diagnosis. The head is 56 with $0 Social Security disability income — every unlisted input is 0, so there is no SSDI entitlement and no 24-month qualifying period — and the only qualifying pathway left, age 65, is unmet, so the answer is No. All six models converted the household's `is_disabled` (and `is_blind`) boolean directly into Medicare entitlement, skipping the SSDI-receipt precondition that actually gates the under-65 pathway; blindness in particular is an SSI/SSDI disability criterion, not a Medicare one."
us,scenario_088,payroll_tax,5,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"The employee payroll tax base here is the full $18,577 of W-2 wages, tips included: IRC 3121(a) and 3121(q) make reported tips wages for both Social Security and Medicare, and the tip deduction is an income-tax deduction that leaves the FICA base untouched. Everything else in the household — the $1,862 taxable pension, $2,733 unemployment compensation, $140 interest, $48 dividends — sits outside the payroll tax base, wages fall far below both the Social Security wage base and the $200,000 Additional Medicare Tax threshold, and Texas imposes no mandatory employee payroll tax. The entire computation is 0.062 × 18,577 = $1,151.78 plus 0.0145 × 18,577 = $269.37, totaling $1,421.14. The wrong answers come from zeroing the wage base entirely, carving tips out of Social Security wages while inventing an employee tip credit, or misexecuting the 7.65% multiplication."
us,scenario_088,snap,5,llm_error,asset_resource,False,,"The head holds $31,776 in bank account assets, and that fails the SNAP resource test outright. The balance is far above the federal $4,500 limit for households with an elderly or disabled member and also above Texas's $5,000 resource limit under broad-based categorical eligibility. Because the household fails the asset test, SNAP is $0 whatever its net income or shelter deduction works out to. Every wrong model took the disability-based waiver of the gross income test and went straight to the net-income and shelter-deduction calculation. None of them applied the resource test to the listed bank balance."
-us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,42,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The correct 2026 chain is: AGI $106,200.13, made up of the spouse's wages net of only their own $6,946 401(k), plus SE income and partnership income, minus half of SE tax and both IRAs. ESI premiums are not excluded from wages, the head's 401(k) is not deducted, and there is no SE health insurance deduction. From AGI, subtract the OBBBA $32,200 MFJ standard deduction, a QBI deduction of 20% × $47,842.18 (SE QBI is reduced by the half-SE-tax deduction), and the new $3,467 qualified overtime deduction. That leaves $60,964.27 taxable, taxed at 10% up to $24,800 and 12% above. The trap that caught the most models was missing the OBBBA overtime deduction. Other common errors were assuming the TCJA sunset (personal exemptions and a 15% bracket), excluding the $7,789 ESI premium from wages, deducting the head's 401(k) even though the head has no wages, and skipping or overstating the QBI deduction."
+us,scenario_089,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,43,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The reference uses 2026 law after OBBBA, where the TCJA structure is permanent. AGI is $106,200: the spouse's wages of $65,881 are reduced only by the spouse's $6,946 traditional 401(k), not by the head's 401(k) because the head has no wages, and not by ESI premiums. Self-employment income is $30,335 and partnership income is $19,650. From that, the reference subtracts half of SE tax ($2,143) and both IRAs ($577). Taxable income of $60,964 then comes from three deductions: the $32,200 MFJ standard deduction, a $9,568 QBI deduction (20% of QBI after subtracting half of SE tax), and the new $3,467 qualified overtime deduction for the FLSA overtime premium. Tax at the 10% rate up to $24,800 and 12% above that gives $6,819.71. Most models left out the overtime deduction. Many also applied a TCJA sunset, used outdated standard deductions or brackets, cut wages by ESI premiums or the head's 401(k), or added SE tax to income tax."
us,scenario_089,federal_refundable_credits,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Refundable CTC requires a qualifying child, and this two-adult household has none. Excess Additional Medicare Tax withholding is not a refundable tax credit, and the model also invented wages for the head despite the instruction that unlisted numeric inputs are zero; therefore all enumerated refundable-credit components equal zero."
us,scenario_089,payroll_tax,22,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"The only wage earner is the spouse, whose FICA base is the full $65,881 of gross wages. The prompt says that figure already includes overtime, so the $3,467 FLSA premium is not added again. The $7,789 employer-sponsored insurance premium, traditional 401(k) deferrals and other health premiums are not subtracted. The head has no wages, NC has no mandatory employee payroll tax, and self-employment and partnership income are excluded. That leaves 6.2% + 1.45% of $65,881, which is about $5,039.91. Most models made one of three mistakes: they subtracted the ESI premium (giving $4,444), added the overtime premium on top of gross wages (giving a base of $69,348), or brought in wages for the head or non-wage income that the prompt does not list."
us,scenario_089,self_employment_tax,13,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"In PolicyEngine, the self-employment tax base is only the spouse's $30,335 of self-employment income. The calculation is $30,335 × 0.9235 = $28,014 in net earnings, times 15.3%, which gives about $4,286. The SE base is far below the 2026 Social Security wage base even after adding the spouse's $65,881 in wages, so the full 12.4% applies. The $19,650 of partnership/S-corp income is not part of the SE tax base. Five models added it to the base and got about $6,400–$7,100. Most of the others used the right method but made arithmetic or rounding errors, or gave a final number that doesn't follow from their own calculation."
-us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,40,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"North Carolina tax is a flat 3.99% (2026) of federal AGI minus the $25,500 MFJ standard deduction. Federal AGI is $106,200: spouse wages of $65,881 less only the spouse's $6,946 traditional 401(k), plus $19,650 pass-through income and $30,335 SE income, less half of SE tax (~$2,143) and $577 of IRA deductions. The head's IRA counts through the spousal-IRA rule, but the head's 401(k) does not because the head has no wages. That gives taxable income of $80,700 × 3.99% = $3,219.94. Most wrong answers came from three mistakes. Some models subtracted the $7,789 ESI premium input from wages, giving an AGI of $98,411. Others subtracted the head's $5,403 401(k) even though the head has no wages. The rest used an outdated 4.25% or 4.5% rate or a wrong standard deduction."
+us,scenario_089,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,41,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The reference is 3.99% (North Carolina's 2026 flat rate) × ($106,200 federal AGI − $25,500 NC joint standard deduction). AGI = $65,881 spouse wages − $6,946 spouse traditional 401(k) + $30,335 SE income − $2,143 half of SE tax + $19,650 partnership/S-corp income − $577 IRA deductions. The Head's $252 IRA counts as a spousal IRA. Most models went wrong in one of these ways: they subtracted the $7,789 employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) premium from wages (giving AGI of $98,411); they deducted the Head's $5,403 401(k) even though the Head has no wages; they used a superseded rate (4.25% or 4.5%) or a wrong standard deduction; or they did the right arithmetic and then submitted a different number."
us,scenario_089,state_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_090,federal_refundable_credits,10,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"For tax year 2026, a filer with no qualifying children must be at least age 25 to claim the childless EITC. The head is 22, so the EITC is $0 regardless of the 7.65% phase-in calculation; with every other refundable-credit component also equal to $0, federal refundable credits total $0."
us,scenario_090,head_medicaid_eligible,6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Kansas has no Medicaid expansion pathway for a nondisabled, nonpregnant, childless 22-year-old adult. A low MAGI of 0.44 times FPL does not independently establish eligibility: the person must first belong to a covered Medicaid category, and this head belongs to none."
us,scenario_090,head_wic_eligible,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"WIC requires categorical eligibility in addition to income eligibility and nutritional risk. A 22-year-old adult with no pregnancy, postpartum, or breastfeeding status is outside every eligible WIC category, so passing the other two tests does not confer eligibility."
us,scenario_090,payroll_tax,2,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Employee payroll tax equals 6.2% Social Security tax plus 1.45% Medicare tax on the full $7,000 of wages, with no Additional Medicare Tax or mandatory Kansas employee payroll tax. The components are $434.00 and $101.50, which sum to $535.50."
us,scenario_090,snap,8,llm_error,asset_resource,False,,"Kansas does not use broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE) for SNAP, so the federal resource test applies. For a household with no elderly or disabled member, the limit is $3,000. The head's $20,300 bank balance exceeds that limit several times over, so SNAP is $0 however the income side works out. Every model produced a positive benefit, either by ignoring the $20,300 in assets or by wrongly claiming that Kansas BBCE waives the asset test."
-us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,21,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Kansas SB 1 (2024) raised the personal exemption for single filers from $2,250 to $9,160, effective tax year 2024. It also replaced the three brackets with two rates of 5.2% and 5.58%. For a single filer, the inflation-indexed standard deduction (about $3,605 or more) plus the $9,160 exemption totals well over $12,700. That far exceeds this filer's $7,020 Kansas AGI, so Kansas taxable income is $0 and tax before refundable credits is $0. Every model used the old $2,250 or $2,320 exemption, or left the exemption out entirely, which left $900–$3,520 of taxable income."
+us,scenario_090,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,22,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Kansas SB 1 (2024) raised the single filer's personal exemption from $2,250 to $9,160, starting in tax year 2024. With the single standard deduction of about $3,605, the two subtractions total about $12,765. That is far more than this filer's $7,020 Kansas AGI, so Kansas taxable income is $0 and tax is $0. Every model used the old $2,250 exemption, the $2,320 dependent-exemption amount, or no exemption at all. Each one therefore left a positive taxable balance and taxed it at 3.1%, 5.2%, or an invented rate."
us,scenario_090,state_refundable_credits,5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Kansas's refundable individual credit is its EITC, set at 17% of the federal EITC, and the head is 22 — below the age-25 floor for the childless federal EITC — so the federal credit is $0 and the state match on it is $0. The other candidate, the Kansas food sales tax credit, is nonrefundable for tax years after 2012 and in any case requires the filer to be 55 or older, blind or disabled, or to have a dependent child under 18 in the home, none of which describes a 22-year-old single filer with no dependents. Every wrong answer cleared a household income test ($7,020 is well under both credits' ceilings) and then stopped, never applying the categorical age/dependent gate that actually decides both credits. The correct derivation is 17% × $0 federal EITC plus $0 qualifying food sales tax credit = $0."
us,scenario_090,tanf,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"TANF is a benefit for families with dependent children; a single 22-year-old with no children fails Kansas's categorical requirement outright, and the $20,300 in bank assets independently exceeds the state's TANF resource limit, so the correct answer is $0. The trap is the ""financial assistance"" line item in the household facts: it is an unearned-income input, not a TANF payment, and treating it as the answer skips the eligibility determination entirely. Answering this variable requires running the categorical test — dependent child present, resources under the limit — rather than pattern-matching a dollar figure labeled ""assistance"" in the inputs."
-us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,44,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The reference uses post-OBBBA 2026 law. AGI is $35,012.56 (wages net of the $926 traditional 401(k), plus interest and dividends, minus the $43 IRA deduction). Two deductions come off that: the $16,100 standard deduction and the $628 qualified-overtime deduction, which gives taxable income of $18,284.66. After the $3,968 of qualified dividends is pulled out at 0%, ordinary income of $14,316.66 is taxed at 10% up to $12,400 and 12% above it, for $1,470. A $120 nonrefundable Saver's Credit (10% of $1,199 in traditional plus Roth contributions) brings it to $1,350. The AOTC is $0 because no qualified tuition is listed, and ESI premiums are not excluded from wages. Most wrong answers made one of these mistakes: dropped the overtime deduction, dropped the Saver's Credit or cut its base, claimed an AOTC with no expenses, assumed the TCJA sunset, excluded the $6,589 of ESI premiums from wages, or used outdated standard-deduction and bracket amounts."
+us,scenario_091,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,46,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The reference uses post-OBBBA 2026 law. AGI is $27,000 wages − $926 traditional 401(k) + $4,806 interest + $4,176 dividends − $43 IRA. From that it subtracts the $16,100 standard deduction and the $628 qualified-overtime deduction. That leaves about $14,317 of ordinary taxable income, with the qualified dividends taxed at 0%. Ordinary income taxed at 10% up to $12,400 and 12% above gives $1,470. A 10% saver's credit on $1,199 of retirement contributions (traditional plus Roth) takes off $120, for $1,350. Models went wrong in four main ways: they missed the overtime deduction, used an old standard deduction or assumed the TCJA sunset (personal exemption, 15% bracket), claimed an AOTC with no qualified tuition listed, or left out the saver's credit. A few also excluded the employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) premiums from wages."
us,scenario_091,federal_refundable_credits,10,llm_error,other,False,,"The decisive step is the American Opportunity Credit's base: the credit is 100% of the first $2,000 plus 25% of the next $2,000 of qualified tuition and related expenses, and this household lists no tuition — an unlisted numeric input the prompt explicitly instructs be treated as $0 — so the credit is $0 and its 40% refundable portion is $0. The listed AOTC items (eligible institution, 1098-T/exception, institution EIN, at least half-time, pursuing a credential) are administrative gating conditions, not expenditures, and nine of ten models converted those flags into the statutory maximum $2,500 credit and booked $1,000 (or a mis-scaled $400/$1,200) of refundability. The EITC is separately $0 three times over: the head is 22, below the age-25 floor for a childless filer, and both the ~$36,000 AGI and the childless phase-out ceiling foreclose it; with no children there is no refundable CTC, no recovery rebate credit and no refundable payroll tax credit, leaving $0."
us,scenario_091,head_medicaid_eligible,1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"Wisconsin Medicaid eligibility requires qualification through an applicable categorical pathway and its income rules. This 22-year-old nondependent falls into no Medicaid category, and MAGI of 2.19 times FPL does not satisfy an adult eligibility pathway, so immigration eligibility alone does not confer coverage."
us,scenario_091,payroll_tax,17,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Employee payroll tax here is 6.2% Social Security plus 1.45% Medicare on the full $27,000 of gross wages, which comes to $1,674.00 + $391.50 = $2,065.50. The listed $6,589 of employer-sponsored insurance premiums and the $1,800 of other health premiums do not lower the FICA wage base. The $628 FLSA overtime premium is already inside the $27,000 gross, and Wisconsin has no mandatory employee state payroll tax. Most of the wrong models treated the ESI premiums as a pre-tax Section 125 deduction and taxed only $20,411. The rest added the overtime twice, invented a state payroll tax, used the wrong combined rate, or made an arithmetic or reporting slip."
us,scenario_091,self_employment_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,48,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"The Wisconsin calculation has three parts. Start from federal AGI of $36,182.56. That figure includes all $10,152 of interest, dividends and capital gain distributions, and it keeps the employer-sponsored insurance premiums, the other health premiums and the overtime premium in income. Subtract 30% of the $1,170 long-term capital gain distributions ($351) to get WI AGI of $35,831.56. Then deduct the indexed 2026 sliding-scale standard deduction, which is only partly phased out at $12,074.61, plus the $700 exemption, which is a deduction and not a credit. Tax the resulting $23,056.95 at 3.5% up to roughly $15,110 and 4.4% above that, with no nonrefundable credit. Most models went wrong in one of these ways: they skipped the capital gain exclusion, phased the standard deduction down too steeply or not at all, dropped the exemption, or subtracted items such as ESI premiums or overtime that never reduce WI income. A few zeroed out the tax with credits that do not apply."
+us,scenario_091,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,50,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"The reference has several steps. Federal AGI is $36,182.56: wages net of the $926 traditional 401(k) deferral, plus all interest, dividends and capital gain distributions, minus the $43 IRA deduction. Wisconsin then subtracts 30% of the $1,170 capital gain distributions ($351), applies the 2026 sliding-scale single standard deduction (reduced at 12% to $12,074.61) and the $700 exemption deduction, and taxes the $23,056.95 remainder at 3.5% and 4.4%; no Wisconsin nonrefundable credit applies. Most models got federal AGI right but then made Wisconsin-specific errors. They skipped the 30% capital gain exclusion, under- or over-phased the standard deduction, dropped the exemption, used stale brackets or rates, or applied credits that don't exist or don't apply (federal AOTC, school property tax credit). Another group changed AGI by subtracting employer-sponsored insurance premiums, other health premiums, or the FLSA overtime premium."
us,scenario_091,state_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_092,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,4,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Only the $14,980 taxable pension enters adjusted gross income; the Social Security benefit contributes no taxable amount under the federal provisional-income calculation. The age-77 single filer’s applicable standard deduction exceeds that AGI, leaving zero taxable income and therefore zero federal income tax before refundable credits."
us,scenario_092,head_medicaid_eligible,5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Age 77 and disability do not independently establish Alabama Medicaid eligibility; the person must qualify through a specific Medicaid category. This person receives no SSI, has MAGI income of 2.03 times FPL, and qualifies through none of the available pathways, so the Medicaid category is NONE and eligibility is No."
us,scenario_092,payroll_tax,1,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Employee payroll taxes apply to wages and other covered employment earnings, not Social Security retirement benefits or taxable private pension income. With no wages or other payroll-taxable earnings listed, the employee Social Security and Medicare tax base is zero, yielding payroll tax of $0."
us,scenario_092,self_employment_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,23,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Alabama excludes Social Security and also lets a taxpayer aged 65 or older exclude the first $6,000 of taxable retirement income, including private pension income. That leaves Alabama AGI of $14,980 - $6,000 = $8,980. Itemized deductions of $9,028 ($2,824 mortgage interest, $1,094 real estate tax and $5,110 in charitable gifts) exceed that AGI, so taxable income is zero even before the $1,500 personal exemption, and the tax is $0. Every model taxed the full $14,980 pension. The models that itemized correctly still landed at $182.60 ($4,452 taxable). The models that used the standard deduction, or invented an age-65 exemption, landed higher."
+us,scenario_092,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,24,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"Alabama fully excludes Social Security, and it also shields this 77-year-old filer's pension through its retirement-income exclusions: the defined-benefit pension exemption and the $6,000 retirement-income exemption for filers 65 and older. Without the pension, Alabama AGI is at most $8,980. The $9,028 of Alabama itemized deductions (mortgage interest, real estate tax, and charitable gifts) plus the $1,500 personal exemption absorb all of it, so Alabama taxable income and tax are $0. Every wrong model treated the full $14,980 pension as taxable Alabama income, and many added invented deductions, age exemptions, or wrong bracket rates on top of that."
us,scenario_092,state_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_093,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Disability alone does not confer Missouri Medicaid eligibility. The person must satisfy a specific non-MAGI pathway's categorical and financial requirements; this 27-year-old dependent receives no SSI, qualifies for no non-MAGI category, and at 2.82 times FPL exceeds the applicable MAGI limits."
us,scenario_093,dependent1_medicare_eligible,5,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"PolicyEngine's is_medicare_eligible turns on a single age test — age 65 or older — with the narrow ESRD/ALS entitlements not modeled and no disability branch at all; Dependent 1 is 27, so the variable is False. Every wrong model substituted the household's bare ""is disabled"" flag for that age test, asserting a disability-based Medicare pathway either as a PolicyEngine rule or as a real-world shortcut. The statutory disability pathway requires 24 months of SSDI entitlement, and Dependent 1 has $45,000 in annual wages (~$3,750/month), far above substantial gainful activity, plus no listed SSDI receipt — the prompt directs unlisted benefit receipt to be treated as zero, so no disability pathway is reachable on these facts."
-us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,47,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,,"The correct figure comes from one married-filing-jointly return that taxes only the head's and spouse's income. Wages of $118,000 minus $4,058 in traditional 401(k) contributions, plus $1,156 of interest, minus $190 in IRA contributions and the $2,500 student-loan-interest cap gives AGI of $112,408. Subtracting the 2026 OBBBA standard deduction of $32,200 leaves taxable income of $80,208, which produces $9,129 of tax at 10% up to $24,800 and 12% above that. The disabled 27-year-old is claimed as a qualifying child, because permanent disability removes the age limit, so the couple gets the $500 credit for other dependents, for a final $8,629. That dependent's $45,000 of wages is neither added to the joint AGI nor taxed on a separate return in this output. Most wrong answers either added the dependent's wages or a separate return, denied the $500 credit, subtracted employer health insurance premiums from wages, took an unsupported auto-loan-interest deduction, or used pre-OBBBA or TCJA-sunset parameters. Developer adjudication (2026-10-06): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (household_unit_or_filing_status). The frozen reference is 8,628.99; the alternative is 11,848.99. A dependent with $45,000 of wages must file their own federal and state return, and the engine computes only the head and spouse's return. The output definitions name no return, tax unit or household, the prompt shows one tax unit and asks for quantities 'for this household', and careful readers split both ways (reference_audit/2026-10-05-reference-adversary/verification/independent/pa_123.md, verification/definition_conformance.md). Excluded under decision d1022 until decision d1029 settles the scope for version 2. Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (whether the income tax outputs cover only the head and spouse's return or every return the household's members must file; the definitions name no return, and a dependent here must file their own)."
+us,scenario_093,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,49,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,,"The household is one MFJ tax unit. Only the head's and spouse's income counts toward its AGI: wages of $118,000 minus $4,058 of traditional 401(k), plus $1,156 of interest, minus the $190 IRA deduction and the $2,500 student-loan-interest cap, which gives $112,408. The dependent's $45,000 of wages is not added to the joint return, and the dependent does not file a separate return. The 27-year-old is permanently disabled, so they are a qualifying child at any age with no gross-income test, which earns the $500 credit for other dependents. With the 2026 OBBBA parameters ($32,200 standard deduction, 10% bracket up to $24,800, no qualifying auto-loan deduction and no ESI subtraction from box-1 wages), taxable income is $80,208, tax is $9,129, and $9,129 − $500 = $8,629. Most wrong answers came from one of four mistakes: taxing the dependent's wages, denying the ODC, using 2025 or post-TCJA-sunset parameters, or subtracting ESI premiums or auto-loan interest. Developer adjudication (2026-10-06): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (household_unit_or_filing_status). The frozen reference is 8,628.99; the alternative is 11,848.99. A dependent with $45,000 of wages must file their own federal and state return, and the engine computes only the head and spouse's return. The output definitions name no return, tax unit or household, the prompt shows one tax unit and asks for quantities 'for this household', and careful readers split both ways (reference_audit/2026-10-05-reference-adversary/verification/independent/pa_123.md, verification/definition_conformance.md). Excluded under decision d1022 until decision d1029 settles the scope for version 2. Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (whether the income tax outputs cover only the head and spouse's return or every return the household's members must file; the definitions name no return, and a dependent here must file their own)."
us,scenario_093,federal_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_093,payroll_tax,19,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Employee FICA here is 7.65% of each worker's full listed gross wages: 6.2% Social Security plus 1.45% Medicare on $53,000, $65,000 and $45,000, all below the wage base. That gives $3,286 + $768.50, $4,030 + $942.50 and $2,790 + $652.50, for a total of $12,469.50. No Additional Medicare Tax applies, and Missouri has no employee state payroll tax. The facts never say the $8,389 ESI premiums were paid through a pre-tax cafeteria plan. The largest group of models (8) assumed a Section 125 salary reduction anyway, cutting FICA wages to $137,833 and the tax to $10,544.22. Most other models wrote out the correct $12,469.50 components or formula but then added wrong, multiplied wrong, or submitted a different number from the one they computed."
-us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,48,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,,"Missouri tax here comes only from the spouses' income. Their MO AGI is $112,408.25, and the dependent's $45,000 of wages adds $0. Subtracting the $32,200 2026 standard deduction and a $431.45 federal-income-tax deduction leaves $79,776.80. The federal-tax deduction is 5% of the couple's $8,629 federal tax because MO AGI falls in the $100,001–$125,000 tier. Missouri's combined return then splits that taxable income between the spouses by income share ($34,743.94 and $45,032.86) and runs each share through the graduated 2026 schedule (4.7% top rate) separately, so the lower brackets apply twice. Most models either added the dependent's wages to the base or taxed a separate dependent return, which also pushed AGI past $125k and wiped out the federal-tax deduction. Nearly all of them ran the schedule once on the joint total instead of separately for each spouse. Developer adjudication (2026-10-06): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (household_unit_or_filing_status). The frozen reference is 3,388.25; the alternative is 4,528.08. A dependent with $45,000 of wages must file their own federal and state return, and the engine computes only the head and spouse's return. The output definitions name no return, tax unit or household, the prompt shows one tax unit and asks for quantities 'for this household', and careful readers split both ways (reference_audit/2026-10-05-reference-adversary/verification/independent/pa_123.md, verification/definition_conformance.md). Excluded under decision d1022 until decision d1029 settles the scope for version 2. Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (whether the income tax outputs cover only the head and spouse's return or every return the household's members must file; the definitions name no return, and a dependent here must file their own)."
+us,scenario_093,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,50,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,,"The reference treats everyone as one joint Missouri tax unit. Only the spouses' income counts: Missouri AGI is $112,408.25 after 401(k) deferrals, IRA contributions and the $2,500 student-loan interest cap. The adult dependent's Missouri AGI is $0, and the dependent files no separate return. From that AGI, the reference subtracts the $32,200 standard deduction and a $431.45 federal-tax deduction (5% of federal liability in the $100k–$125k AGI tier), giving $79,776.80. That amount is split between the spouses in proportion to income and each share is taxed on its own schedule, so the low brackets are used twice. Most models went wrong in one of three ways: they added the dependent's $45,000 (on the joint return or a separate single return), they skipped or overstated the percentage-limited federal-tax deduction, or they taxed the joint total on one schedule. Developer adjudication (2026-10-06): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (household_unit_or_filing_status). The frozen reference is 3,388.25; the alternative is 4,528.08. A dependent with $45,000 of wages must file their own federal and state return, and the engine computes only the head and spouse's return. The output definitions name no return, tax unit or household, the prompt shows one tax unit and asks for quantities 'for this household', and careful readers split both ways (reference_audit/2026-10-05-reference-adversary/verification/independent/pa_123.md, verification/definition_conformance.md). Excluded under decision d1022 until decision d1029 settles the scope for version 2. Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (whether the income tax outputs cover only the head and spouse's return or every return the household's members must file; the definitions name no return, and a dependent here must file their own)."
us,scenario_095,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,3,llm_error,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,,"The head's surviving-spouse status determines the federal filing-status pathway and supplies a standard deduction large enough to eliminate the $15,286.89 of AGI. Social Security is not taxable at this provisional-income level, so it is excluded from AGI; after the half-self-employment-tax deduction, taxable income and income tax before credits are both zero."
us,scenario_095,federal_refundable_credits,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Federal refundable credits include only the refundable credit components applicable under 2026 law. Age 73 does not independently create a $1,200 refundable senior credit, and all five applicable components—EITC, refundable American Opportunity Credit, refundable CTC, Recovery Rebate Credit, and refundable payroll tax credit—equal zero."
us,scenario_095,free_school_meals_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
@@ -730,14 +734,14 @@ us,scenario_095,payroll_tax,2,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"The payroll_tax
us,scenario_095,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_095,self_employment_tax,7,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"The correct method has two steps. First, reduce self-employment income to net earnings from self-employment by multiplying by 0.9235, which gives about $3,877. That amount is above the $400 filing floor and well below the Social Security wage base. Second, apply the full 15.3% rate, which gives about $593. Some models left out the 0.9235 adjustment. Others compared the wrong figure to the $400 floor or treated the income-tax deduction for half of SE tax as a reduction of SE tax itself. Others did the arithmetic and then submitted a different number. The head's age of 73 and receipt of Social Security do not exempt them from SE tax."
us,scenario_095,snap,5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The household’s $29,605 annual income exceeds the applicable 2026 New Jersey SNAP gross-income eligibility limit for one person, so the SNAP calculation stops with no eligibility and a $0 allotment. Broad-based categorical eligibility, elderly-household deductions, and the minimum-allotment rule do not produce a benefit after this income screen fails."
-us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,23,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"New Jersey charges no income tax when NJ gross income is at or below the filing threshold: $10,000 for single filers and $20,000 for a qualifying widow(er). Social Security is exempt, and the $11,385 401(k) distribution is removed by the age-62+ pension exclusion. That leaves $4,198 of NJ income, far below either threshold, so the tax is $0 before any rate schedule applies. Most models got the exclusions right. They then ran the leftover self-employment income through exemptions, the medical deduction and the 1.4% bracket, and never checked the no-tax threshold."
+us,scenario_095,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,24,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"New Jersey has a low-income rule (N.J.S.A. 54A:2-4): no Gross Income Tax is owed when NJ gross income is at or below $10,000 for single filers, or $20,000 for joint, head-of-household, and qualifying surviving-spouse filers. Social Security is excluded and the 62+ pension exclusion removes the $11,385 401(k) distribution, so NJ gross income is only $4,198 of self-employment profit. That is below even the $10,000 single threshold, and the pre-exclusion total of $15,583 is also below $20,000, so NJ tax is $0. Every model that answered applied exemptions and the 1.4% rate to the leftover self-employment income and never checked the gross-income threshold that zeroes the tax."
us,scenario_095,state_refundable_credits,4,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,,"This household has no children, so the NJ EITC is its only possible refundable credit. For a childless filer aged 65 or older, New Jersey computes the credit as 40% of a hypothetical federal childless EITC. The phase-in gives 7.65% × earned income of about $3,901 ($4,198 SE income minus $296.58, the deductible half of SE tax), or $298.45. The phase-out then takes 7.65% × (AGI − non-joint threshold). AGI is about $15,286 because it includes the $11,385 401(k) distribution (Social Security is untaxed because provisional income is below $25,000). Since the 401(k) distribution alone exceeds the roughly $11k threshold, the reduction is larger than the phase-in amount and the credit is $0. The household paid no property tax or rent, so the NJ property tax credit is also $0, and ANCHOR is not an income tax credit."
us,scenario_095,tanf,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_098,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The $11,100 farm rental loss offsets the $15,540 taxable pension, leaving $4,440 of non-Social-Security income. Provisional income is then below the threshold for taxing Social Security benefits, so AGI remains $4,440; the applicable standard deduction eliminates taxable income and produces zero federal income tax before refundable credits."
us,scenario_098,free_school_meals_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_098,head_chip_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_098,head_medicaid_eligible,5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Age 80 does not itself establish Medicaid eligibility; the person must qualify through a specific aged, blind, or disabled pathway or another Medicaid category. This person passes the HBI age and resource tests but fails HBI eligibility overall, receives no SSI, is not a dependent, and matches no Medicaid category; the 2.20× FPL MAGI figure cannot create eligibility without a qualifying MAGI category."
-us,scenario_098,head_medicare_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
+us,scenario_098,head_medicare_eligible,2,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"The head is 80. Medicare eligibility starts at age 65, so the head is eligible and the reference is 1. Income, assets and other facts don't affect this. Neither model was wrong about the rule itself. One gave no answer at all. The other correctly found that the head is eligible because of age, but then submitted 0, which contradicts its own reasoning."
us,scenario_098,head_wic_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_098,local_income_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_098,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
@@ -757,15 +761,15 @@ us,scenario_099,child2_head_start_eligible,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,F
us,scenario_099,child2_medicaid_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_099,child2_medicare_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_099,child2_wic_eligible,4,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"WIC eligibility requires both categorical eligibility and financial eligibility; being age four satisfies only the child-category requirement. The household's approximately $159,676 of annual income exceeds California's WIC limit of 185% of the federal poverty level for a four-person household, so child 2 is not eligible."
-us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,47,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,,"For 2026, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) rules apply. The standard deduction is $32,200, and non-itemizers on a joint return get a $2,000 charitable deduction, which brings taxable income to $125,529.30. The CTC is $2,200 per child, and the CDCC rate drops from 35% by 1 point for each $4,000 of joint AGI over $150,000, so it is 32% here, giving $1,920 on $6,000 of expenses. The traditional IRA contributions are not deductible because of the active-participant phaseout, and the auto loan interest is not deductible. Most wrong answers used the old 20% CDCC rate, left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, used the pre-OBBBA $2,000 CTC, or applied the expired-TCJA rules (personal exemptions, $1,000 CTC)."
+us,scenario_099,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,49,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,,"The 2026 reference follows OBBBA law, under which the TCJA rates are permanent. The steps are: AGI of $159,729 (traditional IRA not deductible because both spouses are active 401(k) participants; no auto-loan interest deduction), minus the $32,200 joint standard deduction and the new $2,000 charitable deduction for non-itemizing joint filers. Tax of $17,031 is then reduced by a $4,400 CTC ($2,200 per child) and a $1,920 CDCC. The CDCC uses OBBBA's enhanced rate: 35% minus one point for each $4,000 (or part of $4,000) of joint AGI above $150,000, which gives 32%. The wrong answers split two ways. Some models applied the TCJA-sunset regime (personal exemptions, $1,000 CTC with a $110,000 phaseout). Others used OBBBA only partly: they left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, kept the old 20% CDCC rate, used $2,000-per-child CTC values, or capped the nonrefundable CTC at the non-ACTC slice."
us,scenario_099,federal_refundable_credits,6,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,,"The trap is §24(d)'s liability-limitation prong: the refundable CTC is the *lesser* of the earned-income formula (15% of earnings over $2,500), the per-child refundable cap, and the portion of the CTC left unused after the credit offsets tax liability. This married-filing-jointly household has AGI near $159,676 (wages $165,000 plus $1,010 interest, $144 dividends, capital netting limited to a $3,000 loss, less $3,232 of traditional 401(k)/IRA contributions and the $338 educator expense) and roughly $127,000 of taxable income after the 2026 MFJ standard deduction, producing about $17,400 of federal income tax before credits — far more than the $4,400 of 2026 OBBBA CTC ($2,200 × 2), so the entire CTC is consumed nonrefundably and nothing spills into the ACTC. EITC is zero because $159,676 is far beyond the two-child MFJ phase-out, and the CDCC is nonrefundable. Every wrong model treated a refundability cap or the earned-income formula as a standalone entitlement instead of applying the unused-credit ceiling."
-us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,40,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"California runs a universal school meals program (enacted by AB 130 in 2021 and in effect since the 2022-23 school year), so every enrolled K-12 student gets free breakfast and lunch at no charge, whatever the household's income. PolicyEngine sets school_meal_tier to FREE for California households even though this household's income is 5.03 times the poverty guideline and it has no categorical eligibility. The 9-year-old is in K-12, so the free meal support comes to $1,130.96 a year. Every model with reasoning applied only the federal National School Lunch Program test (130% of the poverty line, or categorical eligibility) and never applied California's universal program, which overrides that test."
+us,scenario_099,free_school_meals_eligible,42,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"California runs a universal free school meals program, California Universal Meals, in effect since the 2022-23 school year. Every enrolled K-12 student gets free meals regardless of household income. PolicyEngine sets school_meal_tier to FREE for this household even though its FPG ratio is 5.03 and it has no categorical eligibility, and it values one K-12 child's meals at $1,130.96. Every model that answered applied only the federal NSLP 130% FPL income test or categorical eligibility and never applied California's state universal-meals override."
us,scenario_099,head_chip_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_099,head_medicaid_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_099,head_medicare_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_099,head_wic_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_099,local_income_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,42,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The federal part is simple: 7.65% employee FICA on the full $165,000 of gross wages comes to $12,622.50, and there is no Additional Medicare Tax. The trap is California's mandatory employee SDI. For 2026 it is 1.3% with no wage cap, applied to the full gross wages, which adds $2,145. The wrong answers fall into four groups: some dropped SDI entirely, some used the outdated 1.1% (2024) or 1.2% (2025) rate, some subtracted employer-sponsored insurance premiums from the FICA and SDI wage base, and some submitted numbers their own arithmetic does not support."
+us,scenario_099,payroll_tax,44,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"The federal part is simple: 7.65% FICA on $165,000 of gross wages is $12,622.50 ($10,230 Social Security plus $2,392.50 Medicare), and there is no Additional Medicare Tax. The answers split on California's mandatory employee SDI. For 2026 it is 1.3% of all wages with no cap, which is $2,145 on $165,000. Most models either left SDI out or used last year's 1.2% ($1,980) or an older 1.1% ($1,815). A smaller group also wrongly took the employer-sponsored insurance premiums out of the FICA/SDI wage base, even though the engine taxes the full gross wages."
us,scenario_099,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_099,self_employment_tax,2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_099,snap,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
@@ -774,7 +778,7 @@ us,scenario_099,spouse_medicaid_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output
us,scenario_099,spouse_medicare_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_099,spouse_wic_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_099,ssi,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,46,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The correct path starts from CA AGI of $160,066.80. That is wages net of the $3,088 traditional 401(k) deferrals, plus interest and dividends, less the $3,000 capital-loss cap. The traditional IRA deduction is fully phased out because both spouses are active plan participants, and the $337.50 educator deduction is added back. CA itemized deductions are only real estate taxes ($8,653.50, with no SALT cap) plus charity ($12,621), totaling $21,274.50. Out-of-pocket medical costs of $11,400 fall below the 7.5% floor, and the $1,263 of employee expenses falls below the 2% floor. This gives taxable income of $138,792.30, bracket tax of $5,871.48, and $1,256 of personal and dependent exemption credits. Most wrong answers went wrong in one of these ways: they used the standard deduction instead of itemizing, double-counted health premiums to create a medical deduction, excluded employer-paid ESI premiums from wages, misstated the 2026 bracket tax, or omitted or mis-sized the $1,256 exemption credits."
+us,scenario_099,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,48,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The correct path has five steps. First, California AGI is $160,066.80: wages net of $3,088 in 401(k) deferrals, interest, dividends and a capital loss capped at $3,000, with no traditional IRA deduction and the $337.50 educator expense added back. Second, the household itemizes $21,274.50, which is real estate taxes plus all charitable gifts. Out-of-pocket medical costs fall below the 7.5% AGI floor, unreimbursed employee expenses fall below the 2% floor, and ESI premiums do not reduce wages. Third, 2026 MFJ bracket tax on $138,792.30 is $5,871.48. Fourth, that tax is reduced by $1,256 of exemption credits (2×$153 personal + 2×$475 dependent), and the dependent care and renter's credits are unavailable at this AGI. The wrong answers came mostly from a phantom medical deduction, treating ESI premiums as pre-tax, using the standard deduction instead of itemizing, mis-indexed brackets, or wrong exemption credit amounts."
us,scenario_099,state_refundable_credits,2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_099,tanf,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_100,child1_chip_eligible,6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"CHIP eligibility requires the child not to qualify for Medicaid. At age 6 and this income, Child 1 qualifies for Montana Medicaid under the OLDER_CHILD category, so Medicaid eligibility categorically precludes CHIP eligibility; the CHIP income ceiling and existing employer-sponsored insurance do not alter that result."
@@ -785,8 +789,8 @@ us,scenario_100,child2_chip_eligible,6,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,
us,scenario_100,child2_early_head_start_eligible,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Early Head Start serves infants and toddlers under age 3, while Head Start is the separate program for preschool-age children. Child 2 is age 5, so low household income does not overcome the Early Head Start age restriction."
us,scenario_100,child2_head_start_eligible,4,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"Head Start for preschool-age children covers children from age 3 through compulsory school age, so a 5-year-old is squarely inside the band — it is the 6-year-old Child 1 who falls outside it, and Early Head Start that stops below age 3. On top of that, the household's TANF receipt of $505.41 monthly confers categorical eligibility on all members, and its $1,875.40 adjusted gross income is far below the poverty guideline for three people, so income eligibility holds independently. Three models cut Head Start off at age 4 and one defaulted the flag to zero with no derivation; all four therefore never applied the categorical TANF pathway or the income test that both resolve to eligible."
us,scenario_100,child2_medicaid_eligible,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Montana Medicaid applies a young-child eligibility pathway to the 5-year-old dependent. The child's household MAGI is 0.07 times FPL, below the applicable young-child income threshold, so the eligibility test returns Yes."
-us,scenario_100,child2_wic_eligible,12,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"WIC's child category covers children from age 1 until their 5th birthday, so the age test is strictly under 5. Child 2 is age 5, has passed that birthday, and is not in the child category. They are also not an infant, pregnant, postpartum, or breastfeeding, so they fall into no WIC category. The household's very low income doesn't matter once the categorical age test fails. Every model that answered treated age 5 as within the WIC child range, and none of them applied the strict under-5 cutoff."
-us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,39,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Earned income for both the EITC (IRC §32(c)(2)) and the ACTC (§24(d)) counts only compensation includible in gross income. The $3,859 of traditional 401(k) elective deferrals are excluded, so earned income is $5,914.72 − $3,859 = $2,055.72. That puts the EITC in the 40% phase-in at $822.29. It also puts earned income under the $2,500 ACTC floor, so refundable CTC is $0. Most models instead used the full $5,915 of gross wages and got $2,366 EITC plus $512.25 ACTC = $2,878.25. Others took out deductions that don't apply (IRA, health premiums, ESI), added overtime a second time, invented refundability rules, or returned 0 with no basis."
+us,scenario_100,child2_wic_eligible,13,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"WIC's child category covers ages 1 up to the child's 5th birthday, so a child aged 5 is no longer categorically eligible. PolicyEngine assigns a child to the WIC child category only when age is under 5. Child 2 is exactly 5, falls outside every WIC category, and is ineligible no matter how low the household income is. Every model that answered treated 'under 5' as if it included age 5, or used a wider age range, and stopped once the income test passed."
+us,scenario_100,federal_refundable_credits,41,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"For the EITC and the refundable CTC, wages count as earned income only to the extent they are included in gross income. The head's $3,859 of traditional 401(k) elective deferrals are excluded from gross income, so earned income is $5,914.72 − $3,859 = $2,055.72. The two-child EITC phases in at 40%: 0.40 × $2,055.72 = $822.29. The refundable CTC is 15% of earned income above $2,500, and that is $0 because earned income is below $2,500. Most models used the full $5,915 in gross wages, which produced an EITC of $2,366 and a refundable CTC of $512. Others invented exclusions, used the wrong refundable-CTC threshold, ignored the 15% earned-income formula, or treated the EITC as limited by tax liability."
us,scenario_100,free_school_meals_eligible,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Free school meals are awarded through two independent pathways, and this Montana household clears both: it receives $8,625.89 of SNAP, which categorically confers free-meal status, and its countable income of $11,979.68 ($5,914.72 wages plus $6,064.96 TANF) is 44% of the federal poverty guideline for a three-person household, far under the 130% free-meal ceiling. The two children, ages 5 and 6, are both school-age, so the free tier pays a $7.15 daily per-child subsidy for the contiguous-US school year, $2,261.92 annually. The trap is that SNAP and TANF receipt are derived outputs of this same household, not listed input facts, so a model that only credits explicitly stated benefit receipt loses the categorical pathway — but even the wage-only figure of $5,915 sits at roughly 22% of the poverty guideline, so the income test alone still lands in the free tier. Both models returned 0 without running either test."
us,scenario_100,head_medicaid_eligible,4,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The head is a 46-year-old parent of two young children with MAGI of about $5,915, which is 0.07 × FPL for a household of three. That is far below Montana's Medicaid limit for the parent/caretaker category, so the head is eligible. MAGI-based Medicaid has no asset test, and having employer-sponsored insurance does not bar eligibility. The wrong models used an invented FPL dollar figure, applied an asset test, or treated ESI as disqualifying. None of them compared 7% of FPL against the parent income limit."
us,scenario_100,head_medicare_eligible,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Medicare eligibility below age 65 does not follow from a current disability flag alone; it requires a qualifying Medicare pathway, such as entitlement after the applicable Social Security disability waiting period or eligibility based on end-stage renal disease. The 46-year-old head has no listed Medicare-qualifying entitlement or condition, so the disability input does not change the result from ineligible."
@@ -794,11 +798,11 @@ us,scenario_100,head_wic_eligible,4,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"WI
us,scenario_100,local_income_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_100,payroll_tax,7,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"The trap is the payroll-tax wage base: PolicyEngine assesses employee OASDI at 6.2% and HI at 1.45% on the full $5,915 of employment income, giving $366.71 + $85.76 = $452.48. None of the listed health inputs touch that base — the $20,644 employer-sponsored insurance premium and the two $564 individually paid premiums are health-coverage and medical-expense inputs, not Section 125 salary reductions — and the $710 FLSA overtime premium is already inside the annual gross wage figure rather than additional to it. Traditional 401(k) and IRA amounts also leave FICA wages untouched, and Montana imposes no mandatory employee-side state payroll tax, so the answer is exactly 7.65% of wages. The wrong answers split into base errors (subtracting premiums to $4,787 or to $0, or adding the overtime premium to reach $6,625) and, for the three models that found the right base, an arithmetic slip, an invented rounding, and a value/explanation mismatch."
us,scenario_100,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Reduced-price eligibility is mutually exclusive with the superior free-meals tier. This household is at 44% of the federal poverty guideline and also meets categorical eligibility, so its school_meal_tier is FREE and reduced_price_school_meals_eligible is 0."
-us,scenario_100,snap,48,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,,"PolicyEngine's SNAP gross income is $998.31/month. That is $492.92 in wages plus about $505/month in non-wage cash-benefit income. The frozen reference subtracts the $209 standard deduction, the $98.58 earned income deduction and a $453.64 excess shelter deduction, with no medical deduction, giving $237.09 net and a $71.10 contribution. Its approximately $713.90 January–September and $733.60 October–December monthly amounts aggregate to the frozen annual value of $8,625.89; the latter uses the engine's projected FY2027 $802.60 maximum. The publication convention c_snap_hold_fy2026 holds the FY2026 $785 maximum and schedule all year; with the rounding fixes, the earlier engine gave $713/month ($8,556/year). The $453.64 shelter deduction comes from r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua. Correcting that defect on the record's stated-facts reading takes no utility-allowance shelter deduction and gives $691 net, a $208 contribution and $577/month ($6,924/year), now reproduced by policyengine-us 2.41.0. Many models counted wages only and added a medical deduction, landing near $9,000–9,420. Taking no shelter deduction agrees with the recorded correction; the TANF-counting models came in above its $6,924, although most were below the frozen reference. Neither disability reading is established, so the output remains excluded. Developer adjudication (2026-09-05): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (age_disability). The output is removed from scoring for every model: its reference depends on an engine input the certified household data never carried and the prompt therefore never listed, and a careful reader could take the stated facts the other way. Recomputed with policyengine-us 1.755.4 (the version that produced the references) the reference moves from 8625.889648 to 8917.490234 under the alternative reading. Neither reading is established by the facts; rows that matched the frozen value leave the score along with rows that did not. Judge diagnoses are retained as description; the class prompt_ambiguity records that the reference, not the model, is indeterminate here. SSI stays $0 under either reading ($2,800 in the bank exceeds the $2,000 resource limit); SNAP moves through the elderly-or-disabled SNAP rules. The 2026-09-22 audit recomputes the alternative as 8,844.00 with every publication convention and upstream fix (the frozen-engine value above was 8,917.49). r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua (engine defect, since fixed upstream by PolicyEngine/policyengine-us#10033, which the policyengine-us 2.41.0 references include) also moves this output on the stated facts, from 8,556.00 to 6,924.00; the record keeps its 2026-09-05 classification."
+us,scenario_100,snap,50,prompt_ambiguity,age_disability,False,,"PolicyEngine's SNAP gross income is $998.31 a month. That is $492.92 of wages plus about $505 of the household's TANF cash benefit, which counts as unearned income. Three deductions apply: the $209 standard deduction, the $98.58 earned-income deduction (20%) and a $453.64 excess shelter deduction based on the utility allowance. That leaves net income of $237.09 and a 30% contribution of $71.10. There is no excess medical deduction, because the head receives no disability-based benefit and so is not a disabled member for SNAP purposes. The benefit is $713.90 a month for January to September (the $785 maximum for FY2026) and about $733.60 for October to December (higher FY2027 amounts), for $8,625.89 in total. Most models left out the TANF income, claimed a medical deduction and landed near the maximum ($9,000 to $9,420). Others counted TANF but missed the shelter deduction and came in too low ($7,000 to $7,800). A few wrongly denied eligibility or got the period or formula wrong. Developer adjudication (2026-09-05): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (age_disability). The output is removed from scoring for every model: its reference depends on an engine input the certified household data never carried and the prompt therefore never listed, and a careful reader could take the stated facts the other way. Recomputed with policyengine-us 1.755.4 (the version that produced the references) the reference moves from 8625.889648 to 8917.490234 under the alternative reading. Neither reading is established by the facts; rows that matched the frozen value leave the score along with rows that did not. Judge diagnoses are retained as description; the class prompt_ambiguity records that the reference, not the model, is indeterminate here. SSI stays $0 under either reading ($2,800 in the bank exceeds the $2,000 resource limit); SNAP moves through the elderly-or-disabled SNAP rules. The 2026-09-22 audit recomputes the alternative as 8,844.00 with every publication convention and upstream fix (the frozen-engine value above was 8,917.49). r30_snap_heat_and_eat_sua (engine defect, since fixed upstream by PolicyEngine/policyengine-us#10033, which the policyengine-us 2.41.0 references include) also moves this output on the stated facts, from 8,556.00 to 6,924.00; the record keeps its 2026-09-05 classification."
us,scenario_100,ssi,9,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"The generic `is disabled` household fact does not make the head categorically eligible for SSI under PolicyEngine; the controlling SSI-specific indicator is `is_ssi_aged_blind_disabled=False`. All three individuals fail the aged-65-or-older, blind, or qualifying-disabled requirement, so income exclusions, resources, and benefit-rate calculations are never reached and household SSI is $0."
-us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,46,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"For 2026, the Montana EITC is refundable and equals 20% of the federal EITC. Federal EITC earned income is wages included in gross income, so the $3,859 traditional 401(k) deferral comes out of the $5,914.72 in wages, leaving $2,055.72. At the 40% phase-in rate for two children that gives $822.29, and 20% of that is $164.46. Most models fell into one of three traps: they used an outdated Montana match rate (3%, 10% or 12%), they applied 40% to gross wages ($2,366) without removing the 401(k) deferral, or they said Montana has no refundable EITC."
-us,scenario_100,tanf,48,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The household is eligible for Montana TANF. Bank assets of $2,800 are under the $3,000 resource limit and the vehicle is excluded. Take-up is assumed. SSI is $0 because $2,800 is above the $2,000 SSI resource limit, so there is no SSI income to count. Monthly wages of $492.92 get the $200 + 25% disregard, leaving $219.69 of countable earnings. PolicyEngine subtracts that from its 2026 three-person payment standard of about $725/month, giving about $505.41/month, or $6,064.96 a year. Most wrong answers used an outdated $588 (or other too-low) payment standard, used a 50% disregard, or wrongly called the household ineligible because of assets, SSI, missing receipt, or the program not being modeled."
-us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,41,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The reference is simple 2026 OBBBA-law arithmetic. AGI is $101,130 ($103,000 in wages minus the $1,870 capital loss). Subtracting the $16,100 standard deduction leaves $85,030 of taxable income, and the 2026 single brackets (10% to $12,400, 12% to $50,400, then 22%) give $1,240 + $4,560 + $7,618.60 = $13,418.60. The models went wrong in three main ways. One group assumed the TCJA would sunset and used a personal exemption with 15%/25% brackets. A second group used the wrong standard deduction or bracket thresholds. A third group subtracted the $1,400 auto loan interest as an OBBBA qualified vehicle loan interest deduction, even though nothing says the loan is for a new, U.S.-assembled vehicle. Several models also worked out the correct $13,418.60 and then submitted a different number."
+us,scenario_100,state_refundable_credits,48,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"Montana's only refundable credit for this household is the refundable state EITC, which is 20% of the federal EITC in 2026. The federal EITC is 40% of earned income for a filer with two children. Earned income here is $5,914.72 of wages minus the $3,859 traditional 401(k) deferral, or $2,055.72, which gives a federal EITC of $822.29 and a Montana EITC of $164.46. Most wrong answers either denied that a refundable Montana EITC exists ($0), used the old 10% or 3% rate, built the federal EITC on gross wages ($2,366), or added a $1,200 Montana child credit that is not part of this household's refundable credits."
+us,scenario_100,tanf,50,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"This Montana family of three (head plus two children) qualifies for TANF. The $2,800 in bank assets is under the $3,000 resource limit, the vehicle is excluded, and there is no SSI because the head's $2,800 exceeds SSI's $2,000 resource limit. Monthly wages of $492.92, less the $200 plus 25% earned-income disregard, leave $219.69 of countable income. The engine subtracts that from a 2026 three-person payment standard of about $725/month, which gives about $505/month, or $6,064.96 a year. About half the models wrongly denied eligibility, citing imagined asset or income limits, SSI income, a missing receipt flag, or a claim that the program isn't modeled. Most of the rest used an outdated or too-low payment standard (usually $588) and/or a 50% disregard."
+us,scenario_101,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,43,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The correct path runs from AGI of $101,130 ($103,000 wages minus the fully deductible $1,870 capital loss; the tax-exempt pension and veterans benefits are excluded). Subtract the 2026 OBBBA single standard deduction of $16,100 to get taxable income of $85,030. Then apply the 2026 brackets (10% to $12,400, 12% to $50,400, 22% above): $1,240 + $4,560 + $7,618.60 = $13,418.60. Three mistakes account for most wrong answers. Some models assumed the TCJA sunset (personal exemption plus 15%/25% brackets), but OBBBA made the TCJA rates permanent. Some used stale or guessed standard deductions and bracket thresholds. Others took the OBBBA qualified vehicle-loan interest deduction, but the household facts never establish a qualifying new, U.S.-assembled vehicle loan, so the $1,400 of auto loan interest is not deductible."
us,scenario_101,federal_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_101,payroll_tax,8,llm_error,other,False,,"The correct calculation is simple. Employee Social Security is 6.2% of the full $103,000 of wages, or $6,386, because the wages are below the 2026 wage base. Employee Medicare is 1.45%, or $1,493.50. No Additional Medicare Tax applies below $200,000, and Texas has no employee state payroll tax, so the total is $7,879.50. Most models reached exactly $7,879.50 in their reasoning and then submitted a different number with a made-up ""adjustment."" One model treated the listed health insurance premiums as a pre-tax payroll exclusion, another submitted zero, and one gave no output."
us,scenario_101,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,1,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"Texas imposes no individual state income tax, so a Texas resident has $0 of state income tax before refundable credits regardless of the listed taxable-income deductions or credits. Taxes from other jurisdictions do not apply because the household resides in Texas."
@@ -809,7 +813,7 @@ us,scenario_102,head_medicare_eligible,7,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"Under
us,scenario_102,payroll_tax,18,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"The reference applies the 6.2% employee Social Security rate and the 1.45% Medicare rate to each spouse's full listed gross wages: $41,200 and $46,000. That gives 7.65% × $87,200 = $6,670.80. Neither spouse reaches the Social Security wage base, combined wages are far below the $250,000 joint threshold for Additional Medicare Tax, and NC has no employee state payroll tax. The most common mistake was subtracting the spouse's $7,989 employer-sponsored insurance premium from FICA wages as if it were a Section 125 salary reduction, which gives $6,059.64. Most of the other wrong models reached $6,670.80 in their reasoning and then submitted a different number because of arithmetic, rounding or transcription errors."
us,scenario_102,self_employment_tax,2,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,Self-employment tax applies only when net earnings from self-employment reach the filing threshold; the head’s listed $1 produces no liability. There is no minimum $31 self-employment tax or rounding rule that converts this de minimis amount into a positive tax.
us,scenario_102,spouse_medicare_eligible,7,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"Under-65 Medicare eligibility does not come from a bare disability flag. It requires 24 months of Social Security Disability Insurance entitlement, or end-stage renal disease or ALS. The spouse is 26, receives no SSDI (the benefit is unlisted, so it is $0), and has no ESRD or ALS, so only the age-65 test applies and it fails. All seven models used the same made-up shortcut, ""disabled = Medicare eligible,"" and skipped the SSDI 24-month entitlement step."
-us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,27,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"North Carolina taxes 2026 income at a flat 3.99%. The base is federal AGI of $87,201 ($87,200 in wages plus $1 of self-employment income) minus the fixed $25,500 joint standard deduction, which gives $61,701 and $2,461.87 of tax. Most models went wrong in one of two ways. Some used an outdated or invented rate (4.25%, 4.5%, 4%, 4.49%) or a wrong standard deduction ($21,500, $23,400, $23,850, $26,400, $30,000). Others subtracted the spouse's $7,989 employer-sponsored insurance premium from wages as if it were a pre-tax exclusion, which shrinks AGI to $79,212 even though the stated gross wages already set AGI at $87,201."
+us,scenario_102,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,28,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The 2026 North Carolina tax is a flat 3.99% of NC taxable income. NC taxable income is federal AGI of $87,201 (both wage amounts plus the $1 of self-employment income) minus the $25,500 married-filing-jointly standard deduction, or $61,701, so the tax is $61,701 × 3.99% = $2,461.87. Most models used an old or made-up flat rate (4%, 4.25%, 4.49%, 4.5%) or the wrong standard deduction ($21,500, $23,400, $23,850, $26,400, $26,500, or the federal $30,000). Seven models used the correct rate and deduction but subtracted the $7,989 employer-sponsored insurance premium from wages, which gave an AGI of $79,212 and a tax of $2,143.11."
us,scenario_102,state_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_104,head_medicaid_eligible,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"An income of 0.88 times FPL establishes eligibility only within an applicable MAGI category; this 72-year-old belongs to none of those categories and qualifies through no separate New York Medicaid pathway. Immigration-status eligibility and age do not independently create Medicaid eligibility, and SSI receipt provides no categorical route because SSI is zero."
us,scenario_104,snap,2,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"An elderly SNAP household is exempt from the gross-income test but must still pass the net-income test. Counting Social Security and veterans benefits and applying the allowable standard and medical deductions leaves annual net income around $23,474, or $1,956 per month, above the one-person net-income limit; rent also produces no excess-shelter deduction because it does not exceed half of adjusted income, so the benefit is $0."
@@ -831,9 +835,9 @@ us,scenario_108,head_medicare_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,F
us,scenario_108,payroll_tax,4,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Only the head's $7,656 of wages is subject to employee FICA. Social Security benefits and survivor benefits are not wages. The correct figure is 6.2% × $7,656 = $474.67 plus 1.45% × $7,656 = $111.01, for $585.68 in total. Wisconsin has no mandatory employee state payroll tax, and Additional Medicare Tax does not apply. Every wrong answer comes from an arithmetic slip, a submitted value that doesn't match the model's own correct calculation, or a missing output. None reflects a different reading of the rules."
us,scenario_108,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_108,self_employment_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_108,snap,45,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Wisconsin's FoodShare uses broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE) through TANF-funded non-cash benefits, with a 200% FPL gross income limit. The household's gross income of $2,581.83/month is just under that limit ($2,608.33), so the household is categorically eligible and does not face the 100% FPL net income test. Its benefit formula still comes out negative: the 30% expected contribution of about $611 exceeds the $298 maximum allotment. However, categorically eligible one- and two-person households receive the minimum allotment, which is 8% of the one-person maximum. For FY2026 that is $24/month, or $288 for the year. Most models applied the net income test, concluded the household was ineligible, and answered $0. The others either used the outdated $23 minimum or invented a larger benefit."
-us,scenario_108,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,10,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Every substantive answer started from a Wisconsin income base of $18,048, which counts the $10,392 non-Social-Security survivor benefits as taxable. The engine's income base is $20,590, which is the $7,656 in wages plus the $12,934 in Social Security survivor benefits, and Wisconsin exempts Social Security entirely. That leaves only the $7,656 in wages, which falls entirely under Wisconsin's standard deduction (about $13,000–$14,000 at this income) plus the $700 personal exemption and the $250 age-65+ exemption. Even on the models' own $18,048 base, Wisconsin's nonrefundable school property tax credit for renters applies. It treats 20–25% of the $7,200 rent as property tax and credits 12% of that, giving roughly $173–$216. That is more than every model's gross tax of $94–$162, so tax before refundable credits is $0 either way."
-us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,48,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,,"The whole state_refundable_credits amount is the Wisconsin Homestead Credit. PolicyEngine's wi_homestead_income counts only wages of $7,656 and Social Security of $12,934, for $20,590. The separate $10,392 survivor-benefits input is not part of it, so the household sits under the $24,680 income ceiling. Rent of $7,200 gives property taxes accrued at 20%, or $1,440, and the credit is 0.8 × ($1,440 − 8.785% × ($20,590 − $8,060)) = $271.39. Most models added the $10,392 to reach $30,982 and wrongly ruled the household ineligible. Others ignored the refundable homestead credit entirely, or used the wrong rent percentage, threshold or rate. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (state_local_rule). The frozen reference is 271.39; the alternative is 0.00. The prompt lists survivor benefits other than Social Security without saying what they are. Wisconsin homestead household income counts the gross amount of a survivor pension or annuity (Wis. Stat. 71.52(6); Schedule H line 9d), which is the reading under the alternative value; the reference leaves them out. Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (source of survivor_benefits (pension or annuity, or another survivor payment) and taxability of survivor_benefits)."
+us,scenario_108,snap,47,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Wisconsin applies broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE) through TANF-funded non-cash benefits, with a 200% FPL gross income limit. This household's $2,581.83 monthly gross income is just under that limit (2 × $1,304.17 = $2,608.33), so it is categorically eligible and the 100% FPL net income test never applies. Net income is $2,036, so 30% of it ($611) is more than the $298 maximum allotment and the regular formula gives nothing. However, a categorically eligible 1–2 person household still gets the minimum allotment: $24 a month, or $288 a year. Most models stopped at the net income test or the negative formula result and answered $0. Two used the old $23 minimum and got $276, and the rest made up positive allotments with no basis."
+us,scenario_108,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,11,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Every model that answered built Wisconsin income of $18,048 by adding the $10,392 survivor benefit to the $7,656 of wages. In the reference, the survivor benefit never enters Wisconsin taxable income. The engine's income figure is $20,590, which is wages plus Social Security survivor benefits, and Wisconsin exempts the Social Security part. Wisconsin also subtracts up to $24,000 of retirement income for filers aged 67 and older, starting in tax year 2025. That leaves $7,656 of wages, which the Wisconsin single standard deduction (well over $13,000 at this income) plus the personal and age-65 exemptions fully covers, so tax is $0. A surviving spouse with no dependent files as single, not as a qualifying surviving spouse."
+us,scenario_108,state_refundable_credits,50,prompt_ambiguity,state_local_rule,False,,"The whole amount is the Wisconsin homestead credit, which is refundable. PolicyEngine counts household income as wages of $7,656 plus Social Security survivor benefits of $12,934, for $20,590. It does not count the separate $10,392 in non-Social-Security survivor benefits, so the household is under the $24,680 income limit. The credit is 0.8 × ($1,440, which is 20% of $7,200 rent, − 8.785% × ($20,590 − $8,060)) = $271.39. Most models added the $10,392 to reach $30,982, which put them over the limit. Others ignored the homestead credit, treated it as non-refundable, or used the wrong rent percentage, phase-out rate or threshold. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (state_local_rule). The frozen reference is 271.39; the alternative is 0.00. The prompt lists survivor benefits other than Social Security without saying what they are. Wisconsin homestead household income counts the gross amount of a survivor pension or annuity (Wis. Stat. 71.52(6); Schedule H line 9d), which is the reading under the alternative value; the reference leaves them out. Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (source of survivor_benefits (pension or annuity, or another survivor payment) and taxability of survivor_benefits)."
us,scenario_109,child1_chip_eligible,6,llm_error,health_coverage,False,,"CHIP is limited to children who do not qualify for Medicaid. At approximately $30,000 of household income, the age-9 child qualifies for Florida Medicaid in the OLDER_CHILD category, so Medicaid eligibility precludes CHIP eligibility even though the income is below CHIP's upper limit."
us,scenario_109,child1_medicaid_eligible,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Florida's refusal of adult Medicaid expansion does not touch children's coverage: the state's mandatory MAGI pathway for the older-child category (ages 6-18) runs to 133% FPL, and a 9-year-old in a household of five with roughly $21,600 of MAGI sits at 0.72 FPL — barely half the threshold. The only computation required is household MAGI from the $30,000 of self-employment income divided by the family-of-five poverty guideline, then compared with 133% FPL; no asset test, no enrollment fact, and no SSI linkage enters the children's MAGI pathway. Both models returned 0 without ever running that ratio, treating Medicaid eligibility as something the prompt had to assert rather than something the stated income and age determine."
us,scenario_109,child2_chip_eligible,6,llm_error,health_coverage,False,,"CHIP eligibility requires the child to be ineligible for Medicaid, not merely under age 19 and below CHIP's upper income limit. At age 6 and this household income, child2 qualifies for Medicaid under Florida's OLDER_CHILD category, so the Medicaid–CHIP mutual-exclusivity rule makes child2 ineligible for CHIP."
@@ -846,44 +850,44 @@ us,scenario_109,child3_head_start_eligible,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,F
us,scenario_109,child3_medicaid_eligible,3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"The dispositive rule is Florida's age-based INFANT Medicaid category, which covers children under age 1 at MAGI up to 185% FPL — a far higher threshold than the adult standards, and one that applies in a non-expansion state. The household's MAGI is 0.72 FPL, so the only two conditions that matter, age under 1 and income under the infant threshold, are both satisfied. All three models denied eligibility by routing the infant through adult or generic standards: one gave no derivation, one required an SSI/disability-style marker that MAGI categories do not use, and one computed the income test correctly and then overrode it with a nonexistent asset test plus a Medicaid-expansion and enrollment requirement."
us,scenario_109,child3_wic_eligible,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"WIC eligibility is derived from the child's age and household income; it does not require the prompt to explicitly state that the child is WIC-eligible. Child 3 is under age five, and the household's approximately $30,000 annual income is below the 2026 WIC limit of 185% of the federal poverty guideline for a five-person household."
us,scenario_109,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,1,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The 2026 married-filing-jointly standard deduction does not reduce this household's taxable income to zero after the deductible half of self-employment tax. The resulting pre-credit income tax is fully offset by $2,792.91 of the $6,600 Child Tax Credit allocated as nonrefundable, and tax after nonrefundable credits is floored at zero rather than becoming negative."
-us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,42,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The reference has two parts. The first is the full 2026 three-child EITC maximum of $8,231, because earned income of about $27,881 sits on the plateau, below the married-filing-jointly phase-out start. The second is the Additional CTC: 15% × (earned income − $2,500), where earned income for self-employment is $30,000 minus the deductible half of SE tax ($2,119.43). That gives 15% × $25,380.57 = $3,807.09, under the post-OBBBA cap of $1,700 per child ($5,100). Most wrong answers made one of three mistakes: they assumed TCJA had expired and used a $1,000-per-child ACTC ($3,000), they applied the 15% formula to gross $30,000 ($4,125) or to $27,705 ($3,781) instead of $27,880.57, or they used an EITC maximum other than $8,231. A smaller group wrongly phased out the EITC, dropped the ACTC, or reported zero credits."
+us,scenario_109,federal_refundable_credits,44,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The reference is the full 2026 three-child EITC plateau amount of $8,231 plus an ACTC of $3,807.09. Earned income for these credits is $30,000 minus half the SE tax ($2,119.43), which gives $27,880.57. The EITC is at its plateau because that figure is below the 2026 MFJ phase-out start. The ACTC is limited by 15% × ($27,880.57 − $2,500), which is below the $1,700-per-child refundable cap ($5,100). The wrong answers fall into three groups: (1) models that assumed TCJA expired and used a $1,000-per-child ACTC ($3,000), (2) models that ran the 15% formula on gross $30,000 ($4,125) or on net SE earnings of $27,705 ($3,781) instead of SE income minus half the SE tax, and (3) models that used the wrong EITC maximum or applied an EITC phase-out that does not start until after this income."
us,scenario_109,free_school_meals_eligible,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"The FREE tier here is over-determined: the household's $8,020.55 SNAP benefit confers categorical free-meal eligibility outright, and independently $30,000 for a five-person household is 78% of the federal poverty guideline, far under the 130% free-meal cutoff. The only fact requiring inference is school attendance — never stated explicitly — which follows from the children aged 9 and 6 being K-12 students, generating $7.15 per child per day net of the $0.87 paid portion for $2,261.92 annually. The trap is the instruction to treat unlisted statuses as false: a model that applies it to school enrollment erases both students and skips both qualifying tests. Both models defaulted to 0 on that reading rather than deriving the students from age and then applying either the SNAP categorical pathway or the 130% FPG income test."
us,scenario_109,head_medicaid_eligible,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Low MAGI alone does not establish adult Medicaid eligibility in Florida. The age-30 head is not a dependent, receives no SSI, and fits none of Florida's active Medicaid eligibility categories, so the category is NONE despite MAGI income of 0.72 times FPL."
us,scenario_109,head_wic_eligible,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"WIC categorical eligibility is individual, not household-wide: only a pregnant, postpartum, or breastfeeding woman, an infant, or a child under age five can qualify. The infant satisfies that requirement, but the 30-year-old Head has no listed pregnancy, postpartum, or breastfeeding status, so the Head remains ineligible despite the household meeting the income test."
us,scenario_109,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Reduced-price and free school meals are mutually exclusive output tiers in this calculation. The household’s 0.78 school-meal FPG ratio and categorical eligibility place it in the superior FREE tier, so it receives positive free-meal support and no reduced-price support."
us,scenario_109,self_employment_tax,6,llm_error,other,False,,"The Schedule SE computation here is fully determined: net earnings from self-employment are 92.35% of $30,000 = $27,705, entirely below the Social Security wage base, so the tax is $27,705 × 15.3% = $4,238.865, which PolicyEngine reports as $4,238.86. Every model named the correct base fraction, the correct 15.3% combined rate, and correctly noted the wage base is not binding — none missed a rule. The separation is purely in executing the product: each model reported a whole-dollar figure that is $2 to $6 away from $4,238.87, whereas correct rounding of the true product to whole dollars gives $4,239. The trap is arithmetic precision on 0.9235 × 0.153 × $30,000, not any element of the SE tax rule."
-us,scenario_109,snap,43,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"This is a simple SNAP case. Gross income is $2,500 a month. Subtract the 20% earned income deduction ($500) and the FY2026 standard deduction for five people ($261) to get net income of $1,739. Rent of $800 is below half of adjusted income ($869.50), so there is no excess shelter deduction, and no utility allowance applies. The expected contribution, 30% of net income rounded up, is $522. Subtracting it from the FY2026 maximum allotment for five ($1,183) gives $661 a month, or $7,932 a year. Most wrong answers came from using stale or guessed values for the standard deduction or maximum allotment. Others applied a shelter or SE-tax deduction that does not exist here. The rest used the right parameters but annualized the unrounded $661.30 instead of the whole-dollar $661 monthly benefit. A few models wrongly denied eligibility. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated llm_error (thresholds_rates). The frozen 8,020.55 is regenerated as 7,932.00: it applies the publication rule: SNAP October-December 2026 hold the FY2026 schedule (the SNAP uprating index behind the maximum allotments, deductions, shelter cap and utility allowances), the last USDA published before the 2026-07-03 reference freeze; USDA published FY2027 on 2026-08-21. The poverty guideline is the 2026 HHS guideline, published in January 2026. The engine's SNAP rounding defects are root causes r26, r27, r28 and r31, fixed upstream and applied with the convention.; it corrects an engine defect fixed upstream (fixed in PolicyEngine/policyengine-us#9318 (merged 2026-08-25), after the reference freeze): If 30% of net income ends in cents, the state rounds it up to the next dollar or rounds the allotment down to the next dollar; with a whole-dollar maximum allotment both give the same whole-dollar allotment. Reference regenerated (7 U.S.C. 2012(u), 2017(a); USDA FY2026 SNAP COLA memorandum (signed 2025-08-14); 7 CFR 273.10(e)(2)(ii)(A))."
+us,scenario_109,snap,45,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The benefit follows directly from FY2026 parameters: monthly gross income is $2,500. Subtracting the $500 earned income deduction (20%) and the $261 standard deduction for five people leaves $1,739. The $800 rent is below half of that ($869.50), and no utility costs are listed, so there is no excess shelter deduction and no SUA. The expected contribution is 30% of $1,739, rounded up to $522, and $1,183 − $522 = $661 per month, or $7,932 per year. Most models missed by using stale or guessed standard deductions and maximum allotments (FY2025's $1,158 and $254, or the 6+ person $299), by inventing a shelter or utility deduction, or by subtracting SE tax. The closest answers reached $661.30 per month because they skipped the rule that rounds the 30% contribution up to a whole dollar. A few wrongly found the household ineligible or miscounted its size. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated llm_error (thresholds_rates). The frozen 8,020.55 is regenerated as 7,932.00: it applies the publication rule: SNAP October-December 2026 hold the FY2026 schedule (the SNAP uprating index behind the maximum allotments, deductions, shelter cap and utility allowances), the last USDA published before the 2026-07-03 reference freeze; USDA published FY2027 on 2026-08-21. The poverty guideline is the 2026 HHS guideline, published in January 2026. The engine's SNAP rounding defects are root causes r26, r27, r28 and r31, fixed upstream and applied with the convention.; it corrects an engine defect fixed upstream (fixed in PolicyEngine/policyengine-us#9318 (merged 2026-08-25), after the reference freeze): If 30% of net income ends in cents, the state rounds it up to the next dollar or rounds the allotment down to the next dollar; with a whole-dollar maximum allotment both give the same whole-dollar allotment. Reference regenerated (7 U.S.C. 2012(u), 2017(a); USDA FY2026 SNAP COLA memorandum (signed 2025-08-14); 7 CFR 273.10(e)(2)(ii)(A))."
us,scenario_109,spouse_medicaid_eligible,5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Florida’s non-expansion Medicaid program does not provide a general low-income pathway for a nondisabled 29-year-old adult. The spouse qualifies through no categorical pathway: household MAGI exceeds Florida’s parent/caretaker limit, and the presence of an infant does not establish pregnancy or postpartum status."
us,scenario_109,spouse_wic_eligible,8,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"WIC eligibility for an adult requires the adult herself to be pregnant, breastfeeding, or within the applicable postpartum period; merely living with an infant does not establish any of those statuses. The prompt makes every unlisted status false, so the spouse is not pregnant, postpartum, or breastfeeding and fails categorical eligibility regardless of household income."
-us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,46,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The reference uses permanent post-OBBBA 2026 law. AGI is $169,943: wages minus only the $4,245 traditional 401(k), with no IRA deduction (phased out for an active plan participant), no exclusion for ESI premiums and no overtime deduction. Deductions are the $16,100 single standard deduction plus the new 2026 non-itemizer deduction for the $387 of cash gifts, giving taxable income of $153,455. Ordinary tax on $112,572 is $19,615 under the $12,400/$50,400/$105,700 brackets, and the $40,884 of qualified dividends and LTCG is all taxed at 15% ($6,133). The cluster of models at $25,841 did everything else right but missed the $387 non-itemizer charitable deduction (about $93 at the 24% rate). Other models assumed the TCJA would sunset (personal exemption, 2% miscellaneous deductions), excluded ESI premiums from wages, invented an overtime deduction, or used outdated brackets."
+us,scenario_110,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,48,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"This case is governed by 2026 OBBBA law. The TCJA structure is permanent: a $16,100 single standard deduction, brackets at $12,400/$50,400/$105,700/$201,775, no personal exemption and no 2%-floor miscellaneous deductions. OBBBA also adds a new non-itemizer cash charitable deduction (up to $1,000 for a single filer), which allows the $387 of cash gifts on top of the standard deduction. AGI is $169,943, with no IRA deduction (active plan participant above the phase-out), no exclusion for ESI premiums and no overtime deduction (no overtime premium input). That gives taxable income of $153,455, $19,615 of ordinary tax and $6,133 at 15% on $40,884 of qualified dividends and long-term gains. The largest group of models reached $25,840.76 because they skipped only the $387 non-itemizer charitable deduction (0.24 × $387 = $93). The other models applied TCJA-sunset law, imputed overtime or ESI exclusions, used 2025 parameters, or dropped the capital gains tax."
us,scenario_110,federal_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_110,payroll_tax,17,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"The reference applies employee FICA to the full $100,000 of stated gross wages: 6.2% Social Security ($6,200, well under the wage base) plus 1.45% Medicare ($1,450). That totals $7,650, and there is no Additional Medicare Tax because wages are below $200,000. The household facts never say the $6,889 employer-sponsored insurance premium is a Section 125 salary reduction, and the prompt says not to infer unlisted facts. The largest group of models still subtracted it from FICA wages and reported $7,123. The other wrong answers came from excluding the 401(k) deferral from FICA wages, applying Additional Medicare Tax to non-wage income, or submitting a value that did not match the model's own reasoning."
us,scenario_110,self_employment_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,48,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"Federal and Ohio AGI is $169,943. That is $100,000 in wages minus the $4,245 traditional 401(k) contribution, plus $74,188 of interest, dividends, capital gains and estate income. The $198 traditional IRA deduction is fully phased out because the head is an active plan participant with high income, and the $6,889 of employer insurance premiums does not reduce AGI. After the $1,900 personal exemption that applies above $80,000 of Ohio AGI, Ohio taxable income is $168,043, and the 2026 schedule gives $332 + 2.75% × ($168,043 − $26,050) = $4,236.81. The most common miss was dropping the $332 base amount, which produces $3,905. Other models used the 3.5% bracket above $100,000, which no longer applies, the old $360.69 base, or other old brackets. Some also skipped or misstated the exemption, or got AGI wrong by deducting employer insurance premiums or the IRA contribution, or by adding back tax-exempt interest."
+us,scenario_110,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,50,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"Ohio AGI equals federal AGI of $169,942.94: wages minus the $4,245 traditional 401(k), plus interest, dividends, capital gains and estate income. The $198 IRA deduction is phased out, there is no add-back for the $954 of tax-exempt interest, and the $6,889 employer health premiums are not subtracted. The $1,900 personal exemption for AGI above $80,000 leaves $168,042.94 of taxable income. The 2026 Ohio schedule is $332 plus 2.75% of the amount over $26,050, which gives $4,236.81, and no nonrefundable credit applies. Most models either left out the $332 base amount (landing near $3,905), kept the repealed 3.5% bracket above $100,000 or the 2024 $360.69 base, or got AGI or the exemption wrong."
us,scenario_110,state_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_111,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The IRA distribution produces $18,240 of adjusted gross income, while the Social Security retirement benefit is not taxable under the joint-return provisional-income thresholds. The applicable standard deduction eliminates taxable income, so the tax computation yields $0; both models expressly derived zero taxable income and zero liability but then submitted unsupported positive amounts."
us,scenario_111,head_medicaid_eligible,4,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"At 72, the head is outside the ACA expansion-adult category, which covers ages 19–64 up to 138% FPL. Their MAGI is also about 202% FPL, so that pathway fails twice. The head gets no SSI, so the SSI-recipient route is closed. The aged/blind/disabled route has an income limit near the SSI/100% FPL level, roughly $1,000–$1,300 a month. The head's unearned income is about $3,637 a month, so it is far over that limit even after the $20 general disregard. All four models treated being aged, blind or disabled plus low assets as enough to qualify and skipped the income test, which leaves medicaid_category = NONE."
us,scenario_111,payroll_tax,1,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Employee payroll taxes apply to covered wages and other employment compensation, not Social Security retirement benefits or taxable IRA distributions. Because neither spouse has wages or other employee compensation, the employee Social Security, Medicare, Additional Medicare, and mandatory Washington employee payroll-tax bases are all zero, yielding $0."
us,scenario_111,snap,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Washington's 200% gross-income screening rule does not itself establish categorical SNAP eligibility or guarantee the minimum allotment. This two-person household's approximately $43,640 annual income disqualifies it, so the minimum-benefit rule never applies and annual SNAP equals $0."
-us,scenario_111,spouse_medicaid_eligible,9,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"The spouse is 49, so their only Medicaid routes are the MAGI adult-expansion group and the blind/disabled pathway. For Medicaid, MAGI adds back non-taxable Social Security. The tax unit's MAGI is therefore the head's full $25,400 Social Security plus $18,240 in IRA distributions, or $43,640. That is 2.02x FPL, far above the 138% expansion limit. The blind/disabled pathway in PolicyEngine is not open-ended. It depends on SSI receipt or an SSI-related income test that counts the couple's combined income. The spouse gets $0 SSI because the head's income is deemed to them and wipes out the couple's SSI benefit. With no category reached, the engine returns medicaid_category NONE. Every model either treated blindness/disability as enough on its own, ignored spousal income, or left Social Security out of MAGI."
+us,scenario_111,spouse_medicaid_eligible,10,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"The spouse is 49, so the only adult MAGI route is Washington's expansion group, which has a limit of 138% FPL. Medicaid MAGI adds back nontaxable Social Security, so tax-unit MAGI is $25,400 + $18,240 = $43,640, or 2.02x FPL, which is above the limit. Being blind or disabled does not open a separate pathway with no income limit. PolicyEngine's disability-based route depends on SSI receipt, and the couple's combined countable income of about $43,640 is far above the SSI couple benefit rate, so SSI = 0 and medicaid_category = NONE. Most models assumed disability alone qualified the spouse, or treated the spouse as having $0 countable income. The rest left Social Security out of MAGI."
us,scenario_111,spouse_medicare_eligible,10,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"Under age 65, a person qualifies for Medicare through disability only after 24 months of entitlement to Social Security disability benefits (42 U.S.C. 426(b)), or through the ESRD or ALS pathways. PolicyEngine models the same rule: the age-65 test or at least 24 months of Social Security disability receipt. The spouse is 49 and flagged disabled, but the household lists no Social Security disability income, no months of SSDI receipt, and no ESRD or ALS, so the spouse fails every pathway. All ten models treated the disability flag alone as enough for Medicare. They skipped the separate requirement of 24 months of SSDI entitlement."
us,scenario_112,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The trap is the $13,000 ""financial assistance"" line: in PolicyEngine `financial_assistance` is a non-taxable cash receipt (counted for benefit means-tests, never in gross income or AGI), so the only taxable items here are $5,923 of wages and $1,920 of farm rent income, reduced by the $3,000 capital-loss limitation on the -$9,944 long-term loss, for AGI of roughly $4,843. That sits far below the 2026 single standard deduction (~$16,100), leaving taxable income of $0, no NIIT (net investment income is a $3,000 loss), and no add-on liabilities, hence $0. Both models handled the $3,000 capital-loss cap and the standard deduction correctly but pushed the $13,000 gift/assistance through as ordinary income, manufacturing $1,743 of taxable income and a $174.30 bracket tax. Excluding the non-taxable transfer collapses the entire computation to zero."
-us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,22,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"The head is 31, has no qualifying children, and has $5,923 of wage earnings, so they qualify for the childless EITC. That credit phases in at 7.65% of earned income starting from the first dollar: 7.65% × $5,923 ≈ $453.10. AGI is $5,923 + $1,920 − $3,000 (the capital-loss cap) = $4,843, which is below the phase-out start. The $1,920 of farm rent is far below the investment-income limit. No other refundable credit applies. Most models went wrong in one of three ways: they wrongly ruled out the childless EITC at low earnings, they subtracted the $8,389 employer-insurance premium from wages to get zero earned income, or they worked out about $453 and then changed it to some other number without a valid reason."
+us,scenario_112,federal_refundable_credits,23,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"The only refundable credit is the childless EITC. The head is 31, so they meet the age 25–64 rule, and the credit phases in at 7.65% of earned income: 7.65% × $5,923 in gross wages = $453.10. AGI is $4,843: $5,923 in wages plus $1,920 in farm rent, minus the capital loss capped at $3,000, with the $13,000 of financial assistance excluded. That AGI is far below the phase-out threshold, and farm rent of $1,920 is far below the investment-income limit, so neither one reduces the credit. Most models went wrong in one of three ways: they denied that a worker without children gets an EITC, they used the ESI premiums to wipe out earned income, or they mixed AGI into the phase-in step, which uses earned income only."
us,scenario_112,head_medicaid_eligible,5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Texas does not provide MAGI Medicaid eligibility to a nondependent, childless 31-year-old merely because income is below an income threshold. The head meets the immigration requirement but belongs to none of Texas's active Medicaid categories, so the low 0.30-FPL MAGI level does not create eligibility."
us,scenario_112,head_wic_eligible,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"WIC requires both financial eligibility and membership in a qualifying demographic category: pregnant, postpartum, or breastfeeding women, infants, or children under age five. The 31-year-old head has no listed qualifying status, and unlisted statuses are false, so passing the income test does not establish WIC eligibility."
us,scenario_112,payroll_tax,7,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Employer-sponsored insurance premiums are not automatically employee pre-tax cafeteria-plan deductions from FICA wages; the listed $5,923 remains subject to employee Social Security and Medicare taxes. PolicyEngine computes $367.22 of Social Security tax and $85.88 of Medicare tax, totaling $453.10, with no Additional Medicare Tax or mandatory Texas employee payroll tax."
us,scenario_112,self_employment_tax,4,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Self-employment tax applies only to positive net earnings from self-employment, after determining the applicable self-employment tax base. The household’s relevant net income is approximately -$2,101, so there are no positive net self-employment earnings and the tax base is zero; treating the $1,920 farm rent entry as a standalone positive self-employment tax base produces the wrong liability."
-us,scenario_112,snap,48,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,,"PolicyEngine's SNAP countable income includes the wages and the $13,000 financial assistance but not the $1,920 farm rent. That makes gross income $1,576.90/mo (121% FPL), and net income after the 20% earned-income deduction ($98.72) and the $209 standard deduction is $1,269.19 (97% FPL). The household passes both income tests and is also categorically eligible through Texas's TANF non-cash BBCE. Because 30% of net income ($380.76) is more than the $298 maximum allotment, this one-person household gets the minimum allotment: 8% of the one-person maximum, or $23.84/mo ($24.37 in the FY2027 months), for $287.68 a year. Most models added farm rent to income and then failed the 130% gross or 100% net test, or they reduced the benefit to $0 without applying the minimum allotment. A few left out the financial assistance and computed a large benefit instead. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (categorical_eligibility). The frozen reference is 287.68; the alternative is 0.00. The prompt lists no hours worked and says to treat unlisted numeric inputs as 0; the reference assumed 40 hours a week, which clears the SNAP work requirement for able-bodied adults without dependents. Under the zero-hours reading the time limit applies, which ends benefits after three countable months unless an exemption or area waiver applies; the alternative value is the engine's zero-hours result, not a certified entitlement. Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (weekly_hours_worked_before_lsr)."
-us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,48,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The frozen reference applies 2026 law under OBBBA, retaining the TCJA rates, QBI deduction and no personal exemption, using single brackets of 10% to $12,400, 12% to $50,400 and 22% on the remaining taxable income. The engine itemizes $24,787: $10,914 of charity after the 0.5%-of-AGI floor, $9,432 of SALT including its $5,367.30 Virginia withholding estimate, and $4,442 of medical including a $2,434.80 Medicare Part B premium it imputes and excluding the $2,000 of over-the-counter costs. Neither state income tax paid or withheld nor Medicare enrollment or a Part B premium is listed in the prompt. The phased-down $4,106 senior deduction and $4,872 QBI deduction leave the reference's taxable income at $72,807 and tax at $10,729.61. Some models applied pre-TCJA sunset law or omitted the senior deduction; others used different readings of the unlisted tax and Medicare inputs, including answers matching the engine's alternatives; some submitted figures unsupported by their own calculations. Developer adjudication (2026-10-05): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (taxable_income_or_deductions). The frozen reference is 10,729.61; the alternative is 11,137.31. The prompt lists no state income tax withheld or paid during 2026; policyengine-us 2.15.17 fills the state income tax part of the federal state and local tax deduction with state_withheld_income_tax, a formula estimate of Virginia withholding on federal AGI ($5,367.30), while read as the household paying its 2026 Virginia income tax during the year the deduction takes the engine's liability ($3,514.15). The reference's medical deduction also counts a modeled Medicare Part B premium ($2,434.80) the prompt does not list; without it the output is 11,265.27. Found in the 2026-10-05 audits of the state income tax in SALT (reference_audit/2026-10-05) and of the Part B premium (reference_audit/2026-10-05-medicare-part-b). Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (state income tax withheld or paid during 2026, which the federal state and local tax deduction takes as its state income tax part; policyengine-us fills it with state_withheld_income_tax, a formula estimate on federal AGI that the household data never set; also Medicare enrollment and a Medicare Part B premium paid during 2026, which the medical expense deductions count; policyengine-us treats every Medicare-eligible person as enrolled (takes_up_medicare_if_eligible defaults to true, so medicare_enrolled follows is_medicare_eligible) and adds the modeled premium (medicare_part_b_premium) to medical expenses, and the household data never set either)."
+us,scenario_112,snap,50,prompt_ambiguity,categorical_eligibility,False,,"PolicyEngine counts $1,576.90/mo of SNAP gross income: wages of $493.58 plus financial assistance of $1,083.33. Farm rent income is not counted. That puts gross income at 121% of FPL. Net income is $1,269.19 after the 20% earned-income deduction ($98.72) and the $209 standard deduction, which is 97% of the $1,304.17 FPL, so the household passes the net income test. Because 30% of net income ($380.76) is more than the $298 maximum allotment, the one-person household gets the federal minimum allotment of 8% of the maximum ($23.84/mo, about $288/yr) rather than $0. Most models added the $160/mo of farm rent and pushed net income to about $1,429, which fails the 100% FPL test. Others got the eligibility right but ignored the minimum allotment, and a few dropped the $13,000 financial assistance and arrived at near-maximum benefits. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (categorical_eligibility). The frozen reference is 287.68; the alternative is 0.00. The prompt lists no hours worked and says to treat unlisted numeric inputs as 0; the reference assumed 40 hours a week, which clears the SNAP work requirement for able-bodied adults without dependents. Under the zero-hours reading the time limit applies, which ends benefits after three countable months unless an exemption or area waiver applies; the alternative value is the engine's zero-hours result, not a certified entitlement. Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (weekly_hours_worked_before_lsr)."
+us,scenario_114,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,50,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,"The engine imputes $5,367.30 of Virginia withholding, which is exactly Virginia's rate schedule applied to full federal AGI less $8,750. That figure taxes the $19,828.80 of Social Security that Va. Code §58.1-322.02 subtracts, and the prompt sets unlisted state tax paid to 0. The engine also adds a $2,434.80 Part B premium although the prompt bars inferring health coverage. Without these two imputations, itemizing loses to the $18,150 standard deduction plus the $1,000 charitable deduction, and the tax is $11,969.80.","The engine itemizes $24,787.23: $10,913.78 of charity after the 0.5%-of-AGI floor, $9,431.59 of SALT that includes $5,367.30 of imputed Virginia withholding, and $4,441.86 of medical expenses that include a $2,434.80 Medicare Part B premium and exclude the $2,000 of OTC spending. Adding the $4,872.35 QBI deduction and the $4,105.65 phased senior deduction leaves $72,807.33 of taxable income, taxed under the 2026 10/12/22% schedule. Models that counted no state income tax and no Part B premium landed on the engine's standard-deduction alternative of $11,969.80, and models that used an estimate of actual VA liability (about $3,500) landed between $11,200 and $11,650. The rest missed by applying pre-TCJA sunset rules (personal exemptions, 15/25% brackets, no QBI), omitting the OBBBA senior deduction, treating partnership income as self-employment income, or returning $0. Developer adjudication (2026-10-05): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned reference_engine_defect; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (taxable_income_or_deductions). The frozen reference is 10,729.61; the alternative is 11,137.31. The prompt lists no state income tax withheld or paid during 2026; policyengine-us 2.15.17 fills the state income tax part of the federal state and local tax deduction with state_withheld_income_tax, a formula estimate of Virginia withholding on federal AGI ($5,367.30), while read as the household paying its 2026 Virginia income tax during the year the deduction takes the engine's liability ($3,514.15). The reference's medical deduction also counts a modeled Medicare Part B premium ($2,434.80) the prompt does not list; without it the output is 11,265.27. Found in the 2026-10-05 audits of the state income tax in SALT (reference_audit/2026-10-05) and of the Part B premium (reference_audit/2026-10-05-medicare-part-b). Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (state income tax withheld or paid during 2026, which the federal state and local tax deduction takes as its state income tax part; policyengine-us fills it with state_withheld_income_tax, a formula estimate on federal AGI that the household data never set; also Medicare enrollment and a Medicare Part B premium paid during 2026, which the medical expense deductions count; policyengine-us treats every Medicare-eligible person as enrolled (takes_up_medicare_if_eligible defaults to true, so medicare_enrolled follows is_medicare_eligible) and adds the modeled premium (medicare_part_b_premium) to medical expenses, and the household data never set either)."
us,scenario_114,federal_refundable_credits,2,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,,"EITC phaseout uses adjusted gross income or earned income, whichever is greater, rather than wages alone. This filer’s partnership/S-corp income, taxable retirement distributions, pension, taxable Social Security, and interest raise AGI far above the childless EITC limit, so every refundable credit component is zero."
us,scenario_114,payroll_tax,4,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"The requested payroll-tax output includes employee Social Security and employee Medicare taxes on the $22,700 of wages, while self-employment tax is reported separately and Virginia adds no mandatory employee payroll tax here. The stated components sum to $1,407.40 + $329.15 = $1,736.55; arbitrary adjustments, duplication, and invented state payroll taxes produce the wrong answers."
us,scenario_114,self_employment_tax,18,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"The household's only business-type input is $24,362 of partnership or S-corp income, and that amount is not net earnings from self-employment. S-corp pass-through income is never subject to SE tax. A partnership distributive share counts only for a general partner, and the prompt says any unlisted status is false, so no general-partner status can be assumed. With zero self-employment income, SE tax is $0. Every substantive wrong answer made the same mistake: each model counted the partnership/S-corp amount as SE earnings, then applied 15.3% to 92.35% of it, which gives about $3,442. Some models then added further arithmetic errors on top of that."
-us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,48,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Virginia starts from federal AGI of $106,572.56 and subtracts the $19,828.80 of taxable Social Security, giving VA AGI of $86,743.77. The age deduction is fully phased out because AFAGI exceeds the $50,000 single threshold by more than $12,000. The frozen engine calculation itemizes $19,419.94, counting an unlisted Part B premium: charitable gifts of $11,447 less the 2026 0.5%-of-AGI floor, real estate tax of $4,064, and medical costs that include the $2,434.80 Medicare Part B premium but exclude the $2,000 of OTC spending, all above the 7.5% floor. Exemptions of $1,730 ($930 personal plus $800 aged) are then subtracted. The models split three ways: some used the standard deduction, some applied the $12,000 age deduction, and some itemized but dropped the Part B premium or the charitable floor, or counted OTC costs. Several also left out the $800 aged exemption or treated it as a credit. Developer adjudication (2026-10-05): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (taxable_income_or_deductions). The frozen reference is 3,514.15; the alternative is 3,654.15. The prompt lists no Medicare enrollment or Part B premium; policyengine-us 2.15.17 treats the 69-year-old head as enrolled (takes_up_medicare_if_eligible defaults to true) and adds the $2,434.80 standard Part B premium to medical expenses, which Virginia's itemized deductions carry from the federal ones; read with no premium paid, the output is the alternative. Found in the 2026-10-05 audit of the Part B premium (reference_audit/2026-10-05-medicare-part-b, scripts/sweep_part_b.py). Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (Medicare enrollment and a Medicare Part B premium paid during 2026, which the medical expense deductions count; policyengine-us treats every Medicare-eligible person as enrolled (takes_up_medicare_if_eligible defaults to true, so medicare_enrolled follows is_medicare_eligible) and adds the modeled premium (medicare_part_b_premium) to medical expenses, and the household data never set either)."
+us,scenario_114,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,50,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Virginia AGI is $86,743.77: federal AGI of $106,572.56 minus $19,828.80 of taxable Social Security. The age deduction is zero because AFAGI is more than $12,000 above the $50,000 single threshold. The filer itemizes, so Virginia uses itemized deductions of $19,419.94 (the federal itemized total without state income tax): charitable gifts after the 0.5%-of-AGI floor ($10,913.78), medical costs above 7.5% of AGI that include the $2,434.80 Medicare Part B premium but not the OTC spending ($4,441.86), and real estate tax ($4,064.29). Exemptions are $1,730 ($930 personal plus the $800 aged exemption), which leaves taxable income of $65,593.83 and tax of $720 + 5.75% of the amount over $17,000 = $3,514.15. Most models either used the Virginia standard deduction instead of itemizing, left out the Part B premium and the charitable floor, dropped the $800 aged exemption, or applied an age deduction that is fully phased out. Developer adjudication (2026-10-05): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (taxable_income_or_deductions). The frozen reference is 3,514.15; the alternative is 3,654.15. The prompt lists no Medicare enrollment or Part B premium; policyengine-us 2.15.17 treats the 69-year-old head as enrolled (takes_up_medicare_if_eligible defaults to true) and adds the $2,434.80 standard Part B premium to medical expenses, which Virginia's itemized deductions carry from the federal ones; read with no premium paid, the output is the alternative. Found in the 2026-10-05 audit of the Part B premium (reference_audit/2026-10-05-medicare-part-b, scripts/sweep_part_b.py). Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (Medicare enrollment and a Medicare Part B premium paid during 2026, which the medical expense deductions count; policyengine-us treats every Medicare-eligible person as enrolled (takes_up_medicare_if_eligible defaults to true, so medicare_enrolled follows is_medicare_eligible) and adds the modeled premium (medicare_part_b_premium) to medical expenses, and the household data never set either)."
us,scenario_114,state_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_115,head_medicaid_eligible,5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Age 77 and a reported disability do not by themselves place the head in an Alabama Medicaid eligibility category. PolicyEngine assigns medicaid_category = NONE; the 1.47 FPL MAGI amount therefore cannot establish eligibility through a MAGI category, and immigration eligibility alone is insufficient."
us,scenario_115,head_wic_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_115,snap,5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"SNAP eligibility uses approximately $23,442 of annual household income here: $18,708 of Social Security plus $4,734 of tax-exempt interest. That income exceeds PolicyEngine’s applicable one-person SNAP eligibility limit, so the calculation stops at ineligibility and returns $0; deductions and minimum-allotment rules do not create a benefit for an ineligible household."
-us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,47,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"Alabama exempts Social Security, but its adjusted gross income includes federally tax-exempt interest. Interest on bonds from other states is taxable in Alabama, and PolicyEngine counts all listed tax-exempt interest as Alabama income. That makes Alabama AGI $4,734. The single filer's $3,000 standard deduction plus $1,500 personal exemption total only $4,500, and Alabama gives no extra deduction for age 65 or older. That leaves $234 of taxable income, taxed at 2% = $4.68. Every model either dropped the interest from Alabama income or overstated the deductions so that they wiped out all of it."
+us,scenario_115,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,49,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Alabama does not start from federal AGI. It computes its own gross income, and that includes interest on other states' municipal obligations, so the head's $4,734 of federally tax-exempt interest counts as Alabama AGI. Social Security is excluded. Alabama gives no extra age-65 standard deduction: the deductions are only the $3,000 single standard deduction (the maximum, which applies at this income level) plus the $1,500 personal exemption, leaving $234 taxed at 2% = $4.68. Every model answered $0. Most excluded the interest from Alabama income. The rest included it but overstated Alabama's deductions with a nonexistent elderly add-on, or got basic Alabama tax facts wrong."
us,scenario_115,tanf,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_116,snap,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"SNAP’s minimum allotment applies only after a household passes the program’s eligibility tests; it cannot override failure of the gross-income test. At $52,800 of annual household income, this household exceeds the applicable 2026 gross-income limit, so the computation stops with no SNAP benefit."
us,scenario_116,spouse_medicaid_eligible,3,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Florida did not expand Medicaid, so a childless, non-pregnant 42-year-old has no MAGI adult or parent category, even with MAGI at 0% FPL (veterans benefits are left out of MAGI). Disability alone does not create eligibility. The disabled pathway requires either receiving SSI or passing Florida's aged/disabled income test. The spouse's $52,800 in veterans benefits counts as unearned income under SSI-related rules, which pushes SSI to $0 and puts the spouse far above the aged/disabled income limit, so medicaid_category is NONE. All three models treated disability status as enough to qualify and never applied the income test that comes with the disabled pathway."
@@ -891,33 +895,33 @@ us,scenario_116,spouse_medicare_eligible,4,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"Unde
us,scenario_117,child3_early_head_start_eligible,5,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Early Head Start eligibility requires both an age-qualified child and satisfaction of the program's low-income eligibility rules; being under age 3 is not independently sufficient. Although Child 3 meets the age condition, household income of approximately $250,733 is far above the applicable poverty-based income limit, so the income test produces no eligibility."
us,scenario_117,child3_head_start_eligible,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Age alone does not establish Head Start eligibility; the child must also qualify through an applicable eligibility pathway, principally the program's low-income criteria in this case. This household's approximately $250,733 income exceeds the relevant poverty-based threshold, so Child 3 is not eligible."
us,scenario_117,child3_wic_eligible,1,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"WIC child eligibility requires both categorical eligibility and financial eligibility; being age 2 satisfies only the child-category requirement. The household's approximately $250,733 annual income exceeds the WIC limit of 185% of the federal poverty guideline for a five-person household, so Child 3 is not eligible."
-us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,48,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Under 2026 OBBBA law, AGI is $250,733. The household takes the $32,200 joint standard deduction plus the $2,000 charitable deduction for non-itemizers, which beats itemizing (charity above the 0.5% AGI floor, plus Arkansas income tax and about $741 of medical). It also takes the full $25,000 qualified-overtime deduction, because the joint phaseout starts at $300,000 MAGI. That gives taxable income of $191,533 and tax of $31,561 at the 10/12/22% brackets. The only nonrefundable credit is the $6,600 CTC (3 × $2,200). There is no CDCC because Head has no earned income. The models went wrong in four main ways: they left out or cut back the overtime deduction, used the old pre-TCJA rules, missed the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, or claimed a CDCC even though one spouse earns $0. Developer adjudication (2026-09-29): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (taxable_income_or_deductions). The frozen reference is 24,961.34; the alternative is 24,391.80. The prompt lists state and local tax refund income without saying whether the refunded tax reduced federal tax in the year it was deducted; policyengine-us 2.15.17 counts the whole refund as income (policyengine-us#9422, fixing issue #9122), while under 26 U.S.C. 111(a) none of it is income if the household took no tax benefit from the deduction. Found in the 2026-09-29 engine upgrade (reference_audit/2026-09-28, cluster salt_refund_gross_income_9122). Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (whether the prior-year deduction of the refunded state and local tax reduced federal tax (prior-year itemization, the income-versus-sales-tax election, SALT-cap headroom))."
+us,scenario_117,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,49,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"To get the reference, a model had to apply four 2026 rules. First, the qualified-overtime deduction is the full $25,000 joint cap: the $35,525 premium exceeds the cap, and MAGI of about $250,733 is below the $300,000 joint phase-out threshold. Second, the $32,200 standard deduction plus the $2,000 charitable deduction for non-itemizers (total $34,200) beats itemizing. Third, the CTC is $2,200 for each of the three children under 17, for $6,600. Fourth, there is no CDCC, because Head has no earned income. Taxable income is therefore $250,733.36 − $59,200 = $191,533.36, which gives $31,561.34 of bracket tax and $24,961.34 after the CTC. The wrong answers came from leaving out or shrinking the overtime deduction, assuming the TCJA expired, inventing mortgage interest or SALT amounts, missing the $2,000 charitable deduction, or claiming a CDCC. Developer adjudication (2026-09-29): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (taxable_income_or_deductions). The frozen reference is 24,961.34; the alternative is 24,391.80. The prompt lists state and local tax refund income without saying whether the refunded tax reduced federal tax in the year it was deducted; policyengine-us 2.15.17 counts the whole refund as income (policyengine-us#9422, fixing issue #9122), while under 26 U.S.C. 111(a) none of it is income if the household took no tax benefit from the deduction. Found in the 2026-09-29 engine upgrade (reference_audit/2026-09-28, cluster salt_refund_gross_income_9122). Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (whether the prior-year deduction of the refunded state and local tax reduced federal tax (prior-year itemization, the income-versus-sales-tax election, SALT-cap headroom))."
us,scenario_117,federal_refundable_credits,5,llm_error,other,False,,"The refundable CTC (ACTC) is capped at the part of the child tax credit left over after the credit has offset income tax. This couple files jointly with about $250,733 of AGI. That is below the $400,000 CTC phase-out, so the full $2,200-per-child CTC ($6,600) is allowed. Their federal income tax is well over $25,000, which absorbs the whole $6,600 as a nonrefundable credit and leaves nothing to refund. EITC is zero at this income, and no other refundable credit applies, so the total is $0. The wrong answers skipped the tax-liability limit and treated the per-child refundable cap ($1,700 or $1,800), or a made-up fraction of it, as money the family receives automatically."
us,scenario_117,head_wic_eligible,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"WIC eligibility is individual, not household-wide: living with a two-year-old does not make the 44-year-old head categorically eligible. The household's approximately $250,733 annual income also exceeds the WIC limit of 185% of the federal poverty guideline for a five-person household."
us,scenario_117,payroll_tax,27,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"Only the spouse has wages ($248,675, which already include overtime). Employee Social Security tax is 6.2% up to the 2026 wage base of $184,500, which comes to $11,439. Medicare is 1.45% of all wages, $3,605.79. Combined wages are under the $250,000 MFJ Additional Medicare threshold, and Arkansas has no employee payroll tax, so the total is $15,044.79. Most models used an outdated or guessed Social Security wage base, such as $168,600 (2024) or $176,100 (2025). Others counted the FLSA overtime premium twice, skipped the SS cap, or submitted a number that does not match their own arithmetic."
us,scenario_117,self_employment_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_117,spouse_wic_eligible,1,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"WIC eligibility is determined individually and requires both membership in an eligible category—pregnant, postpartum, breastfeeding, infant, or child under five—and satisfaction of the income or adjunctive-eligibility rules. The spouse is not placed in any eligible WIC category by the stated facts, and household income of approximately $250,733 also exceeds the applicable 185% federal poverty guideline."
-us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,48,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Arkansas AGI is $248,144.53: wages minus the $530 capital loss. The $2,589 state refund is not Arkansas income, and the FLSA overtime premium is already counted inside wages and gets no state exclusion. The household itemizes only the charitable gift, reduced by the 2026 floor of 0.5% of federal AGI ($1,253.67), for $24,646.33. No mortgage interest is deductible because only a loan balance is given, medical costs fall under the floor, and employee business expenses fall under the 2% floor. The engine's 2026 schedule taxes $223,498.20 at $8,189.53 (equal to 3.7% of taxable income minus $79.90). Subtracting $205 of nonrefundable credits ($29 × 5 = $145 personal, plus a $60 additional credit) leaves $7,984.53. The wrong answers mostly used the standard deduction or made up mortgage interest, used 3.9%/4.4% schedules that overstate the bracket tax, counted the refund or excluded overtime, or claimed only the $145 personal credits."
+us,scenario_117,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,50,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The reference rests on three Arkansas steps. First, Arkansas AGI of $248,144.53 keeps the overtime premium and leaves out the $2,589 state refund. Itemized deductions of $24,646.33 come mainly from the $25,900 charitable gift: no mortgage interest is input, and medical and employee business expenses fall below their AGI floors. Second, Arkansas's 2026 graduated schedule tops out at 3.9% and gives $8,189.53 of tax on $223,498.20, about $527 less than a flat 3.9%. Third, nonrefundable credits total $205: $145 of personal credits plus a $60 additional credit for qualified individuals. Most wrong answers made one or more of these errors: taking the standard deduction, imputing mortgage interest from the balance, treating overtime as exempt, using outdated 4.4–4.9% rates or a schedule with too little lower-bracket relief, or dropping the $60 credit (or all credits)."
us,scenario_117,state_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_118,head_medicaid_eligible,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"The head is 74, blind, and disabled. Their only income is $2,800 a year in Social Security, and they hold $70 in resources. That qualifies them for SSI: countable income after the $20 general exclusion is about $213/month, which is under the federal benefit rate, and the engine pays $9,368 a year. In New York, SSI receipt brings Medicaid eligibility automatically through the SSI-recipient category, and the head also meets NY's aged/disabled income and asset limits. Both models missed that the SSI pathway makes the head categorically eligible. They also failed to check the very low income and assets against the aged/blind/disabled limits."
us,scenario_118,payroll_tax,1,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Employee payroll taxes apply to wages and other covered earned compensation, not Social Security retirement benefits. With no wages, self-employment income, or other covered earnings listed, the employee-side payroll-tax base is zero and payroll tax is $0."
-us,scenario_118,snap,48,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The head is blind and disabled and has only $2,800 of Social Security, so they receive $780.67/month of SSI ($994 FBR minus $213.33 countable SS). SNAP counts that SSI as unearned income, making gross income $1,014/month. Subtract the $209 standard deduction to get $805. Then subtract the uncapped elderly/disabled excess shelter deduction of about $611/month, which builds the New York standard utility allowance into shelter costs alongside mortgage interest and property tax. That leaves $194 of net income, a $58.20 contribution, and $298 − $58.20 = $239.80/month for January–September, then $248.58/month for October–December under FY2027 parameters, for $2,903.94 in total. Most models made one of two mistakes. Some dropped SSI, which drives net income to $0 and gives the roughly $3,500 maximum-allotment answer. Others counted SSI but left the utility allowance out of shelter costs, which gives net income of about $609 and an answer near $1,384. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (taxable_income_or_deductions). The frozen reference is 2,903.94; the alternative is 3,576.00. The prompt lists home mortgage interest without saying the mortgaged home is the household's residence; if it is, SNAP counts the mortgage payment, interest included, as a shelter cost (7 CFR 273.9(d)(6)(ii)(A)), which is the reading under the alternative value. Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (whether the listed home mortgage interest is on the home the SNAP household occupies)."
-us,scenario_118,ssi,36,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The head is categorically eligible as aged and blind. Countable resources are $70. Countable unearned income is $2,800 minus the $20/month general exclusion ($240/year), which leaves $2,560/year ($213.33/month). The federal SSI payment is the 2026 individual FBR of $994/month minus $213.33, or $780.67/month, which comes to $9,368/year. The `ssi` output is federal SSI only, so no New York State Supplement is added. Models missed this in three main ways: they used a stale or wrong FBR ($943, $967, $983, $990, $991, $993), they added a NY SSP on top of federal SSI, or they applied the $20 exclusion only once per year. Others wrongly found the head ineligible even though $213.33/month of countable income is far below the FBR."
-us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,36,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"The only NY refundable credit here is the real property tax credit (IT-214). Homeowners qualify for it through the real estate taxes they pay; it doesn't depend on rent, earned income, children, or any income tax liability. This 74-year-old filer has federal AGI of $0 and property taxes of $1,633.50, above 3.5% of that AGI, so the flat table in force from 2025 gives $375. Most models wrongly tied NY refundable credits to EITC, children, or tax liability and answered $0. The models that did find the credit made errors on the cap, the income band, or the formula, or imputed SSI that wasn't listed, or added the nonrefundable household credit. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated llm_error (state_local_rule). From 2025 New York keys the real property tax credit to federal AGI and a flat table; with federal AGI of $0 and property tax above 3.5% of it, a filer 65 or older receives $375. The judge applied the repealed household-gross-income rule. Reference affirmed (N.Y. Tax Law 606(e) as amended by Part RR of Chapter 59 of the Laws of 2025)."
-us,scenario_119,child1_chip_eligible,17,llm_error,health_coverage,False,,"Child 1 is 14, so the age test passes. Household MAGI of about $52,569 (roughly 192-197% FPL) is also inside Virginia's FAMIS band, so the income test passes too. The child fails CHIP's categorical test instead. The household facts say the child has employer-sponsored insurance, and a CHIP targeted low-income child cannot be covered under a group health plan. Every answering model ran only the age and income-band screen and ignored the child's ESI coverage flag. None of them applied the no-other-coverage requirement, so all returned eligible."
+us,scenario_118,snap,50,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Two steps decide this case. First, PolicyEngine pays this aged, blind and disabled head $780.67/month of SSI: the $994 federal benefit rate minus $213.33 of countable Social Security ($233.33 minus the $20 general exclusion). SNAP counts that SSI as unearned income, so gross income is $1,014/month, not $233. Second, after the $209 standard deduction, PolicyEngine's uncapped elderly/disabled excess shelter deduction is about $611. That figure comes from about $1,013/month of shelter costs: $598.75 of mortgage interest and property tax plus the New York utility allowance. Net income is therefore $194.38, the contribution is $58.20 against the $298 maximum, and the benefit is $239.80/month for nine months and $248.58/month for October–December under FY2027 parameters. Models that left out SSI landed at or near the maximum allotment. Models that counted SSI but used only mortgage interest and property tax got net income of about $609 and roughly $1,384/year. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (taxable_income_or_deductions). The frozen reference is 2,903.94; the alternative is 3,576.00. The prompt lists home mortgage interest without saying the mortgaged home is the household's residence; if it is, SNAP counts the mortgage payment, interest included, as a shelter cost (7 CFR 273.9(d)(6)(ii)(A)), which is the reading under the alternative value. Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (whether the listed home mortgage interest is on the home the SNAP household occupies)."
+us,scenario_118,ssi,38,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"The `ssi` output is the federal SSI payment only. Take the 2026 federal benefit rate of $994/month and subtract countable unearned income of $213.33/month ($2,800/12 = $233.33 in Social Security, minus the $20/month general exclusion). That leaves $780.67/month, which is $9,368/year. The New York State Supplement is a separate variable and is not part of `ssi`. The wrong answers fall into four groups: adding a NY living-alone supplement of about $87/month ($1,044/year) on top, using a stale or wrongly projected benefit rate ($943, $967, $990, $991, $982.67), taking the $20 exclusion once a year instead of every month, or calling the person ineligible by comparing $2,800 of annual income against a monthly benefit rate."
+us,scenario_118,state_refundable_credits,38,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"The whole $375 comes from New York's Real Property Tax Credit (IT-214, Tax Law §606(e)). This credit is refundable and does not depend on tax liability, earned income, or children. It is available to low-income homeowners as well as renters. For a 74-year-old homeowner with $1,634 in property taxes and very low household gross income, 50% of the property tax above the applicable percentage of income comes to far more than the cap, so the credit equals the elderly (65+) maximum of $375. Most models stopped at the EITC and Empire State Child Credit, or assumed that a refundable credit requires tax liability. Others found the RPTC but used the wrong maximum or income band, or added the nonrefundable NY household credit. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated llm_error (state_local_rule). From 2025 New York keys the real property tax credit to federal AGI and a flat table; with federal AGI of $0 and property tax above 3.5% of it, a filer 65 or older receives $375. The judge applied the repealed household-gross-income rule. Reference affirmed (N.Y. Tax Law 606(e) as amended by Part RR of Chapter 59 of the Laws of 2025)."
+us,scenario_119,child1_chip_eligible,18,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Child 1 is 14, so the age test passes. The engine rejects CHIP on income: it counts about $55,800 of household income (wages plus interest), and that puts the household above Virginia's FAMIS child income limit. Most models subtracted the 'desired' traditional 401(k) and IRA contributions to get a MAGI of $52,569, or about 192–197% FPL. Some also added a 5% disregard, which raised the limit to 205%. Either way they landed just under the cutoff and called the child eligible. The household sits right at the line, so that income adjustment and the generous threshold flip the result from No to Yes."
us,scenario_119,child1_early_head_start_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_119,child1_head_start_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_119,child1_medicaid_eligible,5,llm_error,health_coverage,False,,"The separating step is the boundary between Virginia's Medicaid and its separate CHIP program. A 14-year-old with no SSI, no disability, and no other categorical hook reaches Medicaid only through the MAGI pathway for children ages 6-18, capped at 143% FPL plus the 5-point disregard; this household sits at 1.92x FPL after the $3,231 of traditional 401(k)/IRA contributions, so medicaid_category is NONE. Coverage from 148% up to about 200% FPL in Virginia is FAMIS, which PolicyEngine reports as CHIP under the separate child1_chip_eligible output, not as Medicaid. Every substantive wrong answer imported the FAMIS/CHIP threshold into the Medicaid question, and one also sized the household at four people instead of three."
us,scenario_119,child1_medicare_eligible,2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_119,child1_wic_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_119,child2_chip_eligible,17,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"Child2 is 11, so CHIP's under-19 age test passes, and the engine rules out Medicaid (category NONE). The deciding step is CHIP's own income test. Measured on the roughly $55,800 of household income in the trace, child2's income level is above Virginia's CHIP child limit, so is_chip_eligible is False. Every model that answered assumed the household was under Virginia's 200-205% FPL FAMIS cap and marked child2 eligible. Most got there by shrinking income to a MAGI of $52,569 (about 192-197% FPL) or lower after subtracting 401(k), IRA or ESI-premium amounts. Two models returned no answer."
+us,scenario_119,child2_chip_eligible,18,llm_error,health_coverage,False,,"Child 2 is 11, and the household's MAGI is about $52,569 ($55,800 gross minus $3,231 in traditional 401(k)/IRA deductions), roughly 192–197% FPL for three people. That puts the child above Virginia's child Medicaid limit, so the engine's Medicaid category is NONE. Every model that gave a reason stopped there and concluded the child falls in the FAMIS band. The step they skipped is CHIP's own coverage test. A targeted low-income child must not be covered by a group health plan (42 U.S.C. 1397jj(b)(1)(C); 42 CFR 457.310(b)(2)), and the household facts say Child 2 has employer-sponsored insurance, so the engine returns is_chip_eligible = False even though the child is the right age and sits in the FAMIS income band."
us,scenario_119,child2_early_head_start_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_119,child2_head_start_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_119,child2_medicaid_eligible,5,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"The trap is the boundary between Virginia's children's Medicaid MAGI limit and its FAMIS/CHIP ceiling: Medicaid for children ages 6-18 in Virginia stops at 143% FPL, while FAMIS covers 143% up to 200% FPL (205% with the 5% disregard). Child2's household MAGI lands at 1.92 x FPL, which sits squarely in the CHIP band and above every Medicaid MAGI child category, and with zero SSI, no disability, and no foster or medically-needy pathway the engine assigns medicaid_category NONE. Every substantive wrong answer imported the 200%-205% FAMIS ceiling as the Medicaid threshold, treating FAMIS coverage as Medicaid coverage; two models emitted no value at all for this key."
us,scenario_119,child2_medicare_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_119,child2_wic_eligible,2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,21,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"For 2026, OBBBA keeps the TCJA structure. That means a $24,150 head-of-household standard deduction, no personal exemptions, and a $2,200 CTC for each child under 17, so this household's CTC is $4,400. The CDCC rate at this AGI is 35%, giving $546. Tax before credits is $3,056.23. The CDCC and the $200 Saver's credit bring it down to $2,310.23. The nonrefundable CTC is limited only by that remaining liability, so the $4,400 credit wipes it out and the result is $0. The wrong answers came from four mistakes: assuming TCJA expired (personal exemptions and a $1,000-per-child CTC), filing as single, reserving part of the CTC for the refundable ACTC before applying the nonrefundable part, or leaving out credits."
-us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,48,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,,"The $3,366.07 total is a $1,276.30 EITC plus a $2,089.77 refundable CTC. The first trap is the EITC: for a 2026 head-of-household filer with two children, the credit phases out at 21.06% above $23,890 and does not reach zero until about $58,630, so AGI of $52,568.54 still leaves $1,276.30. Many models set the EITC to zero. The second trap is the refundable CTC. It equals the 2026 $4,400 CTC ($2,200 per child) minus the liability left after the $546 CDCC (35% rate) and the $200 saver's credit, which is $2,310.23. Models that used $2,000 or $1,000 per child, a 20% CDCC, no saver's credit, or no ACTC at all understated it. Several models also took the $6,389 employer health premium out of wages, which understated AGI and overstated the EITC."
+us,scenario_119,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,22,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"Under 2026 law as amended by OBBBA, the TCJA structure is permanent. That means a $24,150 head-of-household standard deduction, 10%/12% brackets, a $2,200 CTC per child under 17, and a CDCC rate of 35% at this AGI. Applied to $28,418.54 of taxable income, this gives $3,056.23 of tax before credits. That tax is fully absorbed in order by the CDCC ($546), the Saver's Credit ($200, which is 10% of the $2,000 contribution cap), and $2,310.23 of the $4,400 CTC. The CTC alone already exceeds the pre-credit tax. Most models either assumed the TCJA expired and used a $1,000-per-child CTC, used single filing status, or wrongly limited the nonrefundable CTC to the amount left over after the ACTC refundable cap. The nonrefundable CTC is applied against tax liability first, and only the unused part becomes refundable."
+us,scenario_119,federal_refundable_credits,50,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,,"The total has two parts. The first is a $1,276.30 EITC: AGI of $52,568.54 is still inside the 2026 two-child phase-out ($7,316 max, phase-out from $23,890 at 21.06%, ending near $58,629). The second is a $2,089.77 ACTC: the $4,400 CTC ($2,200 per child) minus the $2,310.23 of liability left after the $3,056.23 pre-credit tax is cut by the $546 CDCC (35%) and the $200 saver's credit. Wrong answers mostly came from four mistakes: zeroing the EITC as 'phased out', using a $2,000 or $1,000 per-child CTC, letting the CTC absorb the full pre-credit tax without first taking the CDCC (or using it at 20%) and the saver's credit, or subtracting the $6,389 employer health premium from AGI."
us,scenario_119,free_school_meals_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_119,head_chip_eligible,2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_119,head_medicaid_eligible,2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
@@ -929,10 +933,10 @@ us,scenario_119,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,7,llm_error,taxable_income_o
us,scenario_119,self_employment_tax,2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_119,snap,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_119,ssi,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,47,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"Two Virginia-specific steps produce the reference. First, Virginia taxable income of $39,468.54 comes from federal AGI of $52,568.54 minus the $8,750 2026 standard deduction, three $930 exemptions, and a $1,560 child and dependent care expense deduction. Virginia treats child care as a deduction, not a percentage credit. Second, the $2,011.94 tax is reduced by the nonrefundable Virginia EITC, which is 20% of the $1,276.30 federal EITC, or $255.26. Most models left out the child care deduction, the nonrefundable EITC, or both. Many also used an outdated standard deduction ($8,500, $4,500 or $3,000), subtracted the $6,389 ESI premiums from AGI again, or made up Virginia child care or child tax credits."
-us,scenario_119,state_refundable_credits,16,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"Virginia makes filers choose one form of its earned income credit: a nonrefundable credit worth 20% of the federal EITC, or the refundable version. The household cannot claim both. This household has about $52.6k federal AGI. After the HoH standard deduction and three exemptions, Virginia tax before credits is roughly $2,000, which is far more than any VA EITC amount. So the full nonrefundable credit gets used and is the better choice. PolicyEngine claims the nonrefundable credit, which reduces state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits, and leaves the refundable EITC and state_refundable_credits at $0. Every model that answered treated the VA EITC as a refundable credit and never compared the two options against the household's Virginia tax liability."
+us,scenario_119,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,49,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"The reference result comes from three Virginia-specific steps. Taxable income is $39,468.54: federal AGI of $52,568.54, less the 2026 standard deduction of $8,750, $2,790 of personal exemptions at $930 each, and a $1,560 child and dependent care expense deduction. That income produces $2,011.94 of tax. Virginia's nonrefundable EITC, 20% of the $1,276.30 federal EITC ($255.26), then brings the amount to $1,756.68. Most models used the outdated $8,500 (or another wrong) standard deduction, left out the $1,560 care deduction or swapped it for a Virginia child care credit that doesn't exist, and skipped the nonrefundable 20% EITC or sized it from a federal EITC that ignored the phase-out. Several also subtracted the $6,389 of ESI premiums from wages and got an AGI of $46,180."
+us,scenario_119,state_refundable_credits,18,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"Virginia's earned income credit is an either/or election. A filer takes the nonrefundable credit (20% of federal EITC) or the refundable credit, never both, and PolicyEngine counts the refundable version only when it beats the nonrefundable credit the filer can actually use. This head of household earns about $55,000, so Virginia tax liability is roughly $2,000 or more. That fully absorbs a nonrefundable credit worth a few hundred dollars, so the household takes the nonrefundable credit and va_refundable_credits is $0. Every model that answered added a refundable Virginia EITC on top of the regular credit, treating it as automatic and stackable instead of as the alternative to the nonrefundable credit."
us,scenario_119,tanf,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,48,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The reference applies 2026 OBBBA law, under which the TCJA rate schedule is permanent. AGI is $232,635 and leaves out the $1,750 state tax refund. Itemized deductions are $35,717: SALT of $13,908 (Connecticut income tax of about $11,896 plus $2,012 property tax, under the $40,400 cap), mortgage interest of $2,808 after the $750k/$1M debt limit, and charity of $19,001 after the new 0.5%-of-AGI floor. That leaves $196,918 of taxable income and $39,858.42 of bracket tax, plus $163.40 of 3.8% NIIT on the full $4,300 of interest and rent. The wrong answers fall into four groups: assuming the TCJA sunset (personal exemption, pre-TCJA brackets, miscellaneous deductions); mis-sizing itemized deductions (the old $10k SALT cap, leaving out CT income tax, no mortgage-debt limit, no charitable floor); subtracting ESI premiums from gross wages; and omitting NIIT or netting the farm loss against it. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated reference_engine_defect (taxable_income_or_deductions). The frozen reference is 40,021.82; the corrected value is 40,028.32. PolicyEngine deducts traditional IRA contributions without the active-participant phase-out. Reference is an engine defect; output excluded from scoring (26 U.S.C. 219(g); IRS Notice 2025-67 (2026 ranges))."
+us,scenario_120,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,50,reference_engine_defect,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The reference applies 2026 law as set by the OBBBA. AGI is $232,635: wages net of the $617.44 401(k), the $29 IRA deducted, and the $1,750 state refund left out. Itemized deductions total $35,717: charity of $19,001 after the new 0.5%-of-AGI floor, SALT of $13,908 (Connecticut income tax plus property tax, under the $40,400 cap), and mortgage interest of $2,808 (interest on $750k of the $1M of debt). That leaves $196,918 of taxable income, taxed at $39,858.42 under the 10/12/22/24% brackets with no personal exemption and no miscellaneous deductions. On top of that is a 3.8% NIIT on the full $4,300 of interest plus rental income ($163.40), with the farm rent loss not netted. The wrong answers fall into four groups: models that assumed the TCJA expired (pre-TCJA rates and exemptions), models that used the old $10k SALT cap or left out Connecticut income tax, models that skipped the charitable floor or the mortgage limit, and models that omitted the NIIT or netted the farm loss into its base. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated reference_engine_defect (taxable_income_or_deductions). The frozen reference is 40,021.82; the corrected value is 40,028.32. PolicyEngine deducts traditional IRA contributions without the active-participant phase-out. Reference is an engine defect; output excluded from scoring (26 U.S.C. 219(g); IRS Notice 2025-67 (2026 ranges))."
us,scenario_120,federal_refundable_credits,2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_120,free_school_meals_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_120,head_chip_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
@@ -940,12 +944,12 @@ us,scenario_120,head_medicaid_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,F
us,scenario_120,head_medicare_eligible,2,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"Medicare eligibility applies because the head is age 76, well above the age-65 threshold. Income, assets, disability status, and employer-sponsored insurance do not negate age-based Medicare eligibility."
us,scenario_120,head_wic_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_120,local_income_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,37,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"The reference is employee Social Security tax (6.2% × $165,597 = $10,267.01), plus Medicare tax (1.45% × $165,597 = $2,401.16), plus Connecticut's mandatory employee Paid Leave contribution (0.5% × $165,597 = $827.98), for a total of $13,496.16. The wages are below the 2026 Social Security wage base and below the $200,000 Additional Medicare Tax threshold, so the full gross wage is the base for all three taxes. Most models said Connecticut has no employee payroll tax and stopped at $12,668.17. A second group took the $7,429 ESI premium (and sometimes the 401(k) deferrals) out of the wage base, which shrinks every component. The facts give gross wages and never describe the premium as a cafeteria-plan salary reduction, and 401(k) deferrals are FICA wages anyway."
+us,scenario_120,payroll_tax,38,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"The reference has three parts: 6.2% Social Security on the full $165,597 of wages, which is below the 2026 wage base ($10,267.01), 1.45% Medicare ($2,401.16), and Connecticut's mandatory 0.5% employee Paid Leave contribution ($827.98). The total is $13,496.16, and no Additional Medicare Tax applies because wages are under $200,000. Most models stopped at the FICA total of $12,668.17 and wrongly said Connecticut has no employee payroll tax. A second group did include the CT paid leave contribution but took the $7,429 employer-sponsored insurance premium (and in some cases 401k deferrals) out of FICA wages. Neither the premium input nor 401k deferrals reduce the payroll tax base here."
us,scenario_120,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_120,self_employment_tax,2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_120,snap,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_120,ssi,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,48,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"The trap is Connecticut's Social Security rule for single filers above the $75,000 AGI threshold. CT taxes no more than 25% of total benefits, so the subtraction is federally taxable SS minus 25% of benefits: $35,615 − $10,475 = $25,140. Add the $1,750 SALT refund subtraction and CT AGI comes to $207,523.97. The 2026 single schedule (2%/4.5%/5.5%/6%/6.5%) gives $11,239.06, and three separate add-backs bring it to $11,919.06: the $250 phase-out of the 2% bracket, $250 of low-tax recapture and $180 of middle-tax recapture. Most models either took no SS subtraction, subtracted all taxable SS or all benefits, used the old 3%/5% rates, applied exemptions, deductions or credits that are fully phased out, or left out some or all of the $680 in add-backs and recapture."
+us,scenario_120,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,50,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"Connecticut starts from federal AGI of $234,414.20 and makes two subtractions. The first is the Social Security adjustment for high-income filers: federally taxable benefits ($35,615) minus 25% of gross benefits ($10,475), which is $25,140. The second is the $1,750.24 state tax refund. That leaves CT AGI and taxable income of $207,523.97, with the personal exemption fully phased out. The 2024+ rate schedule (2%/4.5%/5.5%/6%/6.5%) gives $11,239.06, and three add-backs bring the total to $11,919.06: the $250 phase-out add-back, the $250 low-tax recapture and the $180 middle-tax recapture. Most models went wrong on the Social Security subtraction (taking none, all of it, or the wrong 75%/25% formula), left out the refund subtraction, used the pre-2024 3%/5% rates, or dropped some or all of the $680 in add-backs."
us,scenario_120,state_refundable_credits,2,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_120,tanf,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_121,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,4,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Two facts drive the $0: PolicyEngine's `disability_benefits` input is a non-taxable income source excluded from AGI, so AGI is wages only ($25,665), and the household's medical costs ($2,200 non-Medicare-Part-B premiums + $30,000 other medical + $400 over-the-counter = $32,600) generate an itemized medical expense deduction of $32,600 − 7.5% × $25,665 ($1,925) = $30,675. That itemized total exceeds AGI, so taxable income floors at $0 and there is no tax to reduce with nonrefundable credits. Every wrong model either taxed the disability benefits, ignored the medical itemized deduction, or both, leaving a positive 10%/12%-bracket residue. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (taxable_income_or_deductions). The frozen reference is 0.00; the alternative is 875.34. The prompt lists disability benefits from employment without saying who paid for the coverage. Benefits from employer-paid coverage are included in gross income (26 U.S.C. 105(a)); benefits from coverage the employee paid for with after-tax money are excluded (26 U.S.C. 104(a)(3)). The reference excludes them; the alternative value includes them. Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (who paid for the coverage behind listed employment disability benefits, which decides whether they are taxable)."
@@ -955,23 +959,23 @@ us,scenario_121,head_medicare_eligible,17,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"Polic
us,scenario_121,local_income_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_121,payroll_tax,7,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"The listed employer-sponsored insurance premium is not specified as a pre-tax payroll deduction, so it does not reduce FICA wages under the prompt’s rule that unlisted statuses are false. Applying 6.2% Social Security and 1.45% Medicare to the full $25,665 of wages yields $1,591.23 and $372.14, totaling $1,963.37."
us,scenario_121,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_121,snap,31,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"The models treated the head's general ""is disabled"" flag as making this a SNAP elderly/disabled household. Under SNAP's definition (7 U.S.C. 2012(j)), that status depends on receiving qualifying government disability benefits such as SSI or Social Security disability. The head has only generic disability benefits and earns about $2,139/month in wages, which is above the SGA level, so PolicyEngine applies the gross income test. Countable gross income is $39,909/yr ($3,326/mo). That is above both SC's BBCE limit of 200% FPL (about $2,608/mo for one person) and the standard 130% limit, so SNAP is $0. Because the household is not SNAP elderly/disabled, the uncapped excess medical deduction that every model relied on never comes into play."
+us,scenario_121,snap,33,llm_error,age_disability,False,,"For SNAP, a household skips the gross income test only if it has a member who is elderly or disabled under the USDA definition (7 CFR 271.2). That definition depends on receiving a qualifying disability program, such as SSI, Social Security disability, or a governmental disability retirement or annuity. A generic is_disabled flag combined with non-SSA 'disability benefits' does not meet it. This head receives no SSI or Social Security disability, so the gross income test applies. Gross income is $39,909/yr (≈$3,326/mo), far above SC's BBCE 130% FPL limit for one person (≈$1,700/mo), so the household is ineligible and SNAP = $0. The excess medical deduction is never reached. Every model assumed the disability exemption applied, let large medical costs zero out net income, and paid out close to the maximum allotment."
us,scenario_121,ssi,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_121,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,8,prompt_ambiguity,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"South Carolina's tax base starts from federal taxable income, and this filer's deductible medical outlays total $32,600 ($30,000 other medical expenses + $2,200 health insurance premiums excluding Medicare Part B + $400 over-the-counter health expenses). Netted against the 7.5%-of-AGI floor (at most $2,903 on the largest possible AGI of $38,709), that leaves roughly $30,000 of itemized medical deduction — nearly double the $16,100 single standard deduction — which wipes out federal taxable income, and SC's subtraction for the disabled filer's disability income removes anything left, so SC taxable income never reaches the top of the zero-rate bracket and the tax is $0. Every wrong model defaulted to the standard deduction and treated the $30,000 medical line as an irrelevant household fact; several compounded that with invented SC rate schedules and a nonexistent personal exemption. The gap between $0 and every submitted number is entirely the unclaimed itemized medical expense deduction — no bracket or rate correction closes it. Developer adjudication (2026-09-22): the judge (claude-opus-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (taxable_income_or_deductions). The frozen reference is 0.00; the alternative is 212.23. The prompt lists disability benefits from employment without saying who paid for the coverage. Benefits from employer-paid coverage are included in gross income (26 U.S.C. 105(a)); benefits from coverage the employee paid for with after-tax money are excluded (26 U.S.C. 104(a)(3)). The reference excludes them; the alternative value includes them. Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (who paid for the coverage behind listed employment disability benefits, which decides whether they are taxable)."
-us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,41,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Tax year 2026 falls under OBBBA, which made the TCJA structure permanent. That means no personal exemption and no miscellaneous itemized deductions. It also means a $16,100 single standard deduction plus $2,050 each for age and blindness ($20,200), plus the $6,000 senior deduction (MAGI of $70,646 is under $75,000), plus the new $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction, for $27,200 in total deductions. With 85% of Social Security taxable ($27,200), AGI is $70,646.18 and taxable income is $43,446.18. The $1,824 of qualified dividends is taxed at 0%, and the $41,622.18 of ordinary income is taxed at 10%/12% (with the 10% bracket ending at $12,400), giving $4,746.66. Most models either applied a TCJA sunset (personal exemption, 15%/25% brackets, itemizing with miscellaneous deductions), left out the senior deduction and/or the $1,000 charitable deduction, or claimed zero tax."
+us,scenario_122,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,43,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"The 2026 return falls under OBBBA rules, which made the TCJA structure permanent. AGI is $70,646.18 ($27,200 taxable Social Security under the 85% cap, plus $43,446 of other income after the $1,519 capital loss). Total deductions are $27,200: the $16,100 single standard deduction, $2,050 each for age and blindness, the $6,000 senior deduction (MAGI is under $75,000), and the $1,000 charitable deduction for non-itemizers. Taxable income is $43,446.18; the $1,824 of qualified dividends falls in the 0% band, and the remaining $41,622.18 at 10%/12% gives $4,746.66. Most wrong answers came from one of three errors: assuming TCJA sunset (personal exemption, pre-TCJA brackets, miscellaneous itemized deductions), leaving out the $6,000 senior deduction, or leaving out the $1,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction."
us,scenario_122,federal_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_122,head_medicaid_eligible,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Age, blindness, and disability do not by themselves establish Medicaid eligibility under Minnesota’s aged, blind, or disabled pathways. The head qualified through no Medicaid category, received no SSI, and had MAGI equal to 4.85 times FPL, so the eligibility result is No."
us,scenario_122,payroll_tax,2,llm_error,payroll_tax_base,False,,"Employee payroll tax applies to wage and salary earnings, not Social Security benefits, IRA distributions, pensions, dividends, interest, or capital gains. Because the prompt lists no wages and requires unlisted numeric inputs to be zero, the employee payroll-tax base is zero and payroll tax is $0."
us,scenario_122,self_employment_tax,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,48,llm_error,taxable_income_or_deductions,False,,"Minnesota starts from federal AGI of $70,646.18. Because AGI is below the single phaseout threshold, the full $27,200 of federally taxable Social Security is subtracted. The filer then takes the $19,300 aged-plus-blind standard deduction and the non-itemizer charitable subtraction of $4,977.18, which leaves $19,169 taxed entirely at 5.35% ($1,025.54), with no nonrefundable credits. The wrong answers fall into four groups: models that skipped or only partly applied the Social Security subtraction and pushed income into the 6.8% bracket (~$2,400–3,200); models that dropped the charitable subtraction (~$1,250–1,400); models that invented senior or pension subtractions or credits and landed at $0; and near-misses that overstated the charitable subtraction at $5,154 or added back tax-exempt interest."
-us,scenario_122,state_refundable_credits,7,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,,"The only candidate Minnesota refundable credit is the renter's credit. There are no earnings or children, so the Working Family Credit and Child Tax Credit do not apply. The household's income is about $77,460: AGI plus nontaxable Social Security and tax-exempt interest. At that income the 2026 renter's credit schedule gives nothing, so mn_refundable_credits and state_refundable_credits are both $0. Every model that answered assumed the household falls inside a paying bracket of the renter's credit schedule and granted $1,000-$2,300 from 17% of the $28,235 rent. None of them noticed that the credit is fully phased out at this income."
+us,scenario_122,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,50,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"Minnesota taxable income starts from federal AGI of $70,646.18 and takes three reductions. First, the full $27,200 of federally taxable Social Security is subtracted, because AGI is under Minnesota's phaseout threshold. Second, the $19,300 standard deduction applies, including the age-65 and blind additions. Third, the separate non-itemizer charitable subtraction of $4,977.18 applies. That leaves $19,169, all taxed at the 5.35% first-bracket rate, for $1,025.54. There is no personal exemption for the filer, no private pension/IRA exclusion, no add-back of tax-exempt interest, and no nonrefundable credit. Models split into three groups: those that skipped or only partly applied the Social Security subtraction, which pushed income into the 6.8% bracket; those that dropped the non-itemizer charitable subtraction (about $1,300–$1,400 of tax); and those that invented senior exemptions or credits to reach $0."
+us,scenario_122,state_refundable_credits,8,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,,"The only Minnesota refundable credit this childless retiree with no earnings could claim is the renter's credit. The Working Family Credit and Child Tax Credit don't apply. Household income is about $77,460: federal AGI plus nontaxable Social Security and tax-exempt interest. That is above the top of PolicyEngine's 2026 renter's credit income schedule, where the credit is fully phased out, so mn_refundable_credits and the total state refundable credits both come to $0. Every model that answered treated the household as still inside the schedule. They took 17% of the $28,235 rent and refunded part of it without checking the income ceiling."
us,scenario_123,child1_chip_eligible,4,llm_error,thresholds_rates,False,,"Child 1 is 16, so the CHIP age rule (under 19) is met. What decides the case is the income test. The child has to file a return on $45,000 of wages, so that income counts in household MAGI. With the parents' income, household MAGI is about $145,002, which is over 500% FPL for a family of three. That is far above Pennsylvania's CHIP income ceiling (314% FPL), and PolicyEngine's is_chip_eligible applies that ceiling and does not treat the unsubsidized full-cost CHIP buy-in as eligibility. Every model that answered 'Yes' skipped the income ceiling: either it assumed PA's full-cost CHIP makes any income eligible, or it looked only at the child's age."
us,scenario_123,child1_early_head_start_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_123,child1_head_start_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_123,child1_medicaid_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_123,child1_medicare_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_123,child1_wic_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,47,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,,"The output is the joint tax unit's figure. That unit's AGI is $100,002 (head's wages plus $2 interest) because the 16-year-old dependent's $45,000 wages are not part of the parents' AGI, and no separate child return is added. The 2026 OBBBA rules give a $32,200 standard deduction, a $2,000 cash-charity deduction for non-itemizers, a 10% bracket up to $24,800 and a $2,200 CTC. That makes taxable income $65,802, tax $7,400.24, and $5,200.24 after the CTC. The head is not flagged as paid hourly, so there is no overtime deduction, and the TCJA sunset (personal exemptions, 15% bracket, $1,000 CTC) does not apply. Most models either put the child's wages into the joint AGI, added a separate child tax, used pre-TCJA sunset law, or left out the $2,000 non-itemizer charitable deduction. Developer adjudication (2026-10-06): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (household_unit_or_filing_status). The frozen reference is 5,200.24; the alternative is 8,420.24. A dependent with $45,000 of wages must file their own federal and state return, and the engine computes only the head and spouse's return. The output definitions name no return, tax unit or household, the prompt shows one tax unit and asks for quantities 'for this household', and careful readers split both ways (reference_audit/2026-10-05-reference-adversary/verification/independent/pa_123.md, verification/definition_conformance.md). Excluded under decision d1022 until decision d1029 settles the scope for version 2. Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (whether the income tax outputs cover only the head and spouse's return or every return the household's members must file; the definitions name no return, and a dependent here must file their own)."
+us,scenario_123,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,49,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,,"The joint return's AGI is only the head's $100,000 wages plus $2 of interest, or $100,002. The dependent 16-year-old's $45,000 wages are not added to the parents' AGI, and this tax-unit output has no separate return for the child. Two deductions apply under 2026 OBBBA law: the $32,200 MFJ standard deduction and the new $2,000 non-itemizer cash charitable deduction. That leaves taxable income of $65,802, which produces $7,400.24 of tax at the 10%/12% brackets, less the full $2,200 nonrefundable CTC, for $5,200.24. There is no overtime deduction because the head is not paid hourly, and TCJA rates are permanent, so personal exemptions and the $1,000 CTC do not return. Most models either put the child's wages into the household's tax (on the joint return or a separate return), dropped the $2,000 non-itemizer deduction, or applied pre-TCJA sunset rules. Developer adjudication (2026-10-06): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (household_unit_or_filing_status). The frozen reference is 5,200.24; the alternative is 8,420.24. A dependent with $45,000 of wages must file their own federal and state return, and the engine computes only the head and spouse's return. The output definitions name no return, tax unit or household, the prompt shows one tax unit and asks for quantities 'for this household', and careful readers split both ways (reference_audit/2026-10-05-reference-adversary/verification/independent/pa_123.md, verification/definition_conformance.md). Excluded under decision d1022 until decision d1029 settles the scope for version 2. Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (whether the income tax outputs cover only the head and spouse's return or every return the household's members must file; the definitions name no return, and a dependent here must file their own)."
us,scenario_123,federal_refundable_credits,7,llm_error,credit_phaseout,False,,"The Child Tax Credit is a nonrefundable credit first; the additional child tax credit is only the residual the taxpayer cannot use against liability, further capped at $1,700 per child in 2026 and at 15% of earnings above $2,500. This household's $145,002 of income less the 2026 MFJ standard deduction leaves roughly $112,800 of taxable income and about $14,000 of federal income tax before refundable credits, which absorbs the entire CTC for the 16-year-old, and the one-child EITC is long gone at joint income above $57,000 — so total federal refundable credits are $0. Every wrong model stopped at the earned-income phase-in and the $400,000 MAGI phase-out and paid out a per-child refundable cap ($1,500, $1,600, $1,700, $2,000, or $2,400) as if the ACTC were a standalone entitlement. One model additionally fabricated a $205 EITC at an income level far past its phase-out."
us,scenario_123,free_school_meals_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_123,head_chip_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
@@ -979,12 +983,12 @@ us,scenario_123,head_medicaid_eligible,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False
us,scenario_123,head_medicare_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_123,head_wic_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_123,local_income_tax,3,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"The household lists only state PA. No county or city is given, so it is not placed in Philadelphia. The local_income_tax output covers only NYC income tax, Philadelphia wage tax, Kansas City earnings tax and St. Louis earnings tax. A PA household outside Philadelphia gets none of these, so the value is $0. All three models assumed a Philadelphia residence (or a general PA municipal EIT) that the prompt never states, even though it says to treat unlisted facts as false and not to infer them, and taxed the $145,000 in household wages."
-us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,36,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"The household has $145,000 of wages: $100,000 for the head and $45,000 for Child 1. Employee FICA is 7.65% of that, or $8,990 Social Security plus $2,102.50 Medicare. No Additional Medicare Tax applies. Pennsylvania also requires an employee unemployment compensation contribution of 0.07% on all wages with no cap, which adds $101.50 and brings the total to $11,194. Most models stopped at $11,092.50 because they said Pennsylvania has no mandatory employee payroll tax; the rest dropped a figure they had computed, used the wrong UC rate or wage base, invented Additional Medicare Tax, or made arithmetic errors."
+us,scenario_123,payroll_tax,38,llm_error,state_local_rule,False,,"The two earners have $145,000 in combined wages. Each earner is below the Social Security wage base and below the Additional Medicare Tax threshold, so federal FICA is 7.65% × $145,000 = $11,092.50. The step that separates the reference from most answers is Pennsylvania's mandatory employee Unemployment Compensation contribution: 0.07% on all gross wages with no cap, or $70 + $31.50 = $101.50. Adding it gives $11,194. Most models said Pennsylvania has no employee payroll tax. A few models included the contribution but with the wrong rate or base, or they computed $11,194 and then submitted a different number."
us,scenario_123,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_123,spouse_chip_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_123,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2,llm_error,categorical_eligibility,False,,"Pennsylvania Medicaid eligibility requires qualification through a specific categorical pathway and its applicable income test. The 39-year-old spouse has no qualifying category and MAGI of 5.31 times FPL, so the spouse fails every available pathway and is not eligible."
us,scenario_123,spouse_medicare_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_123,spouse_wic_eligible,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
-us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,48,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,,"The prompt puts everyone in one tax unit, and the 16-year-old is a dependent in it. The tax unit's PA tax base is the head and spouse's income only: $100,000 of wages plus $2 of interest, or $100,002. At 3.07% with no deductions and no forgiveness, that gives $3,070.06. The dependent child's $45,000 of wages is not on the parents' return. Almost every model added it anyway, either by putting it into one $145,002 base or by adding a separate $1,381.50 child return, and got about $4,451.56. A smaller group made up PA deductions (standard, charitable, itemized, or federal taxable income), used the wrong rate, or submitted a number that didn't match its own math. Developer adjudication (2026-10-06): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (household_unit_or_filing_status). The frozen reference is 3,070.06; the alternative is 4,451.56. A dependent with $45,000 of wages must file their own federal and state return, and the engine computes only the head and spouse's return. The output definitions name no return, tax unit or household, the prompt shows one tax unit and asks for quantities 'for this household', and careful readers split both ways (reference_audit/2026-10-05-reference-adversary/verification/independent/pa_123.md, verification/definition_conformance.md). Excluded under decision d1022 until decision d1029 settles the scope for version 2. Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (whether the income tax outputs cover only the head and spouse's return or every return the household's members must file; the definitions name no return, and a dependent here must file their own)."
+us,scenario_123,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,49,prompt_ambiguity,household_unit_or_filing_status,False,,"The prompt puts everyone in one tax unit. The 16-year-old is a dependent in that unit, and a dependent's own wages do not go on the parents' Pennsylvania return. The unit's PA taxable income is therefore the head's $100,000 in wages plus $2 of interest, or $100,002. At the flat 3.07% rate that gives $3,070.06, and no tax forgiveness applies. Almost every model either added the child's $45,000 to the parents' income or added a separate $1,381.50 return for the child, which the single-tax-unit setup does not include, and landed at about $4,451.56. A few also invented deductions that PA does not allow, used the wrong rate, or made arithmetic slips. Developer adjudication (2026-10-06): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned llm_error; adjudicated prompt_ambiguity (household_unit_or_filing_status). The frozen reference is 3,070.06; the alternative is 4,451.56. A dependent with $45,000 of wages must file their own federal and state return, and the engine computes only the head and spouse's return. The output definitions name no return, tax unit or household, the prompt shows one tax unit and asks for quantities 'for this household', and careful readers split both ways (reference_audit/2026-10-05-reference-adversary/verification/independent/pa_123.md, verification/definition_conformance.md). Excluded under decision d1022 until decision d1029 settles the scope for version 2. Reference depends on an unlisted input; output excluded from scoring (whether the income tax outputs cover only the head and spouse's return or every return the household's members must file; the definitions name no return, and a dependent here must file their own)."
us,scenario_123,state_refundable_credits,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
us,scenario_123,tanf,1,parse_contract_failure,missing_output,False,,All wrong responses were missing or unparseable predictions.
diff --git a/app/public/paper/policybench.pdf b/app/public/paper/policybench.pdf
index 14c76af7..4f891c4d 100644
Binary files a/app/public/paper/policybench.pdf and b/app/public/paper/policybench.pdf differ
diff --git a/app/public/paper/web/figures/positive_zero_scatter.png b/app/public/paper/web/figures/positive_zero_scatter.png
index ba284cc7..1f1f51ae 100644
Binary files a/app/public/paper/web/figures/positive_zero_scatter.png and b/app/public/paper/web/figures/positive_zero_scatter.png differ
diff --git a/app/public/paper/web/index.html b/app/public/paper/web/index.html
index 9d7f7898..2ca8b8f7 100644
--- a/app/public/paper/web/index.html
+++ b/app/public/paper/web/index.html
@@ -151,7 +151,7 @@
Table of contents
Abstract
-PolicyBench evaluates whether frontier language models can estimate household tax and benefit outputs from household facts without tools. This release covers the United States, drawing sampled households from the certified PolicyEngine populace microdataset and scoring answers against reference outputs from policyengine-us 2.41.0. It evaluates 48 frontier models on 100 households across 18 output groups, and reports three complementary scores: an exact-match rate as the headline deployability bar (a prediction counts only if it matches the PolicyEngine reference to the dollar for amounts or to the eligibility flag for booleans), a within-1% hit rate as a near-miss-tolerant companion, and a continuous bounded score that awards partial credit for close answers. The headline is exact match on a household-impact-weighted leaderboard: 85% of US reference outputs are exact zeros, and the weighting concentrates scores in the high-dollar output groups a hedge-to-zero strategy cannot answer, so the top model leads an always-zero baseline of 69.7% weighted exact by 25.5 points (Section 3.1 details the construction). The manuscript snapshot is a 100-household public preview, not a protected held-out leaderboard: the current public scenario explorer exposes prompts and reference outputs, so open-set leakage is a central limitation of any public ranking. In the frozen snapshot used for this manuscript (2026-10-13), the top-scoring US model on exact match is GPT-6 Sol at 95.2%, while GPT-5.4 nano is lowest at 65.4%. Within model families, newer is not always stronger: Claude Opus 4.8 scores 75.9% exact, below the 80.6% of the earlier Claude Opus 4.7. Multi-step tax quantities and positive-dollar benefit cases are materially harder than zero cases. The frozen audit annotations cover 8,503 rows whose legacy threshold score is below 1. That universe contains 8,499 of the snapshot’s 8,499 exact-match misses and 4 exact hits; 2,218 additional rows with bounded score below 100 were not selected or annotated. Every reference-suspect flag was adjudicated against primary sources and engine traces. PolicyBench rebuilt the references on 2026-10-13 with policyengine-us 2.41.0, the newest release when it began sweeping them that day. Each scored reference follows law published before PolicyBench froze the references on 2026-07-03. Where the engine projects a 2026 amount or takes one from a later publication, the reference holds the amount published before the freeze or, where none was published, the last amount published. PolicyBench excludes from scoring, for every model, the 47 outputs whose references depend on an input the prompt does not state and the two whose references rest on an amount a state published after the freeze. No excluded output rests on an engine defect the audits found that policyengine-us 2.41.0 still has. The 0.7% of cells with a missing or unparsable answer remain scored as misses rather than dropped. The live benchmark is available at https://policybench.org.
+PolicyBench evaluates whether frontier language models can estimate household tax and benefit outputs from household facts without tools. This release covers the United States, drawing sampled households from the certified PolicyEngine populace microdataset and scoring answers against reference outputs from policyengine-us 2.41.0. It evaluates 50 frontier models on 100 households across 18 output groups, and reports three complementary scores: an exact-match rate as the headline deployability bar (a prediction counts only if it matches the PolicyEngine reference to the dollar for amounts or to the eligibility flag for booleans), a within-1% hit rate as a near-miss-tolerant companion, and a continuous bounded score that awards partial credit for close answers. The headline is exact match on a household-impact-weighted leaderboard: 85% of US reference outputs are exact zeros, and the weighting concentrates scores in the high-dollar output groups a hedge-to-zero strategy cannot answer, so the top model leads an always-zero baseline of 69.7% weighted exact by 25.5 points (Section 3.1 details the construction). The manuscript snapshot is a 100-household public preview, not a protected held-out leaderboard: the current public scenario explorer exposes prompts and reference outputs, so open-set leakage is a central limitation of any public ranking. In the frozen snapshot used for this manuscript (2026-10-14), the top-scoring US model on exact match is GPT-6 Sol at 95.2%, while GPT-5.4 nano is lowest at 65.4%. Within model families, newer is not always stronger: Claude Opus 4.8 scores 75.9% exact, below the 80.6% of the earlier Claude Opus 4.7. Multi-step tax quantities and positive-dollar benefit cases are materially harder than zero cases. The frozen audit annotations cover 8,765 rows whose legacy threshold score is below 1. That universe contains 8,761 of the snapshot’s 8,761 exact-match misses and 4 exact hits; 2,329 additional rows with bounded score below 100 were not selected or annotated. Every reference-suspect flag was adjudicated against primary sources and engine traces. PolicyBench rebuilt the references on 2026-10-13 with policyengine-us 2.41.0, the newest release when it began sweeping them that day. Each scored reference follows law published before PolicyBench froze the references on 2026-07-03. Where the engine projects a 2026 amount or takes one from a later publication, the reference holds the amount published before the freeze or, where none was published, the last amount published. PolicyBench excludes from scoring, for every model, the 47 outputs whose references depend on an input the prompt does not state and the two whose references rest on an amount a state published after the freeze. No excluded output rests on an engine defect the audits found that policyengine-us 2.41.0 still has. The 0.7% of cells with a missing or unparsable answer remain scored as misses rather than dropped. The live benchmark is available at https://policybench.org.
Introduction
Household tax-and-benefit estimation sits between arithmetic and policy discussion. Each case has numeric labels, but generating those labels requires filing status, household composition, income concepts, program thresholds, and jurisdiction-specific rules. PolicyBench measures whether models can map household records to those outputs.
Most current language-model evaluations do not test this mapping directly. General math benchmarks emphasize symbolic manipulation and exact final answers (Cobbe et al. 2021; Hendrycks et al. 2021), while generic question-answering benchmarks emphasize recall or instruction following. PolicyBench instead asks whether models can transform household facts into policy outputs without access to tools or simulators.
@@ -163,11 +163,11 @@
The nearest public-benefits benchmark is the concurrent Public Benefits Bench, built by Vals AI with the Center for Civic Futures and Code for America (Vals AI 2026). It evaluates models on 459 expert-validated SNAP guidance scenarios (230 in the published test set) spanning all 50 US states plus Guam and the Virgin Islands, and grades free-text answers against expert-written rubric criteria using a judge model that agreed with SNAP policy experts on 80.6% of grading decisions. Where PolicyBench isolates parametric knowledge by withholding tools, Public Benefits Bench varies tool access directly: across models, multi-turn conversation raises pass rates by roughly 7.6 percentage points and web search by about 6.9. The two benchmarks probe complementary failure surfaces — conversational guidance quality for a single program with tools available, versus no-tool numeric estimation across tax and transfer outputs scored deterministically against microsimulation references — and reach consistent conclusions. The best model passes 71.7% of rubric criteria under Public Benefits Bench’s strongest condition, and its authors conclude that “no general-purpose AI model performs well enough to be trusted with SNAP benefits guidance,” matching the deployability gaps PolicyBench reports for unaided calculation.
Finally, PolicyBench depends on two infrastructure literatures that are not themselves large language model (LLM) benchmarks. One is structured-output reliability, since the benchmark relies on multi-output JSON responses and parse coverage rather than free-form prose (Shorten et al. 2024). The other is tax-benefit microsimulation, where systems such as EUROMOD provide the methodological precedent for evaluating policy rules over household microdata (Sutherland and Figari 2013). There is also operational work on applying and evaluating AI systems in public-benefits settings, including caseworker-assist and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)-focused evaluations (Nava Labs 2026, 2025; ZenML LLMOps Database 2025). PolicyBench combines these strands into a public cross-model benchmark over household-level tax and benefit outputs.
Benchmark design
-The canonical PolicyBench request asks each model to predict every benchmark output for a household in a whole-scenario response under its structured answer contract. 10 of the 48 models received the documented chunked accommodation and instead answered the same prompt template over one- or three-output subsets, reducing each response’s completion demand while preserving the household-level task.
+The canonical PolicyBench request asks each model to predict every benchmark output for a household in a whole-scenario response under its structured answer contract. 10 of the 50 models received the documented chunked accommodation and instead answered the same prompt template over one- or three-output subsets, reducing each response’s completion demand while preserving the household-level task.
Headline metric: exact match
The headline metric is the exact-match rate: the share of requested outputs the model gets right to the dollar (or, for eligibility flags, to the boolean). This is the deployability bar. A tax filer, a benefit estimator, or a caseworker cannot ship “close” — a prediction off by $50 is no more usable than one off by $500, because neither matches the bottom line a downstream system or a household needs. For currency amounts, “exact” means within 1 currency unit of the reference value after numeric parsing. For binary outputs, “exact” means the parsed value is exactly the same 0/1 flag as the reference.
Exact match can be a deceptive headline in a zero-inflated panel — but only when the rate is computed unweighted. In the frozen manuscript snapshot, 85% of reference outputs are exact zeros: most sampled households are not eligible for any given program, owe no capital gains tax, do not phase into a refundable credit, and so on. A model that hedges to zero on every requested output earns full exact credit on every zero case, so a naive unweighted exact rate is dominated by those zeros — a hedge-to-zero model scores roughly 85% unweighted, leaving little room above the floor to separate models that actually understand the rules.
-The public leaderboard corrects for this by household-impact weighting. Each output group’s weight is its population-average share of the household’s dollar stake, computed as |ref| / max(|household_net_income|, Σ |ref|) per source household and averaged with calibrated household weights over the full populace population (Section 5.5 gives the full construction). Zero-reference rows are not removed — every row carries its output group’s weight — but the weighting concentrates mass in high-dollar output groups, which are rarely zero, so the share of weight on zero-reference rows falls from their 85% row share to 69.7%. An always-zero baseline therefore scores 69.7% weighted exact rather than the 85% it earns unweighted, and the top model clears that baseline by 25.5 points — a margin comparable to within-1%. Across the 48-model roster, the weighted exact rate spreads about as widely as within-1% and ranks models in nearly the same order, so exact match discriminates between rule comprehension and zero-hedging while preserving the to-the-dollar deployability meaning.
+The public leaderboard corrects for this by household-impact weighting. Each output group’s weight is its population-average share of the household’s dollar stake, computed as |ref| / max(|household_net_income|, Σ |ref|) per source household and averaged with calibrated household weights over the full populace population (Section 5.5 gives the full construction). Zero-reference rows are not removed — every row carries its output group’s weight — but the weighting concentrates mass in high-dollar output groups, which are rarely zero, so the share of weight on zero-reference rows falls from their 85% row share to 69.7%. An always-zero baseline therefore scores 69.7% weighted exact rather than the 85% it earns unweighted, and the top model clears that baseline by 25.5 points — a margin comparable to within-1%. Across the 50-model roster, the weighted exact rate spreads about as widely as within-1% and ranks models in nearly the same order, so exact match discriminates between rule comprehension and zero-hedging while preserving the to-the-dollar deployability meaning.
The exact rate is aggregated to a household score and then to a country score, with the same population-derived output weights that the within-1% companion and the bounded score use. Equal household weight preserves comparability across scenarios and slices. The leaderboard reports US results on this fixed test set.
Near-miss companion: within 1%
The within-1% hit rate is the near-miss-tolerant companion to the headline: the share of requested outputs the model gets within one percent of the PolicyEngine reference value. For currency amounts, “within 1%” means |pred − ref| ≤ 0.01 × |ref| when the reference is nonzero and |pred| ≤ 1 (the same one-currency-unit absolute tolerance used by exact match) when the reference is zero. Binary outputs are requested as integer 0/1 eligibility flags and scored identically to the exact-match metric.
@@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ Secondary me
The benchmark requires each model response to include numeric answers and one explanation per requested output. Both the exact-match rate and the bounded score use only the numeric answers. Explanations are retained for scenario exploration and qualitative error analysis; they should not be interpreted as faithful traces of model reasoning.
Because explanations are required, the canonical task measures policy estimation under a public-facing structured-response contract, not isolated arithmetic accuracy. Prompt fairness is part of the benchmark contract. The current release uses one prompt template per country, with no model-specific tuning. Models receive the same household facts and requested outputs. They receive no web or external tool access. The prompt sets unlisted numeric inputs to 0, unlisted boolean or status facts to false, and household characteristics as constant over the tax-benefit year. Provider-specific differences are limited to structured-output transport, request shape, and the reasoning setup in Table 2. The harness sends no reasoning-control or sampling parameters. It leaves reasoning effort, temperature, and related decoding controls at provider defaults. The frozen GPT-5.5 wave uses provider-default reasoning effort.
The forced tool_choice suppresses Claude’s extended thinking in this snapshot (sensitivity/claude-thinking-2026-08.md). A labeled sensitivity with tool_choice: "auto" is published beside the board. Claude Fable 5.1, released September 1, 2026, closes the interaction from the API side: it rejects forced tool use with an error, so its row answers through the JSON transport and reasons at the provider default; a sensitivity run with the tool declared under tool_choice: "auto" scores 0.8 points above that row. Claude Opus 5.5, released September 21, 2026, and Claude Sonnet 5.5, released September 28, 2026, reject forced tool use the same way, so their rows also answer through the JSON transport and reason at the provider default; neither has a sensitivity run. The next board version moves every model to tool_choice: "auto" so each provider’s default reasoning posture can engage.
-Two dimensions on which requests were not identical across models are request shape and answer transport (Table 2). 10 of the 48 models could not reliably complete the whole-scenario request because their serving stacks rejected the structured-output call, exhausted completion budgets mid-response, or timed out. They instead answered the same prompt template over subsets of the requested outputs, one to three outputs per request. Subsetting gives each response fewer requested outputs and a fresh completion budget over the same household facts, so the accommodation, if it moves scores at all, should favor the chunked models; their scores are not strictly comparable to whole-scenario scores. This accommodation is closed going forward: a model added after this snapshot either answers the canonical whole-scenario request or is listed as not scorable rather than accommodated.
+Two dimensions on which requests were not identical across models are request shape and answer transport (Table 2). 10 of the 50 models could not reliably complete the whole-scenario request because their serving stacks rejected the structured-output call, exhausted completion budgets mid-response, or timed out. They instead answered the same prompt template over subsets of the requested outputs, one to three outputs per request. Subsetting gives each response fewer requested outputs and a fresh completion budget over the same household facts, so the accommodation, if it moves scores at all, should favor the chunked models; their scores are not strictly comparable to whole-scenario scores. This accommodation is closed going forward: a model added after this snapshot either answers the canonical whole-scenario request or is listed as not scorable rather than accommodated.
One row, GLM-5.3-Flash (preview), answered as a cloaked OpenRouter listing called “Ox Alpha” and is labeled a preview. It was publicly callable under the canonical whole-scenario request and forced-tool transport, and its date is its OpenRouter listing date. After the row’s run, Z.ai identified the listing as GLM-5.3-Flash (OpenRouter 2026); the row carries the disclosed name and keeps the preview qualifier, because whether the checkpoint that answered is the one later released under that name has not been stated, and it is distinct from the GLM-5.3 row, which is Z.ai’s larger model called under its own id. Its artifact key stays ox-alpha, the name it was queried under.
Frozen snapshot and open-set status
Leaderboard positions are version-sensitive, so manuscript claims refer to the frozen source-run exports in Table 1 rather than to the live site. The committed source-run exports are the manuscript artifacts. The public site exposes the current prompts, predictions, explanations, and reference outputs for transparency. This makes the public leaderboard open-set: models, model providers, or benchmark users could learn from the released cases before later runs. Protected leaderboard claims would require a separate held-out or rotating set.
@@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ Frozen snapshot an
| Snapshot date |
-2026-10-13 |
+2026-10-14 |
| Model response date |
@@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ Frozen snapshot an
| Frozen export SHA-256 prefix |
-US d1d6a577d22e |
+US 611df6b59654 |
| Snapshot manifest |
@@ -278,7 +278,7 @@ Frozen snapshot an
| Models |
-48 |
+50 |
| Output groups |
@@ -299,12 +299,12 @@ Frozen snapshot an
-
| 0 |
federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits |
-82.9 |
-60.9 |
-63.4 |
-71.9 |
+83.4 |
+61.1 |
+63.7 |
+72.4 |
| 16 |
state_refundable_credits |
-85.6 |
+85.7 |
82.1 |
82.1 |
83.0 |
@@ -1673,18 +1704,18 @@ Hardest benchmark targets
| 13 |
snap |
-89.5 |
+89.6 |
84.3 |
85.6 |
-88.1 |
+88.2 |
| 1 |
federal_refundable_credits |
-90.8 |
-85.5 |
-86.6 |
-89.0 |
+91.1 |
+85.6 |
+86.8 |
+89.3 |
@@ -1734,15 +1765,15 @@ Zero and positive cases
| 0 |
federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits |
-72.7 |
-44.6 |
-93.6 |
+73.3 |
+45.6 |
+93.8 |
| 1 |
state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits |
-74.3 |
-47.3 |
+74.5 |
+47.8 |
91.1 |
@@ -1755,37 +1786,37 @@ Zero and positive cases
| 3 |
snap |
-88.4 |
-36.1 |
+88.6 |
+36.7 |
96.9 |
| 4 |
federal_refundable_credits |
-90.3 |
-51.9 |
-96.0 |
+90.5 |
+52.4 |
+96.1 |
| 5 |
payroll_tax |
-92.0 |
-88.0 |
-98.5 |
+92.3 |
+88.5 |
+98.6 |
| 6 |
person_medicaid_eligible |
-92.8 |
-83.0 |
-95.6 |
+92.9 |
+83.2 |
+95.8 |
| 7 |
person_chip_eligible |
-96.5 |
+96.6 |
— |
-96.5 |
+96.6 |
@@ -1848,7 +1879,7 @@ Failure modes
-| 34 |
+35 |
GPT-6.1 Sol |
98.0 |
92.9 |
@@ -1869,49 +1900,49 @@ Failure modes
91.9 |
-| 31 |
+32 |
GPT-6 Astra |
99.0 |
87.9 |
87.9 |
-| 32 |
+33 |
GPT-6 Luna |
97.0 |
88.9 |
87.9 |
-| 44 |
+46 |
Muse Wonder |
99.0 |
87.9 |
87.9 |
-| 33 |
+34 |
GPT-6 Sol |
97.0 |
86.9 |
86.9 |
-| 38 |
+39 |
Grok 4.7 |
97.0 |
87.9 |
86.9 |
-| 29 |
+30 |
GPT-5.6 Sol |
97.0 |
86.9 |
85.9 |
-| 27 |
+28 |
GPT-5.5 |
93.9 |
87.9 |
@@ -1932,61 +1963,75 @@ Failure modes
83.8 |
-| 37 |
+23 |
+Gemini 4 Argon |
+96.0 |
+85.9 |
+83.8 |
+
+
+| 38 |
Grok 4.6 |
94.9 |
85.9 |
83.8 |
-
+
| 13 |
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 |
93.9 |
83.8 |
81.8 |
-
+
| 20 |
Gemini 3.6 Flash |
93.9 |
82.8 |
81.8 |
-
+
| 21 |
Gemini 3.7 Flash |
89.9 |
85.9 |
80.8 |
-
-| 40 |
+
+| 41 |
Inkling |
93.9 |
83.8 |
80.8 |
-
+
| 0 |
Claude Fable 5 |
91.9 |
84.8 |
79.8 |
-
+
| 15 |
Gemini 3 Flash Preview |
90.9 |
84.8 |
79.8 |
-
-| 42 |
+
+| 43 |
Kimi K3 |
92.9 |
81.8 |
79.8 |
+
+| 45 |
+Muse Spark 1.3 |
+94.9 |
+81.8 |
+79.8 |
+
| 10 |
Claude Sonnet 5.5 |
@@ -2002,21 +2047,21 @@ Failure modes
78.8 |
-| 28 |
+29 |
GPT-5.6 Luna |
92.9 |
81.8 |
78.8 |
-| 30 |
+31 |
GPT-5.6 Terra |
93.9 |
80.8 |
78.8 |
-| 36 |
+37 |
Grok 4.5 |
92.9 |
80.8 |
@@ -2030,7 +2075,7 @@ Failure modes
77.8 |
-| 45 |
+47 |
GLM-5.3-Flash (preview) |
89.9 |
83.8 |
@@ -2086,14 +2131,14 @@ Failure modes
74.7 |
-| 26 |
+27 |
GPT-5.4 nano |
85.9 |
81.8 |
74.7 |
-| 39 |
+40 |
Grok Build 0.1 |
89.9 |
80.8 |
@@ -2107,21 +2152,21 @@ Failure modes
72.7 |
-| 35 |
+36 |
Grok 4.3 |
83.8 |
81.8 |
72.7 |
-| 25 |
+26 |
GPT-5.4 mini |
80.8 |
81.8 |
71.7 |
-| 24 |
+25 |
GLM-5.3 |
85.9 |
77.8 |
@@ -2135,7 +2180,7 @@ Failure modes
69.7 |
-| 43 |
+44 |
MiniMax M3 |
79.8 |
81.8 |
@@ -2156,28 +2201,28 @@ Failure modes
66.7 |
-| 23 |
+24 |
GLM-5.2 |
79.8 |
74.7 |
66.7 |
-| 46 |
+48 |
Qwen3.7-max |
77.8 |
81.8 |
64.6 |
-| 47 |
+49 |
Qwen3.8-Max |
66.7 |
81.8 |
58.6 |
-| 41 |
+42 |
Kimi K2.6 |
46.5 |
50.5 |
@@ -2197,12 +2242,12 @@ Limitations
PolicyBench is not a substitute for a production tax-and-benefit calculator. Several caveats matter:
- output-contract reliability required a repair workflow; raw provider responses are retained within the canonical prediction files wherever the transport exposed them (no raw payload is retained for Claude Fable 5 (1,984 rows), GLM-5.3 (78 rows), and Kimi K3 (64 rows)), and cells that never parsed score zero
-- request shape is not identical across models: 10 of 48 models answered the prompt template over subsets of the requested outputs rather than the whole scenario (Table 2), an accommodation that, if it moves scores at all, should favor those models; later additions must answer the whole-scenario request or are listed as not scorable
+- request shape is not identical across models: 10 of 50 models answered the prompt template over subsets of the requested outputs rather than the whole scenario (Table 2), an accommodation that, if it moves scores at all, should favor those models; later additions must answer the whole-scenario request or are listed as not scorable
- zero-heavy outputs require separate positive-case interpretation
- the choice of headline metric (exact match), near-miss companion (within-1%), and secondary tracking metric (bounded score) is one benchmark view; all three are reported, but downstream evaluations should also consider error-magnitude metrics (mean absolute error, mean absolute percentage error) where appropriate
- the public scenario explorer exposes the current test set and reference outputs, so open-set leakage is a prominent limitation rather than a minor implementation detail
- the 100-household manuscript snapshot should be treated as a preview until larger frozen runs are published
-- the annotations cover the 8,503-row legacy-threshold audit universe, including 8,499 exact-match misses and 4 exact hits, but not 2,218 additional rows with bounded score below 100; the review is developer-adjudicated and not an independent validation of each reference value
+- the annotations cover the 8,765-row legacy-threshold audit universe, including 8,761 exact-match misses and 4 exact hits, but not 2,329 additional rows with bounded score below 100; the review is developer-adjudicated and not an independent validation of each reference value
- one frozen scenario encodes household inputs that do not match its prompt narrative (a South Carolina household whose prompt implies a qualifying disability the inputs omit), and two input-semantics conventions (disability, which the prompt states as one general fact where each program applies its own determination, and adult tax-dependent relationships) are under-specified in ways a scheduled scenario refresh will address (Section 4.2); outputs whose reference moves under the other reading of either convention are excluded, while the mis-encoded scenario’s cells score models against its encoded inputs
- the reference engine can carry defects the audits have not found: policyengine-us 2.41.0 no longer has any defect the audits recorded behind an excluded output; the judge that finds defects reviews only the cases a new model joins, each engine-upgrade review covered only the outputs its upgrade moved, and on 2.15.17 PolicyBench re-ran four of the September 22 alternative-reading and defect sweeps rather than all of them, so defects that no reviewed case, move or re-run sweep exposes can remain
- the 2026-10-05 review of release dashboard-data-20260930 found eight scored references that rested on inputs the prompt never states and that no judge had flagged, so other such references can remain scored: the exclusions cover the inputs the audits found
@@ -2250,7 +2295,7 @@ Appendix
| Final parse coverage |
-669 of the 92,880 canonical model-output rows (0.7%) have no parsable numeric value after retries. The failures comprise Kimi K2.6 (397), GLM-5.2 (136), GLM-5.3 (75), and Kimi K3 (61). They score zero as parse-contract failures. A further 59 rows (Grok 4.3 (55), Kimi K2.6 (3), and Claude Haiku 4.5 (1)) carry a parsed numeric value but no explanation; they are scored on the numeric value and counted here as explanation-contract violations, so 728 rows in all fall short of the numeric-plus-explanation contract. Every other row has both. |
+669 of the 96,750 canonical model-output rows (0.7%) have no parsable numeric value after retries. The failures comprise Kimi K2.6 (397), GLM-5.2 (136), GLM-5.3 (75), and Kimi K3 (61). They score zero as parse-contract failures. A further 59 rows (Grok 4.3 (55), Kimi K2.6 (3), and Claude Haiku 4.5 (1)) carry a parsed numeric value but no explanation; they are scored on the numeric value and counted here as explanation-contract violations, so 728 rows in all fall short of the numeric-plus-explanation contract. Every other row has both. |
| Preservation rule |
diff --git a/app/src/data.artifact.json b/app/src/data.artifact.json
index 862d5382..9c08fd23 100644
--- a/app/src/data.artifact.json
+++ b/app/src/data.artifact.json
@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
{
"asset": "dashboard-data.json",
- "bytes": 130982477,
+ "bytes": 135840397,
"repo": "PolicyEngine/policybench",
- "sha256": "0a4b754a4ce3b249e0608efac62e52646e4c6f33c6a28c1a496c4c9fda49b507",
- "tag": "dashboard-data-20261013b",
- "url": "https://github.com/PolicyEngine/policybench/releases/download/dashboard-data-20261013b/dashboard-data.json",
+ "sha256": "22db9a9c052545371687f6afa3551896336abbd15c76f767ebb777a77f6d2268",
+ "tag": "dashboard-data-20261014",
+ "url": "https://github.com/PolicyEngine/policybench/releases/download/dashboard-data-20261014/dashboard-data.json",
"version": 1
}
diff --git a/app/src/data.versions.json b/app/src/data.versions.json
index 804b50f4..9bece66e 100644
--- a/app/src/data.versions.json
+++ b/app/src/data.versions.json
@@ -6,10 +6,10 @@
"artifact": {
"pointer": "live"
},
- "description": "Scored reference outputs from policyengine-us 2.41.0 (the 49 excluded outputs keep the values they were decided on: 29 from policyengine-us 1.755.4, 18 from 2.15.17, 2 from 2.38.6, and the 12 that move on 2.41.0 were re-reviewed and stay excluded); same household facts and requested outputs for every model; answer transport and request shape per model as recorded in the serving-configuration table - 48 models",
+ "description": "Scored reference outputs from policyengine-us 2.41.0 (the 49 excluded outputs keep the values they were decided on: 29 from policyengine-us 1.755.4, 18 from 2.15.17, 2 from 2.38.6, and the 12 that move on 2.41.0 were re-reviewed and stay excluded); same household facts and requested outputs for every model; answer transport and request shape per model as recorded in the serving-configuration table - 50 models",
"id": "1.1",
"label": "1.1",
- "snapshotLabel": "Snapshot 2026-10-13"
+ "snapshotLabel": "Snapshot 2026-10-14"
},
{
"artifact": {
diff --git a/app/src/model-serving-config.json b/app/src/model-serving-config.json
index a90dc325..a27c7939 100644
--- a/app/src/model-serving-config.json
+++ b/app/src/model-serving-config.json
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
},
"evidence_summary": {
"registry": 29,
- "run_state": 19
+ "run_state": 21
},
"models": {
"claude-fable-5": {
@@ -820,6 +820,63 @@
"shared_completion_budget_tokens": 16384,
"tool_choice": "forced"
},
+ "gemini-4-argon": {
+ "answer_contract": "tool",
+ "evidence": {
+ "compared_columns": [
+ "scenario_id",
+ "variable",
+ "prediction",
+ "explanation",
+ "raw_response",
+ "provider_resolved_model",
+ "prompt_tokens",
+ "completion_tokens",
+ "error"
+ ],
+ "fields": [
+ "answer_contract",
+ "chunk_size",
+ "completion_budget_ceiling",
+ "fingerprint_version",
+ "initial_completion_budget_tokens",
+ "max_repair_rounds",
+ "model_id",
+ "prompt_contract_version",
+ "request_timeout_seconds",
+ "thinking",
+ "tool_choice_mode"
+ ],
+ "frozen_rows_sha256": "938c3f632d467dcf2cb97391265df103fba104633ac6a10a0ee6c9fe750c8335",
+ "kind": "run_state",
+ "rows_match": true,
+ "run": "argon-runs/argon",
+ "source_predictions_sha256": "76724f96baef92d1958cfdbdcbbaec82b4a06d6b72c0e891534a9fa03e156462",
+ "source_rows_sha256": "938c3f632d467dcf2cb97391265df103fba104633ac6a10a0ee6c9fe750c8335",
+ "treatment_fingerprint": {
+ "answer_contract": "tool",
+ "chunk_size": null,
+ "completion_budget_ceiling": 32768,
+ "fingerprint_version": 3,
+ "initial_completion_budget_tokens": 16384,
+ "max_repair_rounds": 2,
+ "model_id": "gemini/gemini-4-argon",
+ "prompt_contract_version": "2026-08-09-v2-scoring-contract",
+ "request_timeout_seconds": 300,
+ "thinking": {
+ "mode": "provider_default"
+ },
+ "tool_choice_mode": "forced"
+ }
+ },
+ "provider_id": "gemini/gemini-4-argon",
+ "reasoning_setup": "provider default; 16,384-token shared budget",
+ "registry_derived": [],
+ "request_shape": "whole scenario",
+ "request_timeout_seconds": 300,
+ "shared_completion_budget_tokens": 16384,
+ "tool_choice": "forced"
+ },
"glm-5.2": {
"answer_contract": "json",
"evidence": {
@@ -1493,6 +1550,63 @@
"shared_completion_budget_tokens": 16384,
"tool_choice": "forced"
},
+ "muse-spark-1.3": {
+ "answer_contract": "json",
+ "evidence": {
+ "compared_columns": [
+ "scenario_id",
+ "variable",
+ "prediction",
+ "explanation",
+ "raw_response",
+ "provider_resolved_model",
+ "prompt_tokens",
+ "completion_tokens",
+ "error"
+ ],
+ "fields": [
+ "answer_contract",
+ "chunk_size",
+ "completion_budget_ceiling",
+ "fingerprint_version",
+ "initial_completion_budget_tokens",
+ "max_repair_rounds",
+ "model_id",
+ "prompt_contract_version",
+ "request_timeout_seconds",
+ "thinking",
+ "tool_choice_mode"
+ ],
+ "frozen_rows_sha256": "a867a064b1fa887213b8d3493112bea16c1967a97b639536e6a4c39695a801fe",
+ "kind": "run_state",
+ "rows_match": true,
+ "run": "argon-runs/musespark",
+ "source_predictions_sha256": "1e4c81a1c69b4be3dec92d007a2c3d3c22009bf7d56df29a2d2349a5be4887d3",
+ "source_rows_sha256": "a867a064b1fa887213b8d3493112bea16c1967a97b639536e6a4c39695a801fe",
+ "treatment_fingerprint": {
+ "answer_contract": "json",
+ "chunk_size": null,
+ "completion_budget_ceiling": 128000,
+ "fingerprint_version": 3,
+ "initial_completion_budget_tokens": 16384,
+ "max_repair_rounds": 2,
+ "model_id": "openrouter/meta/muse-spark-1.3",
+ "prompt_contract_version": "2026-08-09-v2-scoring-contract",
+ "request_timeout_seconds": 300,
+ "thinking": {
+ "mode": "provider_default"
+ },
+ "tool_choice_mode": null
+ }
+ },
+ "provider_id": "openrouter/meta/muse-spark-1.3",
+ "reasoning_setup": "provider default; 16,384-token shared budget",
+ "registry_derived": [],
+ "request_shape": "whole scenario",
+ "request_timeout_seconds": 300,
+ "shared_completion_budget_tokens": 16384,
+ "tool_choice": null
+ },
"muse-wonder": {
"answer_contract": "json",
"evidence": {
@@ -1642,7 +1756,7 @@
"tool_choice": null
}
},
- "registry_commit": "3ef45909db7367abdffd08379babde5bcf5c549e",
+ "registry_commit": "236134f5c3b4400a14ae7de24604c988f6f602eb",
"sources": [
"policybench.config.MODELS",
"policybench.model_cards",
diff --git a/app/src/modelMeta.ts b/app/src/modelMeta.ts
index 257948b9..39f9c600 100644
--- a/app/src/modelMeta.ts
+++ b/app/src/modelMeta.ts
@@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ export const MODEL_ORDER = [
"gpt-5.5",
"gpt-5.4-mini",
"gpt-5.4-nano",
+ "gemini-4-argon",
"gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
"gemini-3.6-flash",
"gemini-3.8-flash",
@@ -53,6 +54,7 @@ export const MODEL_ORDER = [
"qwen3.8-max",
"qwen-3.7-max",
"muse-wonder",
+ "muse-spark-1.3",
] as const;
export const MODEL_LABELS: Record = {
@@ -105,6 +107,8 @@ export const MODEL_LABELS: Record = {
"qwen3.8-max": "Qwen 3.8 Max",
inkling: "Inkling",
"muse-wonder": "Muse Wonder",
+ "muse-spark-1.3": "Muse Spark 1.3",
+ "gemini-4-argon": "Gemini 4 Argon",
};
export type ProviderKey =
@@ -227,7 +231,7 @@ const FRONTIER_MODEL_GROUPS = [
["claude-fable-5.1", "claude-fable-5", "claude-opus-5", "claude-opus-4.8"],
["gpt-6-astra", "gpt-5.6-sol", "gpt-5.5"],
["grok-4.5", "grok-4.3"],
- ["gemini-3.1-pro-preview"],
+ ["gemini-4-argon", "gemini-3.1-pro-preview"],
["deepseek-v4-pro-0813", "deepseek-v4-pro"],
["kimi-k3", "kimi-k2.6"],
["glm-5.3", "glm-5.2"],
diff --git a/app/src/notes/2026-10-14-gemini-4-argon-joins-the-board.json b/app/src/notes/2026-10-14-gemini-4-argon-joins-the-board.json
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..1a22c33b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/app/src/notes/2026-10-14-gemini-4-argon-joins-the-board.json
@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+{
+ "slug": "2026-10-14-gemini-4-argon-joins-the-board",
+ "date": "2026-10-14",
+ "title": "Google's Gemini 4 Argon and Meta's Muse Spark 1.3 join the board",
+ "paragraphs": [
+ "Google's Gemini 4 Argon joined the board on {releaseDate}, the day after Google opened it to the public Gemini API, and Meta's Muse Spark 1.3 joined with it, bringing the board to {nModels} models. Gemini 4 Argon gets {argonExact}% of answers within $1, weighted by household impact, #{argonRank} of {nModels} and the highest of any Gemini model; Gemini 3.8 Flash, the previous best, gets {flashExact}% (#{flashRank}). Muse Spark 1.3 gets {sparkExact}% (#{sparkRank}), behind Meta's Muse Wonder ({museExact}%, #{museRank}), but on the bounded score, which gives partial credit for amounts close to the reference, it ranks #{sparkBoundedRank}. GPT-6 Sol still leads on answers within $1 at {solExact}%, ahead of Claude Opus 5.5 ({opusExact}%) and GPT-5.6 Sol ({sol56Exact}%).",
+ "Google announced Gemini 4 Argon on September 30 for a group of partners and released it on the Gemini API on October 13. PolicyBench runs it there, as it does every Gemini model. The API accepts a forced answer tool, so the row answers through the board's tool and reasons at Google's default setting. A forced tool call suppresses some models' reasoning, as it does Claude Opus 5's, so PolicyBench fixed a test before looking at the results and ran all {households} households both ways. With the forced tool Gemini 4 Argon returned reasoning tokens on {forcedReasoning} of them, and on {boardReasoning} in the board's own run; with an automatic tool choice, on {autoReasoning}. The test found no significant reduction, so the board keeps the forced tool and publishes no second row. At Google's introductory price of $2 per million input tokens and $10 per million output tokens, which doubles on December 1, the {households} households cost ${argonCost}.",
+ "Muse Spark 1.3, which Meta released on September 2, is Meta's second model on the board. PolicyBench reaches it through OpenRouter, whose one endpoint for it is Meta's own API, as it does Muse Wonder. That API rejects a forced tool call, so the row answers as a JSON object and reasons at Meta's default setting.",
+ "Nothing else on the board moves. The newest policyengine-us release, {checkedEngine}, gives the same value as {engineVersion} for every output, so the references stay where they were, and every model is still scored on {scoredOutputs} of its {totalOutputs} requested outputs. Each of the {incumbents} earlier models keeps its score."
+ ],
+ "facts": {
+ "releaseDate": "2026-10-14",
+ "nModels": 50,
+ "argonExact": 88.7,
+ "argonRank": 12,
+ "flashExact": 85.6,
+ "flashRank": 21,
+ "sparkExact": 87.2,
+ "sparkRank": 18,
+ "museExact": 90.1,
+ "museRank": 10,
+ "sparkBoundedRank": 6,
+ "solExact": 95.2,
+ "opusExact": 94.1,
+ "sol56Exact": 93.1,
+ "households": 100,
+ "forcedReasoning": 80,
+ "boardReasoning": 85,
+ "autoReasoning": 82,
+ "argonCost": "2.79",
+ "checkedEngine": "2.42.4",
+ "engineVersion": "2.41.0",
+ "scoredOutputs": 1935,
+ "totalOutputs": 1984,
+ "incumbents": 48
+ },
+ "data": [
+ {
+ "label": "Dashboard data release",
+ "href": "https://github.com/PolicyEngine/policybench/releases/tag/dashboard-data-20261014"
+ },
+ {
+ "label": "Release design note",
+ "href": "https://github.com/PolicyEngine/policybench/blob/main/docs/argon/design.md"
+ },
+ {
+ "label": "Publication check against policyengine-us 2.42.4",
+ "href": "https://github.com/PolicyEngine/policybench/blob/main/reference_audit/2026-10-12-engine-upgrade/verification/publication_check_2_42_4.csv"
+ },
+ {
+ "label": "Gemini 4 Argon model page",
+ "href": "/model/gemini-4-argon"
+ },
+ {
+ "label": "Muse Spark 1.3 model page",
+ "href": "/model/muse-spark-1.3"
+ },
+ {
+ "label": "Previous release note (October 13)",
+ "href": "/notes/2026-10-13-muse-wonder-joins-the-board"
+ }
+ ],
+ "boardSnapshot": "2026-10-14",
+ "release": "dashboard-data-20261014"
+}
diff --git a/app/src/notes/index.ts b/app/src/notes/index.ts
index 2fea3594..7e6770bb 100644
--- a/app/src/notes/index.ts
+++ b/app/src/notes/index.ts
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+import gemini4ArgonJoinsTheBoard from "./2026-10-14-gemini-4-argon-joins-the-board.json";
import museWonderJoinsTheBoard from "./2026-10-13-muse-wonder-joins-the-board.json";
import claudeHaiku55JoinsTheBoard from "./2026-10-10-claude-haiku-5-5-joins-the-board.json";
import claudeFable51Added from "./2026-09-01-claude-fable-5-1-added.json";
@@ -31,6 +32,7 @@ export type PolicyBenchNote = {
};
export const notes = [
+ gemini4ArgonJoinsTheBoard,
museWonderJoinsTheBoard,
claudeHaiku55JoinsTheBoard,
stopsScoringEightTaxOutputs,
diff --git a/app/src/paperSnapshot.json b/app/src/paperSnapshot.json
index b4d7e746..79d714ae 100644
--- a/app/src/paperSnapshot.json
+++ b/app/src/paperSnapshot.json
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
{
- "pdfVersion": "cee26d0956da",
+ "pdfVersion": "d0b236367fb3",
"responseWindow": "June 12 and October 13, 2026",
- "snapshotDate": "2026-10-13",
- "webVersion": "320e58e44470"
+ "snapshotDate": "2026-10-14",
+ "webVersion": "533a0cb79b6a"
}
diff --git a/app/tests/auditUniverse.test.ts b/app/tests/auditUniverse.test.ts
index 92b74d39..6ed3a32c 100644
--- a/app/tests/auditUniverse.test.ts
+++ b/app/tests/auditUniverse.test.ts
@@ -18,17 +18,17 @@ describe("audit universe", () => {
expect(AUDIT_SELECTION_RULE).toBe(
"rows whose legacy threshold score is below 1",
);
- // Release 20261013: the counts tests/test_disclosures.py recomputes
- // from the frozen annotations and payload (48 models; Muse Wonder's rows
- // join, and the nine outputs the 2.41.0 upgrade regenerates return to
- // scoring).
+ // Release 20261014: the counts tests/test_disclosures.py recomputes
+ // from the frozen annotations and payload (50 models; Gemini 4 Argon's
+ // and Muse Spark 1.3's rows join on release 20261013's references and
+ // exclusions).
expect(summarizeAuditUniverse(us)).toEqual({
- annotatedRowCount: 8_503,
- legacyThresholdRowCount: 8_503,
- exactMissCount: 8_499,
- annotatedExactMissCount: 8_499,
+ annotatedRowCount: 8_765,
+ legacyThresholdRowCount: 8_765,
+ exactMissCount: 8_761,
+ annotatedExactMissCount: 8_761,
annotatedExactHitCount: 4,
- unannotatedBelowFullBoundedScoreCount: 2_218,
+ unannotatedBelowFullBoundedScoreCount: 2_329,
});
});
});
diff --git a/app/tests/modelMeta.test.ts b/app/tests/modelMeta.test.ts
index fdefa9d7..98295998 100644
--- a/app/tests/modelMeta.test.ts
+++ b/app/tests/modelMeta.test.ts
@@ -30,6 +30,8 @@ describe("model metadata", () => {
["grok-4.7", "Grok 4.7", "xai"],
["deepseek-v4.1-flash", "DeepSeek V4.1 Flash", "deepseek"],
["muse-wonder", "Muse Wonder", "meta"],
+ ["muse-spark-1.3", "Muse Spark 1.3", "meta"],
+ ["gemini-4-argon", "Gemini 4 Argon", "google"],
] as const)("maps %s to its label and provider", (model, label, provider) => {
expect(MODEL_LABELS[model]).toBe(label);
expect(getProviderForModel(model)).toBe(provider);
@@ -80,6 +82,21 @@ describe("model metadata", () => {
]);
});
+ test("shows Gemini 4 Argon as Google's flagship, and 3.1 Pro without it", () => {
+ expect(
+ frontierModelsFor(["gemini-4-argon", "gemini-3.1-pro-preview"]),
+ ).toEqual(["gemini-4-argon"]);
+ expect(frontierModelsFor(["gemini-3.1-pro-preview"])).toEqual([
+ "gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
+ ]);
+ });
+
+ test("keeps Muse Wonder as Meta's flagship over Muse Spark 1.3", () => {
+ expect(frontierModelsFor(["muse-spark-1.3", "muse-wonder"])).toEqual([
+ "muse-wonder",
+ ]);
+ });
+
test("gives every represented provider a frontier model", () => {
const models = [
"claude-fable-5",
@@ -123,7 +140,6 @@ describe("MODEL_RELEASE_DATES", () => {
});
});
-
describe("shortModelLabel", () => {
test("drops a parenthetical qualifier before keeping the last two words", () => {
expect(shortModelLabel("GLM-5.3-Flash (preview)")).toBe("GLM-5.3-Flash");
@@ -136,8 +152,12 @@ describe("shortModelLabel", () => {
describe("MODEL_PROVENANCE_NOTES", () => {
test("the GLM-5.3-Flash preview row records the listing it was queried under", () => {
expect(MODEL_LABELS["ox-alpha"]).toBe("GLM-5.3-Flash (preview)");
- expect(MODEL_PROVENANCE_NOTES["ox-alpha"]).toContain('Queried as "Ox Alpha"');
+ expect(MODEL_PROVENANCE_NOTES["ox-alpha"]).toContain(
+ 'Queried as "Ox Alpha"',
+ );
expect(MODEL_PROVENANCE_NOTES["ox-alpha"]).toContain("2026-08-20");
- expect(Object.keys(MODEL_PROVENANCE_NOTES).every((id) => id in MODEL_LABELS)).toBe(true);
+ expect(
+ Object.keys(MODEL_PROVENANCE_NOTES).every((id) => id in MODEL_LABELS),
+ ).toBe(true);
});
});
diff --git a/app/tests/notes.test.ts b/app/tests/notes.test.ts
index 8b2c067f..ad47f56e 100644
--- a/app/tests/notes.test.ts
+++ b/app/tests/notes.test.ts
@@ -79,31 +79,64 @@ describe("notes", () => {
expect(markup).not.toMatch(/\{[A-Za-z][A-Za-z0-9]*(?::words)?\}/);
});
- test("the newest note is release 20261013's, ahead of the October 10 one", () => {
- // The live pointer (src/data.artifact.json) names release 20261013 or
- // 20261013b, which re-judged five audit verdicts on 20261013's numbers
- // and added no note (scripts/release_20261013b.py).
- expect(notes[0].slug).toContain("muse-wonder-joins-the-board");
- expect(notes[0].release).toBe("dashboard-data-20261013");
- expect(["dashboard-data-20261013", "dashboard-data-20261013b"]).toContain(
- artifact.tag,
- );
+ test("the newest note is the frozen release's, ahead of the October 13 one", () => {
+ // The live pointer names the frozen release (src/data.artifact.json).
+ expect(notes[0].slug).toBe("2026-10-14-gemini-4-argon-joins-the-board");
+ expect(notes[0].release).toBe(artifact.tag);
expect(notes[0].boardSnapshot).toBe(paperSnapshot.snapshotDate);
expect(notes[0].slug.startsWith(notes[0].date)).toBe(true);
- // The October 10 note keeps its own release and board snapshot.
- expect(notes[1].slug).toBe("2026-10-10-claude-haiku-5-5-joins-the-board");
- expect(notes[1].release).toBe("dashboard-data-20261010");
- expect(notes[1].boardSnapshot).toBe("2026-10-10");
- expect(notes[2].slug).toBe(
+ // The October 13 and October 10 notes keep their own releases and board
+ // snapshots.
+ expect(notes[1].slug).toBe("2026-10-13-muse-wonder-joins-the-board");
+ expect(notes[1].release).toBe("dashboard-data-20261013");
+ expect(notes[1].boardSnapshot).toBe("2026-10-13");
+ expect(notes[2].slug).toBe("2026-10-10-claude-haiku-5-5-joins-the-board");
+ expect(notes[2].release).toBe("dashboard-data-20261010");
+ expect(notes[2].boardSnapshot).toBe("2026-10-10");
+ expect(notes[3].slug).toBe(
"2026-10-06-policybench-stops-scoring-eight-tax-outputs",
);
});
- test("the Muse Wonder note renders its figures", () => {
+ test("the Gemini 4 Argon note renders its figures", () => {
const note = notes[0];
const markup = renderToStaticMarkup(
createElement(NoteArticle, { note, titleLevel: "h1" }),
);
+ expect(markup).toContain(
+ "Google's Gemini 4 Argon joined the board on 2026-10-14, the day after Google opened it to the public Gemini API, and Meta's Muse Spark 1.3 joined with it, bringing the board to 50 models.",
+ );
+ // Board rates keep one decimal.
+ expect(markup).toContain("Gemini 4 Argon gets 88.7% of answers within $1");
+ expect(markup).toContain("#12 of 50 and the highest of any Gemini model");
+ expect(markup).toContain("Gemini 3.8 Flash, the previous best, gets 85.6% (#21)");
+ expect(markup).toContain(
+ "Muse Spark 1.3 gets 87.2% (#18), behind Meta's Muse Wonder (90.1%, #10)",
+ );
+ expect(markup).toContain("it ranks #6.");
+ expect(markup).toContain(
+ "With the forced tool Gemini 4 Argon returned reasoning tokens on 80 of them, and on 85 in the board's own run; with an automatic tool choice, on 82.",
+ );
+ // A cost keeps its cents.
+ expect(markup).toContain("the 100 households cost $2.79.");
+ expect(markup).toContain(
+ "every model is still scored on 1,935 of its 1,984 requested outputs. Each of the 48 earlier models keeps its score.",
+ );
+ expect(markup).toContain('href="/model/gemini-4-argon"');
+ expect(markup).toContain('href="/model/muse-spark-1.3"');
+ expect(markup).toContain(
+ 'href="https://github.com/PolicyEngine/policybench/releases/tag/dashboard-data-20261014"',
+ );
+ expect(markup).not.toMatch(/\{[A-Za-z][A-Za-z0-9]*(?::words)?\}/);
+ });
+
+ test("the Muse Wonder note renders its figures", () => {
+ const note = notes.find(
+ (n) => n.slug === "2026-10-13-muse-wonder-joins-the-board",
+ )!;
+ const markup = renderToStaticMarkup(
+ createElement(NoteArticle, { note, titleLevel: "h1" }),
+ );
expect(markup).toContain(
"Meta's Muse Wonder joined the board on 2026-10-13, the day after Meta released it, bringing the board to 48 models.",
);
diff --git a/docs/argon/design.md b/docs/argon/design.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..9138b2ae
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/argon/design.md
@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
+# Gemini 4 Argon and Muse Spark 1.3: design
+
+## What the release is
+
+This release adds two models to release `dashboard-data-20261013b` (PR #218), taking the board from 48 models to 50:
+
+1. Google's Gemini 4 Argon (display id `gemini-4-argon`, provider id `gemini/gemini-4-argon`, run slug `argon`). Google announced it on 2026-09-30 for Fairwind Program cyber partners only and opened it to the public on 2026-10-13.
+2. Meta's Muse Spark 1.3 (display id `muse-spark-1.3`, provider id `openrouter/meta/muse-spark-1.3`, run slug `musespark`), released 2026-09-02. Max added it to this release on 2026-10-13 (decision d1441).
+
+It moves no reference and rules no exclusion; its only decisions are two developer triage decisions on cases the new models re-opened, both keeping the output scored (below). The references stay release 20261013b's, computed on policyengine-us 2.41.0: the newest policyengine-us release when this release was staged, 2.41.3, and when it was frozen, 2.42.4, give the same value for all 1,984 outputs (below). Max ruled on two reference conventions on 2026-10-13, both to keep: d1252 keeps VA scenario_039's federal and OH scenario_025's state income tax scored (the held-reference records now say so), and d1263 keeps the section 1 rate schedule for federal income tax, which the benchmark card and the paper now state. Neither changes a score.
+
+The driver is `scripts/finish_argon.py`, adapted from `scripts/finish_musewonder.py`. The freeze is `scripts/freeze_argon.py`, adapted from `scripts/freeze_musewonder.py`. Their mechanics are release 20261013's (`docs/musewonder/design.md`) except where this note says otherwise. The inputs are in `docs/argon/`:
+
+- `spec.json`: the rulings and the two triage decisions (`triage_adjudications`), with no proposals and no ruled adjudications;
+- `input_pins.json`: the two finished runs (written by `--step pin-inputs`);
+- `seed_digest.csv`: the audit seed (below).
+
+| | Release 20261013b | This release |
+|---|---|---|
+| Models | 48 | 50 |
+| Requested outputs per model | 1,984 | 1,984 |
+| Exclusions | 49: 42 unlisted inputs, 5 engine defects, 2 later-published law | 49, the same records |
+| Scored outputs per model | 1,935 | 1,935 |
+| Adjudications | 61, of which 49 exclude | 63: the same 61 and two triage decisions, neither excluding |
+
+## The base
+
+The base is release `dashboard-data-20261013b`: release 20261013 with five carried-over audit verdicts re-judged on judge template v2 (PR #218, the judge-isolation follow-up). Its references, exclusions, adjudications, predictions and serving configuration are release 20261013's byte for byte; its annotations change in those five cases only.
+
+| Item | Value |
+|---|---|
+| Base tag, payload sha256 | `dashboard-data-20261013b`, `0a4b754a…b507` (130,982,477 bytes) |
+| Models, outputs, exclusions, scored | 48, 1,984, 49 and 1,935 |
+| `reference_outputs.csv` | `2d00cf59…3a0c` (policyengine-us 2.41.0) |
+| `reference_outputs.csv.meta.json` | `0dc1ba15…0915` |
+| `reference_exclusions.json` | `a2ddf916…3f39` |
+| `scenarios.csv`, its sidecar | `71b16212…858a`, `03a66e90…aebb` |
+| `BASE_COMMIT` | `2cb77a17`, PR #218's squash merge on main, whose tree holds release 20261013b. The stage was prepared on #218's frozen head `6c44858f`, whose annotations, snapshot and audit records it keeps byte for byte (the squash differs from that head merged with main only in `app/tests/notes.test.ts`) |
+| `SEED_RELEASE_COMMIT` | `BASE_COMMIT` |
+| Grounding | `b1e4a9bc…b55c`, the main clone's `results/local/unified_audit/grounding.csv` |
+| Seed digest | `0f599257…f911d` (`docs/argon/seed_digest.csv`, a copy of `docs/release_20261013b/seed_digest.csv`; 677 judged cases) |
+
+## The seed
+
+The seed is release 20261013b's judged audit (`~/reviews/policybench-judge-isolation/stage-audit-20261013b`): release 20261013's 677 judged cases with the five that release 20261013b re-judged written over them. 423 of its verdicts record no template version (so v1), 98 record v1 and 156 record v2. `prepare_audit` keeps each seed verdict on the version its sidecar records and renders every new or re-opened case on v2 (`JUDGE_TEMPLATE_VERSION = 2`).
+
+## No engine upgrade
+
+Release 20261013 moved the references to policyengine-us 2.41.0. Before staging this release PolicyBench re-ran the publication check (`reference_audit/2026-10-12-engine-upgrade/scripts/sweep_timing.py check`): at 17:22 UTC on 2026-10-13 PyPI's newest release was 2.41.3, and a sweep of every output on it gives 2.41.0's value for all 1,984 (`verification/publication_check_2_41_3.csv`). After the freeze the check ran again: at 04:03 UTC on 2026-10-14 the newest release was 2.42.4 (2.42.0 to 2.42.3 never reached PyPI), and it too gives 2.41.0's value for all 1,984 (`verification/publication_check_2_42_4.csv`). No reference moves and no excluded output's defect is fixed, so this release installs no engine upgrade.
+
+The driver therefore has no `--step install-references`. Every helper that took an installed upgrade keeps its parameter and is called with none, so the code stays comparable line for line with `finish_musewonder.py`, and `stage_upgrade` refuses a stage whose `stage.json` records an installed build. If a newer policyengine-us release moves a scored output before publication, the check exits non-zero and the release stops: moving the references then needs an engine-upgrade audit and a driver that installs its build.
+
+## The runs and onboarding
+
+**Gemini 4 Argon (#219).** It runs on the first-party Gemini API, like every Gemini row. The Gemini API accepts a forced function call on this model, and the onboarding gauntlet, run before the card existed, passed on the tool contract (3/3 and 16/16), so the row takes the board's forced answer tool, as Gemini 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8 Flash do. It is priced at $2/$10 per 1M input/output tokens and $0.10 cached input, the rate Google lists through 2026-11-30 (it doubles on 2026-12-01).
+
+The model reasons at Google's default (`thinking_level` medium) and decides call by call whether to think. The question for this card was whether a forced tool suppresses that reasoning, as it does Claude Opus 5's. A rule was fixed before the evidence was complete (`~/reviews/policybench-gemini-4-argon/probes/DECISION-RULE.md`): publish a `tool_choice` auto sensitivity run only if forcing lowers the share of households with reasoning tokens at Fisher exact p < 0.05. Over the 100 board households a forced-tool run returned reasoning tokens on 80 and an auto run on 82 (p = 0.86), so there is no sensitivity run. The board row's own run, the second forced run below, returned reasoning tokens on 85 (`board-run/reasoning-comparison-run2.json` in the onboarding record; against the auto run, p = 0.70).
+
+The card caps escalation at 32,768 completion tokens, the most one non-streaming `generateContent` request returns (Google's Gemini 4 Argon guide). A first board run recorded the model page's 65,536 instead, and the freeze checks a run's recorded treatment against the registry, so the board row is a second run on the corrected card: all 100 households in one request each, 1,984/1,984 answers parsed, no budget escalation, $2.79 (2026-10-13, 18:28 to 18:38 UTC). The first run and the auto run stay in the onboarding record as evidence.
+
+**Muse Spark 1.3 (#220).** It runs through OpenRouter, whose one endpoint for the id is Meta's own, as Muse Wonder does, at Meta's standard-mode rate ($1.25/$4.25 per 1M, $0.15 cached input). Meta's API rejects a forced tool choice, so the row answers as a JSON object whole-scenario and reasons at Meta's default. The board run answered all 100 households in one request each, 1,984/1,984 parsed, no budget escalation (2026-10-13, 17:58 to 18:26 UTC). An app restart interrupted it at 95 of 100 households; the supervisor resumed it on the same treatment. Its four smoke households replay the smoke's responses from the harness's disk cache (identical requests), as the two smoke households of the Muse Wonder, Claude Haiku 5.5 and Claude Opus 5.5 rows do.
+
+Both runs' files are pinned in `input_pins.json`.
+
+## Judging
+
+Preparing the stage on the seed kept 482 judged prompts unchanged and re-opened 196 cases (195 whose wrong models changed and one new), none of them the five release 20261013b re-judged. All 196 are rendered on judge template v2 and judged by Claude Opus 5.5 through `scripts/run_audit_claude.sh` on the pb-judge setup-token login (`judge_provenance.json`).
+
+## Triage decisions
+
+Triage stopped on two re-opened cases, and the release records a developer decision on each, dated by its own wave, 2026-10-14 (`triage_decided_on`). Each keeps the output scored with the judge's own case class, as the 2026-09-22 and 2026-09-29 waves decided the same patterns:
+
+| Case | What triage stopped on | Decision |
+|---|---|---|
+| scenario_009 federal income tax | The verdict flags nothing but labels eight models' rows `reference_later_law`, a developer-only class, because they applied the pre-TCJA rules scheduled to return in 2026. | `llm_error` with no reference verdict: the reference applies P.L. 119-21 (enacted 2025-07-04), law published before the 2026-07-03 reference freeze. The 2026-09-29 wave decided scenario_007's federal income tax the same way. |
+| scenario_064 Wisconsin income tax | The verdict flags the reference, on the hypothesis that Wisconsin limits a net capital loss deduction to $500, and labels claude-opus-5.5's row `reference_model_issue_fixed`. | `llm_error`, reference affirmed: the $500 limit is Wis. Stat. 71.05(10)(c)1., for taxable years beginning before 2023; subd. 2. allows $3,000 ($1,500 married filing separately) after 2022, as line 28 of the 2025 Schedule WD does and as policyengine-us applies. The seed's verdict on the case, judged on 2026-10-13, called the $500 add-back a model error. |
+
+`finish_musewonder.py` read triage decisions only with an engine upgrade installed, dated by the upgrade's revision. Without one, this driver reads them from the spec, dated by `triage_decided_on`, and writes the wave into the record's date conventions with the day the spec says they were written (`triage_adjudications_written_on`). A decision may affirm a reference only where the case's verdict flags it, and may go without a reference verdict only where the verdict flags nothing and a class outside the final set remains. It never excludes an output. The freeze holds the record to exactly these entries, and `scripts/date_argon_judge_verdicts.py` adds the wave to the judge-verdict evidence uncommitted, as release 20261010 added its waves.
+
+Three restated decisions gained a reference flag on re-judging: scenario_056 SNAP, scenario_067 dependent 1 Medicaid and scenario_114 federal income tax. Each is an unlisted-input exclusion whose recorded basis already names the input the new hypothesis turns on, so all three stay excluded unchanged.
+
+## Open decisions checked before the freeze
+
+| Decision | State when staged | Effect here |
+|---|---|---|
+| d1252 (keep scoring VA scenario_039 federal and OH scenario_025 state income tax) | ruled 2026-10-13: keep both scored; fix the labels in the v2 prompt (#165) | none: both stay scored as in release 20261013b; `reference_audit/held_references.json` records the ruling |
+| d1263 (rate schedule against the Tax Table) | ruled 2026-10-13: keep the schedule and state the convention | none: federal references keep the section 1 rate schedule; the benchmark card and the paper state it (the v2 prompt line is #165) |
+| d1441 (add Muse Spark 1.3) | yes (2026-10-13) | added in this release |
diff --git a/docs/argon/input_pins.json b/docs/argon/input_pins.json
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..06fb71ae
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/argon/input_pins.json
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+{
+ "inputs": {
+ "argon": {
+ "run": "argon-runs/argon/run",
+ "sha256": {
+ "predictions.csv": "76724f96baef92d1958cfdbdcbbaec82b4a06d6b72c0e891534a9fa03e156462",
+ "run_state.json": "b2af6808c40bf5275bd46d87bb85f67aa0da6f9f93885fbe838d04f5f778f80d"
+ }
+ },
+ "musespark": {
+ "run": "argon-runs/musespark/run",
+ "sha256": {
+ "predictions.csv": "1e4c81a1c69b4be3dec92d007a2c3d3c22009bf7d56df29a2d2349a5be4887d3",
+ "run_state.json": "923d8c2b21429aa678b0ef96ded4ef49c6ba338117854b2c0fb520bd7a13292c"
+ }
+ }
+ },
+ "note": "The sha256 of each new model's supervised run files as the run finished, written by scripts/finish_argon.py --step pin-inputs from the run directory. prepare copies them into the stage's inputs//; export and the freeze refuse a staged copy that is not these bytes, and read this file as committed at HEAD."
+}
diff --git a/docs/argon/judge_provenance.json b/docs/argon/judge_provenance.json
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..10776e63
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/argon/judge_provenance.json
@@ -0,0 +1,2752 @@
+{
+ "counts": {
+ "isolated: setup-token 2": 196
+ },
+ "note": "Provenance of the new Opus 5.5 judge verdicts in the Gemini 4 Argon and Muse Spark 1.3 stage: every case either new model re-opened. Every verdict ran through scripts/run_audit_claude.sh from an empty directory outside the repo, with no tools, an allowlisted environment, no user settings and a token login, at effort xhigh, on judge template v2; each transcript passes the runner's checks. All ran on Max's second setup-token login (2026-09-30 opt-in), two at a time and then one at a time. A call whose transcript failed the runner's checks (a dropped network connection leaves retry events in it), or whose verdict missed a model, was judged again. Counts are by group. Scores do not depend on judge verdicts.",
+ "verdicts": [
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_000__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T18:48:29.463962+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "6d06329ff32060b5f04b9f927ed331a00204770f536ceae881bb90de9acac99e",
+ "verdict_sha256": "f84a0f24e4d058447f6372c87ba9d45bc069f5c0066c220bb4f817246202cb10"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_003__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T02:40:06.948811+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "100237c5db79a4e4ee6b3e153be4ae5fb58996ad29cf0a329da72d72004c7d2c",
+ "verdict_sha256": "4558a6559d514aa3300b331a3352a89dcfd0dfc471033f74cdef9d2a21fc47b9"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_005__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T02:48:27.921077+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "7ebcf8d5e22bcc4251a59c4ab7d979a79ee82243fb51bc8b808c4c95131395da",
+ "verdict_sha256": "c4ef6166eee5ae40c609f8ab2a73c633ed7494bc279182f35305addaafd9e006"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_005__payroll_tax",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T18:50:05.438072+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "6853c9ea6d64486021ae90b1480a576c04db41a1a542dc737671afc03b4a79d6",
+ "verdict_sha256": "d90a71000f813291d249db36371a08801c70bacc509ae1b810cede3253c53e36"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_005__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T02:04:40.391343+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "ce3758c5be79514a04f9810623bde97143990b34cafda34d8dbb4327bdc8f47c",
+ "verdict_sha256": "3a942b51880b0db6bdc96df868393522ec93c4543959337bc7c944de32b2434d"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_007__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T02:06:16.559557+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "66411a001e83c00c75818edf9e7d84d27c2baa2abb863c358058e323f2bef47c",
+ "verdict_sha256": "b282f0bba9e6cddd1dbe248652d25d6205767067a4f94c0f794cf39734d7ca88"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_007__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T02:07:44.383030+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "0aa48383d8efa196b072cb05af7d57313c0796ead78d8350d15add43b1629443",
+ "verdict_sha256": "ff143d44be2893e8371637ec33c8d9d878491d2d215e5e4af7156bce3ea21713"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_007__state_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T02:08:26.378978+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "6a52569159b87ffea7365f4eed246f1dc5c504d04ea4d34fce2e694c4f59e17e",
+ "verdict_sha256": "2c35d9d819d0faf0e237e4e4b2dffeab9c33814040857081232e620fe8ec9a69"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_008__federal_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T19:06:36.518305+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "30e4fbbb2beb48543f036d3d0e5389d7bfe94523390aff14d5806b591ecc88e9",
+ "verdict_sha256": "2a2ec2c59e5a792b94dd0b8bc0f10804c0ee4e0ecfb28e6fd834f1a68137f93b"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_008__payroll_tax",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T02:09:43.040197+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "d5b144fd7cf02e7d5891e17e94ebe940e0c43409cf8656c6027afa5750d04c5f",
+ "verdict_sha256": "b88519d4d6df730c0d6fec17a32c2b611c99516e761dd6eed8a99f8b6e9e08e4"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_008__snap",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T19:07:59.956691+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "14e35ae0623abc4792b5904232c70c2d98fe72be79ca87c80df17bb8562a1ea5",
+ "verdict_sha256": "b89dd7370acb6b279cad77c1ca366fdc4e938d20c32630e22df7389c4d6a4d91"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_008__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T19:08:01.574814+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "6531d5e390a2e611ee404ac1c519aaa685defd4015f453f726d76962d8d20c6a",
+ "verdict_sha256": "80393b18f2bc4623f2f97995a417c0a6a9932a8060345bb81d33d17e97a311f9"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_008__state_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T02:47:02.845479+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "cf3177bbb7a0d83a61ba8ec7f51ad7c025c31b618020c24a02636c042553375c",
+ "verdict_sha256": "705a4ebbce6b3f3b5f8fd8e0fcfa98ee9de06455d23a24ed03e30bdd83fb9db8"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_009__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T19:09:37.041751+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "5c6b8e16cfbcb0dc52107483145f15823d46b23d9bb14d6826341d99febcd403",
+ "verdict_sha256": "72a05641e920398bbc9226f62c6218c8c7e7d3c85cb61ede2e8ed7bf04ee6636"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_012__federal_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T19:11:25.717401+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "fcae12bcb905b837c30a8786098ce12fcb04f7c52b3139b0b5db5576fccca71b",
+ "verdict_sha256": "d5a9bc4cc0b4e884858cdade41143762d05edc7473f400d770b9669196ddb234"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_012__snap",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T19:11:37.947515+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "bfae02620c5707db4b23e3ccca0eeba7b870c6c38a5e34858b8b1a70b2ef1bc7",
+ "verdict_sha256": "e0e1fb98d3411088680b6abf9642c07565a53b16110e235339bda9279de10e08"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_012__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T19:12:40.924643+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "33f37ac8da9e5e11fdb92e78860329cb90fb7e2873f711b62f03c3ab5d233db3",
+ "verdict_sha256": "a2349d486ed914edcecd887f8f5b57250c5ac2cedb9aead6bc5ca23c8ff0943f"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_013__snap",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T02:12:08.761249+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "76f7e06d7b81676517746445a7259d7a4a26b0efb6c61093833d9ed6d88191b4",
+ "verdict_sha256": "ae54c7eb90210f903daafe206d36e0cc7617c4801737117972d6480193ccb621"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_013__state_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T19:18:29.794704+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "39e4004d48c11a6f0215ed8f8124479e56b235f22b0353a981e75838c1e22090",
+ "verdict_sha256": "f082001ddb8e95c56d73ae88cbda1c4b492a3fbb6f61194dc6115f508dbe50db"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_014__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T19:18:57.557711+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "ac6f2086b11351ce2d291ef1136989c9f57214496b9035488b7e73bff8600bd0",
+ "verdict_sha256": "0398354b00dcbbfb6e7c032c188316eb06ffe2d6f7e6f1af83be84f021c3c488"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_014__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T19:20:28.646691+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "bf386502663420a13cc13f8e26d2fd0364037150ac66b4743f14c2b0d661cd5b",
+ "verdict_sha256": "8d7e1faaf0651383a2c1dff4b8665baf854bf3bfcfb8281442932ad764b2ce84"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_015__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T19:20:24.031411+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "f4c5b783372b8eed40c6cc606986b84a09e77909b0b1eddfd2b84f66baaa512b",
+ "verdict_sha256": "b11087cfde1f50ebf9a7760cc89b72ab0af1b64058583fdf87a49601a76d12c3"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_015__local_income_tax",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T03:23:24.946733+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "85943164ddabecb685f3b7d13a74c61547ab574d25e92b978469d0f3b28884d0",
+ "verdict_sha256": "1f00eaac4131c083a05b4a70766400b942953e01d102cbd7cf73f5987a3f7792"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_015__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T19:21:27.868277+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "134ebbe336cfb5cfd567100381d0411f28e4ac0e86cf9213fdc338e4faa8b4bb",
+ "verdict_sha256": "c3a3e97c50169338355648f248b895831c5a07464b41af75e77c8b3f49a5ef57"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_018__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T19:25:31.498139+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "fd0a4b5918c8462b623b1c90ed0171e7a3f17e610b372feae8fbad0a21d5cc1d",
+ "verdict_sha256": "b3486cd0e9fc3f37dfca2d1fbff0d4be3bf639b907f73401ef5a5b15f993e966"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_018__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T19:26:01.943763+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "d99502abd8cead516d55236718a9600022b36f7d1db010529a82b8e8cedbc5e4",
+ "verdict_sha256": "27ea8b59e30a7708524f46c88f269da7919a702aa518f0113e41751e43fa301f"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_020__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T03:24:03.532490+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "d37412965a99d2a5c1646e8c0cf5e62e716f04e0054217c164251a9dfc579e87",
+ "verdict_sha256": "f74a954ffcc2b4e2393bb33814ed30113d4efa3b7d6ef825f722d9f0874bc8c7"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_020__payroll_tax",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T19:27:08.824023+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "2da26b3f026b6014cfe2857e64e36faa53aee8e778e3d231a631d0e9fe8dd968",
+ "verdict_sha256": "8484759380713b8ca0e627e52fac481f77f90ff46a1afb7e6bb5d68731e1a27a"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_022__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T02:14:51.071325+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "dd7fb2367ed691925a33362f0ad218123d7513a1427ac110ff550167b1be00b5",
+ "verdict_sha256": "a442c516c2d5f2bd84cf641c94ba771b973408f996f2bccb36d698cda46abeea"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_022__payroll_tax",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T02:15:36.014631+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "02d2771197ef778a0951cf1cc63ad0b4603e2818ed7cb295a250d3bbe3b0f122",
+ "verdict_sha256": "0dd987ed6d274f1c74067ec9697683ecb129c41535417957c9706e86f15484a5"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_022__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T19:34:45.485211+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "8af3d0e0e93f81461edfb318db04c0a53a5f8c5bc5d60e94651c4e1bfd9df3d3",
+ "verdict_sha256": "6353815a84aed04f4be61722d1ee890274b46949c408cba8b18f6c7648dbd63b"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_023__head_medicaid_eligible",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T03:24:42.518277+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "cfc498e22155d4e20329c4768c9d7cd859c0a19bc2a6233421a94c5615f85ef4",
+ "verdict_sha256": "e4c9891b4cbd9b7135ae9e2aa0f6ab8b7c3ff036b87889f64d95db803a3c6976"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_023__head_medicare_eligible",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T19:35:22.741529+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "22aea213f7bdade5b147b2fffb0ccd7b24d223bf03ba1977ecde3ac5657d6569",
+ "verdict_sha256": "9dca341209936e619f652c571a4394eafb2a0211f581c28e96d390d740f01e35"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_023__payroll_tax",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T19:35:55.833494+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "c4e6afb6051129207b1221095df422db4d765867ca5468187ff2e32a8beeb048",
+ "verdict_sha256": "5553162c9decaacb57d9ade40c15a1d5598d7d0ed1fb1656dfbf2f6b95a363df"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_023__snap",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T02:17:15.716237+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "0441a6ccfc78279b8d5ff65c02db47524150e4c2a54872fdef25e4f426b8434a",
+ "verdict_sha256": "ca3c6407abff101c22cc6a6bbde30e5257c92836ba0ff0ad41434e00ff178b3f"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_023__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T02:19:06.781383+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "ae8555ddf0bcbc9465879625c0ab26b0d26d7d6977746e3683d5399ead33ba36",
+ "verdict_sha256": "dc959f51c3aa262708b758cbe87f80f74674518588892f8f194dff051a8b5bbe"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_023__state_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:15:05.240116+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "c9e98f21ffab38b44d72eb2adc5118808691f57ee9d7a7740be6713e3ccf7900",
+ "verdict_sha256": "01c52fd01ea2d92190b823c3a342d42a8a0bb3144ea93a0592e7906904c411a5"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_025__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:14:39.662806+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "cf43ca25422b7fe8eebc6aa51be7e0a825978142d878a311e4d8cdaff49b23be",
+ "verdict_sha256": "b826e325cf5a295a44fde19d13a58b5528d789b915b8acb2da08216950dcc775"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_025__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:17:04.054391+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "92eb26eb580c6a75379fe8d635325e517a290dcf43023f4b51a12f0ac357529e",
+ "verdict_sha256": "f361776b919a6cdaa02acd66bbf2e84e59c1c8efe97bd48536ea38fe38da756b"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_026__child1_medicaid_eligible",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:16:31.786369+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "0a9dbe9ac691c3567d44cfbe7afbc932b3efbfe4c94865944706eff37d0d6389",
+ "verdict_sha256": "9222b1c7f37bf631f5f1ae36880ab3d6d03e624e4421e7afe49c5a50924cb193"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_026__child2_medicaid_eligible",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:18:35.300858+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "3fb77441e3a0e6ffd3ff94da0065c070d92ff12acf1a6bd3dbe024f179f2f20f",
+ "verdict_sha256": "7179de77324acbc05fb53e28d80ae5b6cb3fa617e730cb70004bd169af48fb08"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_026__child3_medicaid_eligible",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:18:24.554200+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "ad6a97f4a2e1cb46b9c7b36157a61a0859d18f882f3ca4232d1eb94d6a33fc9f",
+ "verdict_sha256": "1d5df45ea2c3202546782060b5cfaa1995c28345259c56c79b33930fd2272105"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_026__federal_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:20:29.796852+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "b3e2cb6b0a3b088ae8eaffea1a2791713975fdfb28719818a933f54206f0b1c9",
+ "verdict_sha256": "ac91c43cf1ac33b379bf1c0d6927a6e7116b3c66468f300a464ae088d357a505"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_026__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:19:53.074172+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "f5f87a0961f68766aae94acc404c6cf27537e07394e8d8ddd656cfc62a7425d1",
+ "verdict_sha256": "686d915581054fb524c3d265847d3c684d49d671582f14ba921c303c71a67713"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_027__snap",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:22:02.474009+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "6fdf07f69e142f3acb0636ae8b6bbd95021a353f06cad31ce749f0b60c254e10",
+ "verdict_sha256": "d23a3e2e46e83d15d1c5cb573269537231efb5453fc6c339839b06166951891c"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_027__spouse_medicaid_eligible",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:21:17.122464+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "bf767a44f87bb271964a95f6c407d4e7fc6a819ce1d6af783ac6c70bcbbdb3f0",
+ "verdict_sha256": "4e821eed6cea76dc6b783f516c8c808bd609925fe2a95991e3fb16a6842dbdeb"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_028__child1_chip_eligible",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:24:02.758500+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "235b42147d6f6deb4d86ec1d62ed8a1e696418b84260375acc3a778ede3d0d17",
+ "verdict_sha256": "a911b27e92412042d762c0ac4a788f620feff1e1300560547aaf54a533eec534"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_028__child2_chip_eligible",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:23:31.824138+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "fc688a30adc6c8d2d909db1037ecfea208e16c5a522dc4839f6c261df541c97c",
+ "verdict_sha256": "5a5eb36a53efc4381a36346dce5544959c6ddd74433740866e75d3b73ebe024d"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_028__child3_chip_eligible",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:24:32.808749+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "47671376b7f471b9b3a3e7f443775d81f9aefa2fb14092a57979624b7b7b1f58",
+ "verdict_sha256": "e5caf6fb2d9ae11a6f31f48164b2283869f50b6976fb7fdc09affcc611cdddc3"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_028__federal_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:26:15.802105+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "7d8e56a89814a81409bd9268c54cc798a03191d2aeaa34ffc1409f7b9b48f270",
+ "verdict_sha256": "c33439baccddc8d9983db04bd483e065609e40118b7351d5fa6afd95daebb9b7"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_028__payroll_tax",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:26:59.859370+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "3d89820b94ff8c9ffb187f412f3037a8208974200929d5f9769396952e110882",
+ "verdict_sha256": "90c1f0531a467074087a2fd6f63a41cf93797c8f505a95df373dc2c156b6a02a"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_028__reduced_price_school_meals_eligible",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:27:37.238468+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "ddc12f63455dc3caa9713017f5069f0d127968e201d5c503336d295543da511d",
+ "verdict_sha256": "48a37152cb100825e8c63e92a44f8fa5edf5bd248dd1c2be5341476e21f0d199"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_028__state_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:28:44.520609+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "90c7685cfd46b2ed5288b1f7ed70013e29737563921d3fc79ccf532d73b728c7",
+ "verdict_sha256": "2b443249932c9ba4abeba98e44d91caba8510e9f5a613a9f4abd1c5926ce9ad5"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_029__state_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:28:39.103109+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "1bb881f7ec760621d928b37debab08218a6c2b1500134954fd68c64f3d837fa8",
+ "verdict_sha256": "05677b4b4ddff8860bc77e1176165f6cd046929ac5276c88d31bb68ba3afb6f3"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_030__snap",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T03:25:21.494066+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "a6b02e18672278be0c2a5a89ee7112563a98709ee4f192e9b1370fdd1a2a7446",
+ "verdict_sha256": "858d724879ace2978e5584c521d0b94d0bd68c5b2b872272c95509c08a9b92f6"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_031__head_medicaid_eligible",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:29:53.542349+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "8df172b9580f4a6b9375895de4dc0c07013b5d0cf61d6273bdb565436f77fff8",
+ "verdict_sha256": "9525970d4f1e148554326afdd009700db3885742357655f2a04d560bbbf91102"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_032__federal_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:31:28.057477+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "3771758c20affbf82c55ee0874a25a96c575b50d0fbfb5b44a2698730a0feeca",
+ "verdict_sha256": "594e10ebfdec6d0af7511764ac187ffb83a3767544a73449403dfdc35928c304"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_032__free_school_meals_eligible",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:30:51.713204+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "90e29176000c41666af7546c13fa6c2f05bed3a8e99b805875b2643ab4765d34",
+ "verdict_sha256": "28bb8a1740e4de1f755627041d88e5f6f06d959fe281dc30a6793a0cc815c276"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_032__payroll_tax",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T02:41:10.891860+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "987d4f61b6408cc63043d87cc03d993ce10cc2f4dc60314b8211a476b94678b2",
+ "verdict_sha256": "8000f2bfe080b61d2350549451f01f1b082e91f461c6d04a9e3bffbf7a971aaf"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_032__reduced_price_school_meals_eligible",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:32:01.399266+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "cd6aa1f10adb06a60d75ee46b95e4116700640d4e396b01b9848bd588813bf67",
+ "verdict_sha256": "a1229d2d217b6c575b12860ca51b9817998b896e1ad68f7b971d97a80d0723e6"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_032__spouse_medicaid_eligible",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:33:27.891257+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "cd4608ad680725855b237247333ba0aacbe21f87d5e960de63d6a7352bed568b",
+ "verdict_sha256": "67b239d88269be004ce1aaa50a88f6d5b30fa6cc1bd7b0912c053ba28b12189b"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_032__state_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:34:53.920750+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "7eef36f39594d181a212d512d24c5b777a02a3e80520617244843618cac9e592",
+ "verdict_sha256": "0735e040421dd046fd7ca682646c21f8e0a0bffd0d25881b04afac755db442bd"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_033__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:36:24.760755+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "7193b6717e5f4b47c466d85608206e2b15ad073e3c32465ee906cf6dcfe777b7",
+ "verdict_sha256": "ac5725bb0cef2a2b40a53fb0825c5ca539bcdc2e8c734d9fa2c3736ae3e77cf2"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_036__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:36:02.635417+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "ef4a0d0798a9750818a1365ad1d309149630f61963dd0df4d8ab9d8d38453c37",
+ "verdict_sha256": "e45b1660e52a65402589213b59d3f4f4d9b0d23b0e0dde236aa81ef6a66d89f0"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_036__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:37:40.992942+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "4b4646481a1cd5be008e5bc3b91ac464096d5924aec3cbcbed61942cba2c893e",
+ "verdict_sha256": "8c31518026367280e15df07d4df6ab6b3ef2cfb477c4616264edb5978fec0480"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_037__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:37:37.761052+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "54d09490b9aafc638fe816ae27d4d5cfa64dadc5539992b539368b8ee1bbc671",
+ "verdict_sha256": "b1a216233946e8afe05beb57bd66e2510e06127b4cac317bbf4985a39b1dc306"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_037__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:38:48.284084+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "577d03bc08b0c7802e5eab76f06a02f54a3a91dd199935c50ec8208f2ecfb0a4",
+ "verdict_sha256": "9503830a0db08b13b7ad6d35a5fe888dc5d97bf86a32161f5f0878aedc6e2cfa"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_038__federal_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:39:23.637365+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "86759302347da9cca517b709dc44323a7537114c604f23c7f2fb8b3d0c6e4639",
+ "verdict_sha256": "267a0e246b261361257cc4d088543843e555b1f1f6699ca2b4f3c19c567bcb9f"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_038__snap",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:40:52.559527+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "603d1f4f233122a16533fe65e51e80b9a4e9a30bab28ee0e2c589883e1a8b6bb",
+ "verdict_sha256": "bd23c391761a89266a7e37ae82d998c4c7595a6319102863ff8aee5ec19f5054"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_038__state_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:40:16.107613+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "1b63aab19fdaf6538ebf76a34b5a6095634aab6b6926edc13960fd608cd5d4c8",
+ "verdict_sha256": "6476ad4cfaf087acdc87eab89f8c4234bcbe18406c268e621799a8edea2ef88e"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_039__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:42:35.883118+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "50dbbb543493429ff70e4d405acd563badef7ba86faa8bb222384a2275228dce",
+ "verdict_sha256": "0aeacb8d0600905cacc5d30ab4f3b5446b6e31a6b65b78469f966840ff3159a8"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_039__head_medicare_eligible",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:41:30.355719+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "a7a1233e37bc4c396b26fea678802ef982ec7588c0b3c9f2228619e6f394980b",
+ "verdict_sha256": "d28443c70d4cb801a5f1ee65d929f894d27947eb93a8cc6df032a338f979db9b"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_039__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:43:53.502764+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "ce4c31161baa91069be6db7c0b0ebd8f62a4dfcf479bf14589f1c92bda597834",
+ "verdict_sha256": "095200b42b5b3197263ece00c74915f3e2bb37e9e506888cca40f25833cc8f34"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_042__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:44:35.303680+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "0d516444f31bb9797fa8d008b6999907ee27f586bc22e0fb6d44d878e9cd62c8",
+ "verdict_sha256": "684ea0e2f1d8055dfcaee3f6f001584af687f2349baf63f59a77da2298ff43f9"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_042__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:45:23.571482+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "9897756974aa565ec644464c5b473c9c75a1bbbf3d3fde0ea5083dafba7cc9cf",
+ "verdict_sha256": "d23a016235d432f81c8870d118fc61a8a32cb3c46cec1e9f320f0be6dba3fb9e"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_043__head_medicaid_eligible",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:45:00.975892+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "356357c08a67328e112ddfc4feb0c24cb091f9092ea0842421445d22833abac9",
+ "verdict_sha256": "80c37321c1a7d92dbda0b1b24475e897ee97a76800145f7d7e496a7efbb0ebf9"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_043__payroll_tax",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:46:15.629753+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "b30ede20a9e4e17357b8715f2c774e5095539687901113aa9618101014d4a30c",
+ "verdict_sha256": "d46d8be3539f895c034b2a7ee9e50b88e8a18deebfba5acfcb81100228ec33bc"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_043__snap",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:46:16.515635+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "87f63c718214ba29263c7991698111ed868332c59a3bca690b0baf557f1710ad",
+ "verdict_sha256": "7eea81a7afa867998967ad1febc607300f32a03f78d9b2a0e94de1bb17455ef2"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_045__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:47:24.395121+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "53816a474e6306e9be797b357b183abb33ee6077f69fccb55ea124e3d9d01118",
+ "verdict_sha256": "baf0776ff9d833dcb6da4b852309eb9ca84950c8e5431efabbbec7df9ed9ad66"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_045__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:47:13.064567+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "9d3073d2052b26e461a1c39984e1f3ec5637e536f09abeab11b981ddcb2cf86d",
+ "verdict_sha256": "82704367e92b9dbca32a175fadc062ddd60c6e64a0b749f9bfeb76a40746c21d"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_045__state_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:48:46.081136+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "a2c094b33c14e14234817cdb998b40040e399a1627b4f8f26af858b09ac15b4f",
+ "verdict_sha256": "a1e8b44623f7f072cce9bb497b4669edc4d7e7f40b73ab119658c4a5066a3ef1"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_046__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:48:58.873410+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "8f6242192db1ba5e7bbc88286d615020d63ac07553a9fa629058cdeaf8f0259c",
+ "verdict_sha256": "949bef0ec45b71eb7721b5c876c93245124487874373906a6bdc79c1c725aa74"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_046__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:51:01.747723+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "56643b67f028d39cadaa67471e10a7501bb92bd86ac7a780baef3f3a83e14ed2",
+ "verdict_sha256": "539d418c7a94911d623a62c278cf9a9934c295b732fd3b3dad608848955bbf00"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_049__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T02:20:44.231015+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "4447b62f6dee99ac7907394b9e5bed4957c7cbdfe109ef06c4822dde465744fd",
+ "verdict_sha256": "993cb1d7a2bf0d03be67fef03a8a1441e8aa0d46e7aa5888ccd6894965510d0a"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_051__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T02:22:14.021752+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "1d6dd14faa5de451eb380755a3a0117749db5e49a3b02984bf4c729b50029ff8",
+ "verdict_sha256": "358959e4e34cc3c1c11f0228942f8a22577a5c15409b272a15ab9dc162fa27ef"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_051__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T02:23:16.863660+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "5761c09a08efe41ef86f2ca41adc8480f4df05905874bd7f16f8f7a02b5d31e5",
+ "verdict_sha256": "f3667f4051c3fb291ee8894fc8548071a0274d98b892ca4264151d7bc4546dda"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_052__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T02:26:52.465384+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "56e8c72ac7b437c45ab7fe41adec566b8e266376d9fa5fd0b0ce5ed4919265bd",
+ "verdict_sha256": "af2575343778715c41cf3afa7d4108781b952bbdb38add9732f77852c56fe5f1"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_053__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T02:28:18.756527+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "56b1acc530fc6f6bcba3c2aa7630fc101cc9ef074b5a155d7da01a64a71f9620",
+ "verdict_sha256": "a747f9486ea084f75a87e2aea2e654ab1a2a321b9364664499ceef7bb44774ae"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_053__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T02:29:45.333435+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "c0319cfd8f92cb927b9a32c003d07a8ce0b396593390277e1ae72599de6a0e43",
+ "verdict_sha256": "e7b05c52189ca5bf12c4a08d662b1ca11a1b069fa512d15fc320b56e728b4ca4"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_053__state_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T02:30:32.763221+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "3130ba74ec889837f5c21d0fca03055fa9fc706d86a136bdaad6ad7f17466d58",
+ "verdict_sha256": "3816037c00c41701c25acde059583cfa38f30e98dacbe6ada11f50d971edb324"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_054__federal_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:13:13.610427+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "56250c3cd90157fbbc89480e90eef47e2a235464aacc1048627dca63c62c9d24",
+ "verdict_sha256": "819cb073a18ad3391b621cbab3c856db89869a11a8b10e27edd96501e9f67260"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_054__snap",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:13:57.641691+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "b38afa5afc4085ba94e328c4ced05a46b8145eb61d2fa751b339360b311a7154",
+ "verdict_sha256": "ce3e97c4649871ebe32623a1a266b3b15be15a6b1d801f3eb3765e376601bf67"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_055__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:15:45.071336+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "58be8f974441e181af47f47315fe8789dc463eca70628622699125243e70c57d",
+ "verdict_sha256": "c863d7b74c597f1f81cdc10756348e5e7b1ea8607d0116b5d9e02ea21fce89f9"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_056__self_employment_tax",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:14:16.712499+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "82086063aed75faee1c6026128942a8d193b6cbdd2bae4862e4182eee23454e8",
+ "verdict_sha256": "905cc61204cab8e7623ef671a4d139a0cb41e4667885d0b1bc7e02a23c987c3e"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_056__snap",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:18:40.096912+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "2379d07fb366b275218b1311dfb440a4f58bb66ef2a8626fd027c17429fbeb8e",
+ "verdict_sha256": "3d998c2f694e1fb19d633e612a548dc14898e6fdcbf0a56c8a68c0486ba9f867"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_056__state_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:18:21.001910+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "7786f12a890889b0b615774e4a406c435db63abb8cbfb229223d5631a1c114d0",
+ "verdict_sha256": "1770b9ff85585c98ad402b043e2f28ea63320af2ab5ec973249834bf5a515327"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_057__federal_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:19:36.694514+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "54a6e3cce4efde57ffacd4bdce0dfc1da82412c7d60b47263451c08ff7243cce",
+ "verdict_sha256": "40b31559320fe6f90a8af9117d3cacbde9faf776eefe7488d0aa4bcb6dbadfea"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_057__snap",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:20:52.474413+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "afb6a2e1f7e53f31b432806fef3f62f87878fb3e170d4e26fda222abffdc494e",
+ "verdict_sha256": "4e0857376057a69d80ae08ddab149db3fb9a7b60377000ae5e9cc0b5fe89a65b"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_057__ssi",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:22:25.227453+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "ff85580990014e987ce27a0d29cea7699c165778d5063538ec239602be8852f2",
+ "verdict_sha256": "590f3c2d4441c1c606621e50bfada3ad29d48be8d553beaf25f6887316017c35"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_057__state_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:21:47.199762+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "39dc30618327a6db1e6665c460f71d8bdb64c70878ef9d17d347f07a00aeb42c",
+ "verdict_sha256": "8d5259297e8a881e7d235a0af31fd0381adf1b2469a69980398e2d14cdc77607"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_064__dependent1_medicaid_eligible",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:23:12.713934+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "aea7261915a3cfe00ebecba05e9c3b55a9dc1589162520eb68b7523f98962258",
+ "verdict_sha256": "e09d7fcbe84dc9351ab303a917e1104fdfe6f8d95c034f73327930e7e13e49b3"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_064__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:24:49.282857+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "d035b000d9bfcc3319f7b44760556f17c1ed02e2c3a06f9cf523dac77c0fba8b",
+ "verdict_sha256": "2d24a156c5c1ea8bf6a32ce160b7b9f39711521044f6777470bccfc37f275429"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_064__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:30:26.806983+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "ba53c193be3318ba049442ecdcb0a18e5cad0d4071b1ad9d0a9093a3e5175fab",
+ "verdict_sha256": "724440358489b273096ef969de46a9974e853c6e0b360594ac3519d2e1271ef8"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_066__snap",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:25:45.549039+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "225dbdbf4503e9a13b317a6ea41e3ef65ea382c7707f864ac96de15d54443f57",
+ "verdict_sha256": "a7afd841910562a603a949a9e3ac51d9276adfbb3c564ef70fa85685cce6a462"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_066__state_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:31:11.659924+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "6d90599ecad63ae91469bba521085ea1f1f9e4d7fb2d2a85d61a9178418b9803",
+ "verdict_sha256": "b9670af7d9039ccf1a922839dea9cfba66459b4d72b4d1b709f06909179d0121"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_067__dependent1_medicaid_eligible",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:32:01.114368+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "baba50887943b7fd3176023dd08c9eab88d7ac6e5870fab51d6dfa234104f68f",
+ "verdict_sha256": "5f7927401b45e1b802e3eaff1a852179d3e86a38fd3d82e754db4c4c715fb5e4"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_067__dependent1_medicare_eligible",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:32:27.359562+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "c9f71525414a9f840667f73c34611787df6c61f4cfa33ada07e2a23de7ffa79e",
+ "verdict_sha256": "a9ab9fc5dbb975d63ef6df1fa25f86baee5faa68430ab77c172406623d4ec32a"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_067__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:33:51.399842+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "880096e911535341059af35ef0bad03a52cef562652a192f68c2323d533cabba",
+ "verdict_sha256": "65a9ff47e869dcabf095b59c4f7698e5e741819992e04fae955f847670756bf1"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_067__local_income_tax",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:35:15.246696+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "2ab13820c0c59644bd9a035c6611e21a0771b9a7815b12698db70d7de0bbce75",
+ "verdict_sha256": "360c4727f33f4478440533f51e4e3d4ffa58d3270b4375130a2f2c5fc4621ea1"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_068__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:35:26.027842+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "d01f29c2e18d0ab11a36441dfc9c993d261ea9173546951f6ee2b40b4726c275",
+ "verdict_sha256": "4bf4b2dca15fc72d3a44bca932fe641ca6a1183f34ea86fb8b2ea772bd336b66"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_068__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:36:36.858987+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "b7326fae754583bfe25836e063f78ccab171f2916e0eaa44834b1a72f9d4ad84",
+ "verdict_sha256": "c81e75bd833055201a39e71f947d263242a2d354741498756cce890c3e7a0c4e"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_070__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:36:51.241146+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "aab0dacc5affc0c13a390dcc59325e04672ab627ef1e6f110e4aca59a80fd11d",
+ "verdict_sha256": "f7408a3f26b628a6d18129da220a438e73e3a39749589997c0c209cc86dd114b"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_070__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:37:51.662084+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "317042a1e6058d299c8fdc2c8d604a47e342ef913ecd81ae4028a8773c40d9e8",
+ "verdict_sha256": "e1d794455ef212709a35087d8b34bc176cec3e2ff0a883d2b38200ac7f09cca8"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_072__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:37:42.012634+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "806b3ed7c70d525d494e6debf93683e1800a4c3fcd6163d2b622c4762b4fc62f",
+ "verdict_sha256": "71baa1869b033148091e9216606a1f17f96c617959957d65ab23f562d23906ae"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_073__head_medicare_eligible",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:38:24.403975+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "8470198a99279cdc04a94e19439744690e1ef5b1a06f7d1804675cdef5d44756",
+ "verdict_sha256": "f411b0a5dc45af02ff868b2efa483ad2713b609bfe77bb875a675a4f57149e51"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_073__snap",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:39:06.083173+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "65427e3a9b243825a6bc44258818fc55bbc3d36b7fabaeabbaeda259826c6666",
+ "verdict_sha256": "77ca006d8954876d704617a011d580c73388ce02a92d1ef5c7eaa49a0ebc05d3"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_074__head_medicare_eligible",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:39:51.546028+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "0769161a0498fbfd856f0b74c63f8e0f24d655d4b9e9a935ca53a1e9f572dce2",
+ "verdict_sha256": "63c3f15510a8df86dd026f00978df9847d5df12e022035b00c716d4a04167636"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_076__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:40:51.527890+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "d6d0a263c2581755a365c2562b9df710416492ca66545144fca534860df3fea3",
+ "verdict_sha256": "fa21e759ae6e852fd8e4b3fd449b78bea8adf360e5ba84bd99a1b3604f772f47"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_076__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:42:49.780645+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "24e3798b9ab53ae67679721ac9cee9457b99dcf2b0da273f1b62c34ede94c886",
+ "verdict_sha256": "48656c27133588e90503c7c9108cc65615c9d6528b7e0c0ee43b474591c6c4a1"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_076__state_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:42:01.958021+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "418ac188f85d5af0a8fd0c100ab28e5cbcfcd30626beab94968270d91220bf81",
+ "verdict_sha256": "aba2bb3ddab954db71fda15c595fab2bb7c7637bb98392874a3c7b2637d13b02"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_077__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:43:49.294460+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "ab36cc5156a307c3695e85c63b6ee652592104731d04fefae120a441a47ee3b8",
+ "verdict_sha256": "faebe0b490ade5de27ba25d703430e7def48d40b22e3e3dd0b93d3448416beb7"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_077__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:43:58.625174+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "2ab0b9354984798bf41e401e54b34328f590cc75480e6e0e5bbfb6c8e217c45b",
+ "verdict_sha256": "8bc5f5ad8e3d593d198272a9f2829c257961cc1cda25aebb590eb00ab9582cd5"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_078__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:45:49.352051+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "f5f5ad15dfd49823e2afbdbcc9bb9b3d6639ed9154f03fc1274d66ec8083bb3b",
+ "verdict_sha256": "55efa50fb65a65b3a7b810a6e2427190839c8424ac5a54818f2f481faaeaea85"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_078__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:45:42.677841+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "101c0c423bb362eb84cdc898fbf2e7578d88936b3d268cd4ce986fbc60d1cfa2",
+ "verdict_sha256": "332c594bcd8f5bdde84c10092765acc5fd71b3c2e5983e3520e85f9704d98a4a"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_079__head_medicare_eligible",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:46:27.071459+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "960f5cead2c2acbecdb2e755656924253be43e869e88225d7466a6344dc0d6a8",
+ "verdict_sha256": "f16f9a3cb5c5bfb2af3323482179dce150572085dba8077ab29bba548d712519"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_079__snap",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:47:26.364571+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "ff33b72130afe358f55d24aefa1d97e8e18614d46c64e7bef76e1ec604c9e1af",
+ "verdict_sha256": "a203c2650e0b40832160d2f5439067f605321d0f5f38bdfa29783af9b0d962cd"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_079__ssi",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:48:20.745277+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "f057b5dc60bc84534673476faf139bd28b1732dde39297b118b7948bb5b1804d",
+ "verdict_sha256": "2eef8d242bcb0959458fc76859655e20283f1f3d0beafdcaf606a358ba1dc22a"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_079__state_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:48:14.694463+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "5fef9f86d531b5ef5e40f2111af9a4454b0c69a06bd752b6b5cd4a62a10862af",
+ "verdict_sha256": "5207ceed67e2bac632c4db105c4a05c512c84f72a3505c56a3768965a4857559"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_080__snap",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:49:52.820736+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "3d87f04b27f916dba35f80c30cc11474bb9e9c9cef7e73e644bcaf98a5556fdf",
+ "verdict_sha256": "343e2dbc0b500000de59ddb47d1850328843b8728f5345549df91d65e4236509"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_081__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:50:06.980377+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "8294ed91c7072d8b41b8646a6cb63dc75fb7223bc3483f315c3ab4b247f106ae",
+ "verdict_sha256": "0041bf0cf473d7413b5c7ded57e6c65bb4b456317857b7639e6a9143701efa13"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_081__payroll_tax",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:51:55.306146+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "76fbf9d7bd13149e5776890f05bb2032a1256d4b57c06de44bb250849f994011",
+ "verdict_sha256": "60eff98ffb377ad89a48bf7264336d7889c4c0af800bc65edcbfa2555da27bca"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_081__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:51:35.038243+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "43558e7d1d3327f34e2d9f7bc8bce6900bc6ad20c4944da9e6efdfb1a9ed16e1",
+ "verdict_sha256": "b0c3a1eca36350bc954ab3e47675392846c95cb0e51b25e0901807a99d488763"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_082__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:54:30.418442+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "b0472a7780118b052b930345fa44b731c75dbb534d2095bc5789ab9422fb42dd",
+ "verdict_sha256": "69aff72ec5be01ec8f97c8428e8854f6ff0beceaf802e29802b5be931731c085"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_082__payroll_tax",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T02:32:16.806821+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "219c243ecc8f251b03f87d56e0f18c47bfc0a79d22e298be36d54b9ce9ab0ac9",
+ "verdict_sha256": "4ff37663b4ce03eb9d3ed258c5bd7ec950f203ae0f2a1b762c6a7ea42839f35f"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_082__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:57:32.732656+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "a9c3d5fb03c0ef8d6cf4a0208c92862a2f3d3b87bf79f2916f2218e05f559705",
+ "verdict_sha256": "b1d7d020a7f2cd8e7c1cc1937a231020fd69303b24bffb8e2362af801dc1d7e6"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_082__state_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:55:54.670855+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "9f3abead39b691e76b0ba6dba7bda4cb0dfa9a6f00b50ea0c0b013c68fb65796",
+ "verdict_sha256": "24fdad461c068f713866ad249b6830b330b62323579c4a5d1d9db896a103244f"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_084__head_medicare_eligible",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:58:20.103717+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "16e6e4ed33a6f9fe2da5d45a081efca862d4451c0db527ca9203ba101852ded2",
+ "verdict_sha256": "24b595b50ff97aa12bf5001d664aaf14b22150537ce69d49e5ea6cc0d203e088"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_085__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:58:44.563990+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "7cc8aa81e740f8f46a4101c6e4d7744912c72e9a529d9823513c07f8ce34fa62",
+ "verdict_sha256": "2de29c68c2580aafed75ea6f3d31b74924619fee1651b2e674349fc5e050415e"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_085__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:59:54.925179+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "6b9ff9f3ab3efcfc52f8a6848f306b1d2c8cca57bd93e69cc9681d52a3fd07c5",
+ "verdict_sha256": "5bec8eedb1faec752c65c8ff0280058288a5eb494458518f9adc51595072d334"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_086__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:01:02.288167+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "70a5e808b6035200e279f66dc0dadf363062725ff0ff8efdc62cd6e0fdd38434",
+ "verdict_sha256": "d1f3ec57a4d6244cc34740ec55031d1dd9e33a747bceda22c3effcfb83d2c61c"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_086__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:02:53.381349+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "3a2697c2efb40afaf63115198c1f5d87655e722699e6e44932c3595610eb6f9e",
+ "verdict_sha256": "cf39d9f78a74f5dde58be571da0a78fedf6f749116a77e384dd006a641b9025a"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_089__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:02:44.503320+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "7a4d4d62bb3e03d7d64328513b7e2b1f58621ba81c7149035a103c4f202e6fd9",
+ "verdict_sha256": "141898f80a2bfcc4aeece98808d6de607f359e19ecf222f4707db1c334d2adc7"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_089__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:05:03.209022+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "1e34440dc47fa0eb3840605f910ce1f650ec6beb63a71cb72348b2b2cb43a9c0",
+ "verdict_sha256": "e0d082866f560e93dedaca67f8f077d16833d49a1eba49a9573a80082ae3f86a"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_090__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:03:29.237996+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "6c90937e9c3f4148f13c399310db1087830383b87137d58297482404fba229cc",
+ "verdict_sha256": "4ed9a37a9ecef2c6da097c8cf2f7b0cb61c140b6b8e4ba181e88300ee5289c93"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_091__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:07:04.206615+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "f049a1274c8414e477b649534d00f5e50e5c95a5645629d3813ea8dfc603ef18",
+ "verdict_sha256": "6e56138924a35eeae5b28113103738cbf0a3101881222e2bdd6a26763172fcc3"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_091__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:07:24.656016+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "ab77b354ca283aa6b6aba0e4d037d2036f65541bbc7e3d2b75c764e7ffab5aa8",
+ "verdict_sha256": "a955c860357e0e1b880c98a5e34210bdb53d8c5069bcb57fb492b989abc70819"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_092__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:08:27.651918+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "f7b3ee36f3c08dd713617a03239c4ee956c17d5c8d36f755de994a7d1e0d7c83",
+ "verdict_sha256": "6e2240249d6d33f713e1d7e770f35f62e83d015f60d82954edce3448ed8d685d"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_093__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:09:13.572058+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "d4cc80154346aa8cee45b53ebf582ad4ec38425e3f67c3ffad368b025937d864",
+ "verdict_sha256": "1efc4e370baad857e41300944ce79294c6fd988246977bd3065cd4ca3d420d95"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_093__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:11:30.121938+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "31bb95e47693a448eae75a95f815461b3e53b473d935a8215762bc066a0442f8",
+ "verdict_sha256": "1b19292010c497c8464b00142655ce3749af1ee5a1c624bcbe8539d6deeed049"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_095__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:10:02.286156+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "2510c892ee4816e5a0e9263384dfb7405ee32df4f51c2d1f31827b64a92cf1cd",
+ "verdict_sha256": "7f1d747f93e4855b47b236c9cff896a93a18d0f96ef95fe807e3e78d3cfb70c7"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_098__head_medicare_eligible",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:11:38.663960+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "e82cffb8017821fde547336a2b2d7c60cea6ab704de19e4a3f32f950fb84e6f0",
+ "verdict_sha256": "c4139b06b617c6c4216384ca3022a872d311e74b2feb54207f284a23bcca0ded"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_099__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:14:29.549519+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "bfb73f550242f24895c1f0f65c8fbb51653b152303175ae8f74dc7229e761e12",
+ "verdict_sha256": "4e2552eec89a4ab80ca95b2610f69cc5e8c91550ee25b4ce06932ed1f37e4045"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_099__free_school_meals_eligible",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:15:10.222753+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "5ccdf4db10fd1dffde062b89954ef40dc154fd7bcbe0eb65d7e56bb98e115b8e",
+ "verdict_sha256": "3b6394c52a18df19c478310c8448d391c85cb6a418462f469875cf720ae3238e"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_099__payroll_tax",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T02:33:14.461832+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "e9374cd921a99807d0be9c1b1e51754fbe5ce0928af55bdc2f48cc9bab378515",
+ "verdict_sha256": "510af884f4b5cdd662f586b0ad7065959ee24ca24ed88caf0021d805acd82ce8"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_099__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:17:41.205223+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "10145a34b29622c64afc036ddc270981cc789da61bbf3282a2764ddb2243e91f",
+ "verdict_sha256": "6f17b3dceb03c8baa3e61f2f76aebce4009a82f54dfef2265bf0153cb8e82214"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_100__child2_wic_eligible",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:15:51.598077+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "7b5fad817f9d347174f07ac0c545d40cb354c86989ff0a8b0b94703bfa6a46bb",
+ "verdict_sha256": "a66e60da30240c03b4d50ad7e99cabf1b3b048ca5ad8fa2ad7ce6cbd4587918c"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_100__federal_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:19:16.221772+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "73021b14c643c5ccdd7a2bab0a54b943206b7234e0a41f2b6af99d676f300438",
+ "verdict_sha256": "1cd2e1c9d2e2eb28905c8b3f44bb3afd7fe226988b1daf1f41d391e6fd6a4ebd"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_100__snap",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:19:48.388589+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "83f8ef8bda170a29341271ec52c4a7d39125493afa1529fb9c09286f14e0b740",
+ "verdict_sha256": "b9614a231a71882045d7bdd81788f01d43e5d191edc8e8a1e58fb317cbe82e22"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_100__state_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:21:30.718046+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "902a567635ac4f1d559028f74bda24631daf14c751ce7a34be6513c456ee0e39",
+ "verdict_sha256": "b73a7f380ad5d7a6b7addfe1b50748839d09ffdb8e1f8ba3ef3feff7e7910b3b"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_100__tanf",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:21:17.240213+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "c8255c261cf391f3ea42936233504a54bba8d94259f804b9a890cc83084f47b1",
+ "verdict_sha256": "11da893389306d17a3ded9a92388863e5b437a939c96c4d8e2c3111871e9c228"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_101__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:22:55.877981+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "b36505ff379232e1bf4427d8ab3df5fa83a9e336ff8eda37cb035a439aedb6a9",
+ "verdict_sha256": "a314ec58ab1717e908ca26df067cd4c69420a56b64f9aa5766bc78bf289d4404"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_102__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:22:19.706535+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "3fe89aa48cedb5ace6794190e6614b42b6e083e84e1c91d54f122b21d542e8a3",
+ "verdict_sha256": "f743045114036ddf8a33cecab81aa49fe1fad22399a8037191c5fb0aa306dba1"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_108__snap",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:23:58.141328+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "4a468f0d11a87f791bb775e049006830f79b3f9d0a16bb60c4f0a13e1c8893a6",
+ "verdict_sha256": "03bb6aeef4a1583deef0f05854cc8060e5ca3f0edb58689b1fcf76522de4157e"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_108__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:23:47.522428+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "93fbdecdc9f0de8e595ee94656dc1053935246afea74c44e37040db3b68ba56a",
+ "verdict_sha256": "e176e8690ac55dbcf25d8ba0e533988ef95d6fd797c45b3f77ecd5452d94d9fd"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_108__state_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:25:15.669518+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "af311d7e7e620790f716f390f06eb6d341fa65d787853a799eb661c64a132326",
+ "verdict_sha256": "c5ac30588853f5484c14622741104f1e08180a80de2361d1bf07eb5b7740c2c6"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_109__federal_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:25:16.062518+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "5e59da2d1293af079c31bb65f0884a5087bda4fc616d4622a3a27eb6b5c13732",
+ "verdict_sha256": "4bc849f4a945f532829fcaf61a3b23d43208f5cdcc4a4050bd2662ed856bf21c"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_109__snap",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:26:57.755011+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "0628d9e2e1844c9463cb03638eaf26d8434cfdb079017b1e34c51067da4855e9",
+ "verdict_sha256": "cd485a9d17b11bd76b05feceae29f8a713250729c8aab0b086a2c5c5d803d76b"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_110__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:26:58.171581+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "defe54056c809ec88a470028ebd454cbab92037969d30dd2fbddcc737f212527",
+ "verdict_sha256": "08483f936f538f5974cdf1158e86daabf7dc4ed6da7768007be6fe7e01ce6693"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_110__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:28:37.735082+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "e6a5334db7831d85291c466c317fb94ab3928c116dc0c2e43a7d04f4a4d73d61",
+ "verdict_sha256": "e9315331be96bf6fed87b7997d3ab60c2718187793da5e9cc1e734512aaf865e"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_111__spouse_medicaid_eligible",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:27:38.165910+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "7b537115ab029fec39f50ffd128e256bdbdf9f2462b1f029ec6c37337b3533f0",
+ "verdict_sha256": "3f577ba41dd3f54eb2bee2a5fbd68b6e9a7a35773a8dba40999b4993d39867b9"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_112__federal_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:29:25.224537+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "59a44706687ea2c5767e22de21733b3bed48a6fca66dc2159fec000c8b165421",
+ "verdict_sha256": "96b7878141fb71ab77d79431b1989f2953d818889393f36dbd36868c4a0c3798"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_112__snap",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:30:07.370214+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "4c554b9ebdc35432e8db777d2e2be8ec91f99ec965c8ec899ef0ad31d9aa5f85",
+ "verdict_sha256": "5f4c28236a92d60f40ab6b88ada040b0c4f9d80c6d144426780701f0598c77b2"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_114__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:35:54.926152+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "8d8083cbad7fe9a09dde307764a10e7dcc6bf030796f7984ff3fa9c38e8f7048",
+ "verdict_sha256": "50fd943a064f2cee8de98b4e640ea06759c1e5d7ab9be4058e4bbdc1feb60818"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_114__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:31:52.949553+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "d318413e2de6a4e59f51f95ba4ea972472cbf82ec80a167b8f9779dd7ff23386",
+ "verdict_sha256": "ea4da2ac3d94738be1f2ea92b251f591959765b8d01e1e9ee116e39a7fd6e275"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_115__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:37:04.538352+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "7ccb16b74a56b432a0edbac104e9fc8e0429bff000ddc6736c0b318ff47c0213",
+ "verdict_sha256": "02c4678a3cd47a3eba7267d022f22748024381078d2794bc2ecf2df8538a555b"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_117__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:38:06.886853+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "9555d1101cdc44172acf510ce9897b3ad5e80e0bb67f67fa830dbf84564b42e5",
+ "verdict_sha256": "60280e80ddc9b6478fd34cb3b1ffe61581aebcae472fe2bdfb369efe8533d55c"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_117__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:41:47.546266+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "db646a2fc4c57078aec4e937e48be9e205755be69f67898be8bd7e277358dea5",
+ "verdict_sha256": "c74e633e30a04f2df8f08d6915dd6b207a94ef481911f99929f37230b03918e3"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_118__snap",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:40:13.995988+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "1257c72900e82a09fe0958c2370c302b6de3633a36a9c95dc953974617a73119",
+ "verdict_sha256": "70c46c14ab5984dc93973e11f94dc95932fe063371485b7ecce0c8ca6c9aeebe"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_118__ssi",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:42:50.781248+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "672957fe3a314bd3c1ad179e7499fed3ce7fac1c502c252fdada967aee93b132",
+ "verdict_sha256": "667a7fcacc8b070c01d5bfabf20ebe31a9758e2610dbb8ad6748b043532ea33d"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_118__state_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:42:50.231613+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "9cb70679fab0fe042646fbe7b0db2033fe9027d4615032197fc91194099019e2",
+ "verdict_sha256": "9934a170ca3718b492a063959532a6e6a63c70f93c3242bac4f996e50e675ff9"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_119__child1_chip_eligible",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:43:54.602941+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "201fa3eb78a4ede5735090cae5d5565f3ae8bc2b8cdd60e3e672306481c9a723",
+ "verdict_sha256": "5ca2febbd45e27509e4b41b924e7b7d140368e9be0de4668776869fe526ba435"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_119__child2_chip_eligible",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:43:54.602944+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "dcbe86b5de959ecbb40466ca3f00d8f328d34885384599c2fc468d6a5c926ffc",
+ "verdict_sha256": "3a4d382d0236426c1d8588c276e4a4fb7e8eb97ae6d4addc579eb9bec8b1c91d"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_119__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:45:01.171371+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "b6fc5f7b440b97eee73352635d919fe61c779cb2af1bba88390f45bee3cb0aa6",
+ "verdict_sha256": "d98b551487978026761a9ddf9d4332e153e97b2ab17b0abdb3b4965846b74ac6"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_119__federal_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:46:47.578861+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "1f75cb9160a0a546a8d6b73d72dba5c4d8666fd1d17a180952c5b4711bf8e352",
+ "verdict_sha256": "ef0533e29de8e75593329d3b221f57dcec56a3b97d5cab9a85dd3cbf4e456c9d"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_119__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:48:24.178179+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "9e7584b0f20529a7118dfee83e7eb7dccb8f1f4e28792d8e3f7d7a22f8ba2c9c",
+ "verdict_sha256": "a41ed158e3b88494611491a5847849876a645b06bbc0c07d0b52d87fc49e8144"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_119__state_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:47:31.978677+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "6df634d314b2221b1b27df9c1c1f72aa6a7b539686fcaa95463df1694118739e",
+ "verdict_sha256": "3131d146160c70213505cc4657e5220a7c919484e28b42eb939466c59cd71d99"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_120__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T02:37:31.267168+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "7195af89f20d091e501b6b326cba187f5a99b19577e6b806e9cae4a8964589f8",
+ "verdict_sha256": "1a2cfa5e6201323e7e6ce3316a796350fb13446cd5aa4906e3d93394949a2a2d"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_120__payroll_tax",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T02:42:10.748971+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "7ee643d93919d31bf39769ae1225263f648192e443e98db3f319203879af1059",
+ "verdict_sha256": "0e122945afa977b5e411f6d95a041cc2d68a22c479ab74f5734e6190e9257f9f"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_120__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:55:12.873415+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "b26b1ed46a6d2e2d7de355e98d52d118999d4d73bed1b642269df910b079ae6a",
+ "verdict_sha256": "a5ac236212ddf8d48df53b214d97247bf48541b8db8cfc928c75d15bb60b1553"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_121__snap",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:53:20.764416+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "ba8df8004d961d7083d097f4b8e14eb6e1a488576ab199f1b3f369b0c59f1e5f",
+ "verdict_sha256": "15d4657e4a21793c837d4fb4ec0c46c38ea983f239ba56c137f64972816b1c6e"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_122__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:56:55.577966+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "c51c1da2754366b46e0a3b899d0f356fdc31f33a6cccfd924c49b7fabb1b59da",
+ "verdict_sha256": "977e3bb51b72f61eb28411193a4c13b6e9db03b89aa4aa7da3fc9a1a0923686a"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_122__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:57:05.891435+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "aa62a9887a7e17b66e167e08e639e4aea3615dba39ad28f06d3f1cbe475747ef",
+ "verdict_sha256": "0dd085b3c39a92569e07614189a713884723463fdb32ba797164ab80480c7554"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_122__state_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:57:40.916626+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "d3f964a9a0a9f996167c90ab0331c5b6cc558830965a0cadfacff062adea844a",
+ "verdict_sha256": "e0a1ac0cf8e27ce9177f5828bbab738097eafdd9aac30f4744453b748ff435fa"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_123__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:59:08.574592+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "162475024bad8d84e01764a649da83ddab498177cf8f0496d3f5ae5ea504f609",
+ "verdict_sha256": "e22e6d1d38acb24c9f46f680e6a67764c8320386b73a9a529400a96a44c35ca4"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_123__payroll_tax",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:59:57.583265+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "f8fbd73f740467d26353af126a647806b633f6570021ae0f9b0d33a785bde38e",
+ "verdict_sha256": "7911512e8b6a291f3ae2546810a7fe2d716f96ec741fdd98bb0609053362869b"
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_123__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "group": "isolated: setup-token 2",
+ "isolated": true,
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30",
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": [
+ "claude-opus-5-5"
+ ],
+ "judge_template_version": 2,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T02:00:27.532520+00:00",
+ "prompt_sha256": "d1d38cf0dc168d5853713b86941eff436d977ac9b822a4e6c9e4a145bdbed705",
+ "verdict_sha256": "4b89cdd0e08c430dff90286f945882373a2d335081f3134a7e0534661bd4c494"
+ }
+ ]
+}
diff --git a/docs/argon/judge_verdicts_20261014.json b/docs/argon/judge_verdicts_20261014.json
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..14e13e51
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/argon/judge_verdicts_20261014.json
@@ -0,0 +1,431 @@
+{
+ "note": "The verdicts release dashboard-data-20261014's adjudication entries name on the cases a new model re-opened: for each committed decision on such a case, the case's verdict in the exported stage, read by scripts/date_argon_judge_verdicts.py from verdict.json and its sha256-bound verdict.meta.json. The verdict each restatement replaced is release 20261013b's entry (git show 2cb77a17739a:annotations/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/us_adjudications.json). The 2 triage decisions of the 2026-10-14 wave are new and restate nothing.",
+ "release": "dashboard-data-20261014",
+ "base_commit": "2cb77a17739abeace3ff32391f902a39127843c0",
+ "cases": {
+ "us__scenario_005__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T02:48:27.921077+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "c4ef6166eee5ae40c609f8ab2a73c633ed7494bc279182f35305addaafd9e006"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_007__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T02:06:16.559557+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "b282f0bba9e6cddd1dbe248652d25d6205767067a4f94c0f794cf39734d7ca88"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_008__state_refundable_credits": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "reference_later_law",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "state_local_rule",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T02:47:02.845479+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "705a4ebbce6b3f3b5f8fd8e0fcfa98ee9de06455d23a24ed03e30bdd83fb9db8"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_009__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T19:09:37.041751+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "72a05641e920398bbc9226f62c6218c8c7e7d3c85cb61ede2e8ed7bf04ee6636"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_015__local_income_tax": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "prompt_ambiguity",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "state_local_rule",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T03:23:24.946733+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "1f00eaac4131c083a05b4a70766400b942953e01d102cbd7cf73f5987a3f7792"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_020__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T03:24:03.532490+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "f74a954ffcc2b4e2393bb33814ed30113d4efa3b7d6ef825f722d9f0874bc8c7"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_022__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T02:14:51.071325+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "a442c516c2d5f2bd84cf641c94ba771b973408f996f2bccb36d698cda46abeea"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_023__head_medicaid_eligible": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "categorical_eligibility",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T03:24:42.518277+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "e4c9891b4cbd9b7135ae9e2aa0f6ab8b7c3ff036b87889f64d95db803a3c6976"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_023__snap": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "age_disability",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T02:17:15.716237+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "ca3c6407abff101c22cc6a6bbde30e5257c92836ba0ff0ad41434e00ff178b3f"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_028__child3_chip_eligible": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "health_coverage",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:24:32.808749+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "e5caf6fb2d9ae11a6f31f48164b2283869f50b6976fb7fdc09affcc611cdddc3"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_030__snap": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "categorical_eligibility",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T03:25:21.494066+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "858d724879ace2978e5584c521d0b94d0bd68c5b2b872272c95509c08a9b92f6"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_032__payroll_tax": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "prompt_ambiguity",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "state_local_rule",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T02:41:10.891860+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "8000f2bfe080b61d2350549451f01f1b082e91f461c6d04a9e3bffbf7a971aaf"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_033__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:36:24.760755+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "ac5725bb0cef2a2b40a53fb0825c5ca539bcdc2e8c734d9fa2c3736ae3e77cf2"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_042__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:44:35.303680+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "684ea0e2f1d8055dfcaee3f6f001584af687f2349baf63f59a77da2298ff43f9"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_043__payroll_tax": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "prompt_ambiguity",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "state_local_rule",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T23:46:15.629753+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "d46d8be3539f895c034b2a7ee9e50b88e8a18deebfba5acfcb81100228ec33bc"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_051__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T02:23:16.863660+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "f3667f4051c3fb291ee8894fc8548071a0274d98b892ca4264151d7bc4546dda"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_052__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
+ "reference_suspect": true,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T02:26:52.465384+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "af2575343778715c41cf3afa7d4108781b952bbdb38add9732f77852c56fe5f1"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_056__snap": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "reference_model_issue_fixed",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
+ "reference_suspect": true,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:18:40.096912+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "3d998c2f694e1fb19d633e612a548dc14898e6fdcbf0a56c8a68c0486ba9f867"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_056__state_refundable_credits": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "reference_model_issue_fixed",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "credit_phaseout",
+ "reference_suspect": true,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:18:21.001910+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "1770b9ff85585c98ad402b043e2f28ea63320af2ab5ec973249834bf5a515327"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_057__snap": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:20:52.474413+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "4e0857376057a69d80ae08ddab149db3fb9a7b60377000ae5e9cc0b5fe89a65b"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_057__ssi": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "categorical_eligibility",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:22:25.227453+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "590f3c2d4441c1c606621e50bfada3ad29d48be8d553beaf25f6887316017c35"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_064__dependent1_medicaid_eligible": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "household_unit_or_filing_status",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:23:12.713934+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "e09d7fcbe84dc9351ab303a917e1104fdfe6f8d95c034f73327930e7e13e49b3"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_064__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "state_local_rule",
+ "reference_suspect": true,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:30:26.806983+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "724440358489b273096ef969de46a9974e853c6e0b360594ac3519d2e1271ef8"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_066__snap": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:25:45.549039+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "a7afd841910562a603a949a9e3ac51d9276adfbb3c564ef70fa85685cce6a462"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_067__dependent1_medicaid_eligible": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "reference_engine_defect",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "household_unit_or_filing_status",
+ "reference_suspect": true,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:32:01.114368+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "5f7927401b45e1b802e3eaff1a852179d3e86a38fd3d82e754db4c4c715fb5e4"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_067__local_income_tax": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "prompt_ambiguity",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "state_local_rule",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:35:15.246696+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "360c4727f33f4478440533f51e4e3d4ffa58d3270b4375130a2f2c5fc4621ea1"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_073__head_medicare_eligible": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "age_disability",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:38:24.403975+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "f411b0a5dc45af02ff868b2efa483ad2713b609bfe77bb875a675a4f57149e51"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_074__head_medicare_eligible": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "categorical_eligibility",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:39:51.546028+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "63c3f15510a8df86dd026f00978df9847d5df12e022035b00c716d4a04167636"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_076__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:42:49.780645+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "48656c27133588e90503c7c9108cc65615c9d6528b7e0c0ee43b474591c6c4a1"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_077__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:43:58.625174+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "8bc5f5ad8e3d593d198272a9f2829c257961cc1cda25aebb590eb00ab9582cd5"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_078__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:45:49.352051+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "55efa50fb65a65b3a7b810a6e2427190839c8424ac5a54818f2f481faaeaea85"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_079__head_medicare_eligible": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "age_disability",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:46:27.071459+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "f16f9a3cb5c5bfb2af3323482179dce150572085dba8077ab29bba548d712519"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_080__snap": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "categorical_eligibility",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:49:52.820736+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "343e2dbc0b500000de59ddb47d1850328843b8728f5345549df91d65e4236509"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_081__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:50:06.980377+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "0041bf0cf473d7413b5c7ded57e6c65bb4b456317857b7639e6a9143701efa13"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_081__payroll_tax": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "prompt_ambiguity",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "state_local_rule",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:51:55.306146+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "60eff98ffb377ad89a48bf7264336d7889c4c0af800bc65edcbfa2555da27bca"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_081__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "state_local_rule",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:51:35.038243+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "b0c3a1eca36350bc954ab3e47675392846c95cb0e51b25e0901807a99d488763"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_082__payroll_tax": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "prompt_ambiguity",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "state_local_rule",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T02:32:16.806821+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "4ff37663b4ce03eb9d3ed258c5bd7ec950f203ae0f2a1b762c6a7ea42839f35f"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_084__head_medicare_eligible": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "age_disability",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:58:20.103717+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "24b595b50ff97aa12bf5001d664aaf14b22150537ce69d49e5ea6cc0d203e088"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_086__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:01:02.288167+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "d1f3ec57a4d6244cc34740ec55031d1dd9e33a747bceda22c3effcfb83d2c61c"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_093__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "household_unit_or_filing_status",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:09:13.572058+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "1efc4e370baad857e41300944ce79294c6fd988246977bd3065cd4ca3d420d95"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_093__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "household_unit_or_filing_status",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:11:30.121938+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "1b19292010c497c8464b00142655ce3749af1ee5a1c624bcbe8539d6deeed049"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_100__snap": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:19:48.388589+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "b9614a231a71882045d7bdd81788f01d43e5d191edc8e8a1e58fb317cbe82e22"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_108__state_refundable_credits": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "state_local_rule",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:25:15.669518+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "c5ac30588853f5484c14622741104f1e08180a80de2361d1bf07eb5b7740c2c6"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_109__snap": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:26:57.755011+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "cd485a9d17b11bd76b05feceae29f8a713250729c8aab0b086a2c5c5d803d76b"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_112__snap": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:30:07.370214+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "5f4c28236a92d60f40ab6b88ada040b0c4f9d80c6d144426780701f0598c77b2"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_114__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "reference_engine_defect",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
+ "reference_suspect": true,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:35:54.926152+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "50fd943a064f2cee8de98b4e640ea06759c1e5d7ab9be4058e4bbdc1feb60818"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_114__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:31:52.949553+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "ea4da2ac3d94738be1f2ea92b251f591959765b8d01e1e9ee116e39a7fd6e275"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_117__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:38:06.886853+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "60280e80ddc9b6478fd34cb3b1ffe61581aebcae472fe2bdfb369efe8533d55c"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_118__snap": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:40:13.995988+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "70c46c14ab5984dc93973e11f94dc95932fe063371485b7ecce0c8ca6c9aeebe"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_118__state_refundable_credits": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "state_local_rule",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:42:50.231613+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "9934a170ca3718b492a063959532a6e6a63c70f93c3242bac4f996e50e675ff9"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_120__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T02:37:31.267168+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "1a2cfa5e6201323e7e6ce3316a796350fb13446cd5aa4906e3d93394949a2a2d"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_123__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "household_unit_or_filing_status",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T01:59:08.574592+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "e22e6d1d38acb24c9f46f680e6a67764c8320386b73a9a529400a96a44c35ca4"
+ },
+ "us__scenario_123__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits": {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "household_unit_or_filing_status",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T02:00:27.532520+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "4b89cdd0e08c430dff90286f945882373a2d335081f3134a7e0534661bd4c494"
+ }
+ }
+}
diff --git a/docs/argon/seed_digest.csv b/docs/argon/seed_digest.csv
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..37fa8543
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/argon/seed_digest.csv
@@ -0,0 +1,678 @@
+case_id,prompt_sha256,verdict_sha256
+us__scenario_000__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,efb95f64795abf1421f932f4cc9db1f6f289e1c9d9a0a14883c36ba762f97f70,f1e7224d3417b9a2743a432d899f289350f02a2423d1e6dbd07369191a768d46
+us__scenario_000__head_medicaid_eligible,8089c5b7a0466e36ef70a540a36e0f4d2ef3e03016761d5af347bdf3413c3169,23da81291d2f22a85339bb188697a3ce2973dabd3bcdcc2c9542da0e89f44968
+us__scenario_000__payroll_tax,ad3ec2acf8cf3f51cc1b1163b7235de86faf8155ae40414008d923bd19fd4f68,2976fd7ab6bd851cfb4280f8e4bf6237fc50c8fc6bc9c0bb5fa1bef7ea5081ec
+us__scenario_001__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,8e481d2423d8a00d78610db517ca72ebe146b6cdda3bede219de8a605f1537ad,26332b1907accd4a10afa346bde68e6f17f61627dbcb7a66de117a3f3e78fe98
+us__scenario_001__head_medicaid_eligible,5b02a3162ff896f56d86345134b7eaedf86a92df2dc4385cfd12c4a8eea72072,01d80f20bff3223c3e6e45fc067fde2a8dacd0735cae5e387bdc5cf010128119
+us__scenario_001__payroll_tax,9823daa04787348f26f579dc51f57398cfde0e8ac182b9b7b4039777536b61ea,73dcfb1b3d84dd5872bc6df2284173bd61036e6a87f68967029a4c7c8bf798bc
+us__scenario_001__snap,194a3313e5d135c9a819556944a0f5e62e7bffc7237f6028662fbd2ce2cc0593,3c28eb95c4f073cec7b6b557eb113f8e38f378e353d2767e41482c606a729613
+us__scenario_001__spouse_medicaid_eligible,0e4e93d6427a4d287d6a94d667ee53a271844c4040c62a1d59280cece0a87d53,881bc970e58f5c834264dd8cd1aef813e3b88f4288ac360c4530a2a60fced54b
+us__scenario_001__spouse_medicare_eligible,0656f728338046a43a0d834c0f4142b45f0c2769fbd28ebb16e748773a99e1c5,cc4bf2ef991e1d2df6eb2dc0832bea10d4e98313a634a03c95650062870c9b1c
+us__scenario_001__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ec40241c45e8bfa855423975eb9895d04402eef36695e482c368d92d75b075e7,76e16fef6cedb66eaddee61f05552391deed824c858df115640cb34b9fa08e91
+us__scenario_002__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,82909d767e0d7eacbd37842008d7a3a851f54dd25e3c44befb3258763c2627a7,f97189b455527bee383a3861a9b643426b2aef4782f56859dc68c43d297893ca
+us__scenario_002__payroll_tax,8e44f4b6852ea58a9cdbd8f3c0dfde061fec4277853883bcad021cfb08f86393,6941c2013a9ff6a340bbdb01caa5d540ebbd16131ec51ff8c5c1a4191e37e078
+us__scenario_002__spouse_medicaid_eligible,f31870852cd979c20818b8eb95109f28f97bc5884f730d8bb088eb1632540437,0614261cf2a4ae6b08880ad85cba80f2c8422e1d427e790c0af98547fabb430a
+us__scenario_003__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,8c65b91ee004b854a0295b8aa0e7eb2b147a7679d98ec60f97e187c116204aca,f67e7a43fee2e9f2abd7e3b8a15a1a96d5ad19f945806f1e62918acea21899c1
+us__scenario_003__head_medicare_eligible,72023d07ebc68ecacd9082cfffe74cf677f04e55c5e8ed763c05ae96a29acb3a,23246851850f9d97109d8734aeb248e05175cfd13112bd29e3601b03874c48fa
+us__scenario_003__payroll_tax,7bbbfaf9883624c09846b24f41b05c655297f7909657a7b6338b59eff910c970,cc8373e601995d8be14e9a3bde16c2eb9782dd7b5b4be7b5b56ffd550e4c64f6
+us__scenario_003__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,887a8e3537b86044d115cf9871eee3fc94fe0d657c12db4fb74d54ef84754d4b,dadce1fd2cf0db15a840b85aec6bd3eae1f9ae0f90dde245e3fb8f352cbf8e6d
+us__scenario_004__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,9e983ac85d363eb014b702bb595f1d7c7244ea1e86e64cfb065f486ce116e9ea,594e83cb33e224a96cf4164e8d41c5683f2bc0c1c0e9f44d9e5bed2700b3c35d
+us__scenario_004__head_medicaid_eligible,2675aa52eb07eafe4f531ab52c6d097e3d9bad454cd1576d5ff7299fd6efd176,a3bf397cbcc6f02c37862addb0c34de649b1b18ca8ab2c862ce302a9411ecbe9
+us__scenario_004__head_medicare_eligible,346ae03a8c5e9938a30641ab9f4d6567cb6c71c998f6a16872285a56885e5c8d,6a0d3eea13051465988513b7ee8aaf0b1bb0cd977dcf6fc4be3d7b538f3fa4a0
+us__scenario_004__payroll_tax,6564a474d536aec4c4493b871c44efd8d7cb1bbbb8d8b40dd8e8b20e95bc28f4,3a5985011267f36bcb9d0587e7b81a3c5849723e80eba716a88038e2fe5b02f3
+us__scenario_004__spouse_medicaid_eligible,dea74d788c0be58164bc9e89db06eafc48b2ef87a41487949db5004b53aed483,f67c8c87218256a0f55d4ff186e8c9e3e00ed87c5486c0cdcc84ba779e18f4dd
+us__scenario_004__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,79e3c8505e4bf3b830175a7a82e1f86c3a30860d1139f78cbfdd7525c16dce73,ac22060d7debccb45bf71e79e45df9e54a606222c64945eb1abfb097b3696605
+us__scenario_004__state_refundable_credits,e65faf7c6f5dc4487aa71a232f55f12658775f0b65e6046a8721abbb20228a35,b1b6c3aea2d345d1780d1fa45fe90a705323880794e00ea121d3951b013d12d7
+us__scenario_005__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,6f60e0f82fb09cb67f5725648d5432feeb0caa1b37824d3ace8747fab3b33403,49127e48688eef8e73a5edd310061e37ba1231b5622d9be9f31276fbf1aa2f8b
+us__scenario_005__payroll_tax,a8e9ca1326bd80a92262bede1168b4a604e423727f84df66db3bdad09d38f40a,20fcf628f32b25bd0259c2c4248d901d1551359541b93efd76ef8d6e3169b5ac
+us__scenario_005__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,84c5ebd680c9b3a82358918a78b8f94345400e1be40efa3c2c3dcd60b417329b,7037a26b42dc95672d229858f7073711d494c928a1f4c6e358e3029ed06f3246
+us__scenario_007__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,0e47e20d550cad85fae2f01df4a5280196bdc233dd6c65d7efc5ea4c3a690aa8,3d0e7e0af464d8c5c1db590729ac5269edd5d63623d3d485a976b45b94843384
+us__scenario_007__head_medicare_eligible,a64227641dd7779426b4e5de89dfeaf17db19b6e9310383dcc4fb41fffc19eb3,aaaccd6484add96eb9fbe8f0b09935d6a0c4f032ed4bb7ab5d0a70a75b363279
+us__scenario_007__payroll_tax,582c724c86cdf328d26aeed0be2f7982255366d6f05bdc22aead1ff6f68a1565,e9746dc99fcb16bd82cfdc51b35bd027e9cca84a5e27da88fa8b68811c8e20c5
+us__scenario_007__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,64c8c474da9cb85bab13a81b49ccddbb78357f3976cfb54d3a622982f57e5729,638df81d28a664273715112061eeba5984aa88b683d3ade9f1b128d485ca4749
+us__scenario_007__state_refundable_credits,b70bdc21cbef932867199513bf1f249c9c1b1d9bcd29c36dc8627baaacd4842a,f08a59b24d7dc4b1ae4ff60d1a26dede646b93fcf4a012f76ff27b04b47316e7
+us__scenario_008__child1_chip_eligible,a93978d5d293cfe92935b099a148d277e0c77be2ae086cb1d20efc27cf3ab30e,507b44d055f2623db2791e3a0b97195fa6353e019d482fbf7b26ff17a055d83e
+us__scenario_008__child1_medicaid_eligible,546e03b9768c3db88d457ace694fee63a5d0e8d71e8fc46cf8871a619fa28362,063cbc6c13a76d76c39c448a742b7ba7f58a012d0fffa5a2feff6a5a8055bae7
+us__scenario_008__child1_wic_eligible,3de7603916921d46a583fb60f793984c2a22a885565ee7b9995d7a51c4710dab,5b9e51ff86cec1b37a9a4a1e1f2ca5d7a21b0ac1f4e5fd88ee6b06f789c8e4f2
+us__scenario_008__child2_chip_eligible,a32841e960466ea34fdc40a542b6aca12c991e6f47eed26748eb0953060a92fd,e36890a740d48f7e0f7ee115c17ecb461eaeec02547a792bec190b04885b00b1
+us__scenario_008__child2_medicaid_eligible,a9d876d93eb0a849ecf0c811c87af8ddbc6c1d819e1734eb538ba278d050e4d8,ed47b0ccb8d73d15468005c0e4119960a42faeaf74395c1f270b8b2f3d2b8906
+us__scenario_008__child2_wic_eligible,7a64b827ebe7754de190f98fcb49b3f5a8a86f4f658d603158d798fa9da84953,be6d060fec347cdf4302a2a366d0c89c94715a71a130da165e20b4a1dca9b73b
+us__scenario_008__child3_chip_eligible,86f3d921a868bd221ad58746c9bf9f784b67aa30a3135a5a15a42964e4aff436,da787274666b5a020e7c15795d7beef35c29ea2eca43548681504610c455f36d
+us__scenario_008__child3_medicaid_eligible,e4cdde65ea61f1e456b8a3b6ef4a8854d2f0b5ae3204f96fe002cca5c9ad3308,3c186a055604dda9bef0aec3a755bdd5eddb762baf246c3e5333430655580971
+us__scenario_008__child3_wic_eligible,91e0ae66cdd124b41e272ae84249cf23d4c6e226d1d7c068e598c551854c8dc0,6d77d109d3db2b657e9487065c82d1dc7b9ef1f30fa36c1ce019188a8e6ab6cd
+us__scenario_008__child4_chip_eligible,f72543fe12a4a787dbd68130c3f0300a412f304360666158e5b69c3dcd3acb97,6848564d2585fef5fe7c09011161ffa2b111b7232b44ee054e6b0233157c5783
+us__scenario_008__child4_head_start_eligible,d05799d4149aee75cd136aabe88031f8729e9373db8d95128c207fb33302d947,4919b713b0fc80cb5c1f20bf7e75fcaf3116a0ebf57160ef7c5c6a892db8d5e2
+us__scenario_008__child4_medicaid_eligible,0d7638d57eef642f995ebc42128d99a3d526c2fb5b62de7e6c36d7b4a4078568,9707bca5e6b5e62d675fbbdbeaee6f545bc98d1d8a2bf5ad11d68dd7bdd10096
+us__scenario_008__child4_wic_eligible,81e93b029af16ea8b29b314c86ee7b821b49526c8258fe30a443ac42f71c49e2,326da5c1151f6af665504bb58aaeb5479ca5eeeca760d9a5af3aa713fa304726
+us__scenario_008__child5_chip_eligible,937edc18fe50c08bf1d28180cc7ec4f40e48de815ec078e311d3bcebace8d8aa,2fe026fd635afdf82c4519a1fad61ff70318938c1556806dfe9a605a37eede21
+us__scenario_008__child5_early_head_start_eligible,9f3b2d8d993601c7bbd21fbfefc51f64802eff6e2d6ff21f25d62cce81904de9,97a7d39317ff16aab8399cfe5826cf591941446ea1cf32959b18ce7b6983b23e
+us__scenario_008__child5_head_start_eligible,575909b03776d949906e51d3c4f1d60f5b9c50ea316a7eda58ba6a04736a33bf,3132e5bed190bf98ed937baf394957bdea0d024e61ab73e51d222776495357d8
+us__scenario_008__child5_medicaid_eligible,540ef0b5902d898040af3718b670763aae644f2b1ba6bd11c9fe2ec0fc805f28,8868cb9513f817d2d8319f1222377466c24625cb8b7cfa8fba1a48586e437f12
+us__scenario_008__child5_wic_eligible,384d92fb4ddf152e224f01812c72f6040101fdc9893674450a035913387aef3b,b821cd6e9f5d1675d866f37b70025149cae771fb1b89a10572c7345f9f365e35
+us__scenario_008__child6_chip_eligible,6469dd1346fe7dcd5974bdadba4a8eb9317f6b59de0380ec7a6c58a3128914bb,f4def16caae5f96f71aad03016bf6714159193c57a8d8118793c6ca471b92e61
+us__scenario_008__child6_early_head_start_eligible,b8cf0090ac647bf2b64c32d327415b9282dd118091be384cd510a4e08127af37,81d424fff9979f86a65e7899662b85a2a281ec99e30ac89a6f0a6f5f5a945e25
+us__scenario_008__child6_head_start_eligible,c58dab1204d004755cbd5409a689fdeb19f54eace9683eeebfb351393d0e4faa,e10cdc003427fc03bc1710101cb9cb9f49ee34573816e2e308a8e3ffc45560f4
+us__scenario_008__child6_medicaid_eligible,dc0b70b2df531cb004115d50f027a45358df298499f674d74e02c5b93d70a189,214ab2db89a15a0b69f5ae2f2cf058eca9352833485400cd712cc8c02b7c04b8
+us__scenario_008__federal_refundable_credits,79645c874d8ddcc0d0540250d1880c288a1aa469ff81fb9b69479f8e9673e00e,57c21da3b5d90a21f7c475727a9d05b6495858ba9278178f8884af5bed4f81d2
+us__scenario_008__free_school_meals_eligible,62f64561aadb71fd2cfda7695d216c0625e7ab435dbdff4afd0f12d0c353c18a,92a815206251bb5249e49a462eaf21ff1e7fb3e1fbaae01a2b0841def2be9ce5
+us__scenario_008__head_medicaid_eligible,8a1564f0c291cabb2b87780aef66a5832940e45e865c7b56b5878d5de307ca33,b61da31bf48c969ac3c242f02853a1d3060f8643084090da2e3ff23c60d30013
+us__scenario_008__head_wic_eligible,92a59dacf6ec33fb005b24c9ab503994ce3de96e9a18ee76da0fcbddd80dd2cb,abbf4b1492cca1ee52c3966140730e888cd04342abbf4a450b4eb922e0487ee8
+us__scenario_008__payroll_tax,038ab4267f54eba47c7bff559eba6f8b20afc44dd769c11f82c7f60c4522f679,0e117dc89c86fa668136385f18a81f1609ff3422666af16ac22f69b5ea0545dd
+us__scenario_008__reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,52c1c6698450f26671ddf91fa3d5e857c24126574d979402db2f7e2ad1003d14,5f7a30df6cf4fd64e856bcb5599c16260ccdc2938b2eb70aea40e24ecf26cdfd
+us__scenario_008__self_employment_tax,9f4e19d631dde986e607c4d58bc589636aea04f388687cfd5cd00989ddc7a5a7,5b669021e8ce7cf60f9bc250336a693d97335cb229db0940c3b6746c2c6f1317
+us__scenario_008__snap,6389f4e2cb35c7c20cc3a10b55117b3b77d7b2a0f3ff580833ecd88d488c0245,aa8c9bb41290656c8d69a3cf7077adfc999e5a489be28ef199c8bc75b5f191d4
+us__scenario_008__spouse_medicaid_eligible,cbd76a85e0b395b002e0b988ecd19d3ad38d77b61f5c0df5bd30395b67450e2b,19d57f0fee5b98fbd5dc3642ca577b3459247c8b6e59164b8f05edbbb86b1c96
+us__scenario_008__spouse_medicare_eligible,632f38d7eefb215099c3582020a75ee22ce5df9fa329beca5da6d25e466ebf9a,56784f5ffca023f279575926bf1fe365c6d6544dd1a60487622e021954c5ae58
+us__scenario_008__spouse_wic_eligible,bbf88b0edad4103bcda7ffbdce9c4859b9ba0aa763555a5567232c68ef0a8d1e,0b5455a24e0ada992eebb21a33887b7a38f5d0001c7a424fdb7a54ca9a0b70a2
+us__scenario_008__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,c1673d01b7ae8efaff27629d2d2c82ff18fbbd017add81ffb5ab8eb36df8832e,a3f799b26a984650fd16401dbb202105165c06131dab10d4150c61c671b5506f
+us__scenario_008__state_refundable_credits,4c2fe1981ed1b52dda4fe6bb381a9f051bb0eaceb3fdaf83f9191826510634a8,06bc65822ad87108153871642fcac10d31e58df641e14cdcd9f35aead4f14986
+us__scenario_008__tanf,64cd17572bacb38973967f48da745366486b8d8f5bae613b2c8a9650e3ef1b72,c91c68be0bc16580d986730f2486ead82472c8e4e98ea1c38630818502f9e26b
+us__scenario_009__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,243c9067e20a820bbdcafac39abeabca3fa6ece4d3316044567d7878a8989573,6420da89a974cdefe8b8f652012ce92c2672e01ac659c0bf7aba223b9f96d60a
+us__scenario_009__head_medicare_eligible,405b568c55ff1c1e31824d4b948ff80fb00ab44d4d02bfa7bc9285abe703f8e9,58a46ae33fd1e902d2c8ce0f93f92f0cba6bb5a0b6061f650cd369afbe2b52c0
+us__scenario_009__payroll_tax,34260f5eb3599bba24f24bf7c496901b1e00804a71b3b0aa310f2d1cd212584f,2a9b2ae1dc24cdd9af7489f87c4aa055a417e39d97cdaca05818e6afe6b39565
+us__scenario_009__spouse_medicare_eligible,25c502992c8932a7eb2112bd9d8caa000a82743a864544c26f036ff7e39dac40,76a2cffee43533b871baa2bb6353e2322c5e64a16f255e21bb79c2f226faa4d0
+us__scenario_009__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,d7c24b29233ba300b0590c1ee58007f1cee67d4b0a401864d3806e8d859521d4,d8be15d3cebc5ffa3f6917dbfde74c40b6be5efae67ad236ff761a9400058e37
+us__scenario_012__child1_chip_eligible,5f78a64edca0abfdef6b3607253f3c8c960614d88a5b811eba5feaef25c4ffbd,20edc876c9e6010755cff47f8d4e76c021847cef4dfc9289572ea39fc56e9a1a
+us__scenario_012__child1_head_start_eligible,90dddff7843a5d2fde3f441347ff088c59c72968d1a9c24fa4fb6b1f204cdb0c,dc2210c198d414aaa124f83a59c60d021270c4f8caae3b42949deac40a240a41
+us__scenario_012__child1_medicaid_eligible,ba610b0ddf90239d0506340cfb77196e3a36e761ee9e58727543ccfa3131fca0,61ae0f73c61c3aaa837136b616be17427bf2aed3a29231f1f814771f5033f2d0
+us__scenario_012__child1_wic_eligible,e77cd5f13da5e8a407794921a9534f7ca6af6581dbe522575dc9b343313c85d7,88629e7d905733a3ff48ae1b30fba4f2cfc067f7489b052e8df5eadf80ccfe5a
+us__scenario_012__federal_refundable_credits,74982f0a4612b349c148b6ed419ce078cfab70ee064cd1bde6b7b64293841355,77052d8b800adbc984ac62a11ba7ca24960be54eeb65db3e19227a10f9006c40
+us__scenario_012__free_school_meals_eligible,cbbc6345ac9b2b342390f2b4ad67f5f05b6d44521cccf3fa0eb236cbdf72a995,15519c0204fc12014361755deca6b28cdb67e7877080f30fff1667df0ffbcbb6
+us__scenario_012__head_medicaid_eligible,977259a2fc27fa7804e31e8cd2a0d1f7fc5f8bdf9db3b81e92e5b80bdc6839a4,246f3b374a462a06c56a51215437e56d2488d088f1c94388960eab2c4bb934df
+us__scenario_012__head_wic_eligible,bcf0075d7a75af15a600f90b50001c63f2d3b1b9998e4c7cd199b837c9051fdd,a67b5f97188d9462b41ed691b75bc934ad1ae9c9aa2d1e05895e9c8cdd8374ed
+us__scenario_012__reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,57e51af61f9eedf0319eb1c6e6e5765ed9eb8c48d9e295b64e4ed1fd6f1c47be,47d52e1d7e6d98130880554c72148d759b8c81e87cc4222fab9a06e9c8e65532
+us__scenario_012__snap,aadc6083383838354b75a68ba07634b1767df8d3739c31c40cf829ad541066cb,5fea08216e5b06e5d1326bb46309d71e5857ec7e8f1b43e0ab612a1714c0d35a
+us__scenario_012__spouse_chip_eligible,ca2e2b03a2a77572e92a11562373838658ce4c42745d2f6b0574f6854c4195f8,cc3202be5f93f24570bab75f89f47c84f238bad90eb11ab86edfdfc40e1550d9
+us__scenario_012__spouse_medicaid_eligible,381bc83ff39fe00845ef98bbc58821e897b2916469e4f310dd86e093d6d93f69,766adafd08df7490d7469ea1ca4e8bdd712f707a5982508777c47c7a29a0e02c
+us__scenario_012__spouse_wic_eligible,26c85250889e2c33332d350fb331cac26d5213d63ea806e88dbf0d4b5e30ce13,90ae25f3122f8f48fcace59e58f4d08acf154763165613ced5520f1725cb6039
+us__scenario_012__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2bb19b10949c5f34f308c3296d315be57bda75ae184c5a56bc9efdcb5758327a,f946db2691209ec8a6ecfb5e5c92f763adfd9cc1b1a04651036bb7ec20eb77e0
+us__scenario_013__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,49b5758bc0ba32cf35934c72284f487c90039703c9fb9c78c65e6ff6c0b2e59f,9f8c1f874fb0670067b450356b5b6040463d98ee3ccb9c6c4cb1465fb71c3bce
+us__scenario_013__head_medicaid_eligible,46f55f7fd62870bc3503f9b6fe081e3be1ca4c1cf9a3d60d1d2e8c678aae8aa5,5a252dfc9466fd48248f6e8fee88e41918945798efcd6f781d7d9473e5f529ef
+us__scenario_013__snap,2d618715855c14947ece88dcdf0150c120eb8734a06a728b566d94feebbff2d8,efd7df92db51c3c2cb14e14b810a89a8a0218fb9a3dfa934b4ab9f8952411ceb
+us__scenario_013__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2b20bd6903659831c0640288c3a9df49286aebfa24220f5d3df6e5b86a73b539,df10fe12419c9927b1d23757b7fda20bb6debd2ef892504ea1aa3ffd08f0652c
+us__scenario_013__state_refundable_credits,ff3bd39284c9493cc2bc98d9930a56912838f5a978ac54a11a6fc105e760ed80,473b6e7d27440095f3109df4dd1effc5eec5af6ce2c36ff2dc83eb4e0ea70f9c
+us__scenario_014__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,264ec8f272456c70e038bcd5c1cf16bc0b07ead1276471ed3a2f0ea7beb1d214,b7519c60dd34d82acb99e8554d55a5f798a8b18435508bf9a8b08ff317925bca
+us__scenario_014__federal_refundable_credits,3ac15585244fdbd27fb4bacabb031ecdcfcd919ad52e4cb544403330f4983604,2275e0cf471908c7b5fa66c1b5cf62067c1c8f2dc5e868c77f53d8efa3ad6c95
+us__scenario_014__head_medicaid_eligible,313027647d0287cb666cd7e527d232801b09a99e676b451760ae3008bb6c28a4,5ea332fe1cf93c010ce785127c00d0eccd326b79d0e15b1d7bed20f7905e9432
+us__scenario_014__payroll_tax,69a26f3b5f4c84b500f982be577d094ebeb46eff9c18e7d54d7be54790e29f5b,d659eefae4b3e438c7134dc28d00ca2e5148e39b25a59af7dc25189fd9ca785a
+us__scenario_014__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,b37e7fe4feeebcf3be0e951238309ee3c173be02bf0cfb3a96603d2c7fa0b840,f8b0574bdc7e0a43b12f3f04d34699dca077d271c6ad9774207a2488460e8755
+us__scenario_015__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,699a87518882b4e6556f2bb230f5abe18f8fad549a257ce7612a07c6e19315f8,f4b21ebd85c8bbb6ee29eb6ee7004db26fad2dd289bdde6f6d5a2d067b1bbf7e
+us__scenario_015__federal_refundable_credits,2674854fb6c568384466c8385c282851014472a30435c25572f4d49c132abfcb,112ff460cd4b26477b0b291086d0a7cd4820de581de988f86594324c1a1b81f7
+us__scenario_015__head_chip_eligible,d7ceb52a5d6378b9178c11b36e22f119ed4622ee673b23c0e55ec64114fdf9b3,b2bfa22e6876c72ccaebc38f904d41cbee831b190c61438ab9a8fa8f2803ba43
+us__scenario_015__head_medicaid_eligible,76d10036408c8b5c32cdaa603f130a0d9c9a771bb292464ce8480702dc8ec62d,871078da6e685b5495939601860dc3c4cd599c3eb5781402e41ee42e9265dab5
+us__scenario_015__head_medicare_eligible,5febd3eba3ef6502f1a5c9d44669b319d529e83e3979c3a1b6a053904ef43953,64f9bb5d5d53143e09d031c5050319e5011937c6679d0f4ea3acfcc482483c37
+us__scenario_015__local_income_tax,ceb058f9245373deb8b87d546ddb47e930ce74c3a8a261cc21005794270a206f,1d28a4568269edfc713a6ae849d86d769550471ad5f6036a990f482e76b3f521
+us__scenario_015__payroll_tax,6a77bb32e0efe4f1fe6c73ab04dcc5a94066b37b2a5453a0fb604b8eb260ee26,ae846d93a2d37143ebb4bdd6ada238f55427876a921e626fccafcdb72a37cdf6
+us__scenario_015__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,a6e0ae7db6a34ce88caed3aaa8eb27526642c281af513cac9109f5c69e532741,16ef6e0393563311831d4593e17dc020318ca3291aec6112fa886a44bd3cae42
+us__scenario_016__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,0fc24268d6629a55279229096707458ae759f7da54d6ac37dbc00e4df915bbe2,d12b9af1b9423654b1eb2f16e1378a37ca6a937e8d13c2fc970bdfa0560e6df8
+us__scenario_016__federal_refundable_credits,74c125d608580696a0127c7ed959c60eeb94c73e5124cd773124b191b308745f,753066bf7ef3c17ab8edb6d9371ac9031683926746432636369e9874feb389ee
+us__scenario_016__head_medicaid_eligible,34f8bfcf0c92652d3d292df745e1155d766e01eb782a35ed6599aa7362aad3a2,b87a14633b6c862b2fb1ec6a7294353d6528aff896cd47c55746bf27d893459d
+us__scenario_016__payroll_tax,a1a09a78f901c8a7ddd61c5e85d56187e7b9ef17e1ea31d093a8d7452d903c31,6de254b0730aaba0aeca8fe7055a17dd0d255c0897a658d03251fc983053d506
+us__scenario_018__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,d193ee25f708f63083948a196f8714ed4ab7f4e8c3dfb25eda4a44d08b847270,c49d2de7fd07902232c932b700476ba90f6ffb363d3259b1e75f652173bfe1c1
+us__scenario_018__payroll_tax,6a3ea93b3489138dd01b6be096119b9a3f0602c388f5b3d927ca33a356e96de5,dd07f311882f306f06fcec6cd99e9358edce470f5b1f41e470f9c071b53a2047
+us__scenario_018__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,d5f7f7e6ab5051bfdc5df27a613778e29adfa743d628b5734bdef3488a634e84,6a2f8b3a2424f0eecb3af8a0fa6fffe2947c3102d7f7317fb1d7e14b303f8b23
+us__scenario_020__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,c66d5f298d559217721c5ef0e6ff2ca2de7ac36fc965ac6883bce0b9dd6ac3a3,c7092bc27da860929a0f0455a2126c4847bd06c391c1eb045ccf7001dbd366e9
+us__scenario_020__payroll_tax,42305aea8b2a627ac7bd72ca02d57b6e4a254326a8e76437de6a823cd2c9072a,c6da3e96ac27220f4cbaff56a99a3fbe8a9d8ea9047ffd363f99fc2824fe1993
+us__scenario_020__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,6428e2ca34286ce588df84f3c842d5e27e9d214be9ecf690ddfeec7eaf97344f,dd784726d5743c8a7967fb027d6088c061f2389ce762e0ff493c967ee3aaf445
+us__scenario_021__head_medicaid_eligible,0489d1e0286f1a0810e20b940add7243f7330750ea8d85eeeddc6db301fb41ae,d340d4920b69e4f5ae8e4dbbf165e39677da72244115266110c91844236abcaf
+us__scenario_021__payroll_tax,e3ae3bede8198ce8a7d1360392a0835e22bf9283e8ef0a31e6c3ce7395c868bb,7ae9f9a54cea4a2f6d92063344bd6132c8d7feae82cedd64a14875b2ca0b1518
+us__scenario_021__snap,835e04d088d82c85644fdaf4b0324ccda77fd258e69759f3ca916570d6feefd6,981799807d4c70f1c827aa4f94292b61a3cf6f1d7a4142ea19557d9557aee098
+us__scenario_021__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,5916cd9b6ae77aa81185ad1717dd28bb20835e4c216482dc5a05a661581e9c0d,d117348f288ef0fe5daf6fdf3e0eb4f2b620a83dff20859874171a8c3c4f4674
+us__scenario_022__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,d917160d32ec93b1b41772c0498f2ff223502847182a3fd1722a7f7989bf640c,c366a35e8a1f99d51a8e22f249273fe740d7435e8e229eab84c2b08f9bb944e3
+us__scenario_022__head_medicaid_eligible,35a31d563430c21f8372ffa8490df7cf4d85bc4cbbad8175355aeefc62960bc4,c5beefb6218d89d0f2221698b4cdf2eb07f7237aa5204620eff8e71a43cd9e9b
+us__scenario_022__payroll_tax,51a931a63bf6ace76b5b298da7f9f36d0de01467938157010878d02db1564fa1,79c1c800f4a90afb7ef56eec2a7652555bf58ad864a4f5220fe148e67906941c
+us__scenario_022__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,cd51e3a9ced9160b57113512ca333b2a3bad9282accb5c44e0068b8d1ef1b1f0,a40c37ba95435ba68f430f985ba7cdcc3ed8cc245f0b6602cad6ea65284cb28f
+us__scenario_023__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,b3bd4ec26969ff08f17680e8646c0c29ef36643c7cce70f47d4bb54bb5269198,dcdc7532c293fa453722847cc1851c1a19ec7ff967469c0103e920ef49460b2b
+us__scenario_023__federal_refundable_credits,fd3a3004e6fc4808b6cda239581f0631439e72164c16b8e3655de63ba34c621d,8e9052d3617bfd55244b74954371185d36d30b8be607f8ce5e7a2d442af300da
+us__scenario_023__free_school_meals_eligible,28e17e05d39de7b8957cd7237eadab9663714555febee49423c59fc3acd48a48,ed682d23132b5d3cab55b174133edd278e9e69116ded256002ff75b0fe508bbf
+us__scenario_023__head_chip_eligible,7e5a7ae0577899811db282d1194d037bdcc6d1f3bfbc787d590df0977de38bbc,7e2ead8b1a61e568e5df9a5520e0cbfb554fe62d32db0e0548f5ebc4e0095edc
+us__scenario_023__head_medicaid_eligible,a72a9b766cda12777c479632d3eb9a1468827ebcf68448e8d1c71135d0e2425c,093f0ef1fef09de69ed548d7740a57b96d45bf40831c9dd4e7e64e5a08a50aa9
+us__scenario_023__head_medicare_eligible,327370c1f121b297f87d80f70a5c68b886989d329ac6e15e53089e57c29f56e6,fea3f5ab50a0314400d016ef46321a908942e85831e8f6ac53af10427e2202a5
+us__scenario_023__payroll_tax,0156f0840822f3cda8669e7ec36eed8c0521e09fd6f73bc8a3952d78a1faf355,c10c059695a6be74c242d67177ed57c3069503d409e8a503b812089b475c05ae
+us__scenario_023__snap,943e17174c274221d80ba3ecacbe35c74044b30aaa4ccf37d6e3a2f2fb85ff48,288d8c353ff407cebbc99abf8792e3999ccb336c4b68cf92e0465c0bf3be6852
+us__scenario_023__ssi,18155fe58781b257180794ae8d40ea3f566eda49c11ef9a9139128b21b6b0e61,c238e5f6f464eb241c29970e3ed89d9b5f0364be2889675d2365cd62e51d3c21
+us__scenario_023__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,0e9aa4d67a97df4a214281e5845296f21d9fd1e0d49f4ec009920b93682c4086,4dc5fb000f8a8b7a5ae097260c4d9599549a06c28592582f33e06358deae39de
+us__scenario_023__state_refundable_credits,d7dcae8cf02c6dd1e0dfbb78c2fb96f5184f654ef6eae46634132f6fca068a2b,3ace962a3003a42ab8384bacf6bf77c8884b8365061180b18a25e156a62ca289
+us__scenario_025__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,d9e73b237259924b17207bed8b112271109939e8def3b9543ff88eb71f24bc3b,e9368fc9ac5ba87f14cd81f4810c4ffdc7b89cb10b86564b20a39cfb72ba94d6
+us__scenario_025__head_medicare_eligible,0cf47f2696153fcb224785652ba40de7ae34723671fe6f6e45582e5b80cf3aa7,9614ddd0f70cd0a6f0a6a38561f78ad12d4e07e9f99e0b8039ba2a12dd1440d9
+us__scenario_025__payroll_tax,e745166fc15851cda53e9847d63a153aada489bd6281212505fabd8d8b8b8d77,c5f274c05ca37d4762a3c18d2e5233214b4b93f8b355480b94e7ea480e14ccc3
+us__scenario_025__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,c15b75de57c78a62241d33c0d6ec4a7a7bf4ec3b2fc2f886889a0c37de3c9638,3304c65c9bfdc090b614ea5fa21b6a79f50ecd43e52f33218febdb50aa39d980
+us__scenario_026__child1_chip_eligible,61624d00a6f374c5e4ab4411533191b0be374729ccc3588f011f733ac172c20e,07c907416362ff6b3844b9f1a27e7d24e7b3234982e0d1014d4d68dfca39c406
+us__scenario_026__child1_medicaid_eligible,801691bab40bd73ca111aff4ef47ea135d3741be53aa49375bcbdd543cd19267,15198c88804c64b5fb249aa05553bcece62137e1bedd5d3532a4881d36252749
+us__scenario_026__child2_chip_eligible,16a8827d04f3b31e2402671cc1f1d083168910f998c11b3372186a663f999d19,a7678031d55bb7f2bf139402c1151f1afb4adce191b7191de1a4df7ba7985c9e
+us__scenario_026__child2_medicaid_eligible,b3281fc63098e9b1001b81359d41160b9b28afe5cdfaba479434d8f7f2c53cbe,1e67e043e5e6dd0dc02aae7fe673b87811563947dc010d2d996a7e0b82403d9f
+us__scenario_026__child3_chip_eligible,4f5a3b1236a67a6675c7ab52fe4b27a847a94eb3fdaf03bd33ffad15e93420a3,145e9ab5c5be0e265479b0ccf2990184ed0731ffa4f290aa112b2b2322818896
+us__scenario_026__child3_medicaid_eligible,30c452f5fcdc5f5e32f6b1eb153749ba9745159f01fc40dee8ed867641c9b452,b732a5efb00d1bfe390cf3657a0ed1722760e1f29b05501bad18255d65f84700
+us__scenario_026__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2b36eae70a9ab4da2716dcdc3a22bb24a343bae2575978ebd672a95b695d0112,3081c5d9442dee3e8b955def7774ad41eb8ad6eca89debe383b2aed5d84d77fe
+us__scenario_026__federal_refundable_credits,72a866941752deda16f7716cccbff851aa69043eacc1ba3482b2eda1a2b18241,0909917a1acf03588bce7f63ee48ebf4addff61b9fe48fd093b6de6e4f529407
+us__scenario_026__free_school_meals_eligible,7c755197149b28e687495c92cef81b8f223082d332c904c632de508f68d22e71,8cde748d4d95ccffd6c193f669506e64d922dd48f907f07629001f555505f678
+us__scenario_026__payroll_tax,40a7045cc13f30876297c0f3a86c8f476c96f55c5c4131243fe42af54ed43149,29363ab09f913fa9f50a6d4dbe134cd4e2edd8d4f5a0b0ab13f85bbbab28c2e0
+us__scenario_026__reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,c56c708f436584e21e84cdb3b1043ff74a4184f34c68b9ca0024e6bd52d30a1a,e0a3d4d035ec7a4b5126ac804367ea8ebb66ab08381156cfaf2a9487ea0f593f
+us__scenario_026__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,8ee1149ac54b5b1783c49f25c2ed584eb180562fda74e603953ec8ee9e915738,b2ef19b475b64199fd794b96f7b14701520fdf032cadf505993127b04c17a882
+us__scenario_027__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,9817e0642225ae620461b92156c7076ef9e34471e6cdbc206ea52009af0a8435,db58c0cbad389a3c99a75ddb7c79ef84d846a0b8fe204c91255b722cebebc176
+us__scenario_027__head_medicaid_eligible,2e7c67fa66042ecb5b36c3232312a1c290ede91dfb39945e73b12b56dcee1e5d,e7c94316f511169fdaf10cabc0944af4ee5f5f7458eeff17a6fbf3bd26850065
+us__scenario_027__snap,771385ff216e9103ead6f9426980e2ee1b4ba0d7533454843bcd0726d947d1d0,0f03bcbd20fb82354aaafaa68d62c8df8e1e6d7e733ca7cca1a27ba266a3acc1
+us__scenario_027__spouse_medicaid_eligible,808a92359b1dfd1875c2e1810c3cddf0b6b1e45bba51c8aaddb2eface709ae5c,4d2e892083fda18b2988dadc997ac40ac7f86f69a3a02a34e55e19da49ec1aea
+us__scenario_027__spouse_medicare_eligible,2c1891cc3b9ce6592806b394125c16e3c792113360ea4f76e53f915ab0b1ae7f,e51cdbece42523623127b0d4e060891d12ac0b0f1e69e2f6b6893573492ca2ff
+us__scenario_028__child1_chip_eligible,50f8a30784d924b330782356ecf6a545918adfebe7c26368fcfb69a966b2ac24,76fb1d2fbf42022473baa74923030bbed8e998ac468477fbaf502d9c797cdd32
+us__scenario_028__child1_medicaid_eligible,6d46f58fb551089e1e69eadb0554bb373a26cfb45a9d162b313d0ef9d698cf53,46f8fb273c2e5a7121faa7cc6c7400e7bde1242ec6eb4d9cbb9da3589b7d2041
+us__scenario_028__child1_wic_eligible,e2b0b738fdd154b649d1b5980dc348ff4eabfc0d5b109e9daf9d684bf87b5215,329224ec25191668408cfd9575664dea9f80ab4af46b27e880d39ef7cda515f3
+us__scenario_028__child2_chip_eligible,f7f16fe0d177efabc4a6f71014e9eb5215521d974a37ec84c3b3eb0e94fa4931,93a750461570fe30dfe86e834cd07269e6531714fcf57580ed62eec8bd74e70c
+us__scenario_028__child2_medicaid_eligible,fa7bb7fd106751f713da0e507623ea8ee79a20709a013031a2f91ba1cd9015f7,99bae0ce53f2a4fb40095b51ee496bbe2d80c703eb2bdf57ce056c74f497043f
+us__scenario_028__child2_wic_eligible,09a3a7f761bed7a37c567b54ee4ceb4f00feb5bcebf268cae5f4a60d076c0c5a,a9f4f2e7d7bd97e90e850739c911d83596c705a2a0ff275946980389a7d071eb
+us__scenario_028__child3_chip_eligible,9680c066b3949302154b09c36b72eaa76d09cda283b79d6e4c6c48062098edb0,573d972c8d5cc1bc9e181e8a4f8456a3aa54f3e73f9e2bfc5a4afd7c25721c07
+us__scenario_028__child3_medicaid_eligible,9fa59b53f5be06fe828c3d8740721e7b0b4a6a5e85be5e420e12e2ca4d05b3f5,da114a927b181d2d5d2917db3d1c2bdfa3e34e8a97a4515ecf255a9c08a144d2
+us__scenario_028__child3_wic_eligible,420fc84607dad573fd38591ab7217a520c7081b6dcf5ac8055e921a3e464a9c3,1da539fbf580be5f1c443fcf9ec8699c3d7b707251b9632d398f4c9898ee2ae0
+us__scenario_028__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,9a5de242dd6c7bf8259c07aaab1c89c062a9354776c7240844a0b83abef923bb,e636232f8ccc9b3bda2be5bc1b0f1d424247db0b239a02bfe1c407b74e980149
+us__scenario_028__federal_refundable_credits,37db277c2da0e690b41a5a22133befd2ffdbd2945f573b7250e4a0217f1b4697,4490ad7f10ad92a3733d6db9a9f58640401de32f87176c72046f8866acedaa5d
+us__scenario_028__payroll_tax,50e43cbb3711731d858f6f929c1b37d701de64edd47aa183e6574e16edbf8371,09c1dd3371add125f78ef9586396b5b6bcb45120cc27d3d182d1a9f291182f65
+us__scenario_028__reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,4c69cabf3d14a66d5904a0bd3ec08f4a4357569559d13943d7be050718cd2a89,f20465304f63c88ce64d3f446732b1eb1007efa991fa3333086e13a42e09038d
+us__scenario_028__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,967b05135d442fbb84bba54cd1c30acdd5f5942525f9c8f4c78b79d3d4ab1901,4080dcb2782f207dbd5b93bc39f4aba03142ed9c22c9480c1a134941c3a1583e
+us__scenario_028__state_refundable_credits,29650715a88350a649e257b3233bb7372d785860da01a396953ac96681582d23,d7b094f3ee6f294402d5809b2ebe426b8430caed484b903a198afeb50b579a42
+us__scenario_029__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,1f08c254ddea02aee96773f0748ec7f6feadd8392023c2969b58da5300136503,d82f764c3c2ea4ac352b0005b98def82fc050ba5ed00b271dffebcfd163c2b9d
+us__scenario_029__head_medicaid_eligible,425282aaef2058fd92b24d6002a29dd7ee40cf66f7fbcfa0f2449979b42fca15,13274b58aa487ed686c5539598e2733f0412f27a4b45bda02556ecafb8f3af82
+us__scenario_029__payroll_tax,7d9121c1eceb105fe8b84d4e37f679bf79588c26caf5883e0ad874346bc70104,41fbde72fbf3451e040beb627c841360f5d8162890827f2bc263f7c10a130c3c
+us__scenario_029__snap,094f6578b1a61a88a638c8f79cfc0e728376a2887c0dcb1c765c7949feb89e1e,3b61c72afb3c066cd65360378d23594967b39d799bb8bbefef60fcf3a486e568
+us__scenario_029__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,fb9fb74ec04b344c173d0a6d3379ea4c755b98276afec70a306bc2e679d9ef4d,c09d8ffbab567b7ced18ee17d2dd5ede24168af7bd0329ecf1e4610175787d20
+us__scenario_029__state_refundable_credits,5bebd72b4651882fb745aedcd29ea69e458c53c036dded8182b2bfeb604915d9,d744411297b852a63a0788ae0fce6f7fcf9f58bdd1e5749973a3081f3aa581d3
+us__scenario_030__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,d1adeadd8022d2178d52801d265c4694e1db01eb310abedcd35ee5ffda8ed14e,c02b8fb860b1d77992d687b09041c0bb3b27f69a6c533a05ca952f055651a11e
+us__scenario_030__federal_refundable_credits,57f61618e950470c1bf3f02f2ef7783d63f3407420223b6e400666257488adcf,8d9890d58f1002307af01c5417c7782021d840e477d0970642ffd776bc66e65c
+us__scenario_030__head_chip_eligible,d16e5feb5fa75542196c3d0bb16efc8812b4c1acfca92e45a0249e2353dcb393,1b466d914250e38efdd7da8d464c353025eace78d75e58440e230b268f7bd781
+us__scenario_030__head_medicaid_eligible,bc56bfa6975337ccf8120ccf0a1c249e8f89a582c239c513d3ca298249aa7c86,1463b28767dd41d43f4891c49be6b7621eafe4d2c07e025d5343987e28a281d7
+us__scenario_030__head_wic_eligible,14cb1029cd2ce2d5aa69ff7505367972ec63e395a1f1890663a8e320bb540d81,90bef848418206359576f3201edc9b39e4ef763fa3334762ece5757d2f6e4c0b
+us__scenario_030__payroll_tax,9c2735bb834a6858cd4b17440a48c9012b04cd50f1b89162a6219a8d2658b086,ad985121c6ae0ea09931a7f8a60593d0e9f1e164e787019973e63e03669bb08f
+us__scenario_030__snap,f6e9bbda074148c60420324414a08b3644f22b0fdf994c5f15e7b70db42906cb,0e5986968798f51278d5d088df28f161267238ce59e7e25c46ec7a051d20a186
+us__scenario_030__tanf,fffc09d7657841ad6f1841b8c1720097020d7083b948eb9c8195413a1049f563,44812c88732db5b044421fca8bd9656d514d68381abb2eb0e2e511b6093c0591
+us__scenario_031__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,819c34040c100bb9e43c8fd19dd3dbdfe8743863f39cf0306254c3710782a023,fd09daa78d449c1d07b0e97ebba123b7a30908b070311bda9523c736a272ee9e
+us__scenario_031__head_medicaid_eligible,9b251a06a814ace57a6d5222e7411e1de1edf69b0a6e4421c2b52585353a8705,1afd2037466c0c53e37ba49f28e9ac75cb07636490ec387134d3f6cda6155d4b
+us__scenario_031__snap,85c386606550649357eaa46008fd65efb08112f951ba98d3ad9e015b4595d103,e0c8e68d739dc227dacc6c3051e6a167438374f2633c05d548d4d2d852c72d3c
+us__scenario_031__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,51b74fe0c64842577a891273b3d025e8d84e253e0678dd7f08733a4341bc976d,4d02402567c86e270bc6cbf1cef3fa5e1ea7c8ad77a76c401bd9f252994a91fd
+us__scenario_032__child1_chip_eligible,5c14e66cefef3f6899746e2086bffda086d13977f6323f0f092f5204b24a3704,3b70a6b84dbc7a2a4e4ce03aef678af39664298ed35043130d8b632c58e0d927
+us__scenario_032__child1_head_start_eligible,d0693813aa4587fee63f6a5f0a86ccd7c7c9896ba67e720ac179503a7b85d3ab,0ce86babafa6a95898b1bd421b6192323efc8b875af4894401eb31eed30c2a6c
+us__scenario_032__child1_medicaid_eligible,a74733aed6b43492d152961fe2904aeef9fc38af34bb7b8bec5a6b8b7c339915,ac20666aaf2c33d4dcf072ee5fe9c312b032f76158aff8620b09762c07a8cc4d
+us__scenario_032__child1_medicare_eligible,c22019abadd0cb5caf269da903768c4638e5dae7ab960295d6f10390973e46e4,5d3f8a17bccb2dc1081f32f8c9fa073d861706d17f0b8452b6e91ecdc64e06e9
+us__scenario_032__child1_wic_eligible,e3483185e388f5b5bb16af71b189fa562126761ff6305cc4191c5da306ed1190,5a9f0c9a3160a6841b40baca3ff92e059c3df415ca722c52beeed68ea33a1dcd
+us__scenario_032__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,22ec163d64a9f3aaaa77fadcde8592cf7410b2cb8ca0b41667ac11d929d71949,5d0402c111321e64e389cf23362a2c19e26c3d5178cc77d2f9f7da2c10f0c33e
+us__scenario_032__federal_refundable_credits,55b1f8b636d00a972ee4ed7e8e50a4adfa50b8f7b82eed95ad898c83b374100f,2f5ed69a659d04e072754d08b5de6f81be7423cc3908a5f394f93372bfe1f637
+us__scenario_032__free_school_meals_eligible,0d959e0a08edaf3e675be139c880a9726be759d8fe14462796c14edae1299a37,199740f205fb0fad84fe9845104a64a3ca4608149a4a302fddc46d49e36560d6
+us__scenario_032__head_medicaid_eligible,cebd630f7b808c1b6f042881ab20d2adc859a5e28b2c724c6891b9b5032c5ffc,916c3b75b34044488bdc49df8f38d7b2b04a4aaa3fe056d2207e57ecd5ac6cac
+us__scenario_032__head_wic_eligible,149fb9de84050071b2b2a1d6057e66ef6b4d475c623b4128cadb26111a5ee512,01482406a486e823f19f8bea2bc62200ef8bbf3af2289f1c308fd3f6cd15e795
+us__scenario_032__payroll_tax,e9d7239810a21e92e6589fdf703b3c39d7dba4e21f744d6b615e358189681052,6a5f47884b55fdeacf6bbdc983a66c4b9c43f917f592e991d476ed75b6b1205d
+us__scenario_032__reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,4ef090569be8f73409a6ca6ccad63ab3a129a56de023a1383a8b50f9b7718ab1,79a14fff467e423712a0b47d2df332fc2e0a0a8671fba77006649628f223d21e
+us__scenario_032__snap,5f2ef8a4eb8fe3eee12e1bbe5530b767d51c04e0afc9f030ba962a67f3414e8c,f455c5f34030ed330632516ff5fdc41cfd09d0207c2ee92b971217caa5924590
+us__scenario_032__spouse_chip_eligible,abd4decc8dd5e0255658590c6f58de80d8158845961e2b955797ea69ff077721,531600fd17e2aed79c421c6a66e381983113078c17418dedfcae5ab2f9500e5b
+us__scenario_032__spouse_medicaid_eligible,082628f87e0ffee1293496fbe2bf19a82ed6840bcafa9f0e997f761e243fb817,935ac1049c972dea3bbbcd8569074b935d45419337516f35b9d07edf88abb605
+us__scenario_032__spouse_wic_eligible,4525707f1622925908a5965a705b916bfbc11621159f00d27bb31306ea43ddcd,1fe71fdecdb36728746993cd362e22470b474fa18db8b82c01086d6a136befe0
+us__scenario_032__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,989e22da5d9a64d354a1e002e8c0098942b9f698221da16e1d14f30f50411339,05d6027cf5bda1af1f65d5be53f09188c4a14c74658d27b980c46af46d4a5f03
+us__scenario_032__state_refundable_credits,4b5f6aa72965232a8aa3babc02afeee66d58464c8a1c98b53bcc43e4ea934250,fefd2734243642eff561128733c7ba101b34993a5bc4b91eb636672e185365b9
+us__scenario_033__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,d5dcf9d78866c9b78b87b9e38c76cc41476ecaa1e2479b9eedff46e2fee0ea75,6337684e8c8766368358f1f37b49ba71a0915cf10b9b3183b60bf5882fc8be0c
+us__scenario_033__payroll_tax,c9aa4c2d6fcb1c429d724297793a2a5fb209b50cca76c22b9f5d7bc408cda0bd,5598d0c0d0f73374a2a854fa23c96e58fc36ab3b6c6d1133c3d5028ff15b50ef
+us__scenario_033__self_employment_tax,4ef0f946d4cacf90e1ec2ce6e320106fa25505c7888647178b11772ebba4cff0,c3a6d369dc2ee778f0ddaf3347abcda4fd97b6b67bc38f6a389de2dd9459c5ed
+us__scenario_036__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,7cd004228b817096a33695fc28eaa57477de52645b9c7af64ad1281aee443006,2b2d66e6d6cb64669b06ec973a6317145e617fb413add881491baa38c21565e0
+us__scenario_036__head_medicaid_eligible,e39b2db67aee20fed42c4d7c3892adffae0ce958931ccfb352d161e1c12f3129,4725f5b400463224b7bb95e59f46ffa390fd1aef49fc61567b7340663d72c08c
+us__scenario_036__payroll_tax,11cbc8cf6911b85ef615e214170e417f47d2eea81498bbc7d15439de6c8a2c52,1c8845157fc48a774b09a022e8f09cf93403ba5a62e87f9a6c068d3374019243
+us__scenario_036__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,b4669f4e7fbaa1a171be1417d44a20068072ce773ed01ccf0e75de419b0ab295,5ebb143c167a810fc6c9ef8c104fd14211917bc05b4268d13fc9ef45baf1b35f
+us__scenario_037__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,34b95bae28bcc8829cd1cc183210c49c2076006722dc47a774f83deb78ff5dfd,65172a29c6d7e5dbc7765632afa4fefe6ec5d5d3a8191c6be8d2b8f53768d9aa
+us__scenario_037__federal_refundable_credits,1cdaf4d05fea8cca4227be65912a106921bf9aa19cdc3ccab6636ee1428fd089,3dcd4902d9e873ac3b22fe3cca0cad8c2a5c2c66a9c58e6c641a3c98f2f6a178
+us__scenario_037__head_medicaid_eligible,9dee63f6548a1da2aef8b2dbede00a813c136e6f217230f2e78a871716f94d89,9c93dedda1f19c53a46ba9c8c49aef99255f98165bf87cc6c4088c6f72c1427b
+us__scenario_037__payroll_tax,794845071e5569220fe34637c8d32b60e72a547a755adcfab63277f96dc1ec2e,06792bb759b9e082788825aab174be85f3a4ad49d16a83a2fbd915e52ffa3bd0
+us__scenario_037__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,f8a5aeb255a33c077e71cc735833b1944ae1d4a7b5d95d645fb95d9294c2d208,54b9e7cc8feb488238c99d13b0bdce37be112e9dc9c5520b11caca1b8d40abdf
+us__scenario_038__child1_chip_eligible,e1925f16f7e0f00d7d6ce5df76e316cd6132c22d9d6a72190cfe69688211dc89,ca207c7a8003b639fdaef9d7f5a9544995e698fa44281e84af7e2155cc22e2bc
+us__scenario_038__child1_head_start_eligible,4680754501a9295699acac70c8e2ba4d19b49e5e6ef9a6037494316e144f238c,94fc0d1d9f2ff635e9828b985e2b42257b9ff1705e4492a960ad77aaa9b13672
+us__scenario_038__child1_medicaid_eligible,a0fb7cab630a01a8802977ec0ca2833b2ac81dff313c3423c23f1dbbc36abc03,e1881b7c2399a917f552c4f68bb915d42d0bd605793ecbd0e0ff15af911ca492
+us__scenario_038__child1_wic_eligible,47019b4b8f2d5906ce077cd3814afabc7eac7ebf6802fa29fa20ea701a427f3c,9dfa7ccb8ec1ed65d40ef4a0f78c3cfd4f8e9eee5c8ea345f072ebac8d0e1055
+us__scenario_038__child2_chip_eligible,19b2f317f8aae78a6082166170b20059be8a377b88d9a20c410e0383fe398b5a,b1ece33f65e3c872c1daf8d39d864fdf9d3c312f9d45b26da86449cf10aea184
+us__scenario_038__child2_head_start_eligible,bd9f2415f944741d6d17f7996c266a4b981329af0a03e80f646bdbe3f656ed61,2f20dc7270a97f493343287bdde878e4f4d79599308a62740dd76aca7ea9d48f
+us__scenario_038__child2_medicaid_eligible,5e50d924df8cfacaa48b506b2647eef3cdda67affbac39115f4e218e6462adb7,bac9e1a1215239ac920601f8afe636dbf7f2f9ccd97886b2b8782b66acc80150
+us__scenario_038__child2_wic_eligible,f51f3cc2a3a957055cdff2ffc37e0134c94eebf4ce7c341afcd3b25c509e054c,18eb10faf6d3616c639deec21e8248d6d7ba5b43c8c1d67158e25f5f3f668eff
+us__scenario_038__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,f2898a25fc1d100cde86b30d04c5fd492953e55fcb60eb1a11342917a6e8b7d8,9c27f05cabd6370d201ecd98a538d4140ab5c592a569964b9056b9fbff30d9a0
+us__scenario_038__federal_refundable_credits,8d40919d1d03b42bb6ec5a5f0f6c1e6663db8818d7930cfd62b11c9519672c9d,a6ed9d50961b77ab67ba80c84ac2ce957c2ee2b4b9362ab7c47eb69f2e1b8c0a
+us__scenario_038__free_school_meals_eligible,e741e90cfb79dc6be87dd576c5479651f3e328374b04e6e1504319b8d59c2871,519f655a6343dab038ddbac5deeae53ced931f7c52b56274aa002e94e9b07b0f
+us__scenario_038__head_medicaid_eligible,04b06b5787ccbd8b67b38d9731e78bb56302bd7659c0332d8b8d754ac8a0d4f8,0f9133393401e180cb8ed18309472ca6075dd20f575f006a54f89b7e6aa247df
+us__scenario_038__head_wic_eligible,b36b1d98223d742f75c7429ef91c7b8bdc0830d30e2b23a475b8348bf7439011,ba0f763475147eec949cac234b0075cd796ffa3de5ba9526fd735fc967b77448
+us__scenario_038__payroll_tax,41a36ad7edafe1305d2f6e400d68c37d02ef575de524585953741c19f825bd1a,964767e8eb52b0ca25e7baa56a9366b087ade120fb6e98fa1611f988a1d7a751
+us__scenario_038__reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,d7c8234536ba690ecb2bbb98c6d43fdd6d98c449e4a3b5e64e82049f5678c92b,b3339fc4f1c4ae9c12e31ae368f1c163395cc574646ccd92f5b449e68d3a577a
+us__scenario_038__self_employment_tax,e0effbfa9c71fffc7b672bf908206adea97d94bb4ae8636efc1e22ab3f6d4e73,272e45fa5dd4044c8c105defea5f4521461d6af8199eb9105d8c1810d3a82bc8
+us__scenario_038__snap,2daa56c27d61f7728ec4373fa4004afc3340634a9f3cb393f72385fa29a16ad4,5f3464bd0438ede1b56de4ac85fd4bcba919d2e9c836fe8464041e8385f5a363
+us__scenario_038__spouse_chip_eligible,6d1c5ca1572b421a39f1c5f2bb5a5b30a1dccbdd125e5324cd98aa18438eca7a,7fecd6364b45019bbb174d6bab9c8d7275648455f69e46f2c9bc471ad0700a8d
+us__scenario_038__spouse_medicaid_eligible,82e888d5a679a410c60fc568c94bcd74652ea758703e4ea56debb6ea2171f67f,aa2789f5f8884ea945895b166aef41802f0cd5315a2e6b624868b3c73b2c2dc9
+us__scenario_038__spouse_wic_eligible,f77125d8b776513c4ae41e8492e5396411ed7ce0107882c107de765dfe1c71b8,d096f6ba749f5266c735fcc1f6d875dcff025e7a6af86a30ffb853ead5009f23
+us__scenario_038__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,49a9c2a7f26080a42cbdb384402a5f86ba4c2217499b06d0b150749c56bc736e,a1b13c01246a2e19d4595269d8c667ef1ebeab01fa7856946498835013346e80
+us__scenario_038__state_refundable_credits,d8b08627b83099c2d3c9e5012abe3c100af07161c4d2e254ffe9157da620541e,545cb84c20ffb1bf7a0d205d77f00f533781801670ae337ae580643ea09b1bde
+us__scenario_039__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,91056adf52e6a7fbc994dd1d0f0f9ca0db9c2d9d0fcf11b05b365d93205df487,eccc9b71762cf4c9edfc4cd7c618b5dd0f544d7d4c7a8a69e9a9799b133cc860
+us__scenario_039__head_medicaid_eligible,0ba5e6c2ac7901139bb50233de7b47528377eac1a26b19a36b035ce6dad1c782,a80165745287307440e6bb2b173dc8dfedaa0c99852b2b6418a9d377cc77877a
+us__scenario_039__head_medicare_eligible,ebb802b330c78600500d62e4a6d7d1ba0d56323c5dba5c52a80f076f341d9a20,a06d875a4465d0eef26e9c1cc1f8c31411c0213f3ac4cf16b0488f95314fb1dd
+us__scenario_039__payroll_tax,754dcfd7934899568d3f5a36bcc16455f391f704edbef9221da71be0d6c7f3f7,076258cd4169dcad780515e462c6bf2f95945ee23c587f8937813aaa8e68e09c
+us__scenario_039__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,4399a4829d7e48aa4555a4e625ac028f63bf2af74207495cc760bbdf3cff2586,5d837e7ecfeebc50c80bbb4af3bd2771e7a8d2fd073c8c1ad16f0cee24618470
+us__scenario_040__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,3f672d71c4ee36a64503c28943bbf8241d48698219981a65c99cfbee03b7c5aa,a5ff6471b366f730d62a442214379373964d25390ca21784e79cd82e2234fd12
+us__scenario_040__head_medicaid_eligible,36f71562790ddb5e7fe49883aeaab41245d92b1a023bda582aed544727fbe383,631f4f7cbea809810139f9de12bf5f4c3827963accc309cfaa0bbe9040332acf
+us__scenario_040__payroll_tax,1fed60f4dbe4e65da843db4b0bdb738697d29ee8a839e758bf0746b12b05f140,13093a99dfbc9ff0c9edcdaca52ecd6e74ee88e7f2472e1c65a45bb1c2d46775
+us__scenario_040__snap,5475c73155e3f6a912436a1fa2e06479725006da6f96de2b7b7e9c16db95c417,4e5ceb875f7b99bbf1e5222e67793919789490d5953930572f5fd1731554e7c3
+us__scenario_040__spouse_medicaid_eligible,679d096fcf26e8174f6ceb7414d5a547aa6ab2dd2c9bc7c3612c3654b2573417,0ab3d78dc2fff266c44f24738f400dd76fd110b5c2de5be0b49465d435a1f888
+us__scenario_040__spouse_medicare_eligible,3727bf190e86ecf635349b9bc4a8aa0a40578256aee6f2e4f22365abecbae464,1e6fdb7aff3bd6bee9af83655aaea163be4142ae063fb42bec30fbd283c04cfb
+us__scenario_040__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,3aaffb2fa7c401919c52a7b99274443023dd680128f04d71f02ac961792e5960,1fbec781f81396fc6bdc866abe0c1dad865ded5cbf82e37f647988bc421b48d7
+us__scenario_040__state_refundable_credits,4c204814eb3dcdfe0106056fe29502b5cb1e7b1b6f02fbbcc4fe45876eb91ac6,55ad15c86b01c75b543c0e855b174477801ab2922a1f1af1163a9cbab7a1c991
+us__scenario_042__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,fbd2ae817830d47a9ea5c659e95283cfe4a12c1f6da00fb7aafaedd7d8ccc74d,9a9b03761b1f9ee247636762e2bda8a8959f929359e6cd6b65a7f5b7bda2a394
+us__scenario_042__payroll_tax,9f75e99227eab776a2637597c8ee73180586c94b24685c374ae42f11f2d85ed6,d830248982203453fd8aaa5af5bce90e8bc968e0f688b7eec37af83dfc211015
+us__scenario_042__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,65601b0314b3f8d3198db90e6d9b8dd80ac010b4e71de21b8d7898a9b66f964c,ca54a6b2b46c83fbcf9cdbe419fd81e6862d64140f78aaf36e4dbc45473ac858
+us__scenario_042__state_refundable_credits,62d14d3fc72f3b01dfdd520e2ee8ef32a6f25d5709585a976b3112cecf45cf6c,ba18c56640dfd549e76139605da2191d1a898b4f206df529506773b004cd548c
+us__scenario_043__federal_refundable_credits,f28af07658f67f40423abac96b08c60a486ea8f6ce0eae0f58760ef6fe97ddb9,d9d1527e1797ba8cd94d148932bdc59352649e17a5521f34d240db5e69a2e93c
+us__scenario_043__head_medicaid_eligible,e1ccc99d8a8cdac22f6bbbdfe1cc4576fcb80ed7c1dffbfd4b1ebfbfebbe073f,7b68064124c7e670231a88f2a2bb80c773c443f4e42c9209b74fc3577f1a2788
+us__scenario_043__payroll_tax,20880542a485c03ab864cabc8c6f911edbec932509d46f3f0d3576a877ded70d,7a0dda0e9550e268300a5d61435749293eb7e02a7292b1656c7cb28b0efa7340
+us__scenario_043__snap,3a7435cd12a0c06608f916f999f18caa38b75193e97cd28f540bf5e1e33ffdd9,adc8d2a7f27c6c5fb773f5beb555d14dbad7bf7c86a8befdb37ca024ae74ade5
+us__scenario_043__ssi,3f2fb2e727eb13cb3dd6329b0cc4f1e9d1fb0e6e941a37be95f4dd26ef98015c,6eb8e40d43ed869b65016f02f060870333528d5a4a440d0ec199f405e2438e77
+us__scenario_043__state_refundable_credits,5c453100bf56dbb03a7662fb321ddfbf2ceaaf4e1b1d12b77840c5ea3731774d,e06651bfa881e21214841a6e66a01ab869c72e2edf245d51613e28ed9a236996
+us__scenario_044__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,83c4fdee16e08f063240f90069b0c36b1941bc538f3197869cb0ac4010be2a32,1ad9cf7ce57e2e67729195a6061dac993c28b7da063f7c73fdb21219307a0a69
+us__scenario_044__payroll_tax,adeacc729ca9a98af1b6b4d238c66b8197c435ad37cbc852d374f7577359e6d1,519822c2d72101c61ddadaa2e362a77e396c2614a2e7cf4dfc45885b6154343a
+us__scenario_044__spouse_medicare_eligible,327e24a5a80ae7a43a36ab7e0b5d45a0db4b687d96855e3423dbcc032c290c47,6c79e76ee912dc80f51a343cdc636f6637935304584e8747012a52bb5ac6d35e
+us__scenario_044__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,4a0b0d92a574ff8b6420904f60cb9cb2b6e3c275459d94b7350837ab2c38f27d,38a30ebdd7cf229e4e9cf7ba2e7e9401ae546ee4fc18ba127c62ebe91f03796c
+us__scenario_044__state_refundable_credits,1d5b7992aaf84ffa48fb15346233f2510c7b300d4feb2bd033e323d2fe331215,153e9e572bd287d680ad073d03707f9eaf8b609bdea363ae0613edaa0d1b7ae4
+us__scenario_045__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,c9a335e6710514f6914b76f0a18f9ef0852dd5e60175516bdfb1141219761950,c42e06789c733ac8c469875e79ab4e01bd326c709157db02f50730aa0b9fc638
+us__scenario_045__federal_refundable_credits,13546ea920e4a4cf6b9c4968bf1c96122e78675bab5de11cb21b0c8719fc7c18,120817a62c28915719bb23dc4b3dcb6eab05ef11398fc2001b6df00182b46d65
+us__scenario_045__head_medicaid_eligible,6abf1498f4b6157c34f1a080d8bc781c053f3a2eda99a386f129864de26dfe9d,d76318a7a85f55f8ef1fe56dc4ff16276c47675acfe70fbad48cb6066a67114a
+us__scenario_045__payroll_tax,721ad7334fe5f9a80a965997b81e9927953f095ca9fd0fa1ba16455e8b142e84,cf2d7c881b5bd95fe6c7ab897f9bd8eefcf6d5c19f4b51bfc1c66a11688d2b21
+us__scenario_045__snap,269399c8edeba5aad88437966e1ddede28d37460cfc1888947febe053c8ccba9,4753cadb243c49ab2b7fad0d81985753305e040a423fe768ac0934b2982c742c
+us__scenario_045__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,b5d9522ee1a17e0d8c1ba839b4421b1013d4f29ceb7a161bb518e94b0c0630c2,6c59658bd698bbce4c3d8e684a0f4916eaf88d0659f1da3887f8497d99de7959
+us__scenario_045__state_refundable_credits,ffdc7bdd2380939d094d2e6fafdf1e1e3ca98470c981406be2ae7641d3832aff,579773411abfbe7ed0d36c36a8b32e8a0c6d5b011e5d2149639fdff0a0061153
+us__scenario_046__child1_chip_eligible,8ff89b3d57248ea77c5a07f8663ba37dfa3a42d33108f6d723d07991b69d52db,00a659cd188d3cfcfe57724417b48d020a2c501b7db935da822a790fa45ad8b0
+us__scenario_046__child1_medicaid_eligible,6e2400d102ad8a21791349117e82e0015f27da5e5ef9db010e4e4d9791b4cb3c,5e66e6c3456e42b97dbdaee66c0b31cc008f24eb9482aef8bec2d381db24b0e9
+us__scenario_046__child2_chip_eligible,cc7a7faedfff2ff24e739d9f42a0f73729fb23a043bc4253ae3502bf455f4541,a0978af88b17f0d2d5ea14929ea6fd2122fd1cd3f4a1ef2925fee7a5f5d57994
+us__scenario_046__child2_medicaid_eligible,632e3a92212e2e4a7ab0c31ba2fb09457805de753d7f6440508da00ba6d80011,d283b472cf9db20e924b4e9c096904e1f21415439992f817528fc6b59e9c379e
+us__scenario_046__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,1894c39fa2abba670e74a53c638f13fd607050b342acaca420c06c3e1ae0c634,2f77b996e635963e0ae6d230e27ccb090bba445e7909c39edcc9da3526752059
+us__scenario_046__federal_refundable_credits,522ab6d7784b46476362327048f87ed64145f4c840d9c64616303ce9014b06c7,7b8d903134a9966d7dfdd8803256224030620b63744f2c30b4dd0f4da1e3f490
+us__scenario_046__payroll_tax,1e60d329f42a14c9c655c42f96c11ee11b7a2dc70d6f1f0fc6e34c8a7d2edef9,fff22ccf33680808bd5beda05a5caae3e8548dd0d886a282539998f7009d7932
+us__scenario_046__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,249d1e3c85cb336d44603e64733435b0a7965086cbb9880a97059f787a6eaadb,9abe9140cb832da36ab08c7aa6bf8a9e692b65c1ea9e69a018d15745d33a2c9d
+us__scenario_048__head_medicaid_eligible,af465bb558082e0762f364dc5ecb6e1078dc2d557900287625d73e148ee36773,d713f6a918118bea7d8db980d5d68170f53e3dbd891a4f4cb74c6e871e20c2e0
+us__scenario_048__head_medicare_eligible,1808e6d7862c7bf5cb34277d5ba9b52806f952d38672a674db04916198f7acca,28260c0de1c264e251b4576866a099d027eece45892cc40e0762bebf17fd4a42
+us__scenario_048__payroll_tax,99e4b79bbe41a7b315d325a46abc69ba9498be3a57979d75f54fcafed8eca589,861d1399c9402c0eec443278d01c077f1a957b64ebc580b9831ad82513c21392
+us__scenario_048__snap,1b55c8442a76c3dbbdf04129ce0247c265a73e1d7533a417fb082c4e7208378a,fa56edf7537532b4a8f2feb5b023066633921ad3d831ca39ffd362b9b3e58e8b
+us__scenario_048__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,6b35fe6a04e8d1f85c3f85634977b1ad63ba701f23a118459656bf1ed4de99cb,1b7f8f71e11e12cfbcce38e1c085489dce9f98eda8892e85dc3188f2fa13b581
+us__scenario_049__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,1f83c176771719c7edb62119c48cdae7a57277ec148b5837665ecfb05bf32bdb,372eb399efa4193df9dbba927989da94a1009e37ec28913ab6390d5207504ebc
+us__scenario_049__head_medicare_eligible,508a5aade6a873bc35ba9fd69f2459eb4de25e5014864cd1599e87b2131e08db,14574d1382c0d1236a4a507153300b4241958d91c0807e6ed6bea507cc5d1a82
+us__scenario_049__payroll_tax,257ee15095736141722b2591f7e2cae9bcc7b90df031df33835aa2eb2a6111f6,4495b756007bbeab929a1bc54d9d6309ca0608426b012bee0c98836fb510aee3
+us__scenario_049__spouse_medicare_eligible,5f2683eb144a866907725559634fc32bdef2dce3f8edc03b49e30a3442390fd8,a0b3db99aebc9aa0a46a192d8a414b15f6e134bf77efec7995267ba8e940afb7
+us__scenario_049__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,d0b334d42c5224a0836a87e42e8c74009fba48689e78bedbbb9de1aa532cead3,57c95a2b4ee4823d60e17f31d5c45b71c2f2ed2ca2d82f3f4de6124998f587a8
+us__scenario_051__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,c4fed4afb2b4cf923b3f9826cd398c054eb7f4b8896c703409e1160aefa96628,b2656415c357e4e6e6cf8678285ffc0ee7e29d990d2f205397fd708963304677
+us__scenario_051__federal_refundable_credits,6e6bc4e61c06b828850b4d0dfa5489c47c5486bdd1496c350a9c1ca6eb430116,ad7a510e71955355b19f8a00ccbe064d642c767b2cb5853f638c2f1108562e4c
+us__scenario_051__head_medicaid_eligible,0586fb51dce2e1ed38e98e3c028de7d7bb759db9dee6c082f0d4d7a62b438b2d,4256be67fb88ced26e6fe68b169c1e1a553f3ec35e90dc5ec5e020c17cea7354
+us__scenario_051__payroll_tax,8b3810f6ea11cd7dd4221809c58cbf4b2cc3c42305eb315380a3995f285ea209,52c20d04d1d7cbf60ee335ad28822e6fe7c5e9d1fd1b7cc33af2205c6da5729b
+us__scenario_051__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,53a4c878918a860b9287776e73bb2c4d8b166b277a5451b3bfd3c279ddfb2b60,907a7427fc498f96ade30425eae3911a620ceaad8b1c1e47e6c02180ae4eff13
+us__scenario_052__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,3b43eea3917285483e1afebb40e8d5f5868e5a1192bbd8df318da59d9c5353d6,bc6062eccd149a4469b6568a975f8d82e70a10f758fc539db32ce9d27d78f579
+us__scenario_052__head_medicare_eligible,164e17b4745fa0ef4e25039a0ef8068732ae3a546dcec246c84a61cfdcb805a2,af58ec2c96a3a746b0ad4c6eb8e1eea22489c2a579459b5bdedc9d9f0d33c51a
+us__scenario_052__payroll_tax,6f9f6dfc1bf65ab3059a55e3c021bc97d612452d5ca41ba98f5edbc009fffca6,ea24754abe4dc3a73d69bef03ead75d9a392e52b0b2dd1514ecdd8cbaf7b8b81
+us__scenario_052__spouse_medicare_eligible,c12f7c907b26eac5511570a2cc0a6cd9b2f0f932296d848ee2cf68d4ace562ab,f3ddd1bcf7f2506f75121b24b4cd69805bedf69457e3c44e019602e8cdea1a3a
+us__scenario_053__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,a26a5fbe01780cef109283d7059eb86af9bb38cb1ca5e651a71dfbf625c30b2f,96494906cfe13771cb0a1df864a75329b62f690386b77f11114c49474840c55a
+us__scenario_053__federal_refundable_credits,ffede74685464280f003d47044a5f15147bd05f69c22e68ec99884f9d0f50c1f,15b94adadeaba3a4b146f4bc23a477f06389d1ff11e121d55988f5bc68c58b07
+us__scenario_053__payroll_tax,fc7bd38198ce59065233a244527aac93996100d5086cfabbc0fbe3da3be52a30,84918d4565f6b4220ad0826a53567cc64bd17f0d5a230e0076502ddcd8763a60
+us__scenario_053__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,06693332d2eec9e1b2faf30f87bffc27ceb19d543e23a3ca65073e7fbf608c68,33483458483000b4f5a184e2c0d1085ef230b1679ae31d9981357995429e3381
+us__scenario_053__state_refundable_credits,c3cc8ddb05d966f9c7889b87b924a9f9cdde79851f5e1914ccc8094db4b3dc7b,d192a2e31d79be9970d9a776680b3836de779248dc04ab410cf66cd6083d99ec
+us__scenario_054__child1_chip_eligible,e910c6e99a7c2b82e93f415f33fa07f1b72493756e0d177a06d11fe1d0711709,99f36d276b92f49d6638f422500ed312ca85a1bd09334cbb7f6ca5c860a29725
+us__scenario_054__child1_medicaid_eligible,755ce7ce7b429ebecb898e41db45889a81e3fb532a488ae436543a438760ca64,780d9c63ac2430244647c0a3cf8b0e2e139686b2bd49b642032d3be324242914
+us__scenario_054__child1_wic_eligible,ebf420a222a27cf59b7d6378d04dd6e26f220d9d6ddcccd70d769784c844d633,59c6a581add091a9d9c395526ccf381352213cad6bbcfea5627009b0261c2a5b
+us__scenario_054__child2_chip_eligible,4e56930e77963c77c11b1dcde0db4f7c0aa6b1a720b0c4e35df3c327a737549c,cd86aad7f8dd4e17624e9a99f337ab94b2e989fad77b6e326391522b8cfe87df
+us__scenario_054__child2_early_head_start_eligible,1b6908a66c8df12a48e990792d1f70c867072608b6af72f925d40708412a61aa,50bb5636990a7bb880353c2079577a1ad0289d911fffbc0c92b8d978e284fa8d
+us__scenario_054__child2_head_start_eligible,ac06a81aeba13974672e68ca435af710fc1c0bf6b03c7ee20bc66c926fa4a3aa,98972d0394e90d91587be10c820ec84c586539ea91a9cc646704c3be31d65e1c
+us__scenario_054__child2_medicaid_eligible,7915be52b82cf6a0feb8293209271869ad1dec7e718a990c8080a1e336e9b420,ce9abe300df96a44969ae510aabd67fc18cf2bea6d1aef25e64c50655563e9d4
+us__scenario_054__child2_wic_eligible,73fa3d6dae841552259f48b922a155d40d7797027efa5aec2048a95a64e63bb0,2a20c57db837283d7745cac1c1f876366f51cbb179728799ffe66ab8ffed0caf
+us__scenario_054__federal_refundable_credits,c0953192213a189f537db5dd765b70034230d7f43e1d31fc120e73eb52a748fd,48f6300e0533f8c0a1109f8b98e4a73cc78053cb8975e8bada469716e3f94f75
+us__scenario_054__free_school_meals_eligible,272b41f318402b8f8281fc7015c8f20af1afdfa47bae9f705720de7fe161304e,0fb737c11bdb437e593ac92ede33b104338a0ef2b37b50e47f07e5466823a570
+us__scenario_054__head_medicaid_eligible,17e5abc53ec3bbc718a912a326e94a39589d7e7dfaf5355521d8bf4fc07a51c6,55f985ddff08fc45b85169f79248661951ef21fe907254e639dd16ce8936adf8
+us__scenario_054__head_wic_eligible,ab128dc4837e05ab6282f10cc2b58b3c4142b6731716fdef879fafbbb264ddbb,581369a3a8cf717d35f01c271231185c5f72879d6da34d600c5ce575a1e95194
+us__scenario_054__payroll_tax,456d183aff785f6755222c483364079db7049ba9738400347935948cb4f6891f,564378153453428d1a8a02c2ba3dbfcb340f1fd1f99a201b9d6e8b2d6d26142b
+us__scenario_054__reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,f12a56a4660c97ba4d7f5df29798df060b2955d9ecb829a32e6e5811d890e88f,b27fc7c3d4106e3bc6c14f3d348dad0cd19c0b7814774a1a0e0c1798bc92833d
+us__scenario_054__self_employment_tax,2ebfe07a5c6540ac0761fbd0ae254e528f4ba984275bc7840d7cf5f9466f8845,57247bf738aa515db9adcd330f0be7c530a7b7ece60254beb76c1be21bb89b70
+us__scenario_054__snap,f88a94996756ecdb21e7b976fe644bab401ac62a65beefc0250753a7b500e910,1ab077eff5d18f59defe7a865727ab4a83982ed096330d58bfff95fd230c0adc
+us__scenario_054__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,a3e88e18ad91a4baf3c47c93e7b6222ccecc8e62c5e2b3da93f46935d1b83b1f,3baade3fa32e68dc8facf405f96aaeb7335fdecc08574f2fac53b3de85571fe0
+us__scenario_055__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2e1e73cc4f77b3727cc5d0dd99f701195195c784335a81bff72f043740e311e6,22e9f5771d046cd0fecacc3de084c6f1a27b710035cc118a55dbc7022218cd1e
+us__scenario_055__payroll_tax,d679db023a368822952b62e560f1d87d125577422fe1cd55dd09aa809cd09f46,3e3d36d2e8c525f216592da5e54c991e39f7014827b0c3e1e564fcb01207793d
+us__scenario_056__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,869fed4267fd38e002f36fa8c77664485d37446ce7f17227f88b651d7e6077a3,ba7abd54e65ac9d1269f5a042a2f76e33045f3746893f3f3164135cd2e0780f5
+us__scenario_056__head_medicaid_eligible,8cea184c97d14c48ab06ae60786e2e218504e4532b3d05dc5daaf77617ac7f0a,8804b0dc69774740c7590ef027a716e1d0dbda44601e402b6a7cb4ec618b8993
+us__scenario_056__payroll_tax,6531a2cf3210005ac2ae383bdcae048f99d03047c5e6de4736637171d9a3dd00,5cbddaf39f01de2b5d6a0cc5d7eae0b40221abafc0709b317e06282cf8bf6a91
+us__scenario_056__self_employment_tax,7901956ba0a795ba0c00a0c60afdc4e588328f7098b18e4cb3f85a81d327e81d,d2ed557c1f4ce1a2beead21aef264a49b77c71f1b7a5e2d8c98546a890fe7727
+us__scenario_056__snap,db79dfecb5095dfafd4a63959c2ef1cd0e0b22e92104cb9943624cb8316f3a84,bd23ae7c01777b1706265eeda812abb10e31d366d7fa664cb99ee825faa9694a
+us__scenario_056__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,828b862f6768e81a9585f9ae508db46ebd09bc4c7eb4bb9dadcafd573f2647f0,2be4296e7aa80df26a2403455fb0ec1d3a9ae7fbf8c87715f4cef8fc89ab7466
+us__scenario_056__state_refundable_credits,15205122fa19227e1c28186ba4b0a7210e90279686c447006811bccbfef45398,0ff94cebb1f3bddc09cd2394e060a1be829d5cf62da605244f34b3b4af6aa94d
+us__scenario_056__tanf,e29d915d8be36465f330cd19283eeb444e984e459bb631b80b28ede890585dae,c9259662a30b84fbc876aff7e14b7cdecd76b47016a909caeaf9f45390d70b5c
+us__scenario_057__federal_refundable_credits,290a9cdb70ea9936a6a26ebdd4a25fcff76bc74b144f23b4a259f101436192b1,1e4fc20e30413dcf9fe24966da417aac8e9ae0bc073264e5c2db8faa7f333ce8
+us__scenario_057__head_medicaid_eligible,b24704c65dbbbd869b75808f3d75e9d21828139588965b21f6714959545e7726,69f7a36659fea087602df9eebcfda9b865b978b138e30f94f8eb55302fead365
+us__scenario_057__head_medicare_eligible,31640356d7793022ccf13f6639322e4ff8e96dd40caa05901f69fa24c3222eb3,2c9c1fafca0415c6c08052268e58cef0eedf2c7cd7d846d4fc48807102231f83
+us__scenario_057__self_employment_tax,5ce219cef2a55c537084fda62318edad4d9ceebd1b2907131db70215cf6e2687,024e7c4c5998e7c761d8a235dba4191a7ded0b45843ce21ae92e9cf14d14fa4d
+us__scenario_057__snap,38fc7137e224d3a8fb23cc1faade96960bae6c52dbb4003f96ade4d672c26832,dcef9208a13b338778776776a66dc6d857689475b7f8fc522afa353ece3a773a
+us__scenario_057__spouse_chip_eligible,40ece4779468b0368b2a671ee61fb8fcd292b92b38b0771797127becac9b3190,d24757f59ecaae276e455383add3bb6de3af7cc5d25ac40f3bba805006598ff7
+us__scenario_057__spouse_medicaid_eligible,c9d80fe640b7c9227e9c5eae6586229bb8c65c2f5ddb7bc41dbd4032fda1ea96,d1835cf06bf4d537ab87d2cf05b494e2fe3ec69cd7f16dd80bad05c1eea7a219
+us__scenario_057__spouse_medicare_eligible,9594fa0ae8fef7633cd0f0a5e8d487dec07647568ee2f8fe045c42f3db365437,3f4931cb8fc81f78b74eabba5762d66fa9e2afd0eed48c20b254ae9ed8a0ebbf
+us__scenario_057__spouse_wic_eligible,cff4ad62140e6c2b165cc678d22144e5df113f38535884b399283ec3ce395179,5a5d2c00c386a9da7842d62f48676ef7c5912bbc094c7c689ac6784da04b60e3
+us__scenario_057__ssi,bd928a47c1d259cd75e739dfd38dc0204e3a5a826dd38dcde0a7cd0330f2bce0,a32e9e04c8541aa5176c1893aba8ae3e7c44296b035a2d724161d7c7334d70f9
+us__scenario_057__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,aa152b05672b14cddbbedfd10c01edc052e23b7948665f0d2fb02b6e66c345a3,6155014a283e4a283cb844becf06bdc5e67668f64d129b48d24cb8106ff54376
+us__scenario_057__state_refundable_credits,18c1faaef19c5611435805d4940339f87a17db36fc06661dc7a473487ac4dea6,9402e362c02a61a1ebab399d78a4d54a1f0045f15e05191adc63a1d1cc58e056
+us__scenario_059__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,7630823ad57b1254214e8f0ef70da1e8190b0788c40500fbd78f9cce3df57e22,bee1ada5651b68a206fee7f72a538e960513ca33b6fac5b36943fdf8506c6472
+us__scenario_059__payroll_tax,419775e1c08e04d6bf1f077f1982d6845dc0f391ee5a7309abad54ceb7d88d07,7693f0de9b470f8ceb671723561f7c1f75062244cb024eb40be97ab1601dfca9
+us__scenario_060__federal_refundable_credits,ab74a66d3dfd2ec829f5e47e906bbc0387fac68fc4c2940cd1bef51d60c079c2,f2c90191bd630870458cefc9d4cb7ed54f90af5e95152059365a924ef85b9a09
+us__scenario_060__head_medicaid_eligible,afe47b5a9a0f5298686c27bad084339c0cbaafdebb1b0103723605e8ec1c34f8,f9757bef2887b783351fb7ca4737cf76aacb2f4d638d70f60943d01c09dcec0f
+us__scenario_060__payroll_tax,99b393efce61001a1b7ef18e1934ba1f186a93770060701b9932e454cef62ff3,e2900a1d724e071400b61eca7563b1635d6a2e532542fcf75e9dad0b52f51f1a
+us__scenario_060__snap,72fae2f9e5738454676e15a0b6f23b9d5778ea7fb2dd254f1ffecbaa371925af,494e0586a67324fea0722cf480096c813695e55f29aa949df670e8a5d1d1b4e8
+us__scenario_062__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ee2c18cede0b140bf5cfb5458c646035a5c6b758c192a4c20c70ef8d920605d3,ff210a4edee5b5f19a7469d224a759c6744ef07b58992e969320ddfb0332f51f
+us__scenario_062__head_medicaid_eligible,174f8369cc2f5c91b7ceef7d3a98275d257d9c56be745e0a39843c7c46732b84,97a6ce548ebd03cf6c3424c54c57971602590f8731110058b7f1ceac80be1f8f
+us__scenario_062__self_employment_tax,f9890892974cf662e6002cca7eedc3c2b616f76346ee872214beb93f686b071a,8f686ccfcc253f315944cfd2ce35c0f7972dea79a025ba6837f7f05defd695df
+us__scenario_062__ssi,e1462635938189f55b8c9d75d8a5219a5631fb0cfaa7b49f6759e777ec44cf1f,b7b62aa2f60ca77d8300fff19b817d86faf1192700b6945bb9551d44b2e6a5ea
+us__scenario_064__child1_chip_eligible,5d365c4e2795b1793b190832385354135429d96c17f03000668bc6e648d6acc1,0c8b99b0d8e1c42d4ce88430902504b12cb0b0e51d35bb6888a891ab55821bcc
+us__scenario_064__child1_medicaid_eligible,a163306ffa832c6c306c97077ab18cf3edccda61d7921ff1de274ef695f64570,6ee633cf42cc5af8031cf2044791e2d91795893c5aad3536c619bcc121f5c8d9
+us__scenario_064__child1_wic_eligible,1f471bc60507ac15134edfdf89f0b723fa478de4d363a66baae1d77af86a8bd0,40c1117e868d81937384ac0ac878ad690fa6e03d9ed17d0aadfb1ef2737e7b82
+us__scenario_064__dependent1_medicaid_eligible,9c10c70ec73df2e5c66cdd7c33fd9e08d80cb99800b3c7d7d11ad8b0afb1e14b,7f6a612ea01841ae7dadcf181ba01f5a4d5070452805dc9999ffde2fa7b937aa
+us__scenario_064__dependent1_medicare_eligible,64c4756c41aaf49f4ca5af5aa8b8ebc05fe73a1c73ed4d1ce6094f14dcdf8259,79b260b9c9748248bdfb551055ad8497b4fc7cb1d97da9bc50d31193b56e010d
+us__scenario_064__dependent2_chip_eligible,bc53b95a138fa2c27903cd3b5a3507c9d4a3c97eee1c17172fa5c27c31d01d06,868fc9a16564705f61ad6a51476a5c558fd92ba01e7e3697038d1eb5dbb50575
+us__scenario_064__dependent2_medicaid_eligible,c482b5c61b5624c64f9fc25b2049ed0b99feb1a31917e2b5ee8e4ff894e80a47,e933bc244c77b2293a1138231cdfb903b45b479b17b43995681953fcd89ec44f
+us__scenario_064__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,f1c7970a3585579c9de88a5b4a51f59f57cf5148e4373f2429f72cb7071f9551,3b2e3a760be2f407b8a9e44ce5c000c0aed74dd8e28732525303b4ff3ce22ca2
+us__scenario_064__federal_refundable_credits,198803cbb4e457ff11805fc6fb99ed0efc12cacafacdb48b9d7d5f0a6c2372a9,25387f1dcb0642d4ac5e11ecdb8af787451c7d12734afc3630988376e4bcced4
+us__scenario_064__free_school_meals_eligible,e8e503f32843f5a4cd62293655c0eae89d7ac85538d77b9ce9b944efc647985a,c4257c9d0d823e5d54dd3988a6cf87a6bafe76ca4091c94375cea5ef418a0c10
+us__scenario_064__payroll_tax,793f11fb2e4264c06c8bfc04b6481d95a8ca78c704dad17ad8cf3f064d713ec3,95cc2f85c5b4783ede28e16a0339e1aa2814b71d6d5481d58540b59cb82c39bd
+us__scenario_064__self_employment_tax,eec323b1b8ed51e273b9ef58b1a0c588494a76e0d177d944f27402970eb18515,2d0bc850240854ac857104807b4e3d8175335aba56da72ba8dad041af6d2696d
+us__scenario_064__ssi,7446e2aa6190aaa1c04a025f644d524acb3e398ea5d5068a82b5d33ed3633efd,947269714de4553457a34b370a8eefec212a129a1c6404e483d9db21e9bff78a
+us__scenario_064__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,256ba122f16e2aa5c13e64e837a5d1b7af4065e995f083d394c165729cfef01c,a3e984fef0e348545d8ec59e722976cb24dcccc9ced6fe1bbfcc9bba77a1edc0
+us__scenario_064__state_refundable_credits,2d31533eb9728b969695198c8016eb43d7226cbf317011fd5caaee4922e84664,c7dc836f5ddbe8a8ec015472b276a4d8b1c9e4dc1908f8ad1f16a8a62ef66b89
+us__scenario_066__federal_refundable_credits,3488c464832e9b71f70f3b888b7d5674bb772929bbeef96b0784858f5e6e3ee7,dab99af16eee28a7b865ef93c51301b5b1576455d5e8d6530131cce5a83f82f8
+us__scenario_066__head_medicaid_eligible,6dab1279c40d43495309d9c28c93ec8f44cf7229792ce2d3b612c62453ead0a1,9e1e171ff356566c0adc18804de7165dc84df48ca50bd25db558ba5962cc4e73
+us__scenario_066__snap,ff356e52dc68566f3a0791734a15571d5787e62c5e394d123a75718c6522ff07,2344c626778ff071da05cce666d262d80cae0621b70e0915ee6cc41de04b75cb
+us__scenario_066__state_refundable_credits,9724860d24732c5128185dfe03387ef81d99af4ee501264ec04091df93985b21,c4bf4bff594fbc65eb8cb19015bc9fee7b6a6e1de057c5d950bd11ef00c74f1b
+us__scenario_067__dependent1_medicaid_eligible,9cbc76d33e89a9d62f135f2b95e8613f4f9d085c4bd2aba9fac6ee7f8c317dab,fb827611e784dfba133a4174709eae2f660a3dde77563313e9821e2d574097be
+us__scenario_067__dependent1_medicare_eligible,e9a6573df0f56bb3acfc6aca6a65c67531f1d9ed9edf4479036fca9f4a4ff7f9,7c90d74bfa3eee07b5139acdb04ba6c2c51516c7551436914e5dc553d38051ab
+us__scenario_067__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,03d791e95993c6c203d672321a284c8e0a6449c39c82ccbafd581b504f768cea,214a46955775cf19719534e1182e0689353be1f6870d3962e3e49cc726b44cba
+us__scenario_067__federal_refundable_credits,d029f05fad8543b059707f9b3a0b2eb2673f9ffc122d33c166eb5c02d89fa187,8a04a288d5a4c5fc9367a8f6abb9bccc8f388402e23ff7177c6ac8e55bd20ee4
+us__scenario_067__head_medicare_eligible,b52a10fe439c3a0d9fea4523fa7e5d5f5eba94fef9878311a24196a2b36c480e,e420b9cabece63aa44e206a9f4148ec01522c8a821a49654efbbb8d30c62bcbe
+us__scenario_067__local_income_tax,61a6ec29d1a7e7d1d1683d2a5569de50c938de04d179563daef3b6f18925045e,f1a58efca0fbde1f7b1bb3cacdbb05d41e5253d30f316e84c1ed9f3164bc9d7f
+us__scenario_067__payroll_tax,47bf89f8663077a8d90929ab5ebe4c70b9f27a7c0a6e4055067d781e4d5fc5ff,1349613eb90210edd684be71c1cf5d8149f64fcf09eb4e1b7f23633fde1133a2
+us__scenario_067__ssi,1f8333b4afb2b600f0bf87c3f1efcfda6be6eb65bfdccd767cb717bf3ac74aac,73fd21196ac3bd3e19305cfd92258995eaed9ae08aa9646b2e9fe00acbd14f7b
+us__scenario_067__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,a7ce739f90dae7c9f0d3f81592ff384e8e022d2cdd74be15b6dd86fe4befbe01,6de95aae28165e100da33a4cd7a31044b8bc3c4263cc48666d07b3fadcab5e3e
+us__scenario_068__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,984201c3345d8623ea3c3f77a5a79d216008de34c7540bb692190bfbfe1793e4,20ff3e4220362275801420bb0a7316871c30e85cb4e2eab159f3f61b3e90cbe5
+us__scenario_068__federal_refundable_credits,6300187f606a96161e337ed0da3623b89e0040ed068c4898352bc2061d8d93ce,ea4b061ed07ac0f610687dbe9767a5d9e626851ab1757771493c60a7e358de4f
+us__scenario_068__head_medicaid_eligible,19f5a72cdf5d984fc842871eb8607c4b549466018bb36b6f04b7d6be921e3e16,8f59d588f88ebaf855be9b388ad5aaa5e9b2b3e52b202227033bf540ebe0ecae
+us__scenario_068__payroll_tax,a43ca39d6de4cb7807845586da8bd87f1a96badcfc83fc6bae9dded21622cac3,765d5220e322360d9d68a2b808cb2d098a013cb6b7db45c43123b9e007fb84bb
+us__scenario_068__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,060a78b9a44e0ff75c43aefbecd040f49e950d4a3809f0317896996fad1a2ced,52516662ed771af7e95284df599030fc1e86760cd97baa45365004327396a6fc
+us__scenario_068__state_refundable_credits,4a19c8a306292486a5a2ffb5ffa7d23db6eaf519425ba6ebe18a427bf7d76adf,a90a721260c18f62ea2de2c672d2320ab7aed3bba2a75e3a74e53f15e394abed
+us__scenario_070__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,24e28518c8eec5905f20bca314a278d1da6d265efd47624e6e2b1c4da69b9f2a,4a59c77c365facdc5fad544f184b8a577a10922152782c6a77203e2a1cfea531
+us__scenario_070__federal_refundable_credits,6c984702dc99967234e1448f7c37a55d07dacf5cba470a6ddb36c9020b4350ad,c15a83a6353cba54edff881cf585fc3752a941320ad36c3ac3b387cb95f0119b
+us__scenario_070__head_medicaid_eligible,3cb246086d3f2633f7559ded9b7adae70eb773fcd67223e846bb08181a8f068d,42998370c8e6bc126140806ba78054929b2828c1fe2f92e7e41bdca17c300c74
+us__scenario_070__payroll_tax,d3830d6de8663afb49d463f3951e804b12685f2abeb76d570f9443622d758f59,1a49a2cc9cc655655f1cd3f580552f4939080350e7b000214a43ce7654506c3b
+us__scenario_070__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,daf5e70afb40704346c1012d431604a9e034eef21704aa84bbbcc943a3acd69b,3f2301fee8143d23744ddc529a6440d63a0f00811845f0389118f0d27b8764f9
+us__scenario_070__state_refundable_credits,d6a8f5765042bf78f21616b0c4b87a51827ae0a769a0b39c7448507e2a35608c,678dd72b80d6ec456f5fd815d0e0ead8894860be0022e5a087d5122a45330d94
+us__scenario_071__head_medicaid_eligible,ba99ebca759d39acd30547f4bb2f06d2161374720399b22be919a2983c7a928a,dc1212f95319023a03f94eae3467b623a7495aaf08bdd995ac6ec7d359391cea
+us__scenario_071__payroll_tax,123f3d610b3d0ae82b3f4df3a9f5bfb960671a64c47f6bbe6396c7f3202adec5,6616462501479e935116425369020023f1a3e8c39d4d6fd3f53cf00064ff2551
+us__scenario_071__state_refundable_credits,6840e2782fdd59bd46ce7d5aac8b2bcbf2d550da8bc1e91078ea2b4a85d65b60,9ba83cfa83c3e12acc3018f44d1d6ccec02368a9981a68b3afb7b3d1d9dc4b54
+us__scenario_072__head_medicare_eligible,8303ac810b4482adb25fbe1fdfbe1d0154f91d4d3cd660af81dc728b5a352818,619695951d21cfb3b3ce679f6d4057976f9277eb3ceff6fb811f83b7df8b8929
+us__scenario_072__payroll_tax,42e1e96ebaa613af49f2faf9686b75e3164179d2571f3aa394bb03455c8384a7,c61b259094aa5a9a9380f1a0bcd27f06227930baf8f1ad4f19a9ff74387248f1
+us__scenario_072__snap,99d0d803c8e9c2a40c60c14a032da91da14afda5941c513890221b41135c3847,28cab303bf314c742a14f4dcaa304f582f5d2d8cb88e4f5e34be97ec0cd35d48
+us__scenario_072__spouse_medicare_eligible,00c27b71fe5cb873698511e6cf4d986e5e6b3e25d067b5b633628f441adc6cd1,31386bfac7c095691dbcb3ec771403a326a679b4ff0908eb0803760e4e85c31e
+us__scenario_072__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,4eb78404c03e372ba9c32dbd8c41b4e306a1d07a65050e5bba6f56fd6b1823ae,0c694480a2a62dfd8aea7f709e1feaa39a5593bcf261b9d316f85f66effbcf4c
+us__scenario_073__head_medicaid_eligible,0ad62652d3553a704ea065d65b8fc242d0a255be297af0d390c6c87beb56fd64,48965a2fe7636d7972f4aa0061cefc5d3304f2c4e667e4d1155636292ef8a70b
+us__scenario_073__head_medicare_eligible,c4c8c90bc8f4dafc34ab0af55788ecfb03fd60dcf918b973da2eb514a864b392,9adde68519b57f1515b1e7063122bbe84f9bf5e2234a9d93a1729728a44278e9
+us__scenario_073__payroll_tax,62a8774e28a1d2403c47602a40f50751c068f3063a0df96772719ad687c9b7b2,dfd6807014296d6db200eef2d57f1e2a6ec3e63eb936c6b28f8e1d6e649793a5
+us__scenario_073__snap,f05001fe75797a01f5386b6681530bd9e725635909ef638ffd71825074784d4d,7735a3fe17118fe432724c205713aabdcd59d4935d017b82257d92671fdef8ba
+us__scenario_074__head_medicaid_eligible,84befb4c8867cc4b47c5aa511c00b1e3cf709262c4ccc6c93b66d26d0f8371c4,f358889317dbe6c6c2d77f868aa2033578f7592fefcc40cb64537bcdb567394b
+us__scenario_074__head_medicare_eligible,d133b91d46d6598c0ddfea2239a1c05d290c0a03987187ab75e967a1c47e9c2f,6adc7f0657c9aded687ac997ce48fe572957bff2293688b63a53373caf4e6a77
+us__scenario_074__payroll_tax,470de108439fb9d94ca606a71cfbfa8ebe2e807907f172934333e6c93cd4ecdd,3ee8e6be5541322047c977c78a792ac03938004e431df721d89d37526fdb2441
+us__scenario_075__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,9c7bc63ca553f35e6623ed395e2b082752cabd103526192b681e44b5f0fd2a88,62c7d4602bb2d32f6f3156c45915eeaf2da6be2f658a1772f2d0496f70e3cff0
+us__scenario_075__head_medicaid_eligible,3301d5f151624e892a7d200692c2f9b3286e339f68a0f52b4a14ac573d770521,9285a211798d2f119a35c8179164fb0db08cafe2d72ca3f7d195eaca3f367ed0
+us__scenario_075__head_medicare_eligible,31145cf3696333b038de3dbc37bc47cdc3f875059cd45b29c789ba2652aa8b38,751ce238fd4073b16939c6cdb996ec623e0b9c33a8c691cedaffc49d4c7faff5
+us__scenario_075__payroll_tax,7d1c1f7e262b9e6a0c67063f196ea4d86b385e66f4164bebd70d580ea769c936,1429898520996c496b6ddf693ce517f323fccaa59dfaac79c35275a41ed74a9e
+us__scenario_076__child2_wic_eligible,dcb324e790cbf06a106c3cdb595c777872c2eca48a3a4ba1f57a0b5348db4ca0,d47eed169beac46c7c0f8ad0537e54e5233515739c6aa11849ec639935e0f93b
+us__scenario_076__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2fa0dcd0846062fcfca8992e72034d4d0e3e19bcd90ea2d22cbbfa44fe5c8533,e32507f3d6afd5d114acc944525c4acdb1fe1ccec4de3559651b94bb3030556d
+us__scenario_076__federal_refundable_credits,4125a480c2c2b3f05ef21d1b4b30065f70997a7b9419fc144dbc332500f21fa1,1057142da7c9a28cef711e0e5e206c0188da6869e7c415f99eb7868c0c0958d9
+us__scenario_076__payroll_tax,cf731d2ccb49b1614772ace7fc7a47afcb1fbbd9df341c5e0f06cf1ef31d47e9,2a309f139ac532c2147fe024d1485aeb3f3181f2253a489e275bf4ca086018f2
+us__scenario_076__self_employment_tax,2d150397ae7fe5ef0a663ea7529317a421fab3c9d43adfece5b2f9dcb71a9fb4,56cb0733e2e10bebf17bcc2e51ca2ab7dd0b5aee26eecc95fdf5f74a0d625228
+us__scenario_076__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ff0ef29cf69a24dee7b7e8cf1223c7ee813c351f40c310a5285977d9f48b6c09,527a0d9dee8a682b114819c31b7fc9f27edf8fa9a64931af51c3a7f59a91b92e
+us__scenario_076__state_refundable_credits,7eec3a86e6912972cadd306c01f64958f949556acc8e410872141f4e723f54b6,eaa5372d8f7058b4409ed872d236fec24ba792ba486495d70163269e029fcde8
+us__scenario_077__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,cbc6469c3f879b5059834f1fdce059167be41e86e69ba58a79345011238e7c65,19bcb97950e18f6ce00439f3fb7f9ca0530fc7fea0ad55e506c9edd9580f4fa2
+us__scenario_077__federal_refundable_credits,b8f45460d30c69ec4f3b5c14ff1acdc762b6d82fe9f553621d345bb5c5859153,be84ef35a55e2793d5e8a790ce803caa6e270c26003936463169e76f0c1a29f3
+us__scenario_077__head_medicaid_eligible,d72d46c9a98b4b56dc463aaa6553382adc2442bb3a184d3d91222a38c5749899,7daef34f5bd68e1748ad3a0ed17772bce6c440b4ea37f93ba8897de2d10d7e8b
+us__scenario_077__payroll_tax,338a29146830eee07f27635e2e63eb6c6a9785b752b595b4cf6d402cb616868f,4d836d7a89aa1405b0da7a4b7e03057d1d94c70f8189e1727b1c84d5a5975967
+us__scenario_077__snap,42cd315c4574a478c9f5ad080d0c1020c3900f0706793796c24be4bd13691110,a9c625950a6df86d4d71c926ed932aa92f4a86f3d272012e9242f57ce95998d5
+us__scenario_077__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,7558bb3119b892bc87e245e8e1b68e05c788ae42e251f314598c368d205e8fb9,d00f69cc7e7f5f5819135b11466d58fa17bdfcaf1bfd5e67cadaed33f1e1f170
+us__scenario_077__state_refundable_credits,016fd89e08a42ec4a55ad0006c9bc9999c5bd0038ba6f84a328a9b40a47db34a,eb290063dd4670a7b7879f0dd59d665a52599fc1669426a7c830194bea20558f
+us__scenario_078__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,5a45350812dbc89e72b5b18c4f3f69d3b4ef2abeb3831567fdd12dbbb6ab48c0,9198b2c8916746659a4cdc7d159f542fd898f7b8bf1512b638bad90b48b3605f
+us__scenario_078__local_income_tax,ae75e1f800c367a941799f18bfa5df88046bad46d93395e67dabb75c8020f187,6ec4769f167ee3cfcfda8e2b42a07aad5103527f4940990caf8849b3cebd50d6
+us__scenario_078__payroll_tax,bbff94fca330f1b1a09f6078971c8e7827ecc23960ea0bc7a876e8a9d165f7d5,2c3b31657284cf46b52990d81c1ee7cf26f4c535ad1f714e80210a7952bb23c5
+us__scenario_078__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,4f5eefb4b0ab5675ee88bb0dc2ca8a864dff472372b07cc5f670b7a4de1335c2,e632a4b5079e100ac947cb4fb7ee29cd8d165d7e47fc20fdbfe0f2d863b3297f
+us__scenario_079__head_medicaid_eligible,54607808aec56f1a6d052748f5f44a5f63ebc6ba602de245a30258d5f9375819,d13733174e7a5e03ca4af5124d5a084a74817c97abf9aecb24fcd9c83b2da0a9
+us__scenario_079__head_medicare_eligible,2735833961f627c879bd5561a86c9d521c72110f49e829c40d4666d9b7d6cfa0,2caf4422cbf1c773309fc859892acfaf4e002a8a57c789406c631181438da326
+us__scenario_079__snap,312e7ed6bee84c589f27d845c0ebd27c34f1d4a0e7ca545d9488dc6549b84139,3071ff220e7b925fb08a871d54d64377d03c38b98164669af54cc7c646443382
+us__scenario_079__spouse_medicaid_eligible,c380546d28efeda3bdc439bdf5eb9697e0f1f6329ddd31e18a908af6af7e862e,36397b770011d07056985f6ca8492d56f84bdcbbf024c37a9fd78151576edd92
+us__scenario_079__spouse_medicare_eligible,c57f8a3099906ba8ac283017b9a470c2c522d126a621c500daf75936be7d4c07,2e385f74d441774fba06673f0649355e114dca399983ec8c6ffb4533a438702d
+us__scenario_079__ssi,933e09f2a7ad4721d29414b4472d27d7e77e7d0f3c80936477f5d2c93156d043,13431be4f0c9bc6fef0ce3f18db21bcc0fda87aaf5e500f44f26573fab6930e3
+us__scenario_079__state_refundable_credits,95d3e31afa4124e50e7d46901a3635213791289a87e4f2fe82add813bdbcf2be,9df9653b818798e22bb38351100ef0ed90bca4719088b5598d323dfbb09b8d7f
+us__scenario_080__head_chip_eligible,b9e243b6e9c037068d659a827d4efaf40abd5d121f00858acc06f269b5ae1f5f,2bebc812bdcd3afb3421d9cfcd80f85c031a54519c059a9ea5b62a5bd832d008
+us__scenario_080__head_medicaid_eligible,8db9ea4765f350366b1609d0ec8a322bc46e106eaa2ea8df277872bdf357bb09,89e224563d973dcea92e8a030b2ae805db18454dc8d918115005a5e3af0449b6
+us__scenario_080__head_medicare_eligible,492bfbaefcfc3cf4d7f171d47776f7c047bc20c284c26e9d66b6300db4a7ab44,42129dfd841242f5cc66cf5d734ce1a8b079879a1bf9d95136305c06f3308fc3
+us__scenario_080__snap,98b2240070d1b98cd44a2d18565b28e10d42f145e845d5465177a14a4599e0cb,1d3f0edf84a87de1fe630aa4de521f979f5543a31858a562425f203a98aef4f6
+us__scenario_080__ssi,43ec21461fff18629819bf6759eb8e9c588bd39df5f8995dfce3ebcdc481c8f2,84d00efc18d7c7b1daa09fe96695cb46edb33843d7af0e65f0d3d7d97b80940f
+us__scenario_080__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,26ea6c8424e9afaac05bf877993a8cf76a402aaf6992178465395a8abf77d26b,65e8795b8cbd17ed44252f37465d7cdb50c6ecf219a48c336691cdb1fd8c706c
+us__scenario_080__state_refundable_credits,95beccf4253f75c7438dbf00dfc205c887dc689e56002fee1d0b4c18105a4972,ff2fb3e2da9cb07e82d437f6d9a4ca29ddd983170e1876ad3a7ebc3d68e86b9d
+us__scenario_081__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,90f38e3f26e79ae5cc8a127dc6433d695a9e18539b194618e5449dcece870542,4a30cfb80e2e94fc1ec79d4d095c1ef24d63030cdd2c3939f7779b155da48f00
+us__scenario_081__payroll_tax,da80642986b41dc888e6175ab52e259e3c34ef56e3cb0a42798211818149ab49,f4781923d1d900d63c1445ccc8ea0c5c8f8c337b1584266e2fca6650c0cc443e
+us__scenario_081__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,6dabb073742ec986c890e4d5dd658856c6dc6593b37d1d7d463dd26fd33a2967,4bcde429bdf3e7849348508aebfae75b5d34908be125df0b32792723e6a56430
+us__scenario_082__child1_chip_eligible,80b33e55fbf3e28c423c7aaba899db4f361fd63fe4174366cf3a0af84b2559b5,731f2b677eaf50a70fe8968a3ac828a4fa48185dd863e74bb6c5a87316f0b99b
+us__scenario_082__child1_early_head_start_eligible,d241170df6fc5ec2029d90f9fc36e3c0efe8f52334fac0783f87e6d89f63f7f9,6f50e20abc79a7c20c8e238114f31f4ad62d176cb1dbad5bf67ab443dba826e3
+us__scenario_082__child1_medicaid_eligible,d4c90f759a1e2b96dc2246cc21623d0d55b418986ae37fbafb34d2f65d2ef1f5,f2f7943ec6b3367fe7205f7f9eefd68110bc23da84128c82960ec570b09de8ce
+us__scenario_082__child1_wic_eligible,3be2990225770847807aa5a221c2e4b8aae867b804e2e3eb93b39d925badd0f0,165c8776674e8d5807c4aa4537e26810fef06866a5ad4578193e9103628271a2
+us__scenario_082__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,81026d7b4b9edcb6f594514f12d71732e9b76625e93e0a05fede9dc79d3e2d07,6aec19b5146a3cc38b816e0236b930b3c98997590b16dcbb035b2694d52e6625
+us__scenario_082__federal_refundable_credits,c14b0ec60660e88c83f681ac79565b9e931def8d84dcea0590a0c99e47740a03,da5db67eeced7d31f30ad4a4775297e571fac1755b5118b03629a4c3b4d143c7
+us__scenario_082__local_income_tax,7e5e56f143679d05ce5e6a85312929eb7775619d74092b959eea6c0c5ce60562,12dbd03b078e5536dfd64d9a2361d3da5bd6103062e9fb62b9464eee5a48ae0b
+us__scenario_082__payroll_tax,19378955fd6ab6285750bdd13804e460ae7bd35713db18c6323407b3ea25654f,030704a1855c06ff6bf2bf90b1ced9fe2564f020f0fd06f8f1493313cb39375c
+us__scenario_082__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,8850fb80a5ac4e762f897fd6b3f788a48e4310150dd63ab50c8b392b295fecfc,c1086e9460caced90cba37069ec0677c6bf2c6f32839c5146262beeaff9c34de
+us__scenario_082__state_refundable_credits,36bb6554e32a4c2b963ac1031d0d17c09a52bf5ef984d8e1d7fe77ced4fe68fd,7c13ea609a1fd71edee3806049435a82991e1a703ce4ea21b582e5a66879291a
+us__scenario_083__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ebfe45d55e2ac1aa9edd1ce1c1311b2972a11be334240e20605b367d4e5091b6,73e0da8cdd71ae02011f35c379191fd015f3652f82048893e7afa40e3a00a078
+us__scenario_083__federal_refundable_credits,608f65e5e547b0b5ec853ea1d43d57eaa0d895ed98f84d8ea6cf9b72a1e887f6,117ed52ffaad02a72621d18e1c940a874549d1cab93f06eb676a74db9adc648e
+us__scenario_083__head_medicaid_eligible,8358e5331be3f07cb279f791570254a115496649a01a60a36c1c6df4f46be714,1e04ead6d9649b46349582885ceb3c20cd5f4592c4fa4a238d9919a7cbf2f64d
+us__scenario_083__head_wic_eligible,4435607c931ecb6c4360844bc887a7bc38e9dc9afa7f19a74a94457d3914352e,9c87962fd37c542e9a6272d0dae6388a94115e560ba1bb116bd347e05a97844f
+us__scenario_083__payroll_tax,c4391157a1e537f41f75ed7fd2cda7074fe1572909fcd9100b287dbc18f0eca2,a1ca26d419510251a0ce99bfd8af3bd41c00f754a7528742228d27c0b4bb2eaf
+us__scenario_083__self_employment_tax,7135171a2c6cac98702a69c4b2942f96153cd6c2123cd81e8e6bf3f958f3a085,7dc7d9549fa10e089409843468037006efc72d517049285383f48a1bbbcb74ec
+us__scenario_083__snap,847f77b72b10efe0c5b2f6273e5130dbd0e727511e215cdc07419ab55319acf6,cb1223419824e574d2938c3247d031169ff0e1902a6483b496d0975ddca9a23f
+us__scenario_084__head_medicaid_eligible,0e5e90dc483e8be74b2d68446065a96b9c585838afcec38845f7c8bb57d65534,88e6a367b44a1e25fc365bec18aae59c25f3b077635fdb2212ff131be3f4b284
+us__scenario_084__head_medicare_eligible,1e096df0de1e07ba5e0f296789da32d58df940746d486c71dc80342a2084819b,b97370141fdbaec3c02caad45bbad7a3c859b5ea626a94d8c51dc80f6835d19d
+us__scenario_084__snap,31df3f430c2ff4676f627b356e2ffa8ea2a50cdd37d5f593e9daf1fcc401545a,cbe27bd9c1a4f5aea880cf52058afdf402cac8536dcdfb776d6c752ea881e73c
+us__scenario_085__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,a273818e33f8e7f7f84955fe2cc32f5326d7c8967ae0818d79f5486b96eaa222,ec50a0771a8e881f257d2eefcf709894a42ce36c7804ab120237b35e3dc7f7c8
+us__scenario_085__payroll_tax,d3d31aa47604969bc9eb8a80b68fd9482a43146ff55ecfc0c187b1f33f582406,10b9eaad094fe3eb3b1402f485db0de6c5fee485ca11738722c4ad76decd18f5
+us__scenario_085__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,dc2934cdabafc34326c8b724934e70a2a7e2bda3d041c75972575d51d08ed113,2c35b6276afc5a199f25a08d0762a12046c5866acaee14beca81cce665cba2d8
+us__scenario_086__child1_chip_eligible,132b2353232480d388f6b4fe9b18719217ce2ee58fca95c1bab94eb72f38081a,8b42d7488bda25472edc168c6cc71eb0ee1b7dd3616892e5033eaed742a301df
+us__scenario_086__child1_medicaid_eligible,b93c423803d89654ef4205ecbb9450f810b164b7f0e2a494159edc8b3f4f25a5,852e7130b43982e057e00b4f4a0a49d178faff72c066725543f7e6ba5ceb86e7
+us__scenario_086__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,adc015d1f811e32b12cc0c347919c5a7882e771c7b804ef2342adea769710d56,02e78b299e7d2abcb85cf86f44104aa8b1d75a7405ad5d2b9bc59592be4e5f14
+us__scenario_086__federal_refundable_credits,ed62d338867995739a77e5299741d133b3e7ae31e920aaa533b80764043d8bbf,44be441538a79d6f2c083bd204789b421ecc35eab699a63a20d215aba0b1e4fe
+us__scenario_086__payroll_tax,daa030ce5a2659241a349cc5010205281928f2367e846c278432ab7a30c1a2ff,5a4c6d0128dd3f73b6f231f93181ad95820781102c12c9e76da2ab171dce6b90
+us__scenario_086__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,da2abaa60d57875e3493e119a097b44d860b7f66f4bd00d71764e7579b5c1055,0d98418b3156c3a711f5151accb59573692633e1512c645012d8b015c44a7888
+us__scenario_086__state_refundable_credits,ea1145fdbb6d74270c3ae2ea376d9aa3a345c1c12c125bdf8b139a6e06b0da0c,40da83d0513aa388507d9c5a60bfaac4e222f1fc2b8d970984683217b43dcc7f
+us__scenario_088__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,e1bdf03a8438ad2b82d2d5dffdb81acec8c63e18ea0927ad3710a23ca68bb1d8,80265259c57739dbba4b287e55eb8edc58985af7d438b4dfec98641d640d9039
+us__scenario_088__federal_refundable_credits,1b4b87155061a5567d6f438eb8c9507034b9ba0eca8b8e7386a2abb45ac5f8e6,548a6ac1712f13b8de12e2f882aef60f22c960556f3106fd4da39821f47ab74f
+us__scenario_088__head_medicaid_eligible,f262f7ff9be7bddb5a00cdee6dbe87c0704c5956d0b93b5b6cd97b8400109992,c94f5e5cac556c5a4826900a6b3793a7939a53ce6fe38819f5b9d8deefc45bb2
+us__scenario_088__head_medicare_eligible,21ae3c74efb67aeeb20856ab39ece2e8545fd6802a9a4db7d8cf2e37f5da9099,7d444b630e33f0cca14a5d33e062b05801ccf72f83ae3b8c015299b54e311d77
+us__scenario_088__payroll_tax,ee728e53172e6c8d1a81d8fe48b4d77018ff88f0d75ebee0921134a06b3276ee,c1636310cee9bbeadd30d5d11afa023f948a25a9330c35f9d86b4cd470e41f5c
+us__scenario_088__snap,b513ef27aa643ae954feb25faecaba19236c48352e713e0a023956d1115c0f8c,c2749c18b4c65d93ba5e259c14d9d1ebb9f1d32fa02606585f5407983de1c37c
+us__scenario_089__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,97bc7070d9808eebcab4580f0b8d2320fce32585479156eb233be13a590127c1,74144742eaf21fb93146958ad63f28eac70c7334dfef1fcb41a826d8d349c794
+us__scenario_089__federal_refundable_credits,76b8ffbf111908e61b6585203ae5d2b6ad3a88576729bb525d54a1dc3da1e0f8,abffbc6622c3590de80b2b669cc6b0cd2bb82bc6b5ebfcf9d4db194102637e4c
+us__scenario_089__payroll_tax,3f665497df67834b1bf33fe1ad8ba3bd0b8d2d2ced08e014dcc7d4296efc4359,f891b02dc2c95d4981e136811d6076c9c4a0a919ae3288364dc32a39635c9679
+us__scenario_089__self_employment_tax,31b4068a5c1b9409fc907ce06fdba962d424a2b20fb8f3c88bb21d7053b5cc3b,db7bf9ff52dde77a27ef2490a502d241c983fb3f8662535af91719a181ccaa38
+us__scenario_089__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,966d4e9be835310eac25f9dc755cbe44e9329f5e6be6d2adcdf3ac8609ddfcfb,819d83f792344de3bf9d870cd7d738d9129575919ba75ac679bd2a870f8e81c7
+us__scenario_090__federal_refundable_credits,883b9d8dbff5f97cf405381d19b5aa6857773f235705f7ed3b6e633181928a9d,0b986c5eb2a684246d25fa0f7b066d3f6664a4b46d150c4cce4899a4a13c3705
+us__scenario_090__head_medicaid_eligible,975518354410f94fda216542642828d9172e924dc5dd5312a6292e316ce5cc95,b2bf8589c249f839f0d978d9f85d4d37bf37455c466db33bcf5547446b7d52c1
+us__scenario_090__head_wic_eligible,de7963217884179690525723fd5e09cabefd68b1fed7287ade0df00331ed0912,cf121c9a8d4a8cad7f923bcb84e57a761878545910ab9745e14f92cdc6f9a9e5
+us__scenario_090__payroll_tax,0241e654bff01cfc8123680d878f92de0b5c8045919cc6c7d34d7972598b7a28,ec28e561136033f45a11d8f085a74170568bb6c6bd2a1b8d525eb152a308972f
+us__scenario_090__snap,8b4c8cd1fbf6e67e564afb530189a2db3a9ffa4a064ff14ac5f513cb0190daee,e2ee14fe34e800822456143b8d32fa78b83adbe276ad36e517527d0fe4abf4ec
+us__scenario_090__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,23ed58f951beb57ed7c55369c02ee7b1e40a96f0f9f8e57cf0574d65d5ce4d37,b2373cd966810fd6bc1f96985aaa001436be4090f5f64285c8d051b75a30bff0
+us__scenario_090__state_refundable_credits,c69dcf0865eb11ac1db95892523febda5700e6f4cf89c009ebdd24facf4c27cf,b7830c44d0e70c649f4120439b44056b0b8aa160cb07335687e64e09754491f8
+us__scenario_090__tanf,0d5de46899b23929efe04fdc55ccaefaa9ac6fed2a89f738f3cf646a16fc1654,4497551dc0871de67850eb45ec3df301fb19656905b16327354b507d2418f302
+us__scenario_091__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,25abe3dab1c432cf24370f63e280cd751621416abd44eeb48568e7a375503556,65b18a70ecd45728ca9402a7b6cc7e4b4668f3b3c8f5fcbd04c038ec4fb97d0e
+us__scenario_091__federal_refundable_credits,8df1f4ea06a8e5e061a9360214c3eb0d2aa9cc87b58724a5166427fce19f53c4,b93387945c5ced8c23931f580276818d481bc9c6fe3ff01595fe3a1e41976a0b
+us__scenario_091__head_medicaid_eligible,09a593f97e8e0f55da018a2c9dc3bf5d71862ebadc6a1f10d828feac711e3733,bc1816dbce66b03d332116782e6b3b849819fc83821bd7f0e41c1a1afaeabc6d
+us__scenario_091__payroll_tax,264502af818f1fef1c23b60840d544b0d784f247b7893139e0a5db39ac7efab9,14b1e5791e33c8a7a168e5ec27dd8eb1cb6c52ec2661a8170cfe5f14a65a4dd7
+us__scenario_091__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,53a32ae8be0aa4ec5f3e3ef0367f2a2514648bb589d60fee4a016c400e5365fa,b6e9a5d177a11e8574fc0a06de2f76142863058129132bae9afca195db783c53
+us__scenario_092__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,9eb3008ac41ee85eb6a6e7109170d6762b486b8f3b1a0eab767ad1df5004fc21,a6a8d17eda6ba980a1db0841174d0f345b686bb5b24c454c5655dddccd776189
+us__scenario_092__head_medicaid_eligible,d0656f0e15f47f9043415bc39d9b5b1eef75d2cb375a0463806980e068e0192c,ee9ba0e26fa0b67c5c7796ad5a338e1ec2b0fb7d8409ce1b14bd4cb41d28df08
+us__scenario_092__payroll_tax,05ed96e35072eada4a402d80d6455b04caea25572462171004960e696c717e2b,e53420483a6035291619ac59fa234908e0101dc75891ff043783c9f8ea2ffe9b
+us__scenario_092__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,a7150d425e823dc20533bead348bf37380d391e8fa22d3137d70132cd18c359f,838df2ec9b676e9d0ae5359830a848e99f91fd70245f608f0f9d7523b4d04617
+us__scenario_093__dependent1_medicaid_eligible,eb1c9057f0e3cb56fdf807100bb1a683550fbbdb421c0f5f236da96c28302a3c,f99246c546c6d8c8d52f3ae8c0f9072ce6f1f3dcbcfbecd58f1094abf9a61b2d
+us__scenario_093__dependent1_medicare_eligible,4c98f5d5e065d92ff76f3323c7b589f75b3e80876e179c3544ee96764806944d,64ec5368210534eb7ad9108a5fc76fa26d75feafefcbf0c1042c5c17264934b9
+us__scenario_093__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,7f067bb177d68e8a77c5ba0218763b792c5b648b1d35c57985d9571859cf064d,b783278dc9d294813e24b0f46be4ac2d13097a5b85d25a99dd45b02bb13c28a3
+us__scenario_093__payroll_tax,38652b10eb814185590450f18abe2a4f99e8f38cfd8834c0fac5f92ea6c4261c,90d5369aeb98e04288cb4edc99f3d86afc3432000627f5ee2fc3f95138dd95c0
+us__scenario_093__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,99af5e3a8b6b0df8eae0e52280a233ef7e91b62d44e67044ec934bff2561d68b,ff2be5d74a1b34b98433b1c89ff394d5a9853746211cd6644e4f76cdc127a283
+us__scenario_095__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ccb5c9665099f1d79a8912ce862a72df12f8fb00805a0e82f82f719b93303b14,91791c2297010efe95154511008a2e3d4dda5025fabad17253f3d8297d93d551
+us__scenario_095__federal_refundable_credits,b8bccb7e5a85fd9b6635acf822bbab9961528b69d361dc678efd92e392d2f2e7,c07bd65803460c28987589426954d25cf63a87e43c627082b58df374b144fec2
+us__scenario_095__head_medicaid_eligible,6cd67e0f6cb5665b551e0b9b5c3f83076d9acae10dd5de188266ed30298a516a,257446f7cfffdd8ae8897c54584ea6b445118e09798fd32e98a0cba5dd350e5b
+us__scenario_095__payroll_tax,1c474b2f24426553c37f93431a143ee7c8c107d0fe1476f2ae5f690da317c3ce,ced8b7c0a5b863ce0ca9aafb5590cee7a4a677a2848f806dde38ea6d1ad5ceb8
+us__scenario_095__self_employment_tax,3c8a6a24a49d2fc4d33018793b727659658fe8a35cfd1a517ce44fdf107b8d4b,38f626745c3acd474cf9d1892074757a174dcdef67640ee5d9f66b152842ffda
+us__scenario_095__snap,098ae23c19657b353b7a0989d70d3ea33b4c9f3721ac59087b78263f336416af,aa7021baa80f939bf546fd2535dd0ae16620d3aab855360654c5db84764581bb
+us__scenario_095__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,087f97b1d3580e42bca9b31b7ecd7a13f374c75d1bcb44e5ed44c4aa98a8e0e4,124403b354702d445ab4bdbd24c6468592dc4036baba962ad43230d69eb15ea7
+us__scenario_095__state_refundable_credits,8558bf722f09756d755dc89f429284b0363eeb7a824e4de5a377f89a4fcef70e,23f674e32065e89a52cb52c82dc54bf8572cb2e40beb971381867c777ab66142
+us__scenario_098__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,a38f4b835a8615fee9e27cfc0ca40aef6c0147b04557ffcc0c4ff32c64eaa212,ec0835e4644076760e0c9e99a307ca4f8278766322d505d908502bf615fd5b97
+us__scenario_098__head_medicaid_eligible,8cd262afd7a4a5b417aefbef9b8e5e0faa2c6cbe9421dbd6c4e682bf64320080,5dc5b7fe103930e61b86379bb10b504b34a78b5c76b8d16a0dd27a520c54ffe2
+us__scenario_098__snap,b70c95dc088b00f8350eb378731243909cdac4379b57e884ff1cbbc6a565e262,d07af42cc921dd613def0a4b91761a0f0e00f600f021c6896ffd9ee03f75d6a2
+us__scenario_098__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,3cbd357144aec83f90dc1093c44612e75515b8e3e4501df85ea99fb576480e04,1ee09ff45f612781bd76ae55b794d277525bae38f990b10edf80c9b6633ca8d0
+us__scenario_099__child2_chip_eligible,b0f31b2f454547fe5d09dc6e639c8c4e63989fb675bf88bda01f713c545a3c52,2ea73dcd67efb98b2e7d6f0f267882c81aa878e35b41a9bdc9b7a6bb04358715
+us__scenario_099__child2_early_head_start_eligible,2fa95a87c099ff8ac433c5b2b8d7624ee6144ea3d47a7590ae159eb9a79e77b1,7b908adc23d068598ecbe1c7ef1229e4109ffcfd64159586f34c4890a30acfb8
+us__scenario_099__child2_head_start_eligible,86da19ad621cf5e66d38598fe8e04c7d92e12a7d18fd096c15dbd08065d4dbdc,ceb659b95e5d3b715ef5b5a5a454e87ea1ec5201fb99d0a1078c40d4e33054b4
+us__scenario_099__child2_wic_eligible,fcbed40dc9ba79bd8a1424465919adcd4dc22bb89308647182b676f05ffcbc10,3f3394172da33877788a16cbb8deaec82da485bee529b664be1e9c2780deab4b
+us__scenario_099__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,bc21cc3d8ae77221b0dfca94252998f27811ef530d77c936af285145ed9f23d1,4b4d5b44566449332581afb12e2183f76c11fe50d924e5e28e3694a84c3db5eb
+us__scenario_099__federal_refundable_credits,168e1138247a6005842f1b2525b8411c148b6527f5c4f41f68a4c82918aeb4fc,de41a2f2039a46d03bf52dbfa99e68a28039d42c1a273e93e5ba5f4da587195d
+us__scenario_099__free_school_meals_eligible,ca7a132327fd90ae95c77672ae560ea3afc040fbcbdf26ced4b1ebc121f10d06,50a333adfb2bfb4982f92dfda6425244fa1c209dc92b1a8159c3fd2c42c81a2f
+us__scenario_099__payroll_tax,3bd1ac5044edeb182ce5b1ee2ce67767a0551e8f61141575fa109cbac8dc1136,dd08c935926254dce9150a42eaff6cc6ddd19308d6008623f06a6d99b1177818
+us__scenario_099__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,a8d089c65e90d83e5cf9681a3075112573a33670bfd9119479480d4b43d51a17,77960ab8161d1537b69be03eaacd8af8bce0a6d0f3f7108374fb99774a6ff708
+us__scenario_100__child1_chip_eligible,7ffdbc7ca5d08f46ca46ef66182bc29a8c46cd19a72a87925e2eaa4c36d40514,92bb560355412c7e0ebc905e8a42b418aad216365b267c7272ce94e55ac5f87e
+us__scenario_100__child1_head_start_eligible,49c5267e1955e218824edb896ef6afe8513c15900fcb3fa8162d8464e1d1dbec,a1bc7cfcb12a742bb47862d3d6a680916ba4dd02badedb72075603aea79cbbd6
+us__scenario_100__child1_medicaid_eligible,f4d72f7e9ec7a2a3c872bcd432b325779ba1e11df4929c9e5c21c7b880ed190c,1d1a4add8b5311c807c8f9ff80c58ae1dd96477788525eedd426296fd953f21a
+us__scenario_100__child1_wic_eligible,b93165ac4af96aacdac7ab4614ddbe807465a52a9cffe523de29dd09f7e6cc24,7dc92815ef7b7b2f828b9e4083f18a1a2bbf182180e6ab46847f6c909bcdd828
+us__scenario_100__child2_chip_eligible,fde0a7af991c6e5e3740c523584c06a4a43ffeaed5c9b6febd2bad6d9a910429,b09ad5050f3a921a53a2e3185ff5a6d41efcadbb366b85b3b026ccba41247a7a
+us__scenario_100__child2_early_head_start_eligible,c293f7bd6ec6d82d1698e3fea3cbc42d8e812b9003cedaa382769b50631a4924,37412541482c0bb137e2db632405a91b0b55bc15b4f2d40b00dcde3d3b285d72
+us__scenario_100__child2_head_start_eligible,6fec1a2f819664628af449323dabf4d3164be30ac606a39c9ef58fa9436970a3,d12046b335644c4a08ae44c001a1759f6910d7f63ef2ace53e15ff26574840c6
+us__scenario_100__child2_medicaid_eligible,fe030897de6850c05bf4ebedf681a49e2c56fa9d5935b651d2702155c36599be,231902793dbcb27611ef0d54fbe06ded22d5c10211053898d714c0dfcd97a12f
+us__scenario_100__child2_wic_eligible,34755e3b9718b10316b26a50b9417140686100682ea3f752cb3c65eb234f96e0,163409e6e0817d44d1e1be2755c836b6154e25357a96be94c065a16cfd557b96
+us__scenario_100__federal_refundable_credits,b747c9243a9805ea1ddb45ac770911e0926962330e817c36b9660c26575fe4ee,eea3f79c4e04d7a6209589457323e8d5189aa92450a2e8a03003cba567c36744
+us__scenario_100__free_school_meals_eligible,7228854ed21c25c78f6154b660ba69b627b06c3a83ee5f214927e83d16d897ab,346b3cfc914a2538ead9b42441edb562c301cf7f59d04eb601c3825a759fb31c
+us__scenario_100__head_medicaid_eligible,48e03b27b24ed322a410324bbd575170ecdc529b7ac7a62452345654b61918c5,b517187637972fb7d544a8f1f29773907108f9f95dd54d08474954e9d2bb9b02
+us__scenario_100__head_medicare_eligible,ad947d335e7a019c438dd97f875e7b9e58b25aa08455f97573282a67e2dce0ee,0ae21bb28543c90f5963805ea426fe4027fa5b581dbabbc47360e3592591e49d
+us__scenario_100__head_wic_eligible,cf153d90fd04487b2e320b91ddd524f4f43a7d4486f8e9d5b7d4288f2cc16b3a,a419bd2dbaa28c22cfbf65bb7e9660ee4fca6d7157e5c153f24f71de0416eaab
+us__scenario_100__payroll_tax,f864eaf0d9dfe4da779598c661c52b7491350ec4a6528e4730514d81bacadf61,2ffede13456c8f1cbd057431c0494a09c92dc28c6391cc1c6d40e249bd2b6a90
+us__scenario_100__reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,f48e0f5e3e1be80d313f5e14147df9a8518ebbade9afefaccccf8a085743b7e2,52a1034f6edfb84b8ec945fbaf13dfbbca8de2b289716d76054ae88a909c9364
+us__scenario_100__snap,d524ed4eadb3e3714703f571319b38b3643fe9e6e416176bd8a29b0202e168d3,a42e52af20f36325394b5bc6db1a7f3eeb9dddecfca9153c1d8326aa6ebacc4b
+us__scenario_100__ssi,09ed7e493c8ac49b0075113658c5d540283544489f4c4a4cc90936015b747c2e,ab0f911ffe235e01b310584be8ba7b9d9e5d3d5d5a63bce6328ec0f604057f76
+us__scenario_100__state_refundable_credits,e2aec58f8de21ffddb7c7a925bbbdab0be420aa9a8c1b1bdd0e9412dc7e0d24f,6144f65f41a2660271b23229fdbc70bb097b273d74d934bde21f9aa4f6b13eb2
+us__scenario_100__tanf,7ded58edc9901d2100b9da7bddcd104af730bd0fdd1a7b161d45807f254b09ac,00da6ea5c1a189732d9cb6464629b3998c7602779f6b49b0773a086887edf997
+us__scenario_101__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,33329f5fd148d05381e7a1765641f31511987a2af190c5e7c334557e10c3b916,3c98ff05987df6945fab9a7d62d84361fea61bf372613cab9853a8fb056d9956
+us__scenario_101__payroll_tax,bed608f5de9caef1a933f0990d62a08367b3615af714ebf9aa0aa75b6e3f1fec,99fdc0ed8e493e4a348c42dc035013c006a9c0d4463c25e46c7c3382b1d97e7d
+us__scenario_101__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,4a51ce741f9c4f5e11debc391104c9bdd78ba23a379912d224cfdd8232835533,2c03e3495e68b19fb648a5c21134b23f0f35401773765bad122d24d7f9d3c2a6
+us__scenario_102__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,1f4857f021de2c2cc2a579256a00a01f633850229b58de0d9df7092c5fa2b928,8c9715481ea35eab3a5881a01091de3540da5a1ea5f41de266a0fe8024b263e4
+us__scenario_102__federal_refundable_credits,1e601d03532140264686b284f460d2116091b602a6b80a4ec30d7f3799324997,ae74d7f50b0d6de89a090d1dfdeff35fc4953aa940e1e26481f55c4698c71f54
+us__scenario_102__head_medicaid_eligible,d5d3ef6446b0a066d66bc5785940e16828da8116caa2149a1d1927dad6a94729,751f23df5475cd27a58eb4a61a8afa5c9cbd25d9c10b6dd5145119c1a4c11c51
+us__scenario_102__head_medicare_eligible,e035d850b7f1bb7e1613eb438e8df66b7425a12cd160b2a8f7c8093a49417457,e3c7848bcb73d4b112379903f96efaeb0a86c33329271f1d002b575905cd1680
+us__scenario_102__payroll_tax,9e82e5aad615feda16e19f80961d7cfa34d536d6115c6f5684366e8b8a984de5,49094627773fcf98ec5b1c460d43f8bddc2f72e90d5dec41ec2daa4a583f3605
+us__scenario_102__self_employment_tax,8657d250c36b165d52ef2648ecf991d3aa4517cae167f3a8f673b5cbc1b6e573,c20e61a529c60cfd66a8ed543ec7b930133dc678aa78d283cc6d43b1eb7adccd
+us__scenario_102__spouse_medicare_eligible,f46b896f82b5523fe3003eee2b68291323798151d9818d1b614c72404193c311,56555b70da3ddbd5bf3f844126541b7c4ec63e69b3415549dc4e9ac73da019ad
+us__scenario_102__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,274d7a14d83b6264b2c437f0754c09843e9d2f6c834a67d5331077e1935eea38,67b37ee4f21d701c7986e8bf3f51ba84db82ec6f1d782b2da8d22cc989b5439c
+us__scenario_104__head_medicaid_eligible,2be536aa9e33fdc74fb76b8cc8ecb299bc6c6c4b0ec941b37283379e4c02507d,df565d71c1643211ff3ff2db8de166d96e7816be78baf39c115fb8696c9bd35d
+us__scenario_104__snap,ddd90e125c60e639aab3fb91979a33aac4d6de88fda09ffef7bf32d89e599952,918f3d22f7bf8d30f940c35441a4d60dae9940efea8118f52f0f5f7e7f83285e
+us__scenario_104__state_refundable_credits,e1ccbfae16f82ecc76808d1bdc19607ec277f01a04140777f2853653d7624c9b,48a4b28bcb0b63f57af2e47109f0cda96823db8e281ebbcf46675e98d8a0f605
+us__scenario_107__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ae86382325d449aa954d9ac405e3b35ed09a4f64375a3dbb9b29fa82e4b702f7,f392af050b61548f936e52455de3aeefd5f32310a0f1478d8d6d6381b054ddef
+us__scenario_107__federal_refundable_credits,8ce30c4292c1d550874c94f936ec81c91e7bda6501b4425baf686768ce12bc97,f4bebed066e53a96dc3758b7efd30b421663fb3a56019d93ca6b674097b6b0bb
+us__scenario_107__head_medicaid_eligible,d64333207d87b423bad3bae0ef46495e35857778fa0a6c60a1636ec8f557f280,22e27326f52dcbf196f98ca50d3ea3febe7691655708a4c561ab7dc331e6510d
+us__scenario_107__payroll_tax,492359a5328a9233be292b09edf7a0011778a0aa21744aa6abb5a771d4cd32ba,45a6e6efced759812f979e51794ee4447950fa7d3a99b59b2234081e1a202d8d
+us__scenario_107__snap,a8c76325a7f15ddd29f9480f8ae9a9ed424bb6c0b9be982a75296f8a78654c73,c29da5cb840d5ef24525b4df767de20d35334c4bc5e7a8e0b1c0fe17a2ae5ad3
+us__scenario_107__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,3ca54642b83a48e0a9c810433c9d185b443b9d4a1ad29176d771dd79d55a52ae,e4ed77a3fbefcda2d7931eb41de980c5e87f9b61f40a9b0ef77da25bf775342e
+us__scenario_108__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,f055f23f31453e1f51c7f34882dd643ddb36ad83b714f8543067fd2c4c9d7b0a,99801a44d1aabbd23aa38a7d1b29d799f4260f88f37cad7feee5baeb7a62f45c
+us__scenario_108__federal_refundable_credits,1c413f0dc2dc3bb0f8b33e042c2805e0966026e9c417ee210620d33856d14446,481c7d2928c83010123aee24ffd4f4135a74a91a3ccbced7ae43aa06a42e3d81
+us__scenario_108__head_medicaid_eligible,db5a96055dfef40d51d99ae837e5b5992280904d4fa813876ea34b4533686a91,ac8f0f7044564eada7aa064f3a30c5e854fb06c21936ca03bd2b096986840fda
+us__scenario_108__payroll_tax,31501e3f7b6106c30f3e88cd461b81b1c25c0f2778a111b77734291864028f81,07b5f9a7fd9978bfd4172f80262fee544dbb2b871f1cb1503bcef419707fd653
+us__scenario_108__snap,5d1f1959731f822bbce92fcab0c5e1303ccf0b6b50e1460c6107cd59e9bc20c6,1ae94f4dd2c60e185f785e40dc781c43114bbf6f8c7cf84665dec2724e3755eb
+us__scenario_108__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,02b20b6ab85b1c08306bac6b6afc2867547f3dd5e31863a6d52d19dca3a13914,f2098a69ea94aab5581a433595967ee2a936cc202acb689d23f4a8cfb80735f2
+us__scenario_108__state_refundable_credits,f04113ff22ccc5379b29e8c27197da55635148d243460823b706caa24c994dcd,72889845a5775bdb0e970bef2cb7d4c72b8371422241cfe2bdda26723c52671b
+us__scenario_109__child1_chip_eligible,95b07ff668b9575e4309589318f19b58020cce8d40172ba5de626fa839c9caff,4179653b3eb573f877ae4cd6dac9362b5baee7f96f5901830f8a367ffdc062de
+us__scenario_109__child1_medicaid_eligible,c806fea0f6a8b994fdf9205258f536acadec10c25daa12f6ca105c8e4034bcf6,4bc3938fd7c76188713048b6a01cf5ec34245afb71c38abf6bc332264fbcc4bf
+us__scenario_109__child2_chip_eligible,7e7873d309632b91ea07dcdba15c95c84e30759c00fe7be071247b983c2f9e8d,8437126d76f27b635bb201c035b1ebf73a8df5352962e49c1237d49317570180
+us__scenario_109__child2_head_start_eligible,f46b048bee44d197f028cae7290c62e42ccf3e5e5e7468331607ec3c136d4119,ff4e4d4fac95ae515a1ded072a26a93678a4fee677e318184fa805fe031d4f66
+us__scenario_109__child2_medicaid_eligible,5f41323210a69526bcef644dc26eaa0f5d4d3cab8aa7dd7adc42d0cf28e34f55,0deb8c46388d3597980907374bd27e0b487b907c9945a868f31c08202fa75d8e
+us__scenario_109__child2_wic_eligible,ff0267c6ef81551f3877368a43b5218cfa245e1194a95dff0e69ebf70d8ccb77,78f286838cd944b3e37925f586cc2f2f5f68861204f3e5dc8be6594c03a3bebd
+us__scenario_109__child3_chip_eligible,dde97cf5286042bf287f0a20fb76fdead5508c0e9a84b29c104e9bf8ed5b1fdc,b30f8127d5631222cae718b98ada52886c0a400050b5ba1cf7e3bdf1a186010e
+us__scenario_109__child3_early_head_start_eligible,2d40b21ecfddd39defe7add5b274ca5d541c7d4ba5600128b0631eabf2eff666,26176a8ad6de724f4d8c5c47e4911c55b6b4e8daca6cb6cbc98057751f501741
+us__scenario_109__child3_head_start_eligible,9bf66fdc97e155bf72a12f9b4de76f3e3ce2d76e39610e67bc6c10702f25e6da,3652c93d43605f903e1e3ae9388150d47a97f2672cd617fadc556865b92668ae
+us__scenario_109__child3_medicaid_eligible,ca2be8657ff9de56b93cb7cb0a523e8fb5c22bea9e253d94661966a0a6bde1aa,f0923debc63db7e5edf9b40de1a35df8937ce0e99d3ecc27fb60c6ef3b8c8b51
+us__scenario_109__child3_wic_eligible,af474fc81edb2a4f723848479c0f3a499f588f0081e83740d215ba59a19cc3ad,9ccf3a7e8a096d6450d84dbc2fda4136ebdf18be87515b08b2f0f23e73a134ff
+us__scenario_109__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,4d8d528b04dbf78859d3da734e6c564f21c7ddfb57d6cc1cbf6c8c792771db53,be4af2f46c406bcb08c621ba20433a734d9ecdffb1a47b5a2973219c401cd9f5
+us__scenario_109__federal_refundable_credits,dd3325e5b0f6d086426801947748e8e3fbbddf7313b8c9f04b394a99cefafac5,3636ed85ee18ef1a385c575d73c431e3177132243a7b78d672cf3253afe3f1de
+us__scenario_109__free_school_meals_eligible,de534fa64d3370e65f6d7b5d407bdfaf4489cf1e71de949d28ef815da2073b76,b92f7666fda454f815d74ccfb926e9e5fac2e7ce754fe1ce9de630d979ddf3a3
+us__scenario_109__head_medicaid_eligible,e28e69e317185feff2783d9cdd3ee1a87cd2afd9d26cec04e2be619b20e454f9,4efd6c417a20ab25a4bfe8d33b538e37264cba3c8fee877377c66e04a410b8c2
+us__scenario_109__head_wic_eligible,2137dfc79fb6f44c4be90a4c29879317924f7d86111820852a78f38605790804,e9f69a0cc76f50db8b403dd46f905776815a156a2bbe7c53a50003ed22591cbe
+us__scenario_109__reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,31bf934a56c29f7f00d7c7c42f59c897b5a175a61da73e7ae5fe75fc6ecc7bcf,6d9b2b7eaaf2e304e0ad51c254f0a181099931d157140a5d55596d84ce84fa40
+us__scenario_109__self_employment_tax,0133f3dee663890285aa94fd9005cd18c50c20487feb9ea9490901e54c34cd07,38c60acdc7d7daa6dde74f177afa29c26a7fd504d2bebe77f40a0527f20ea4e0
+us__scenario_109__snap,72300eea9edf75a9b6322a921ce61d9e8db66e671f1eae51bb217f43a4ffa411,f6634623901caa2795dd173d2e30f3b4156e7163e068cac2252b9d17a05b7f80
+us__scenario_109__spouse_medicaid_eligible,f21941a8c827445dc9ffd1d9fec946c43e531df7ecb97925148b006aa396d9aa,f1e03b0784dd96fdb9eedac1f34427f2adde5f2082fd660972d62c88f59cee88
+us__scenario_109__spouse_wic_eligible,325d38a414903be1464707ece33fe114afa63a8e00c8b52f57c34034f5924398,c5b9e14bbc394fd2f65c3b4ddf1e3d8f3c0135764e4f9125c0fe5b8a07742499
+us__scenario_110__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,b0006ddc62557dce76207a9849ea87e33711fc8d5ae3db922445cfa0a5aa786b,7ddab7a9ca0373a1b26912fb7bf1b61182eb1eeaac42aafa2d792919ac3add45
+us__scenario_110__payroll_tax,bf6a554898a2ddc18614579761baa3f1fad31390c47955831ac97963ac0a9593,12a8e2fcf44f8eac85e2a7876e2f718821ce07cf760491936c949139d74cab80
+us__scenario_110__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,11c214593870149283dc5e447c790d8f16e6a7bf41e1f92eb6a8536b470b693f,64dccc9ce244ffeca7dc407844b82943d46613696024737d1d16903091ebc789
+us__scenario_111__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,43d0ef06a041e5007925f42ac571a195b241e9637d19d0b8558604819be914b7,492337b58b95c3ed7954c8ca550c3374f2bca1fbdcc4e373d055964e51f0c9a8
+us__scenario_111__head_medicaid_eligible,a430153ce573528490e51ba0f40315658e0569a761c172d4fb55e336e007df14,f1bcbd2a52d30f24f2da19e19df059578e4b017e943372f763c34343a48a5bad
+us__scenario_111__payroll_tax,3beb0ace746fb3a63ee03e1205ad309dedd3bbd43062ea75a433d7f111dfb361,513c770f6a6cc764c39ac5c53c079f27692b9fd3f138e0bf9692c319d16e5751
+us__scenario_111__snap,b64d6497d900bdfaa8402f2f8666d20127f340800b74e293d0e51f83d6d38fb0,95a092d05068cee4aadef05c2d697174c94c9384bde66fb42058ea747074461c
+us__scenario_111__spouse_medicaid_eligible,10eadd161726da6ef4678285641680ba6165cfb04ff1f3e87be611520f7ed144,b99d3dcc48b45ae2fdd187409fc6601176da2db82907c6abd08a8228e4e5cf65
+us__scenario_111__spouse_medicare_eligible,1b4acc243558ec551f071bc68f0a9e2db86c905b08c58e1405bd372e454ac526,b6c11aaa57d23f567b259433f8a4b138419cdf7161c6d5d879b457aeee823d04
+us__scenario_112__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,4e724060206eff175e4504eb2caa1b272013bf1c7fca80397d6217b9f3288157,0ecc7c6bee1489e81a8eae1183d2d9b50b06f4b4da652a5873489d38a9639c95
+us__scenario_112__federal_refundable_credits,95a3b68ff7aaee81a894f49e8cfbf49f9874b2578840b33e11a3d0cd65f72814,f9e281d4620ae229345fd73a1a1d3cb88c1f5ab516fe82141043676f97d74bfd
+us__scenario_112__head_medicaid_eligible,239be8c8c005b939b31e41b63d3d9c094c6a301e60a93092e3ac7af65a2ff275,cf005069f379d417e3274be065641b60c14779d6e1817a078b5769f98c136096
+us__scenario_112__head_wic_eligible,c3991638780039d33fe9f6e3c34d50da701f0c919f0f67998e62b5b53d596411,a67037d1bf6467d0560a3fa3d2cf93a456e9ab93be0965f511a08e78413a4989
+us__scenario_112__payroll_tax,60d96684620fee48910f39733de20767413c14547b1142fb9f6c559244bc7172,62ff4ac380676683da71168ce441119a931c332f23a94ad2fe38deec48b691ef
+us__scenario_112__self_employment_tax,92f4fde0e650ff25da9e097ad237c91b7c893d29962e071cabe9ebcab71ff218,2fffa4ac34206dd5c70328cefe0d4856b80f86cf7cd71b7f441abfe294c8f3bd
+us__scenario_112__snap,8672e1b09fd88a8b2abd4d0ad2f7f65147c5c8ab293c856fea280c572073d157,3e3b073cec1f9e6dacafbf8787c9cdf74e2e468d575dceeb3463ef2ee8852aff
+us__scenario_114__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,5d1c5b7853b756657d14b93b5f4a32cba3b4836ff943185ccaf6ce3088f14bd2,6b759b798338f6b5255cd6d0736bb5f1292b1b54ffb716094ccf691d8cda4027
+us__scenario_114__federal_refundable_credits,4893ee696228cb54f450e9dc6c27be2f269016891f0fb00d235926b36107118d,67a85e18b6df494d0bea9ea6322784dde7da0013dd82731b1ec49d2b48906f66
+us__scenario_114__payroll_tax,728ce80c383ebea347b59f6b25ac22a735cea327de9586aae7a1f47047870fb6,61c5b2d82967d3af7df146d7ea4412e0007c2937109a90087177aea3b7f9f9d4
+us__scenario_114__self_employment_tax,976e0494715515829e2ad02f305cc25016077051b55baec3eee1377956c3e8a4,b28a5d2fb6758654353e8be605f64d0a843182a0a08e65b3595e4fe63be5e5c1
+us__scenario_114__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,4aa34c0f320e0d756d14f007a2b6cad3145b4ce854bbeec2a816292f842ac61f,15d10804d831dfe9c070b9f198c4259622953f78502bc3456403b2c0e25a6576
+us__scenario_115__head_medicaid_eligible,ecce7759f91e86e416e3790ebd94fd8398dd43380b496474d0517ff5ac21990d,02f548c330509d4f280a34d9e2f7b2b18dfc6b767dce5a51e0e17865eebdfbce
+us__scenario_115__snap,634c417adf074bdd41cf1d4360f098e38645492ca5e486e05ffd1764bf24f9ec,3ede57fcbd96772eda588d55904edef6c1fcd3fd4c276c5e86df23367026ceb2
+us__scenario_115__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,f705fd8f24f25c950e05e38d650a5fb309f6c9a276fba90ee6f24f6440fdab69,39e6a1d5c0e62c1af90468503e7fd92ca37ade880c11b32adf816a05985deb6d
+us__scenario_116__snap,d875ad46611cd5214dfaa9c96d4a3a8821334ab2c97a93394607f17b279f7d8f,6971485bb9b884f5db2b4c85b8031d6f02b12efab642ee87a46ddd72a24b436b
+us__scenario_116__spouse_medicaid_eligible,c61163baf718458e30f529ab3f9d84f8c6fcd32dd25dd0debc327713d83b9da3,c71899c630c2f0e9f6cea6d20f3261faf36b427cf5d70c0d32395f1b4e481f19
+us__scenario_116__spouse_medicare_eligible,0efd2eec8758157d1f455e443b0f698c82bc22bce2698af842aedd4040c08641,5d953ccfb4800970e84f8a0c3ac761057cddb400bfe906d65761c0600b70d6c1
+us__scenario_117__child3_early_head_start_eligible,0926d12e2f0241120078e26167ad9cf017333dcb4b8955a2d5a09bf892c007b2,fb8a3a1900d19278385a97eb392b00206f4d61e82f090c754abb697565cb20a1
+us__scenario_117__child3_head_start_eligible,44703423e85c5569457e69aa31ef80b2659065d6f27fe639e083fbebf58fe5ab,8c0858c6f18e6a21d8b2e443a088a19d25ab0b0c09c0aa10aa25a40a0271335f
+us__scenario_117__child3_wic_eligible,31ff794afa1cb3ddb82ead5b6dece0a9b998b02ff644f1214d827f7b6a90d20b,4c82af05c92393e1707d1699f64d3d02619c4a506d76d10ba2ab4e9d4f4165f1
+us__scenario_117__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,b7be08ccbcbf33b2d4b8d2ca6b808d101d10f168878781fb10e767c87c1587f4,1cf06142d70d2e54efb1e63dda5522d6fb54cd31c64bb164e01b1ec2d3f5ddf9
+us__scenario_117__federal_refundable_credits,b0f1d7553d95d493cb21d918e67ffda978fea56f3db7a5f7c6a48ea50230606b,e7d2a782ec4c5074b9650ede908b9a02eb5cb838fddf78745e839b539a6b312c
+us__scenario_117__head_wic_eligible,d65f67cf6634c591eee1aa2dca4f3abb6eab181efbfa9683cd69121f74d78ba3,999b453c4ea5381c95feea026b861503c86c28346fea8abcefb8e3f65a6bc3cd
+us__scenario_117__payroll_tax,c335e18898b96ffe23ac22315159e03f576dde59837f0d53c1823e526b1c7c16,0e50359baa35a7eeca90dda0d4e5001dc4174f82e94c4a7e9b95419c680860eb
+us__scenario_117__spouse_wic_eligible,3de7fecf4f8871a549d78944fc9fa629faad351400955f029091211d2cef52a5,d3518137770e1e43fafb36317e5a4dd1224f90d663bc6e7f03944820d34a09f9
+us__scenario_117__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,572c0ba92a7ce13958209cbb1dccea4a837d0a3bc9ab9a8ea5d0ddfd3039ee3d,ecad5b53a1a396899cbb84491ad1bb6b87d2453891da5fd09cebbf958e6adcc9
+us__scenario_118__head_medicaid_eligible,e4ab3e94a6988cdc765f69cc7521cda5d6deeb91acd4732a887561f9863e2e87,4b659d697f6a85093b208c45914fd9e67cc0c04e9c9352bdab973ff2d31e5a8c
+us__scenario_118__payroll_tax,ac99d20fe15a935dd5b988b6dcac640b33c3845851e44786a260727e14f52c85,d6aaec3987c5199e4297fc2d723d03dd240caba24a4f9581a1fbe2c170d6f0fd
+us__scenario_118__snap,b22ce3ccf0809b8bfe38e7841fb188d7314f37cc9c91738cc44f93ca318aa11d,30a5d40c030e3d4f2c921f76ea2ae91d6a2737707126f6aab82d2b82b17e69cc
+us__scenario_118__ssi,294d6c5c9dccc91c2f8137be0f4a8069dedbaee62f2ebb4966070df98d3305d3,229093fb0cf25b2ecb4477f957041bd7aa80cdc7140bcb1f2086ece5a9ef0a30
+us__scenario_118__state_refundable_credits,93c1e4431eb2920d0468bcfbb0f55f2fc01fdede3ede4f311bf1516b90675825,76fdd4f653f6d1883632643c70c66e36f6462be8b636b662ca2c810d2b00ca86
+us__scenario_119__child1_chip_eligible,380eef556ace7ef7f6bc5d713e5843dd735ad306514c576ff1057355704ad129,17ecdeb200e5875fce56e5e12f275c3330e9e62b756e4953dc2ed5069928886f
+us__scenario_119__child1_medicaid_eligible,f668ff1e7ae90feca959db659a3ae7454694f0086f0cf96c21aa48fbcd3c37e8,d513b32caf26de5ce33d49f27064fd8be3795cf85bab12eb5a7c2ed57c7d4ecf
+us__scenario_119__child2_chip_eligible,a9b1e54d772c0f72bd23e442ebcb3e4b2c22424dd8e4b30ffdef6359a3ef7d26,d3145c69dc8724c0cbfca3788c092cc91871ff062710a5159c697e1e49979ab8
+us__scenario_119__child2_medicaid_eligible,7cb313e5e8fb5d9873baafe18f7267f69f0fa26462027805052b82945c94b108,1186a23be3c19588241bfe8570c02e655f77fcb020fb966268ed6272dacfb313
+us__scenario_119__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,68f748ccbc0a2fc3a151aa72a49c5df3513a500d7daab36adb6fc6f2384abf06,483b63d5796504255a16be834b8d108b39917f05126887cdeb0a6d581eb8e86a
+us__scenario_119__federal_refundable_credits,c48c571e4e1581a860cce3e4f93ae61c28b540b6299844c0f77b83fc5154c32c,8c4fcb3e25f626d58aff27551d9b01c0f8b6c300ec4072f6b96f35b4264a4ef0
+us__scenario_119__payroll_tax,2e3e6e070681e314886ab9258066fffb00046304cf84cf51d7c7498a5412ef6f,e5294797ad9fd67690c33e56af234abe913eba73bb9abb5701f49a53467ac8b0
+us__scenario_119__reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,71c358e735d0e5b84b1fce88b1b2c6e2fd2a4a7aae846d4ffd6292a0bda5f688,5ef0c626bbd708c1ff5dae3ac9d239f8441037088dc638f482ce246c6ff6e556
+us__scenario_119__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,934e68e6dab59eebbbb3aa51723ca566c3e9c00a4801d4f01b4c25673fa2f941,370fb2289987cf8abb5dd3ce908fbd9c2c97422a97f523a010dd268b7ee87222
+us__scenario_119__state_refundable_credits,9be7466e450c4969a1387dfd886757b93d3f998304ea6bc67fcd7bcd9fad6013,5cf08d6187a1aaf25ad50e2402a011e97438b3a08b70f4d27d42a8c2e9c7a152
+us__scenario_120__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,1ba23f25e2d7466dfeb3ede1f896889f63937edf8d1239c0196f67b3510fd97d,4834056c2b0c9849f9d7a588d0f12bc9f57a6ad6bb56d749ada2b3799718fddf
+us__scenario_120__head_medicare_eligible,38423457f0d2f776538ce275d1e8d4614066e17bd7c163adcaf72765980cc522,eeb633fc78773bcd0efed8dd71893b20fa0213a5605078c0a2c01eaa9bb128c8
+us__scenario_120__payroll_tax,2450d5a1ff69962c08526521840a45f0c7f84dae8c9387a57fb6fbe9021265d7,f593478dcaf6e4ab985215ea0a73b1b1497befaa5550aff74c5e3f079eb6c91d
+us__scenario_120__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,faadf3532d4b65225889d0c4dcc490a194f3de1459d1256f0038cfa74de2be53,f8513e3a216124ad5fb76d5fd37340f0f95b6c6c76cd0d16044ec97e8227df04
+us__scenario_121__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,61bfca59d67cc2550a0886929d585cd61b021edbf52e10b02a116c6eab77cf70,ec63cc2614dabc2731ae4cd4c2aaf51ff02a2bdfe46e944b673d4d3db7425b36
+us__scenario_121__federal_refundable_credits,21245c794e7489d82d006c47eb91924e7adf2641c548f97a077a37fd96152dfd,172a7cc3c7dc2766ed07f83ffd2fd74afa82fa4903585a1973982dc6fef8e94c
+us__scenario_121__head_medicaid_eligible,f1d2f12bbacc579e157d86e1c3ba16e03e842336293472f8d256c129adb3b4b9,72fbf4afa7aaf9bc3d5898710bac6ea7e3d7a5effb3fa7270abecb173b859f31
+us__scenario_121__head_medicare_eligible,1baa90afe52eaab0457f9f0e86340659a69e5b1d8508bacb74eb35358485e1f9,b1070a79ba0068668c677564855c046be661004654d5886a9e5985199140c8e4
+us__scenario_121__payroll_tax,640422209d50a59709a5d256d27a53027530bcc184a59d09704b2abe58ad7d09,66b09cf08016c1dc3370ec43fede9a05b96ebc5e009ae2756e067fcf1aa6e9db
+us__scenario_121__snap,8a1e8a02047a4b82ab336c3c1f5749abb418fe97f0530b205bd90513fccff123,6341d849dcc1498916473b2b7231afce2a186b88058001aedd2cbd35222385bf
+us__scenario_121__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,ce60fe57a06785eb16d777ea41b1cd3c9a76e1982937a20d627a5a68c819c61f,a8b657c3e9398e752ec8ab3cf4d875ba203398c56ba07803b1a6b0ffc7533375
+us__scenario_122__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,d32fce9ab07103933be9c093d699b7a6c0c22bea567af66a3bccbc166abb0288,073a7c2fcc7db87e5900eeb58f471b6dfc3432dbe9d19092846806626cae8158
+us__scenario_122__head_medicaid_eligible,9cb1915eea284a648754090f09defe9de9174b415c189f7fbe36e396b2cc153f,f33e1094f352c7a871ac9bddd720e1a9cf13c42735d4cbcc766bb5775599be76
+us__scenario_122__payroll_tax,6194402baac22b4f36529d9b2ff9da2c38282f5954eec05586484ffb93af6ba9,8b7cfde758ff2f97f0bc27f7eda3f2326f9a04ff7ca3d277ef9ff936dbed67b3
+us__scenario_122__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,15b89517d2bc6d4feb8a775c8de15805cecf0da59a4548f33c009b7f58331fc1,5d6ab3429ca502e487af6a85d684b42b318ac62c6299087de7f3825897e3b49d
+us__scenario_122__state_refundable_credits,b032c5c37245f6c6c08e03b129af3c18af4f5095260eb2315c74fae180986175,d04072605a758bf7afdef0d7bd603251a3594b41f84b4d7c4d34118c1787cf0b
+us__scenario_123__child1_chip_eligible,396ea9294f25df4757accd3fa501d5116ab243cfd339fa977f462450b459067d,655d730efd8a49a87d1448fd3a55ff88b9872ab3bd5b72cf5450350f7bc8ad23
+us__scenario_123__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,e1ccb0a2785642b439c6d4a08e7ec2ecb3f01b19c95cdfaa18706b5715c5fe24,b3e10802f2fb8070e8972e122566bb02850c0eef5255a3049b3514b1aee3ae84
+us__scenario_123__federal_refundable_credits,1b4e0478dd57381352d13443a3bb844989a26c0843514ebb45d2a142d0653232,a9abcef52c7be874497616bf1ce520817ca82b28aadba529c84c2bffd47fa435
+us__scenario_123__head_medicaid_eligible,bcff1a25f1f72e5213b3c6611ef16ca31b2f8bf6f89a2fa9376e171df6866671,746a18bf8fd8d6650ea14f83587282a4119c5a7a4e053619f18a86b11b82f84c
+us__scenario_123__local_income_tax,20e77243a50a63813619ff778a75cb454aa55599ed980836cd48febee90e15d0,42e5e539f01cd09f5ec915d9614e97528dae7209472e7d05ad0a89e15e0efe04
+us__scenario_123__payroll_tax,d21e14fb430142fadc31cfd53c286f4667e1b13cea2947101e69a8fe5e81fbec,ef1083a6758848ebdec794e2164697bd0388d395fdac65a8dc01cf22f1579f48
+us__scenario_123__spouse_medicaid_eligible,0ea7b3c8cc4c093da15503cb7cfaf83494a83b12184a598bd2138df85b630449,40d4250a45815d85b6550450c375aa9390128d15b3c74eddad4687365e5ab3cf
+us__scenario_123__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,fa1ec97df6a40bf4e5e0952c319627608eb3f60eab7d5556cff9b656026d1225,694e30e3cc685d81430f4c65d60b149c738835b95561760bdfebf7462a9a9666
diff --git a/docs/argon/spec.json b/docs/argon/spec.json
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..3ec15a6e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/argon/spec.json
@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+{
+ "note": "Inputs of the release after dashboard-data-20261013b, read by scripts/finish_argon.py. The release folds Google Gemini 4 Argon and Meta Muse Spark 1.3 (Max 2026-10-13, d1441) onto release dashboard-data-20261013b (release 20261013 with five audit verdicts re-judged, PR #218). Its references stay that release's, computed on policyengine-us 2.41.0: the newest policyengine-us release gives the same value for every output, so no engine upgrade is installed. It rules no exclusion, and its only decisions are two developer triage decisions on cases the new models re-opened, both keeping the output scored (triage_adjudications). Max ruled d1252 (VA scenario_039 federal and OH scenario_025 state income tax, held references) and d1263 (the Tax Table against the rate schedule) on 2026-10-13, both to keep, so nothing scored changes on their points.",
+ "release_tag": "dashboard-data-20261014",
+ "base_tag": "dashboard-data-20261013b",
+ "base_sha256": "0a4b754a4ce3b249e0608efac62e52646e4c6f33c6a28c1a496c4c9fda49b507",
+ "rulings": {
+ "engine": "Max, 2026-09-28: 'we should be using the latest pe for this always!'. The publication check found policyengine-us 2.41.3, the newest release on 2026-10-13, and 2.42.4, the newest on 2026-10-14 after the freeze, equal to 2.41.0 on all 1,984 outputs, so the references do not move.",
+ "d1441": "Max, 2026-10-13: yes, add Muse Spark 1.3; it goes in this release",
+ "d1252": "Max, 2026-10-13: keep scoring both (VA scenario_039 federal, OH scenario_025 state income tax); fix the labels in the v2 prompt (#165)",
+ "d1263": "Max, 2026-10-13: federal references keep the section 1 rate schedule; the card, paper and v2 prompt (#165) state the convention"
+ },
+ "proposals": [],
+ "adjudications": [],
+ "restated_adjudications": [],
+ "triage_adjudications": [
+ {
+ "scenario_id": "scenario_009",
+ "variable": "federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "adjudicated_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "adjudicated_failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
+ "adjudicated_on": "2026-10-14",
+ "reference_verdict": null,
+ "reference_basis": null,
+ "reasoning": "The judge labeled eight models' rows reference_later_law (deepseek-v4-pro-0813, deepseek-v4.1-flash, gemini-3.7-flash, gemini-4-argon, grok-4.5, grok-4.6, grok-4.7 and grok-build-0.1) because they applied the pre-TCJA rules scheduled to return in 2026 (a smaller standard deduction, personal exemptions and a 15% second bracket). The reference applies the permanent TCJA parameters of P.L. 119-21, enacted July 4, 2025, before the July 3, 2026 reference freeze, and the benchmark scores law published before the freeze; the rows are model errors, as the 2026-09-29 wave decided for the same rule in scenario_007's federal income tax."
+ },
+ {
+ "scenario_id": "scenario_064",
+ "variable": "state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "adjudicated_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "adjudicated_failure_subtype": "state_local_rule",
+ "adjudicated_on": "2026-10-14",
+ "reference_verdict": "affirmed",
+ "reference_basis": "Wis. Stat. 71.05(10)(c)2. (for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2022, a net capital loss offsets ordinary income up to $3,000, or $1,500 for married persons filing separately); 2025 Wisconsin Schedule WD, line 28",
+ "reasoning": "The judge flagged the reference on the hypothesis that Wisconsin limits the net capital loss deduction to $500, and labeled claude-opus-5.5's row reference_model_issue_fixed because it applied that limit. The $500 limit is Wis. Stat. 71.05(10)(c)1., which covers only taxable years beginning before January 1, 2023; for 2026, subd. 2. allows $3,000 on a joint return, the $3,000 the reference deducts, so Wisconsin adds nothing back and the reference's Wisconsin AGI of $114,421 stands. The rows are model errors."
+ }
+ ],
+ "triage_decided_on": "2026-10-14",
+ "triage_adjudications_written_on": "2026-10-14",
+ "snapshot_date": "2026-10-14"
+}
diff --git a/docs/benchmark_card.md b/docs/benchmark_card.md
index c30eb5c1..09732563 100644
--- a/docs/benchmark_card.md
+++ b/docs/benchmark_card.md
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ selects the tool transport, or the same fields returned as a JSON object where
it selects JSON. For most JSON rows the card records that the provider rejects
a forced tool call: Claude Fable 5.1, Claude Opus 5.5, Claude Sonnet 5.5,
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (whose card says the same of the V4 rows), Kimi K2.6, Kimi
-K3, Muse Wonder, Qwen 3.7 Max and Qwen 3.8 Max. The cards of DeepSeek V4 Pro and GLM-5.2
+K3, Muse Spark 1.3, Muse Wonder, Qwen 3.7 Max and Qwen 3.8 Max. The cards of DeepSeek V4 Pro and GLM-5.2
select JSON without recording a rejection, and the older Gemini rows answer as
JSON by the Gemini family default. The per-model transport is in the
snapshot's `model_serving_config.json`.
@@ -70,8 +70,8 @@ be described as faithful reasoning traces.
PolicyBench computes each scored US reference by running
`policyengine_us.Simulation` from policyengine-us 2.41.0, the newest release
when PolicyBench began sweeping the references on 2026-10-13 (uploaded 01:44
-UTC). policyengine-us 2.41.2, the newest release when PolicyBench checked PyPI
-on 2026-10-13 at 11:34 UTC, gives the same value as 2.41.0 for all 1,984
+UTC). policyengine-us 2.42.4, the newest release when PolicyBench checked PyPI
+on 2026-10-14 at 04:03 UTC, gives the same value as 2.41.0 for all 1,984
outputs under the same conventions and adapter. The 49 excluded outputs keep
the values they were decided on (29 computed with policyengine-us 1.755.4, 18
with 2.15.17, 2 with 2.38.6), and PolicyBench re-reviewed the 12 of them that
@@ -79,6 +79,12 @@ move on 2.41.0; all 12 stay excluded. The manifest also records policyengine.py
6.1.2 for provenance. Its certified US bundle carries policyengine-us 2.2.1, and
policyengine.py does not load beside 2.41.0.
+Federal income tax references apply the section 1 rate schedule to taxable
+income, to the cent, at every income, and not the IRS Tax Table, which the Form
+1040 instructions direct filers with taxable income under $100,000 to use. The
+two can differ by a few dollars, so an answer that follows the Tax Table can
+miss the $1 tolerance on those outputs (`reference_audit/2026-10-10-tax-table/`).
+
A scored reference follows from the stated facts and from law published before
PolicyBench froze the references on 2026-07-03. Where policyengine-us projects
a 2026 amount with a price index, or carries one published after the freeze,
@@ -167,17 +173,17 @@ builder, its evidence and the reviewed actions.
## Audit scope
-The frozen US annotations cover 8,503 scored rows selected because their
-legacy threshold score is below 1 (1,843 further annotated rows sit on the 49
+The frozen US annotations cover 8,765 scored rows selected because their
+legacy threshold score is below 1 (1,915 further annotated rows sit on the 49
excluded outputs and are description, not audit). This audit universe contains
-8,499 of the snapshot's 8,499 exact-match misses and four exact hits. Another
-2,218 scored rows have a bounded score below 100 but fall outside the
+8,761 of the snapshot's 8,761 exact-match misses and four exact hits. Another
+2,329 scored rows have a bounded score below 100 but fall outside the
legacy-threshold selection and have no audit annotation. Three judge models
produced the verdicts, all of them board rows: GPT-5.6 Sol through the Codex
-CLI for 266 cases, Claude Opus 5 through the Claude Code CLI for the 92 cases
+CLI for 264 cases, Claude Opus 5 through the Claude Code CLI for the 92 cases
the September 5 additions joined that no later judge re-judged, and Claude Opus
-5.5 for 319 cases: those the September 22, September 29, September 30, October 9
-and October 13 additions joined or a reference revision changed, and five whose
+5.5 for 322 cases: those the September 22, September 29, September 30, October 9,
+October 13 and October 14 additions joined or a reference revision changed, and five whose
earlier verdicts an audit of the judges' transcripts could not show came from a
judge that saw only its prompt
(docs/judge_isolation_2026-09-30/REPORT.md); the
@@ -187,8 +193,8 @@ reference-suspect flag, is resolved by a recorded developer adjudication
(annotations/.../us_adjudications.json), which keeps the judge's
verdict (the case's current verdict.json; a flag an earlier judge run raised is
kept and says so) beside the decision and the reasoning. This snapshot carries
-61: one for each excluded output, one for each flagged reference the
-adjudication affirmed or replaced with a regenerated reference, and two for
+63: one for each excluded output, one for each flagged reference the
+adjudication affirmed or replaced with a regenerated reference, and three for
cases whose misses the judge attributed to the reference applying later law;
the adjudication records them as model errors because that law predates the
freeze.
@@ -388,7 +394,7 @@ Discipline for private files:
- Run evaluations on the private split by passing the private manifest
explicitly (`--scenario-manifest .../scenarios-private.csv`); the eval and
analyze commands need no other changes.
-- Activation is a snapshot decision: the current 2026-10-13 snapshot scores
+- Activation is a snapshot decision: the current 2026-10-14 snapshot scores
100 public households whose scenario manifest was generated on 2026-06-12
from a 125-household request split with seed 1042. It does not report
protected scores. The first snapshot that reports protected scores should
@@ -419,6 +425,19 @@ recorded costs. Models without per-call costs use the frozen release-metadata
cost. Published model costs retain these recorded totals rather than repricing
past calls at today's rates.
+The harness caches provider responses on disk, keyed on the request and the
+prompt contract version (`policybench/cache.py`). A board request identical to
+one sent earlier, such as an onboarding smoke on the same household, returns
+the cached response: the row records that response's answers, tokens and cost,
+and a latency of about zero. Each prediction row records its call's latency
+divided among the call's outputs, so a household's latency is the sum over its
+rows. The Muse Spark 1.3 row replays its four smoke households (scenario_000,
+scenario_001, scenario_099 and scenario_119), each with the smoke's provider
+response id and a household latency of 0.03 seconds or less. In the frozen
+predictions other rows also have households under 0.05 seconds by that sum,
+among them scenario_000 and scenario_001 for Muse Wonder and Claude Opus 5.5
+and scenario_000 for Claude Haiku 5.5.
+
## Country data paths
### United States
diff --git a/docs/paper.md b/docs/paper.md
index d88de005..ef3f7a96 100644
--- a/docs/paper.md
+++ b/docs/paper.md
@@ -67,8 +67,8 @@ The manifest at `paper/snapshot/20260501/manifest.json` lists:
- `population_weight_artifact`, with the committed scoring-weight path and
sha256
- `audit_annotation_artifacts`, with the row and case audit file hashes. The
- frozen annotations cover 8,503 scored rows whose legacy threshold score is
- below 1: 8,499 of 8,499 exact-match misses and 4 exact hits. Another 2,218
+ frozen annotations cover 8,765 scored rows whose legacy threshold score is
+ below 1: 8,761 of 8,761 exact-match misses and 4 exact hits. Another 2,329
scored rows have bounded score below 100 but were outside that selection and
are not annotated. A judge_provenance block tallies which judge model produced
each case verdict.
diff --git a/paper/index.qmd b/paper/index.qmd
index c8f02d1a..cfd9e3e0 100644
--- a/paper/index.qmd
+++ b/paper/index.qmd
@@ -1123,9 +1123,11 @@ On `{python} r10.last_engine_upgrade.date` PolicyBench moved the references from
On `{python} r.engine_upgrade_date` PolicyBench moved the references again, from policyengine-us `{python} r.previous_policyengine_us_version` to `{python} r.policyengine_us_version`, the first release with every fix the previous move was waiting on. With the same publication conventions and adapter, it recomputed every output (`{python} r.engine_upgrade_audit_dir`). `{python} r.engine_upgrade_timing_sentence` `{python} r.engine_upgrade_restored_split_sentence` `{python} r.engine_upgrade_restored_target_sentence` The reference sidecar records each target with the upstream fix it names (`regenerated_exclusions`). `{python} r.engine_upgrade_restored_sentence` `{python} r.engine_upgrade_change_details` PolicyBench re-reviewed the `{python} r.engine_upgrade_rechecked_count` excluded outputs whose values move on `{python} r.policyengine_us_version`; all stay excluded, each with the value it was decided on. The `{python} r.excluded_output_count` excluded outputs now keep the values they were decided on (`{python} r.excluded_outputs_by_engine_version_phrase`).
+Federal income tax references apply the section 1 rate schedule to taxable income, to the cent, at every income. The Form 1040 instructions send filers with taxable income under $100,000 to the IRS Tax Table, whose looked-up amounts can differ from the schedule by a few dollars. PolicyBench keeps the schedule: an answer that follows the Tax Table can miss the $1 tolerance on those outputs (`reference_audit/2026-10-10-tax-table`).
+
The audit tooling itself required hardening, which we report because it changes how much the annotations can be trusted. The derivation narratives displayed alongside reference values are generated from engine computation traces. After earlier model-written narratives were found to misattribute eligibility pathways, mechanical validators now enforce that each narrative states the engine's actual mechanism — for example, that a child ineligible for CHIP because they qualify for Medicaid is never described as failing a CHIP income test. The failure-audit judge reads these grounded narratives together with engine facts and must return a per-model diagnosis naming the specific rule or computation the model missed. It is barred from re-adjudicating the reference in prose: hedged or reference-adjudicating verdicts are mechanically rejected and re-judged, and genuine reference doubt is routed to a structured flag that triggers the manual adjudication described above.
-After freezing the snapshot and completing response-contract repairs, we annotated the `{python} r.audit_annotated_row_count_fmt` `{python} r.audit_selection_rule` and their scenario-output cases. @tbl-deviation-audit reports the final classifications for that legacy-threshold audit universe. It contains `{python} r.annotated_exact_miss_count_fmt` of the snapshot's `{python} r.exact_match_miss_count_fmt` exact-match misses and `{python} r.annotated_exact_hit_count_fmt` exact hits. The `{python} r.unannotated_below_full_bounded_score_count_fmt` other rows with bounded score below 100 fall outside the selection and have no audit annotation. Each annotated row on a scored output resolves to one of two final classes: `llm_error` (a substantive miscalculation, with a per-model diagnosis naming the rule or computation the model missed) or `parse_contract_failure` (a missing or unparsable answer, classified deterministically). Three further classes describe outputs the snapshot does not score, and each such output is removed from scoring for every model, so no model gains or loses from it. `prompt_ambiguity` marks `{python} r.unlisted_input_exclusion_count` outputs whose reference depends on an input the prompt never lists, so a careful reader could take the stated facts either way; for each, the reference was recomputed under the other reading with the engine version that produced it, and it moved (the California Medicaid output once the engine's Working Disabled Program test read SSI's definition, as the program does). `reference_engine_defect` `{python} r.engine_defect_class_sentence` `reference_later_law` marks the `{python} r.later_law_exclusion_count_word` Louisiana outputs whose reference rests on an amount the state published after the freeze. Together they remove `{python} r.excluded_output_phrase` in `{python} r.excluded_output_households_phrase`, and of the `{python} r.excluded_output_annotation_row_count_fmt` annotated rows on those outputs, `{python} f"{r.excluded_descriptive_row_count:,}"` carry one of these classes as description rather than as a scored class and the rest are answers that never parsed. A scored reference also follows from law published before the references were frozen on 2026-07-03. USDA published the FY2027 SNAP cost-of-living figures on 2026-08-21, after the freeze and after most rows were answered, so grading any model on them would score it against law it could not have seen; SNAP's October to December months therefore hold the FY2026 figures, and the publication conventions described above apply the same rule to every projected amount. Every model is therefore scored on `{python} r.scored_outputs_per_model_fmt` of its `{python} r.total_outputs_per_model_fmt` requested outputs. The exclusion record (`reference_exclusions.json`) travels with the frozen run and the manifest pins it. No scored row remains classified as a prompt ambiguity, unresolved reference issue, or needs-review item, and zero annotated rows carry a standing reference-suspect flag. The audit pipeline is model-assisted, with developer adjudication of each reference-suspect or prompt-ambiguity flag rather than independent external validation; this snapshot records `{python} r.audit_adjudicated_case_phrase` of developer adjudication, kept beside the annotations with the judge's verdict and the reasoning. Three judge models produced the verdicts, and all are board rows: GPT-5.6 Sol, called through the Codex CLI, judged the cases whose verdicts predate the September 2026 additions; Claude Opus 5, called through the Claude Code CLI, judged the `{python} r.audit_opus_judged_case_count_fmt` cases the September 5 additions joined that no later judge re-judged; and Claude Opus 5.5 judged the cases the September 22, September 29, September 30, October 9 and October 13 additions joined or a reference revision changed, its own row's cases included, and five cases whose earlier verdicts an audit of the judges' transcripts could not show came from a judge that saw only its prompt (`{python} r.audit_opus55_judged_case_count_fmt` of `{python} r.audit_case_count_fmt` cases in all). Each verdict is recorded in a per-case provenance sidecar in the audit tree. Judge verdicts classify misses after scoring and change no score, and every reference flag a judge raised is settled by the developer adjudication above. The unlisted inputs behind the unlisted-input exclusions are the SSI disability criterion (`meets_ssi_disability_criteria`), false for every person in the certified June 2026 microdata build; months of SSDI receipt (`months_receiving_social_security_disability`), never carried by the data and integer-typed, which the prompt builder does not expose; weekly hours worked (`weekly_hours_worked_before_lsr`), which policyengine-us `{python} r.september_upgrade.previous_engine_version` defaulted to 40 where the prompt treats unlisted numbers as zero; whether survivor benefits other than Social Security are a pension or annuity, which the prompt does not say and which decides both their taxability and whether they count toward Wisconsin's homestead credit income; who paid for the coverage behind listed employment disability benefits, which decides whether they are taxable; whether listed home mortgage interest is on the home the household occupies, which decides whether SNAP counts it as a shelter cost; whether an adult tax dependent is the claiming filers' child, which decides whose income counts in that dependent's Medicaid household; whether the tax behind a listed state and local tax refund reduced federal tax in the year the household paid it, which decides how much of the refund is income; the state income tax a household withheld or paid during 2026, which the federal state and local tax deduction takes as its state income tax part and which policyengine-us estimates from federal adjusted gross income; Medicare enrollment and a Part B premium, which policyengine-us assumes for every Medicare-eligible person and counts as a medical expense; whether the employer deducts the employee share of a state paid-leave or disability premium that the law lets it deduct but does not require, which decides whether that share is a mandatory employee state payroll tax; and whether listed interest comes from a Massachusetts bank deposit, which moves only an output already recorded as an engine-defect exclusion. One definition was also open: the output definition of federal income tax before refundable credits does not say whether it includes the net investment income tax, which the reference adds and Form 1040 reports after its line for tax after nonrefundable credits, so the outputs that tax moves are excluded as well. The prompt lists a general `is disabled` fact and never a program-specific determination (@sec-disability). Every exclusion but the California Medicaid output and the `{python} r.ruling_date` records was derived mechanically rather than from which models missed: each is an output that a sweep of every reference, under an alternative reading or an engine defect's sandbox fix, moved on policyengine-us `{python} r.september_upgrade.previous_engine_version` or, for the state and local tax refund reading and the readings of the `{python} r.review_date` review, on `{python} r.september_upgrade.engine_version`; the outputs the `{python} r10.last_engine_upgrade.date` upgrade excluded are ones policyengine-us `{python} r10.last_engine_upgrade.engine_version` itself moved, onto an input no prompt states. The `{python} r.ruling_date` records are the exception by design. The reference adversary selects the outputs where models agree against the reference, and an independent check against primary law then decided each; the two Louisiana records came from a sweep of that state's 2026 standard deduction. On `{python} r.september_upgrade.previous_engine_version`, PolicyBench excluded every output an alternative reading of the September 22 audit moved and every output a defect not fixed upstream moved by more than a dollar, which is why the set includes three SNAP outputs that move through the elderly-or-disabled SNAP rules (in two of those households SSI itself stays at zero; in the third an aged member already receives SSI and the disabled member would add a second benefit). On `{python} r.september_upgrade.engine_version`, PolicyBench re-ran `{python} r.rerun_sweep_september_22_count_word` of those sweeps (the IRA deduction limit fix, the net investment income tax definition, and the readings for mortgage residence and 40 unlisted weekly hours) and ran a new one for the state and local tax refund reading. Beyond the one-dollar exact-match tolerance, the new sweep moves `{python} r.rerun_sweep_new_excluded_count_word` previously scored federal income tax outputs, and PolicyBench excluded them. Set against the same `{python} r.september_upgrade.engine_version` calculation without its fix or reading, no sweep moves a scored output by more than the tolerance, and `{python} r.rerun_sweep_scored_within_tolerance_count_word` scored outputs move by less. PolicyBench did not re-run the other sweeps on `{python} r.september_upgrade.engine_version`. On `{python} r.september_upgrade.engine_version`, the California Medicaid output stays at 1 under either reading of SSI's disability criterion, because the engine's Working Disabled Program test reads the general flag in its place. PolicyBench found that output when it re-reviewed the household's excluded SNAP output, and excluded it because the program itself requires SSI's definition of disability.
+After freezing the snapshot and completing response-contract repairs, we annotated the `{python} r.audit_annotated_row_count_fmt` `{python} r.audit_selection_rule` and their scenario-output cases. @tbl-deviation-audit reports the final classifications for that legacy-threshold audit universe. It contains `{python} r.annotated_exact_miss_count_fmt` of the snapshot's `{python} r.exact_match_miss_count_fmt` exact-match misses and `{python} r.annotated_exact_hit_count_fmt` exact hits. The `{python} r.unannotated_below_full_bounded_score_count_fmt` other rows with bounded score below 100 fall outside the selection and have no audit annotation. Each annotated row on a scored output resolves to one of two final classes: `llm_error` (a substantive miscalculation, with a per-model diagnosis naming the rule or computation the model missed) or `parse_contract_failure` (a missing or unparsable answer, classified deterministically). Three further classes describe outputs the snapshot does not score, and each such output is removed from scoring for every model, so no model gains or loses from it. `prompt_ambiguity` marks `{python} r.unlisted_input_exclusion_count` outputs whose reference depends on an input the prompt never lists, so a careful reader could take the stated facts either way; for each, the reference was recomputed under the other reading with the engine version that produced it, and it moved (the California Medicaid output once the engine's Working Disabled Program test read SSI's definition, as the program does). `reference_engine_defect` `{python} r.engine_defect_class_sentence` `reference_later_law` marks the `{python} r.later_law_exclusion_count_word` Louisiana outputs whose reference rests on an amount the state published after the freeze. Together they remove `{python} r.excluded_output_phrase` in `{python} r.excluded_output_households_phrase`, and of the `{python} r.excluded_output_annotation_row_count_fmt` annotated rows on those outputs, `{python} f"{r.excluded_descriptive_row_count:,}"` carry one of these classes as description rather than as a scored class and the rest are answers that never parsed. A scored reference also follows from law published before the references were frozen on 2026-07-03. USDA published the FY2027 SNAP cost-of-living figures on 2026-08-21, after the freeze and after most rows were answered, so grading any model on them would score it against law it could not have seen; SNAP's October to December months therefore hold the FY2026 figures, and the publication conventions described above apply the same rule to every projected amount. Every model is therefore scored on `{python} r.scored_outputs_per_model_fmt` of its `{python} r.total_outputs_per_model_fmt` requested outputs. The exclusion record (`reference_exclusions.json`) travels with the frozen run and the manifest pins it. No scored row remains classified as a prompt ambiguity, unresolved reference issue, or needs-review item, and zero annotated rows carry a standing reference-suspect flag. The audit pipeline is model-assisted, with developer adjudication of each reference-suspect or prompt-ambiguity flag rather than independent external validation; this snapshot records `{python} r.audit_adjudicated_case_phrase` of developer adjudication, kept beside the annotations with the judge's verdict and the reasoning. Three judge models produced the verdicts, and all are board rows: GPT-5.6 Sol, called through the Codex CLI, judged the cases whose verdicts predate the September 2026 additions; Claude Opus 5, called through the Claude Code CLI, judged the `{python} r.audit_opus_judged_case_count_fmt` cases the September 5 additions joined that no later judge re-judged; and Claude Opus 5.5 judged the cases the September 22, September 29, September 30, October 9, October 13 and October 14 additions joined or a reference revision changed, its own row's cases included, and five cases whose earlier verdicts an audit of the judges' transcripts could not show came from a judge that saw only its prompt (`{python} r.audit_opus55_judged_case_count_fmt` of `{python} r.audit_case_count_fmt` cases in all). Each verdict is recorded in a per-case provenance sidecar in the audit tree. Judge verdicts classify misses after scoring and change no score, and every reference flag a judge raised is settled by the developer adjudication above. The unlisted inputs behind the unlisted-input exclusions are the SSI disability criterion (`meets_ssi_disability_criteria`), false for every person in the certified June 2026 microdata build; months of SSDI receipt (`months_receiving_social_security_disability`), never carried by the data and integer-typed, which the prompt builder does not expose; weekly hours worked (`weekly_hours_worked_before_lsr`), which policyengine-us `{python} r.september_upgrade.previous_engine_version` defaulted to 40 where the prompt treats unlisted numbers as zero; whether survivor benefits other than Social Security are a pension or annuity, which the prompt does not say and which decides both their taxability and whether they count toward Wisconsin's homestead credit income; who paid for the coverage behind listed employment disability benefits, which decides whether they are taxable; whether listed home mortgage interest is on the home the household occupies, which decides whether SNAP counts it as a shelter cost; whether an adult tax dependent is the claiming filers' child, which decides whose income counts in that dependent's Medicaid household; whether the tax behind a listed state and local tax refund reduced federal tax in the year the household paid it, which decides how much of the refund is income; the state income tax a household withheld or paid during 2026, which the federal state and local tax deduction takes as its state income tax part and which policyengine-us estimates from federal adjusted gross income; Medicare enrollment and a Part B premium, which policyengine-us assumes for every Medicare-eligible person and counts as a medical expense; whether the employer deducts the employee share of a state paid-leave or disability premium that the law lets it deduct but does not require, which decides whether that share is a mandatory employee state payroll tax; and whether listed interest comes from a Massachusetts bank deposit, which moves only an output already recorded as an engine-defect exclusion. One definition was also open: the output definition of federal income tax before refundable credits does not say whether it includes the net investment income tax, which the reference adds and Form 1040 reports after its line for tax after nonrefundable credits, so the outputs that tax moves are excluded as well. The prompt lists a general `is disabled` fact and never a program-specific determination (@sec-disability). Every exclusion but the California Medicaid output and the `{python} r.ruling_date` records was derived mechanically rather than from which models missed: each is an output that a sweep of every reference, under an alternative reading or an engine defect's sandbox fix, moved on policyengine-us `{python} r.september_upgrade.previous_engine_version` or, for the state and local tax refund reading and the readings of the `{python} r.review_date` review, on `{python} r.september_upgrade.engine_version`; the outputs the `{python} r10.last_engine_upgrade.date` upgrade excluded are ones policyengine-us `{python} r10.last_engine_upgrade.engine_version` itself moved, onto an input no prompt states. The `{python} r.ruling_date` records are the exception by design. The reference adversary selects the outputs where models agree against the reference, and an independent check against primary law then decided each; the two Louisiana records came from a sweep of that state's 2026 standard deduction. On `{python} r.september_upgrade.previous_engine_version`, PolicyBench excluded every output an alternative reading of the September 22 audit moved and every output a defect not fixed upstream moved by more than a dollar, which is why the set includes three SNAP outputs that move through the elderly-or-disabled SNAP rules (in two of those households SSI itself stays at zero; in the third an aged member already receives SSI and the disabled member would add a second benefit). On `{python} r.september_upgrade.engine_version`, PolicyBench re-ran `{python} r.rerun_sweep_september_22_count_word` of those sweeps (the IRA deduction limit fix, the net investment income tax definition, and the readings for mortgage residence and 40 unlisted weekly hours) and ran a new one for the state and local tax refund reading. Beyond the one-dollar exact-match tolerance, the new sweep moves `{python} r.rerun_sweep_new_excluded_count_word` previously scored federal income tax outputs, and PolicyBench excluded them. Set against the same `{python} r.september_upgrade.engine_version` calculation without its fix or reading, no sweep moves a scored output by more than the tolerance, and `{python} r.rerun_sweep_scored_within_tolerance_count_word` scored outputs move by less. PolicyBench did not re-run the other sweeps on `{python} r.september_upgrade.engine_version`. On `{python} r.september_upgrade.engine_version`, the California Medicaid output stays at 1 under either reading of SSI's disability criterion, because the engine's Working Disabled Program test reads the general flag in its place. PolicyBench found that output when it re-reviewed the household's excluded SNAP output, and excluded it because the program itself requires SSI's definition of disability.
```{python}
#| label: tbl-reference-review
diff --git a/paper/snapshot/20260501/manifest.json b/paper/snapshot/20260501/manifest.json
index 95c459cb..dbdc04e3 100644
--- a/paper/snapshot/20260501/manifest.json
+++ b/paper/snapshot/20260501/manifest.json
@@ -2,34 +2,35 @@
"audit_annotation_artifacts": {
"developer_adjudications": {
"by_judge_verdict": {
- "llm_error": 52,
+ "llm_error": 51,
"prompt_ambiguity": 6,
"reference_data_issue_fixed": 1,
- "reference_engine_defect": 1,
- "reference_later_law": 1
+ "reference_engine_defect": 2,
+ "reference_later_law": 1,
+ "reference_model_issue_fixed": 2
},
"by_reference_verdict": {
- "affirmed": 5,
+ "affirmed": 6,
"engine_defect": 5,
"later_law": 2,
"regenerated": 5,
"unlisted_input": 34
},
- "cases": 61,
+ "cases": 63,
"file": "us_adjudications.json",
"judge_flagged_by_reference_verdict": {
- "affirmed": 5,
+ "affirmed": 6,
"engine_defect": 3,
"later_law": 1,
"regenerated": 5,
- "unlisted_input": 8
+ "unlisted_input": 9
},
- "note": "Judge verdicts outside the final classes (llm_error, parse_contract_failure) are resolved by a recorded developer adjudication that keeps the judge's verdict and reasoning beside the adjudicated class; applied to the bundle before export so the published payload and the frozen annotations agree. Every case the judge flagged reference-suspect carries a reference verdict (affirmed, regenerated, engine_defect, unlisted_input, later_law) that clears the flag; judge_reference_suspect records which entries the judge flagged."
+ "note": "Judge verdicts outside the final classes (llm_error, parse_contract_failure) are resolved by a recorded developer adjudication that keeps the judge's verdict and reasoning beside the adjudicated class; applied to the bundle before export so the published payload and the frozen annotations agree. Every case the judge flagged reference-suspect carries a reference verdict (affirmed, regenerated, engine_defect, unlisted_input, later_law) that clears the flag; judge_reference_suspect records whether the case's current verdict flagged it, and judge_flagged_by_reference_verdict counts a case any recorded judge verdict flagged (the current one, a judge_previous item, or an earlier run its judge_reference_suspect_source names)."
},
"files": {
- "us_adjudications.json": "dffea2d9935084ffbab074a6e86325e7e819539dc1d99e25fd3cb2ea2dc181ef",
- "us_audit_row_annotations.csv": "2667b19ce7d9f5ab4b1d6479a51e72773544a6e7cb8c045868c749e4f91d2409",
- "us_case_notes.csv": "79a65000c693ed3d9211bbe8e0ad5425743ff3519891a5c7f7611a91ae14d2f1",
+ "us_adjudications.json": "df4cc1eb27bce6514185d294c4da3c7e76d94b9ead2b8fe921a8fd306090049e",
+ "us_audit_row_annotations.csv": "6f1052bbf13d92a30331340728bd10c41edf14559cb587cd3f260494ef654eb8",
+ "us_case_notes.csv": "d6ad83cb82f45cf508bc886abf300a60acfc0d6506c1436f5df842d0d7d46a45",
"us_case_reference_explanations.csv": "0e6797d079d41858b960117f54027bdc9681999daafa6f278fd57f2884f9e534"
},
"judge_provenance": {
@@ -42,20 +43,20 @@
"runner": "Claude Code CLI (scripts/run_audit_claude.sh)"
},
"claude-opus-5-5": {
- "cases": 319,
+ "cases": 322,
"judged_on_utc": [
"2026-09-23",
"2026-09-29",
"2026-09-30",
"2026-10-08",
"2026-10-09",
- "2026-10-10",
- "2026-10-13"
+ "2026-10-13",
+ "2026-10-14"
],
"runner": "Claude Code CLI (scripts/run_audit_claude.sh) and Claude Code Workflow subagents (results/local/adds202609/judge_stages.py)"
},
"gpt-5.6-sol": {
- "cases": 266,
+ "cases": 264,
"judged_on_utc": [
"2026-08-18",
"2026-08-22",
@@ -64,23 +65,23 @@
"runner": "Codex CLI (scripts/run_audit_codex.sh)"
}
},
- "cases_judged": 677,
+ "cases_judged": 678,
"note": "Judge model per case: the verdict.meta.json sidecar bound to the case's verdict by sha256 (either runner), else, for a case with no sidecar, the codex.log model header when the log was written alongside the verdict (Codex runner before it wrote sidecars). Verdicts classify misses after scoring and change no score. Every judge model is also a board row."
},
- "note": "Model-assisted, developer-adjudicated row and case audit annotations for the 10,346 prediction rows selected because their legacy threshold score was below 1. This audit universe is not identical to the exact-match or bounded-score miss sets. The annotations were produced under the decisive-diagnosis contract (per-model diagnoses grounded in engine facts; hedged verdicts mechanically rejected and re-judged). Row-level failure_source values are llm_error for substantive misses and parse_contract_failure for missing or unparseable answers; zero rows are reference-suspect. Case notes are stored as us_case_notes.csv with case_failure_sources / case_failure_subtypes columns. Reference narratives the judge and dashboard display are frozen as us_case_reference_explanations.csv. Judge provenance per case is tallied under judge_provenance.",
+ "note": "Model-assisted, developer-adjudicated row and case audit annotations for the 10,680 prediction rows selected because their legacy threshold score was below 1. This audit universe is not identical to the exact-match or bounded-score miss sets. The annotations were produced under the decisive-diagnosis contract (per-model diagnoses grounded in engine facts; hedged verdicts mechanically rejected and re-judged). Row-level failure_source values are llm_error for substantive misses and parse_contract_failure for missing or unparseable answers; zero rows are reference-suspect. Case notes are stored as us_case_notes.csv with case_failure_sources / case_failure_subtypes columns. Reference narratives the judge and dashboard display are frozen as us_case_reference_explanations.csv. Judge provenance per case is tallied under judge_provenance.",
"path": "annotations/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace"
},
"committed_snapshot_artifacts": {
- "model_serving_config.json": "95652e23fc06effc4ce8c6b122c2196b228e872947a4a09476ff13d56f00c483",
- "us_impact_summary_by_model.csv": "85b4ed7a9db37fc0c9a9c48045d406a9bf638ba993062ea5e13eff84cdd08423",
+ "model_serving_config.json": "5a7f9f3142cd465a4e9d0eb095c3b5a761ffd68fa80d89aff88406e2940828fb",
+ "us_impact_summary_by_model.csv": "5dcb43e2439cdff7630ee80e9788ed5e13e9944b5c7123face69051c5383ddd2",
"us_reference_outputs.csv": "2d00cf595adf183fcfa3d069756723b5ce09bd4123fbf3e673635474346b3a0c",
"us_scenarios.csv": "71b16212f0c0b3e5d13d8694ce57e362c23248665806c4d6dea7b23ef472858a"
},
- "description": "The 2026-10-13 scored manuscript snapshot reports the household-impact-weighted exact-match rate as its headline metric.",
+ "description": "The 2026-10-14 scored manuscript snapshot reports the household-impact-weighted exact-match rate as its headline metric.",
"files": [
{
"path": "runs/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/data.json.gz",
- "sha256": "d1d6a577d22e41f653e8dd57ce1b08bb28774d67c22dc2db6d51933b42b172e1"
+ "sha256": "611df6b59654eb3ecfd0a36a76ba83341b67e46254590e713fdc077b32583d5d"
}
],
"household_dataset": {
@@ -92,11 +93,11 @@
},
"live_dashboard_artifact": {
"asset": "dashboard-data.json",
- "bytes": 130982477,
+ "bytes": 135840397,
"derivation": "At freeze time the live artifact equals the frozen published_dashboard_artifact: the combined export of the source-run data.json listed under source_run_artifacts. Annotation-class republishes may advance this entry ahead of the frozen pin without changing any score.",
- "sha256": "0a4b754a4ce3b249e0608efac62e52646e4c6f33c6a28c1a496c4c9fda49b507",
- "tag": "dashboard-data-20261013b",
- "url": "https://github.com/PolicyEngine/policybench/releases/download/dashboard-data-20261013b/dashboard-data.json"
+ "sha256": "22db9a9c052545371687f6afa3551896336abbd15c76f767ebb777a77f6d2268",
+ "tag": "dashboard-data-20261014",
+ "url": "https://github.com/PolicyEngine/policybench/releases/download/dashboard-data-20261014/dashboard-data.json"
},
"live_dashboard_note": "The live dashboard payload is a published release asset; the committed pointer app/src/data.artifact.json must reference the artifact pinned under live_dashboard_artifact. The separate published_dashboard_artifact freezes the combined export of the source run data.json files listed under source_run_artifacts. A later publication may advance the live entry without changing the frozen pin.",
"model_response_date": "2026-06-12 to 2026-10-13",
@@ -110,10 +111,10 @@
},
"published_dashboard_artifact": {
"asset": "dashboard-data.json",
- "bytes": 130982477,
- "sha256": "0a4b754a4ce3b249e0608efac62e52646e4c6f33c6a28c1a496c4c9fda49b507",
- "tag": "dashboard-data-20261013b",
- "url": "https://github.com/PolicyEngine/policybench/releases/download/dashboard-data-20261013b/dashboard-data.json"
+ "bytes": 135840397,
+ "sha256": "22db9a9c052545371687f6afa3551896336abbd15c76f767ebb777a77f6d2268",
+ "tag": "dashboard-data-20261014",
+ "url": "https://github.com/PolicyEngine/policybench/releases/download/dashboard-data-20261014/dashboard-data.json"
},
"reference_exclusions": {
"by_engine_defect_root_cause": {
@@ -158,17 +159,17 @@
"reference_csv_sha256": "2d00cf595adf183fcfa3d069756723b5ce09bd4123fbf3e673635474346b3a0c",
"regenerated_at_utc": "2026-10-13T11:04:44.733127+00:00",
"row_count": 1984,
- "snapshot_date": "2026-10-13"
+ "snapshot_date": "2026-10-14"
},
"rendered_paper_artifacts": {
"pdf": {
"path": "app/public/paper/policybench.pdf",
- "sha256": "cee26d0956da316ec4addce6176355b3c1c466f03521be0a70ff383daaaf48c6"
+ "sha256": "d0b236367fb3f30340e4a9ba3d0d25d253b33096a8a789f3d3b00ccd8b4c34ae"
},
"web": {
"files": {
- "figures/positive_zero_scatter.png": "78805980cc6acfb770762501043be172c8bc96c30ebb19cb9d2f191c943c33da",
- "index.html": "320e58e444701c4b44e5376e2fd2fb70d985d8a047c96f22e2ebfb8666fc390a",
+ "figures/positive_zero_scatter.png": "47a28fba15b58e86aa00cb52c991a09c5f393c40b9311c24001c201741610062",
+ "index.html": "533a0cb79b6a54353d73ace8e3ac2d2bf0ef41eff5001b4422876ad8f9a864a0",
"pe-tokens.css": "8f24d8da26f583c8ffddffcdcd172b6d52cbecfec20eda55bd39d7aa829f41d8",
"policybench-theme.css": "0e12c5fd615558259e5bce0167a38424e54f9ceb280666c4afd660d759cd1cb9",
"site_libs/clipboard/clipboard.min.js": "e17a1d816e13c0826e0ed7febfabc3277f45571234bde0bf9120829a7169edc9",
@@ -211,24 +212,24 @@
"households": {
"us": 100
},
- "models": 48,
+ "models": 50,
"output_groups": {
"us": 18
}
},
- "snapshot_date": "2026-10-13",
+ "snapshot_date": "2026-10-14",
"source_run_artifacts": {
"note": "Compact copies of run outputs used to verify this snapshot. The run data.json retains parsed scenario predictions, explanations, summaries, heatmaps, and PolicyEngine runtime metadata used by the dashboard. predictions.csv.gz is a deterministic gzip of the run's raw provider responses.",
"us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace": {
"files": {
- "analysis/impact_summary_by_model.csv": "85b4ed7a9db37fc0c9a9c48045d406a9bf638ba993062ea5e13eff84cdd08423",
- "analysis/metrics.csv": "bc76e6ccb617f28600ea8cf5fe7e324e6b965860af959352ccebce99d50b71a7",
- "analysis/report.md": "c328d6bed37a84f5d19bc2b0775c0da969f3dd3c8e027e9a27cf2596ca59b5d4",
- "analysis/summary_by_model.csv": "1358582a2eeaa5121d8a8a94a0578f403a1317f851d610b69151b2931e94e458",
- "analysis/summary_by_variable.csv": "a186582a84a8639968e7f1ae84dc1b4594c3fc6f49fc9e8a716e776777863f74",
- "analysis/usage_summary.csv": "92ea6183ec69d70e1c94e1468cd9a907776cdfe0c3221b92580df57586d24a6a",
- "data.json.gz": "d1d6a577d22e41f653e8dd57ce1b08bb28774d67c22dc2db6d51933b42b172e1",
- "predictions.csv.gz": "bb37b988275ebcd08cb62215257626afd9ad481b7d6dd6b103395703c94c6746",
+ "analysis/impact_summary_by_model.csv": "5dcb43e2439cdff7630ee80e9788ed5e13e9944b5c7123face69051c5383ddd2",
+ "analysis/metrics.csv": "8c12f99d87b1591fe4ecfc69bec798d8cf55a9b873400d5a27976d8115dc63c0",
+ "analysis/report.md": "3e0dd6251d123cb83266006f0fbd33d173d1373edbe8e8e45d75df2554bab497",
+ "analysis/summary_by_model.csv": "23ca855dcaa1aa05edbb7985369d16f86c298fca15e136629e92f1652e7629e5",
+ "analysis/summary_by_variable.csv": "aaa86889b3057046e76349dedf472632e452f9f532809c360a53d0024c6f49e1",
+ "analysis/usage_summary.csv": "321b0201b04929d69be98e645e8bb53598de960a5e8c2feffe72724b47cca286",
+ "data.json.gz": "611df6b59654eb3ecfd0a36a76ba83341b67e46254590e713fdc077b32583d5d",
+ "predictions.csv.gz": "d43df5d557d38e6ce6a528198877c0b27968cf5e38f627038b7e6c9c4df42a3d",
"reference_exclusions.json": "a2ddf91634ed66124d13105a09badea39ec6b5f11863011fa51f9ca17f8f3939",
"reference_outputs.csv": "2d00cf595adf183fcfa3d069756723b5ce09bd4123fbf3e673635474346b3a0c",
"reference_outputs.csv.meta.json": "0dc1ba15a11a20d9a3915a4537a33127e5406b5fde4797586d39ce5dbf170915",
diff --git a/paper/snapshot/20260501/model_serving_config.json b/paper/snapshot/20260501/model_serving_config.json
index a90dc325..a27c7939 100644
--- a/paper/snapshot/20260501/model_serving_config.json
+++ b/paper/snapshot/20260501/model_serving_config.json
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
},
"evidence_summary": {
"registry": 29,
- "run_state": 19
+ "run_state": 21
},
"models": {
"claude-fable-5": {
@@ -820,6 +820,63 @@
"shared_completion_budget_tokens": 16384,
"tool_choice": "forced"
},
+ "gemini-4-argon": {
+ "answer_contract": "tool",
+ "evidence": {
+ "compared_columns": [
+ "scenario_id",
+ "variable",
+ "prediction",
+ "explanation",
+ "raw_response",
+ "provider_resolved_model",
+ "prompt_tokens",
+ "completion_tokens",
+ "error"
+ ],
+ "fields": [
+ "answer_contract",
+ "chunk_size",
+ "completion_budget_ceiling",
+ "fingerprint_version",
+ "initial_completion_budget_tokens",
+ "max_repair_rounds",
+ "model_id",
+ "prompt_contract_version",
+ "request_timeout_seconds",
+ "thinking",
+ "tool_choice_mode"
+ ],
+ "frozen_rows_sha256": "938c3f632d467dcf2cb97391265df103fba104633ac6a10a0ee6c9fe750c8335",
+ "kind": "run_state",
+ "rows_match": true,
+ "run": "argon-runs/argon",
+ "source_predictions_sha256": "76724f96baef92d1958cfdbdcbbaec82b4a06d6b72c0e891534a9fa03e156462",
+ "source_rows_sha256": "938c3f632d467dcf2cb97391265df103fba104633ac6a10a0ee6c9fe750c8335",
+ "treatment_fingerprint": {
+ "answer_contract": "tool",
+ "chunk_size": null,
+ "completion_budget_ceiling": 32768,
+ "fingerprint_version": 3,
+ "initial_completion_budget_tokens": 16384,
+ "max_repair_rounds": 2,
+ "model_id": "gemini/gemini-4-argon",
+ "prompt_contract_version": "2026-08-09-v2-scoring-contract",
+ "request_timeout_seconds": 300,
+ "thinking": {
+ "mode": "provider_default"
+ },
+ "tool_choice_mode": "forced"
+ }
+ },
+ "provider_id": "gemini/gemini-4-argon",
+ "reasoning_setup": "provider default; 16,384-token shared budget",
+ "registry_derived": [],
+ "request_shape": "whole scenario",
+ "request_timeout_seconds": 300,
+ "shared_completion_budget_tokens": 16384,
+ "tool_choice": "forced"
+ },
"glm-5.2": {
"answer_contract": "json",
"evidence": {
@@ -1493,6 +1550,63 @@
"shared_completion_budget_tokens": 16384,
"tool_choice": "forced"
},
+ "muse-spark-1.3": {
+ "answer_contract": "json",
+ "evidence": {
+ "compared_columns": [
+ "scenario_id",
+ "variable",
+ "prediction",
+ "explanation",
+ "raw_response",
+ "provider_resolved_model",
+ "prompt_tokens",
+ "completion_tokens",
+ "error"
+ ],
+ "fields": [
+ "answer_contract",
+ "chunk_size",
+ "completion_budget_ceiling",
+ "fingerprint_version",
+ "initial_completion_budget_tokens",
+ "max_repair_rounds",
+ "model_id",
+ "prompt_contract_version",
+ "request_timeout_seconds",
+ "thinking",
+ "tool_choice_mode"
+ ],
+ "frozen_rows_sha256": "a867a064b1fa887213b8d3493112bea16c1967a97b639536e6a4c39695a801fe",
+ "kind": "run_state",
+ "rows_match": true,
+ "run": "argon-runs/musespark",
+ "source_predictions_sha256": "1e4c81a1c69b4be3dec92d007a2c3d3c22009bf7d56df29a2d2349a5be4887d3",
+ "source_rows_sha256": "a867a064b1fa887213b8d3493112bea16c1967a97b639536e6a4c39695a801fe",
+ "treatment_fingerprint": {
+ "answer_contract": "json",
+ "chunk_size": null,
+ "completion_budget_ceiling": 128000,
+ "fingerprint_version": 3,
+ "initial_completion_budget_tokens": 16384,
+ "max_repair_rounds": 2,
+ "model_id": "openrouter/meta/muse-spark-1.3",
+ "prompt_contract_version": "2026-08-09-v2-scoring-contract",
+ "request_timeout_seconds": 300,
+ "thinking": {
+ "mode": "provider_default"
+ },
+ "tool_choice_mode": null
+ }
+ },
+ "provider_id": "openrouter/meta/muse-spark-1.3",
+ "reasoning_setup": "provider default; 16,384-token shared budget",
+ "registry_derived": [],
+ "request_shape": "whole scenario",
+ "request_timeout_seconds": 300,
+ "shared_completion_budget_tokens": 16384,
+ "tool_choice": null
+ },
"muse-wonder": {
"answer_contract": "json",
"evidence": {
@@ -1642,7 +1756,7 @@
"tool_choice": null
}
},
- "registry_commit": "3ef45909db7367abdffd08379babde5bcf5c549e",
+ "registry_commit": "236134f5c3b4400a14ae7de24604c988f6f602eb",
"sources": [
"policybench.config.MODELS",
"policybench.model_cards",
diff --git a/paper/snapshot/20260501/runs/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/analysis/impact_summary_by_model.csv b/paper/snapshot/20260501/runs/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/analysis/impact_summary_by_model.csv
index de538f2d..ba93d805 100644
--- a/paper/snapshot/20260501/runs/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/analysis/impact_summary_by_model.csv
+++ b/paper/snapshot/20260501/runs/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/analysis/impact_summary_by_model.csv
@@ -10,6 +10,8 @@ gpt-6.1-sol,0.9561920004157146,0.9750826927695428,1.0,100,1935,1935,0.3
claude-sonnet-5.5,0.9536867283566782,0.9715474045330234,1.0,100,1935,1935,0.3
inkling,0.9530143060259685,0.9698896690647965,1.0,100,1935,1935,0.3
grok-4.7,0.950638753218912,0.9747756201656782,1.0,100,1935,1935,0.3
+gemini-4-argon,0.9485549615639814,0.9756227513769514,1.0,100,1935,1935,0.3
+muse-spark-1.3,0.9449661501185004,0.9716548755294683,1.0,100,1935,1935,0.3
gemini-3.8-flash,0.9427119959675533,0.97535543018951,1.0,100,1935,1935,0.3
gpt-5.5,0.942348809544872,0.9655508058853904,1.0,100,1935,1935,0.3
deepseek-v4.1-flash,0.9395029883121027,0.965922939095503,1.0,100,1935,1935,0.3
diff --git a/paper/snapshot/20260501/runs/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/analysis/metrics.csv b/paper/snapshot/20260501/runs/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/analysis/metrics.csv
index 01024577..0debb3d1 100644
--- a/paper/snapshot/20260501/runs/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/analysis/metrics.csv
+++ b/paper/snapshot/20260501/runs/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/analysis/metrics.csv
@@ -413,6 +413,24 @@ gemini-3.8-flash,ssi,97,97,1.0,8.412371134020619,0.040561924526802184,,0.9793814
gemini-3.8-flash,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,93,93,1.0,214.67303693033037,0.160908774000995,,0.6451612903225806,0.6774193548387096,0.7634408602150538,0.7956989247311828,0.7204301075268817,0.8839492917845612
gemini-3.8-flash,state_refundable_credits,99,99,1.0,39.04906407731952,0.503961888121757,,0.8585858585858586,0.8484848484848485,0.8686868686868687,0.8686868686868687,0.8611111111111112,0.9083705657960441
gemini-3.8-flash,tanf,100,100,1.0,60.64958984375,1.0,,0.99,0.99,0.99,0.99,0.99,0.99
+gemini-4-argon,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,84,84,1.0,385.8263475399925,0.1295031415734065,,0.6904761904761905,0.7261904761904762,0.7738095238095238,0.8095238095238095,0.75,0.9325938917066354
+gemini-4-argon,federal_refundable_credits,100,100,1.0,70.13681593017579,0.27333315834635813,,0.9,0.92,0.95,0.96,0.9325,0.9794696209702282
+gemini-4-argon,free_school_meals_eligible,100,100,1.0,0.02,,0.98,0.98,0.98,0.98,0.98,0.98,0.98
+gemini-4-argon,local_income_tax,98,98,1.0,0.0,,,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0
+gemini-4-argon,payroll_tax,96,96,1.0,35.85682317606612,0.006795993974363245,,0.90625,0.9270833333333334,0.96875,0.9895833333333334,0.9479166666666667,0.995752503766023
+gemini-4-argon,person_chip_eligible,177,177,1.0,0.0,,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0
+gemini-4-argon,person_early_head_start_eligible,38,38,1.0,0.0,,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0
+gemini-4-argon,person_head_start_eligible,38,38,1.0,0.0,,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0
+gemini-4-argon,person_medicaid_eligible,173,173,1.0,0.03468208092485549,,0.9653179190751445,0.9653179190751445,0.9653179190751445,0.9653179190751445,0.9653179190751445,0.9653179190751445,0.9653179190751445
+gemini-4-argon,person_medicare_eligible,172,172,1.0,0.011627906976744186,,0.9883720930232558,0.9883720930232558,0.9883720930232558,0.9883720930232558,0.9883720930232558,0.9883720930232558,0.9883720930232558
+gemini-4-argon,person_wic_eligible,177,177,1.0,0.0,,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0
+gemini-4-argon,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,100,100,1.0,0.01,,0.99,0.99,0.99,0.99,0.99,0.99,0.99
+gemini-4-argon,self_employment_tax,100,100,1.0,6.133482299804687,0.12501692162195432,,0.99,0.99,0.99,0.99,0.99,0.9899986462702438
+gemini-4-argon,snap,93,93,1.0,78.35913978494624,0.5710131157833532,,0.8494623655913979,0.8709677419354839,0.9139784946236559,0.9139784946236559,0.8870967741935484,0.9303512132059113
+gemini-4-argon,ssi,97,97,1.0,11.381443298969073,0.05855928991490339,,0.979381443298969,0.9896907216494846,0.9896907216494846,0.9896907216494846,0.9871134020618557,0.9987925919605175
+gemini-4-argon,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,93,93,1.0,123.05857523415678,0.15209487293016383,,0.6989247311827957,0.7419354838709677,0.7634408602150538,0.8172043010752689,0.7553763440860215,0.908866500801227
+gemini-4-argon,state_refundable_credits,99,99,1.0,45.998547956100616,0.47401619718698323,,0.8383838383838383,0.8383838383838383,0.8484848484848485,0.8585858585858586,0.8459595959595959,0.8936132166730738
+gemini-4-argon,tanf,100,100,1.0,0.67041015625,0.011053828360210856,,0.99,0.99,1.0,1.0,0.995,0.9998894617163978
glm-5.2,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,84,76,0.9047619047619048,852.3193473735608,0.3760450732776106,,0.47619047619047616,0.47619047619047616,0.6547619047619048,0.7142857142857143,0.5803571428571429,0.7887984082970579
glm-5.2,federal_refundable_credits,100,90,0.9,212.8705028889974,0.8692993488067575,,0.79,0.79,0.7999999999999999,0.7999999999999999,0.7949999999999999,0.8204077997594874
glm-5.2,free_school_meals_eligible,100,95,0.95,0.021052631578947368,,0.93,0.93,0.93,0.93,0.93,0.93,0.93
@@ -791,6 +809,24 @@ minimax-m3,ssi,97,97,1.0,205.56701030927834,1.0,,0.979381443298969,0.97938144329
minimax-m3,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,93,93,1.0,1214.0860558735426,1.2573218646999489,,0.5698924731182796,0.5806451612903226,0.6129032258064516,0.6129032258064516,0.5940860215053764,0.6936797276404236
minimax-m3,state_refundable_credits,99,99,1.0,120.33249585797088,0.9506409112855011,,0.8181818181818182,0.8181818181818182,0.8181818181818182,0.8181818181818182,0.8181818181818182,0.8271561979480908
minimax-m3,tanf,100,100,1.0,60.64958984375,1.0,,0.99,0.99,0.99,0.99,0.99,0.99
+muse-spark-1.3,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,84,84,1.0,119.23167468843006,0.08319045630957952,,0.6190476190476191,0.6904761904761905,0.8690476190476191,0.9047619047619048,0.7708333333333334,0.9643469472958944
+muse-spark-1.3,federal_refundable_credits,100,100,1.0,65.72437633056641,0.3054707923928062,,0.88,0.91,0.95,0.95,0.9225000000000001,0.97529172854419
+muse-spark-1.3,free_school_meals_eligible,100,100,1.0,0.02,,0.98,0.98,0.98,0.98,0.98,0.98,0.98
+muse-spark-1.3,local_income_tax,98,98,1.0,0.0,,,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0
+muse-spark-1.3,payroll_tax,96,96,1.0,10.6332533009847,0.0013682024757606188,,0.9166666666666666,0.9479166666666666,1.0,1.0,0.9661458333333333,0.9991448734526497
+muse-spark-1.3,person_chip_eligible,177,177,1.0,0.02824858757062147,,0.9717514124293786,0.9717514124293786,0.9717514124293786,0.9717514124293786,0.9717514124293786,0.9717514124293786,0.9717514124293786
+muse-spark-1.3,person_early_head_start_eligible,38,38,1.0,0.0,,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0
+muse-spark-1.3,person_head_start_eligible,38,38,1.0,0.0,,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0
+muse-spark-1.3,person_medicaid_eligible,173,173,1.0,0.03468208092485549,,0.9653179190751445,0.9653179190751445,0.9653179190751445,0.9653179190751445,0.9653179190751445,0.9653179190751445,0.9653179190751445
+muse-spark-1.3,person_medicare_eligible,172,172,1.0,0.01744186046511628,,0.9825581395348837,0.9825581395348837,0.9825581395348837,0.9825581395348837,0.9825581395348837,0.9825581395348837,0.9825581395348837
+muse-spark-1.3,person_wic_eligible,177,177,1.0,0.005649717514124294,,0.9943502824858758,0.9943502824858758,0.9943502824858758,0.9943502824858758,0.9943502824858758,0.9943502824858758,0.9943502824858758
+muse-spark-1.3,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,100,100,1.0,0.02,,0.98,0.98,0.98,0.98,0.98,0.98,0.98
+muse-spark-1.3,self_employment_tax,100,100,1.0,0.006482299804683999,6.306855212241232e-05,,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,0.9899949545158302
+muse-spark-1.3,snap,93,93,1.0,75.51827956989247,0.4190658594302844,,0.8602150537634409,0.8709677419354839,0.9139784946236559,0.9247311827956989,0.8924731182795699,0.9306682131979171
+muse-spark-1.3,ssi,97,97,1.0,10.762886597938145,0.05572160546541417,,0.9896907216494846,0.9896907216494846,0.9896907216494846,0.9896907216494846,0.9896907216494846,0.9988511009182389
+muse-spark-1.3,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,93,93,1.0,144.87766909178868,0.19694459959916014,,0.5806451612903226,0.6129032258064516,0.7311827956989247,0.7741935483870968,0.674731182795699,0.8677406644758163
+muse-spark-1.3,state_refundable_credits,99,99,1.0,58.63448045923253,0.6268739152029256,,0.8080808080808081,0.8080808080808081,0.8181818181818182,0.8181818181818182,0.8131313131313131,0.8759219144075489
+muse-spark-1.3,tanf,100,100,1.0,8.53958984375,0.14080210378586777,,0.99,0.99,0.99,0.99,0.99,0.9985919789621414
muse-wonder,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,84,84,1.0,137.16231363932292,0.045741768156237955,,0.75,0.8809523809523809,0.9166666666666666,0.9404761904761905,0.8720238095238095,0.980396385075898
muse-wonder,federal_refundable_credits,100,100,1.0,15.702790686035154,0.025109781261432398,,0.92,0.94,0.99,0.99,0.96,0.9967357284360138
muse-wonder,free_school_meals_eligible,100,100,1.0,0.02,,0.98,0.98,0.98,0.98,0.98,0.98,0.98
diff --git a/paper/snapshot/20260501/runs/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/analysis/report.md b/paper/snapshot/20260501/runs/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/analysis/report.md
index dec39f1d..23ab8439 100644
--- a/paper/snapshot/20260501/runs/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/analysis/report.md
+++ b/paper/snapshot/20260501/runs/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/analysis/report.md
@@ -8,11 +8,11 @@ Top model: `gpt-6-sol` with `bounded_score=0.982` and `within_1pct=0.958`.
## Usage
-Recorded-usage cost subtotal (45 of 48 models): $458.633.
+Recorded-usage cost subtotal (47 of 50 models): $463.481.
-Published model costs total $522.713 (includes release-metadata costs for: claude-fable-5, gemini-3.6-flash, grok-build-0.1).
+Published model costs total $527.560 (includes release-metadata costs for: claude-fable-5, gemini-3.6-flash, grok-build-0.1).
-Cumulative request-time: `11382.2 min` (summed across concurrent calls; not wall-clock). Run wall-clock: `148030.9 min`.
+Cumulative request-time: `11487.7 min` (summed across concurrent calls; not wall-clock). Run wall-clock: `148968.1 min`.
| model | total_cost_usd | cost_rows_estimated | cumulative_request_time | wall_clock | total_tokens | reasoning_tokens | parsed_rows | total_rows |
| --- | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: |
@@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ Cumulative request-time: `11382.2 min` (summed across concurrent calls; not wall
| gemini-3.6-flash | n/a | 0 | 47.7 min | 12.1 min | 1000891.000 | 566409.000 | 1984 | 1984 |
| gemini-3.7-flash | 1.438 | 0 | 15.6 min | 9.9 min | 667678.000 | 222547.000 | 1984 | 1984 |
| gemini-3.8-flash | 6.829 | 0 | 110.5 min | 29.2 min | 2119746.000 | 1642860.000 | 1984 | 1984 |
+| gemini-4-argon | 2.789 | 0 | 36.5 min | 10.1 min | 548714.000 | 109158.000 | 1984 | 1984 |
| glm-5.2 | 8.197 | 0 | 139.9 min | 322.3 min | 3286784.000 | 2118173.000 | 1845 | 1984 |
| glm-5.3 | 16.938 | 0 | 412.9 min | 2063.1 min | 4374051.000 | 3146211.000 | 1906 | 1984 |
| gpt-5.4-mini | 0.582 | 1984 | 9.3 min | n/a | 341299.000 | 0.000 | 1984 | 1984 |
@@ -60,6 +61,7 @@ Cumulative request-time: `11382.2 min` (summed across concurrent calls; not wall
| kimi-k2.6 | 39.110 | 0 | 464.7 min | 316.9 min | 11534040.000 | 10225616.000 | 1558 | 1984 |
| kimi-k3 | 47.043 | 0 | 1839.2 min | 842.7 min | 3530285.000 | 3234185.000 | 1920 | 1984 |
| minimax-m3 | 0.732 | 0 | 35.1 min | 29.8 min | 754546.000 | 157273.000 | 1984 | 1984 |
+| muse-spark-1.3 | 2.059 | 0 | 69.0 min | 28.3 min | 577549.000 | 343120.000 | 1984 | 1984 |
| muse-wonder | 7.864 | 0 | 47.0 min | 11.3 min | 500249.000 | 253359.000 | 1984 | 1984 |
| ox-alpha | 0.000 | 0 | 571.0 min | 726.5 min | 1875380.000 | 5323.000 | 1984 | 1984 |
| qwen-3.7-max | 13.925 | 0 | 125.4 min | 92.3 min | 4118420.000 | 3234338.000 | 1984 | 1984 |
@@ -74,11 +76,13 @@ Cumulative request-time: `11382.2 min` (summed across concurrent calls; not wall
| muse-wonder | 0.978 | 0.937 | 0.948 | 0.963 | 0.970 | 0.990 | 25.486 | 1935 |
| gpt-6-luna | 0.975 | 0.942 | 0.951 | 0.964 | 0.968 | 0.989 | 29.151 | 1935 |
| gpt-5.6-sol | 0.977 | 0.951 | 0.956 | 0.964 | 0.967 | 0.991 | 28.611 | 1935 |
+| muse-spark-1.3 | 0.971 | 0.918 | 0.927 | 0.952 | 0.957 | 0.984 | 27.447 | 1935 |
| gpt-6-astra | 0.980 | 0.951 | 0.956 | 0.963 | 0.967 | 0.988 | 31.829 | 1935 |
| claude-fable-5.1 | 0.978 | 0.946 | 0.954 | 0.962 | 0.969 | 0.985 | 32.108 | 1935 |
| claude-sonnet-5.5 | 0.969 | 0.939 | 0.945 | 0.955 | 0.959 | 0.984 | 33.875 | 1935 |
| grok-4.7 | 0.973 | 0.924 | 0.938 | 0.952 | 0.960 | 0.984 | 42.324 | 1935 |
| gemini-3.8-flash | 0.972 | 0.919 | 0.923 | 0.947 | 0.955 | 0.990 | 55.162 | 1935 |
+| gemini-4-argon | 0.975 | 0.931 | 0.940 | 0.951 | 0.958 | 0.990 | 42.083 | 1935 |
| inkling | 0.968 | 0.921 | 0.932 | 0.942 | 0.952 | 0.993 | 54.269 | 1935 |
| gpt-6.1-sol | 0.979 | 0.949 | 0.952 | 0.960 | 0.967 | 0.985 | 30.220 | 1935 |
| gpt-5.5 | 0.964 | 0.922 | 0.929 | 0.942 | 0.950 | 0.975 | 51.193 | 1935 |
@@ -147,6 +151,7 @@ Households receive equal weight. The score is a weighted average of row scores:
| gemini-3.6-flash | 0.952 | 0.848 | 0.981 |
| gemini-3.7-flash | 0.934 | 0.786 | 0.975 |
| gemini-3.8-flash | 0.966 | 0.853 | 0.982 |
+| gemini-4-argon | 0.964 | 0.874 | 0.984 |
| glm-5.2 | 0.862 | 0.718 | 0.898 |
| glm-5.3 | 0.896 | 0.793 | 0.928 |
| gpt-5.4-mini | 0.807 | 0.473 | 0.906 |
@@ -168,6 +173,7 @@ Households receive equal weight. The score is a weighted average of row scores:
| kimi-k2.6 | 0.692 | 0.274 | 0.777 |
| kimi-k3 | 0.949 | 0.863 | 0.950 |
| minimax-m3 | 0.819 | 0.488 | 0.921 |
+| muse-spark-1.3 | 0.970 | 0.886 | 0.978 |
| muse-wonder | 0.976 | 0.892 | 0.983 |
| ox-alpha | 0.950 | 0.837 | 0.968 |
| qwen-3.7-max | 0.865 | 0.701 | 0.937 |
@@ -180,21 +186,21 @@ Amount variables use the tolerance columns. Binary coverage flags use `mean_accu
| variable | metric_type | mean_score | mean_exact | mean_within_1pct | mean_within_5pct | mean_within_10pct | mean_accuracy | mean_mae | total_n |
| --- | --- | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: |
-| federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits | amount_tolerance | 0.829 | 0.609 | 0.634 | 0.689 | 0.719 | n/a | 933.776 | 4032 |
-| federal_refundable_credits | amount_tolerance | 0.908 | 0.855 | 0.866 | 0.879 | 0.890 | n/a | 210.422 | 4800 |
-| free_school_meals_eligible | binary_accuracy | 0.980 | 0.980 | 0.980 | 0.980 | 0.980 | 0.980 | 0.017 | 4800 |
-| local_income_tax | amount_tolerance | 0.993 | 0.993 | 0.993 | 0.993 | 0.993 | n/a | 7.927 | 4704 |
-| payroll_tax | amount_tolerance | 0.949 | 0.802 | 0.834 | 0.882 | 0.907 | n/a | 287.888 | 4608 |
-| person_chip_eligible | binary_accuracy | 0.959 | 0.959 | 0.959 | 0.959 | 0.959 | 0.959 | 0.034 | 8496 |
-| person_early_head_start_eligible | binary_accuracy | 0.984 | 0.984 | 0.984 | 0.984 | 0.984 | 0.984 | 0.010 | 1824 |
-| person_head_start_eligible | binary_accuracy | 0.970 | 0.970 | 0.970 | 0.970 | 0.970 | 0.970 | 0.024 | 1824 |
-| person_medicaid_eligible | binary_accuracy | 0.922 | 0.922 | 0.922 | 0.922 | 0.922 | 0.922 | 0.072 | 8304 |
-| person_medicare_eligible | binary_accuracy | 0.973 | 0.973 | 0.973 | 0.973 | 0.973 | 0.973 | 0.023 | 8256 |
-| person_wic_eligible | binary_accuracy | 0.980 | 0.980 | 0.980 | 0.980 | 0.980 | 0.980 | 0.015 | 8496 |
-| reduced_price_school_meals_eligible | binary_accuracy | 0.985 | 0.985 | 0.985 | 0.985 | 0.985 | 0.985 | 0.011 | 4800 |
-| self_employment_tax | amount_tolerance | 0.977 | 0.971 | 0.976 | 0.977 | 0.977 | n/a | 22.124 | 4800 |
-| snap | amount_tolerance | 0.895 | 0.843 | 0.856 | 0.875 | 0.881 | n/a | 225.694 | 4464 |
-| ssi | amount_tolerance | 0.987 | 0.978 | 0.981 | 0.984 | 0.985 | n/a | 78.907 | 4656 |
-| state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits | amount_tolerance | 0.827 | 0.604 | 0.627 | 0.685 | 0.734 | n/a | 310.437 | 4464 |
-| state_refundable_credits | amount_tolerance | 0.856 | 0.821 | 0.821 | 0.826 | 0.830 | n/a | 67.809 | 4752 |
-| tanf | amount_tolerance | 0.988 | 0.985 | 0.985 | 0.985 | 0.986 | n/a | 42.944 | 4800 |
+| federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits | amount_tolerance | 0.834 | 0.611 | 0.637 | 0.694 | 0.724 | n/a | 906.526 | 4200 |
+| federal_refundable_credits | amount_tolerance | 0.911 | 0.856 | 0.868 | 0.882 | 0.893 | n/a | 204.723 | 5000 |
+| free_school_meals_eligible | binary_accuracy | 0.980 | 0.980 | 0.980 | 0.980 | 0.980 | 0.980 | 0.017 | 5000 |
+| local_income_tax | amount_tolerance | 0.993 | 0.993 | 0.993 | 0.993 | 0.993 | n/a | 7.610 | 4900 |
+| payroll_tax | amount_tolerance | 0.951 | 0.806 | 0.838 | 0.886 | 0.911 | n/a | 277.302 | 4800 |
+| person_chip_eligible | binary_accuracy | 0.960 | 0.960 | 0.960 | 0.960 | 0.960 | 0.960 | 0.034 | 8850 |
+| person_early_head_start_eligible | binary_accuracy | 0.985 | 0.985 | 0.985 | 0.985 | 0.985 | 0.985 | 0.010 | 1900 |
+| person_head_start_eligible | binary_accuracy | 0.972 | 0.972 | 0.972 | 0.972 | 0.972 | 0.972 | 0.023 | 1900 |
+| person_medicaid_eligible | binary_accuracy | 0.924 | 0.924 | 0.924 | 0.924 | 0.924 | 0.924 | 0.071 | 8650 |
+| person_medicare_eligible | binary_accuracy | 0.973 | 0.973 | 0.973 | 0.973 | 0.973 | 0.973 | 0.023 | 8600 |
+| person_wic_eligible | binary_accuracy | 0.980 | 0.980 | 0.980 | 0.980 | 0.980 | 0.980 | 0.015 | 8850 |
+| reduced_price_school_meals_eligible | binary_accuracy | 0.985 | 0.985 | 0.985 | 0.985 | 0.985 | 0.985 | 0.011 | 5000 |
+| self_employment_tax | amount_tolerance | 0.978 | 0.972 | 0.977 | 0.977 | 0.978 | n/a | 21.362 | 5000 |
+| snap | amount_tolerance | 0.896 | 0.843 | 0.856 | 0.876 | 0.882 | n/a | 219.743 | 4650 |
+| ssi | amount_tolerance | 0.988 | 0.978 | 0.981 | 0.984 | 0.985 | n/a | 76.193 | 4850 |
+| state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits | amount_tolerance | 0.830 | 0.605 | 0.629 | 0.687 | 0.737 | n/a | 303.378 | 4650 |
+| state_refundable_credits | amount_tolerance | 0.857 | 0.821 | 0.821 | 0.826 | 0.830 | n/a | 67.189 | 4950 |
+| tanf | amount_tolerance | 0.989 | 0.985 | 0.985 | 0.986 | 0.986 | n/a | 41.411 | 5000 |
diff --git a/paper/snapshot/20260501/runs/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/analysis/summary_by_model.csv b/paper/snapshot/20260501/runs/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/analysis/summary_by_model.csv
index f3ddb7c0..6f9bd685 100644
--- a/paper/snapshot/20260501/runs/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/analysis/summary_by_model.csv
+++ b/paper/snapshot/20260501/runs/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/analysis/summary_by_model.csv
@@ -4,11 +4,13 @@ claude-opus-5.5,0.9831953089781725,0.9592950706954405,0.9666403941294737,0.97151
muse-wonder,0.9777764774472953,0.9369409418244676,0.9482767073134588,0.9630643850379647,0.9546379524129434,25.48550936094336,0.1684629383715318,0.9702697754758819,0.9904570506788547,1.0,1935,1935,0.9758368761339874,0.8918273192122057,0.9829457364341085,0.9011924638493829,0.9302058292075818,0.9547490574489197,0.9649006314207531,0.9377619954816594,0.9764153681452825,0.9728812913879932
gpt-6-luna,0.9751373042905155,0.9424591081179288,0.9510666990037454,0.9641701735857146,0.9565439408603554,29.151156342288353,0.24551412328198843,0.9684797827340333,0.9890609499636592,1.0,1935,1935,0.9728357245731175,0.8846695108103301,0.9824289405684754,0.9157184733803828,0.9347109226437764,0.9571842061141542,0.9646759804554972,0.9430723956484528,0.9739002054150848,0.9647661386225193
gpt-5.6-sol,0.9770083269416063,0.9506868610756481,0.9555742138662269,0.9644404879744365,0.9595322271790789,28.610548739641803,0.2191841246311544,0.9674273458000039,0.9906143887421841,1.0,1935,1935,0.9708690292423166,0.8906368178898081,0.9834625322997416,0.9314375861667122,0.9399971782172291,0.9549943159272732,0.9580886394117276,0.9461294299307355,0.975825194657685,0.9684121219327599
+muse-spark-1.3,0.9708072294053061,0.9176846546679792,0.9274451726744649,0.9520032890403769,0.938526847558223,27.4474841349368,0.20327784480154676,0.9569742738500714,0.9842472191906603,1.0,1935,1935,0.9703192743499203,0.8861632958330476,0.9782945736434109,0.8722755311512735,0.8931966648421343,0.9436914450749072,0.9532439211208871,0.9156018905473005,0.9701527197179874,0.9647453315882912
gpt-6-astra,0.9802904646971639,0.9511720336167309,0.9564878938317845,0.9630121093613764,0.9593284279492003,31.828506514888893,0.0826056683091468,0.9666416749869098,0.9883762938567011,1.0,1935,1935,0.969290598262685,0.9065757100580477,0.986046511627907,0.9170528113723297,0.92265691756557,0.9360175297688346,0.942519000070845,0.9295615646943948,0.9779057549562964,0.9644083702964571
claude-fable-5.1,0.9779850586051736,0.946162543085527,0.9541470540942316,0.9622969090182801,0.957829332588338,32.10803509962782,0.206205859886479,0.9687108241553134,0.9847457446743875,1.0,1935,1935,0.9678095623346274,0.9023892285407586,0.9819121447028424,0.9090970894562266,0.9247668345859479,0.9414047068064854,0.949607184220164,0.9312189537672059,0.9765133736157722,0.9649008407130591
claude-sonnet-5.5,0.9686644024690809,0.9392363191880209,0.9453647114051229,0.9546034893535782,0.9495360717055153,33.87473758805815,0.3637154758480955,0.9589397668753397,0.9843879780645893,1.0,1935,1935,0.9672017735234226,0.874468831417697,0.979328165374677,0.9173753171991977,0.9293164439068171,0.9459322994862641,0.9566826145941149,0.9373266687965984,0.9690211286124446,0.958971344143237
grok-4.7,0.9726141480621691,0.9243450525755357,0.9384838354374369,0.952127375290654,0.9438268440566551,42.32377143404328,0.18720125196808873,0.9603511129229939,0.9843209355108935,1.0,1935,1935,0.9668691509299187,0.877275239956809,0.9803617571059432,0.8769428691275197,0.9058148349241393,0.9362523619006781,0.9453910930922089,0.9161002897611366,0.9735852662896924,0.9488700922455041
gemini-3.8-flash,0.9722139212932629,0.9185757868423372,0.9233153321934419,0.947086704916081,0.9360440220019315,55.161727685202685,0.311129177939268,0.955198264055866,0.989812424479932,1.0,1935,1935,0.9657982527496931,0.8527523935903578,0.9819121447028424,0.8564320147091053,0.8667628801332365,0.9142516785800663,0.9325962078772778,0.8925106953249216,0.9725313016049517,0.9493324128541357
+gemini-4-argon,0.9751676477315923,0.9314760322795329,0.9398856448589991,0.9512135811600538,0.9452584886147827,42.0832164091313,0.20015405774352185,0.958458696160545,0.9904612515123,1.0,1935,1935,0.9642395243448412,0.8741687668103044,0.9844961240310077,0.8867361633338379,0.9009030795320924,0.9214491312207665,0.9349502206682624,0.9110096486887397,0.9732725907690667,0.9553474137054166
inkling,0.967851472037198,0.9205734740176056,0.9320202866136117,0.9421740677687368,0.9366069324821795,54.269466019555615,0.2688885491248509,0.9516599015287643,0.9931973972110643,1.0,1935,1935,0.9641786480432464,0.8599479772059595,0.9782945736434109,0.8775398327350276,0.8980562455593946,0.9167858852533394,0.9338792303172024,0.906565298466241,0.9663418314845558,0.9507455848563029
gpt-6.1-sol,0.9788370715737877,0.9491623378599656,0.9515331562590098,0.9598494864839423,0.9567663396675966,30.219716339221787,0.11521607361833176,0.9665203780674683,0.9854903212797419,1.0,1935,1935,0.9566402248803739,0.8968056360205293,0.9829457364341085,0.9014837550308763,0.9046907655520771,0.9196993499612408,0.9335260737835452,0.9148499860819348,0.9761012355350611,0.9543586564347173
gpt-5.5,0.9644848173208843,0.9222470554324624,0.9287552129854737,0.9419028924167553,0.9358164047955326,51.19289467727007,0.21669466210127053,0.9503604583474394,0.9748611332623985,1.0,1935,1935,0.9524649006114118,0.8790570286689431,0.9705426356589147,0.8793694465319714,0.8876986976600685,0.9151447875278967,0.9282849102226044,0.9026244604856352,0.9650039653426193,0.9412739399745093
diff --git a/paper/snapshot/20260501/runs/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/analysis/summary_by_variable.csv b/paper/snapshot/20260501/runs/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/analysis/summary_by_variable.csv
index 6b01f49f..b8affc8a 100644
--- a/paper/snapshot/20260501/runs/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/analysis/summary_by_variable.csv
+++ b/paper/snapshot/20260501/runs/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/analysis/summary_by_variable.csv
@@ -1,19 +1,19 @@
variable,mean_score,mean_exact,mean_within_1pct,mean_within_5pct,mean_threshold_score,mean_mae,mean_mape,mean_within_10pct,mean_accuracy,mean_coverage,total_n,parsed_n
-federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,0.8292507488274558,0.6091269841269841,0.6341765873015873,0.6889880952380952,0.6626984126984127,933.7755932032765,0.45162813668908824,0.7185019841269842,,0.9878472222222222,4032,3983
-federal_refundable_credits,0.908366619968301,0.8545833333333334,0.86625,0.8789583333333333,0.8724999999999999,210.4222557831346,0.4534569185469615,0.8902083333333333,,0.9860416666666666,4800,4733
-free_school_meals_eligible,0.9797916666666667,0.9797916666666667,0.9797916666666667,0.9797916666666667,0.9797916666666667,0.01653095506197041,,0.9797916666666667,0.9797916666666667,0.99625,4800,4782
-local_income_tax,0.9927721088435374,0.9927721088435374,0.9927721088435374,0.9927721088435374,0.9927721088435374,7.9271346737619774,,0.9927721088435374,,0.9948979591836734,4704,4680
-payroll_tax,0.9490060024943068,0.8018663194444445,0.8337673611111112,0.8815104166666666,0.8560655381944445,287.88758885560173,0.053004936017864386,0.9071180555555555,,0.9861111111111112,4608,4544
-person_chip_eligible,0.9593926553672317,0.9593926553672317,0.9593926553672317,0.9593926553672317,0.9593926553672317,0.03446948083493365,,0.9593926553672317,0.9593926553672317,0.993761770244821,8496,8443
-person_early_head_start_eligible,0.9841008771929824,0.9841008771929824,0.9841008771929824,0.9841008771929824,0.9841008771929824,0.010431484115694641,,0.9841008771929824,0.9841008771929824,0.9945175438596491,1824,1814
-person_head_start_eligible,0.9703947368421053,0.9703947368421053,0.9703947368421053,0.9703947368421053,0.9703947368421053,0.024122807017543862,,0.9703947368421053,0.9703947368421053,0.9945175438596491,1824,1814
-person_medicaid_eligible,0.9223265895953757,0.9223265895953757,0.9223265895953757,0.9223265895953757,0.9223265895953757,0.07199361770380515,,0.9223265895953757,0.9223265895953757,0.9940992292870905,8304,8255
-person_medicare_eligible,0.9725048449612403,0.9725048449612403,0.9725048449612403,0.9725048449612403,0.9725048449612403,0.02285209150555711,,0.9725048449612403,0.9725048449612403,0.9952761627906977,8256,8217
-person_wic_eligible,0.9796374764595104,0.9796374764595104,0.9796374764595104,0.9796374764595104,0.9796374764595104,0.015309878445471665,,0.9796374764595104,0.9796374764595104,0.9949387947269304,8496,8453
-reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,0.9854166666666666,0.9854166666666666,0.9854166666666666,0.9854166666666666,0.9854166666666666,0.010673410751216904,,0.9854166666666666,0.9854166666666666,0.9960416666666667,4800,4781
-self_employment_tax,0.9771376303010907,0.9708333333333333,0.97625,0.9766666666666667,0.9752604166666666,22.12448430751262,0.03577996697564843,0.9772916666666666,,0.98875,4800,4746
-snap,0.8950452996548242,0.8429659498207885,0.855510752688172,0.8745519713261648,0.8634072580645161,225.69365300995256,0.736762953000888,0.880600358422939,,0.9957437275985663,4464,4445
-ssi,0.9871635386425485,0.9778780068728522,0.9810996563573884,0.9838917525773195,0.9819050687285223,78.90662638284856,0.25923931235789366,0.9847508591065292,,0.9954896907216494,4656,4635
-state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,0.8272551554019955,0.6037186379928315,0.6272401433691757,0.6845878136200717,0.6624663978494624,310.43668566955836,0.37940151694923907,0.7343189964157707,,0.9883512544802867,4464,4412
-state_refundable_credits,0.8559995964939753,0.8207070707070708,0.821127946127946,0.8255471380471381,0.8242845117845118,67.80911957266066,0.7591052742431117,0.8297558922558923,,0.9882154882154882,4752,4696
-tanf,0.9884276333391192,0.9847916666666666,0.9852083333333334,0.9852083333333334,0.9852083333333334,42.944329401613935,0.6286672334516544,0.9856250000000001,,0.9954166666666667,4800,4778
+federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,0.8340195356544082,0.6109523809523809,0.6371428571428571,0.6942857142857143,0.6666071428571427,906.5257299197137,0.4378168831791845,0.7240476190476189,,0.9883333333333333,4200,4151
+federal_refundable_credits,0.9111271821598573,0.856,0.8682,0.8818,0.8747,204.72258939702405,0.44689472081986636,0.8928,,0.9865999999999999,5000,4933
+free_school_meals_eligible,0.9798,0.9798,0.9798,0.9798,0.9798,0.016669716859491597,,0.9798,0.9798,0.9964,5000,4982
+local_income_tax,0.993061224489796,0.993061224489796,0.993061224489796,0.993061224489796,0.993061224489796,7.610049286811499,,0.993061224489796,,0.9951020408163265,4900,4876
+payroll_tax,0.9509437099389081,0.80625,0.8379166666666668,0.885625,0.8601041666666667,277.30188683091865,0.05104802250615229,0.910625,,0.9866666666666667,4800,4736
+person_chip_eligible,0.96045197740113,0.96045197740113,0.96045197740113,0.96045197740113,0.96045197740113,0.03365567335294873,,0.96045197740113,0.96045197740113,0.9940112994350282,8850,8797
+person_early_head_start_eligible,0.9847368421052631,0.9847368421052631,0.9847368421052631,0.9847368421052631,0.9847368421052631,0.010014224751066857,,0.9847368421052631,0.9847368421052631,0.9947368421052631,1900,1890
+person_head_start_eligible,0.9715789473684211,0.9715789473684211,0.9715789473684211,0.9715789473684211,0.9715789473684211,0.023157894736842106,,0.9715789473684211,0.9715789473684211,0.9947368421052631,1900,1890
+person_medicaid_eligible,0.9240462427745665,0.9240462427745665,0.9240462427745665,0.9240462427745665,0.9240462427745665,0.07050115623264716,,0.9240462427745665,0.9240462427745665,0.9943352601156069,8650,8601
+person_medicare_eligible,0.9730232558139535,0.9730232558139535,0.9730232558139535,0.9730232558139535,0.9730232558139535,0.022519403194172036,,0.9730232558139535,0.9730232558139535,0.9954651162790698,8600,8561
+person_wic_eligible,0.9803389830508474,0.9803389830508474,0.9803389830508474,0.9803389830508474,0.9803389830508474,0.014810477657935285,,0.9803389830508474,0.9803389830508474,0.9951412429378531,8850,8807
+reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,0.9853999999999999,0.9853999999999999,0.9853999999999999,0.9853999999999999,0.9853999999999999,0.010846474321168227,,0.9853999999999999,0.9853999999999999,0.9962000000000001,5000,4981
+self_employment_tax,0.9776519971047685,0.9717999999999999,0.977,0.9773999999999999,0.9760500000000001,21.362304227204305,0.03685036810010403,0.978,,0.9892,5000,4946
+snap,0.8964638761967078,0.8434408602150537,0.8561290322580645,0.8761290322580645,0.8644623655913979,219.74345527665122,0.7270940143851251,0.8821505376344086,,0.9959139784946237,4650,4631
+ssi,0.9876298709544216,0.9781443298969071,0.9814432989690722,0.9841237113402062,0.9821649484536082,76.19324792547276,0.25115535777118425,0.9849484536082475,,0.9956701030927835,4850,4829
+state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,0.8296970924914565,0.6051612903225806,0.629247311827957,0.6870967741935483,0.6645698924731183,303.3779431292949,0.37120624572185595,0.736774193548387,,0.9888172043010752,4650,4598
+state_refundable_credits,0.8571503152558286,0.8208080808080809,0.8212121212121213,0.8258585858585858,0.8244949494949495,67.1894153580609,0.7507588655211853,0.8301010101010101,,0.9886868686868686,4950,4894
+tanf,0.9888601568191252,0.985,0.9853999999999999,0.9856,0.9854999999999999,41.41075622554938,0.6061064470280375,0.986,,0.9956,5000,4978
diff --git a/paper/snapshot/20260501/runs/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/analysis/usage_summary.csv b/paper/snapshot/20260501/runs/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/analysis/usage_summary.csv
index 356b0b10..b679f7ef 100644
--- a/paper/snapshot/20260501/runs/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/analysis/usage_summary.csv
+++ b/paper/snapshot/20260501/runs/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/analysis/usage_summary.csv
@@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ gemini-3.5-flash-lite,1984,1984,0,,0.3032555999999772,0.3032555999999772,0,0.303
gemini-3.6-flash,1984,1984,0,,,,0,,2862.472856998327,724.2377691268921,1784677985.7880929,1784678710.025862,337261.0,663630.0,1000891.0,566409.0,,
gemini-3.7-flash,1984,1984,0,,1.4377514999999548,1.4377514999999548,0,1.4377514999999548,934.633808796003,593.7700290679932,1787014713.365206,1787015307.135235,355347.0,312331.0,667678.0,222547.0,,
gemini-3.8-flash,1984,1984,0,,6.829219499999977,6.829219499999977,0,6.829219499999977,6627.355145412994,1753.2050020694733,1788443277.983875,1788445031.188877,373276.0,1746470.0,2119746.0,1642860.0,6731.0,
+gemini-4-argon,1984,1984,0,,2.7888199999999825,2.7888199999999825,0,2.7888199999999825,2188.583365915023,606.2398898601532,1791916109.805865,1791916716.045755,337290.0,211424.0,548714.0,109158.0,,
glm-5.2,1984,1845,354,8.197196655359956,,8.197196655359956,0,8.197196655359956,8391.077682628995,19340.055676937103,1783331940.269093,1783351280.32477,686076.0,2600708.0,3286784.0,2118173.0,346645.0,
glm-5.3,1984,1906,78,14.45047244199996,16.938083399999968,16.938083399999968,0,16.938083399999968,24775.988385624994,123785.3179910183,1788443368.805141,1788567154.123132,769247.0,3604804.0,4374051.0,3146211.0,257267.0,0.0
gpt-5.4-mini,1984,1984,0,,0.5822218499999728,0.5822218499999728,1984,0.5822218499999728,558.6356717120052,,,,251051.0,90248.0,341299.0,0.0,18048.0,
@@ -43,6 +44,7 @@ inkling,1984,1984,0,9.14737169999998,,9.14737169999998,0,9.14737169999998,29912.
kimi-k2.6,1984,1558,1476,39.10951922799996,,39.10951922799996,0,39.10951922799996,27880.1620396644,19014.219599962234,1783420244.710639,1783439258.930239,875917.0,10658123.0,11534040.0,10225616.0,289443.0,
kimi-k3,1984,1920,64,47.043259199999966,,47.043259199999966,0,47.043259199999966,110351.02873916121,50561.20402598381,1784379663.81818,1784430225.022206,175860.0,3354425.0,3530285.0,3234185.0,24064.0,0.0
minimax-m3,1984,1984,0,0.731826059999974,,0.731826059999974,0,0.731826059999974,2104.3961402919376,1789.769702911377,1783276494.117407,1783278283.88711,451626.0,302920.0,754546.0,157273.0,164608.0,
+muse-spark-1.3,1984,1984,0,2.0585778499999687,2.058577849999952,2.058577849999952,0,2.058577849999952,4138.671658040097,1697.2319929599762,1791914301.818832,1791915999.0508249,131784.0,445765.0,577549.0,343120.0,594.0,0.0
muse-wonder,1984,1984,0,7.8642651999999655,7.864265199999977,7.864265199999977,0,7.864265199999977,2817.305968586017,680.1879460811615,1791859801.867261,1791860482.055207,131784.0,368465.0,500249.0,253359.0,8466.0,0.0
ox-alpha,1984,1984,0,0.0,,0.0,0,0.0,34257.33270670401,43589.63043880463,1787352025.546394,1787395615.176833,514584.0,1360796.0,1875380.0,5323.0,43968.0,0.0
qwen-3.7-max,1984,1984,0,13.925177499999958,,13.925177499999958,0,13.925177499999958,7521.100816025339,5535.499464035034,1783381171.662245,1783386707.161709,607559.0,3510861.0,4118420.0,3234338.0,0.0,
diff --git a/paper/snapshot/20260501/runs/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/data.json.gz b/paper/snapshot/20260501/runs/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/data.json.gz
index a8a6a3e7..0dd8f8b6 100644
Binary files a/paper/snapshot/20260501/runs/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/data.json.gz and b/paper/snapshot/20260501/runs/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/data.json.gz differ
diff --git a/paper/snapshot/20260501/runs/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/predictions.csv.gz b/paper/snapshot/20260501/runs/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/predictions.csv.gz
index 04801af8..59171ae3 100644
Binary files a/paper/snapshot/20260501/runs/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/predictions.csv.gz and b/paper/snapshot/20260501/runs/us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace/predictions.csv.gz differ
diff --git a/paper/snapshot/20260501/us_impact_summary_by_model.csv b/paper/snapshot/20260501/us_impact_summary_by_model.csv
index de538f2d..ba93d805 100644
--- a/paper/snapshot/20260501/us_impact_summary_by_model.csv
+++ b/paper/snapshot/20260501/us_impact_summary_by_model.csv
@@ -10,6 +10,8 @@ gpt-6.1-sol,0.9561920004157146,0.9750826927695428,1.0,100,1935,1935,0.3
claude-sonnet-5.5,0.9536867283566782,0.9715474045330234,1.0,100,1935,1935,0.3
inkling,0.9530143060259685,0.9698896690647965,1.0,100,1935,1935,0.3
grok-4.7,0.950638753218912,0.9747756201656782,1.0,100,1935,1935,0.3
+gemini-4-argon,0.9485549615639814,0.9756227513769514,1.0,100,1935,1935,0.3
+muse-spark-1.3,0.9449661501185004,0.9716548755294683,1.0,100,1935,1935,0.3
gemini-3.8-flash,0.9427119959675533,0.97535543018951,1.0,100,1935,1935,0.3
gpt-5.5,0.942348809544872,0.9655508058853904,1.0,100,1935,1935,0.3
deepseek-v4.1-flash,0.9395029883121027,0.965922939095503,1.0,100,1935,1935,0.3
diff --git a/policybench/adjudications.py b/policybench/adjudications.py
index 28871282..c7f6cdef 100644
--- a/policybench/adjudications.py
+++ b/policybench/adjudications.py
@@ -381,3 +381,19 @@ def excluded_case_keys(adjudications: list[dict]) -> set[tuple[str, str]]:
for e in adjudications
if e.get("excluded_from_scoring")
}
+
+
+def judge_ever_flagged(entry: dict) -> bool:
+ """Whether any judge verdict the entry records flagged the case's reference.
+
+ The record keeps every verdict a re-judge replaced (judge_previous) and a
+ flag an earlier run raised (judge_reference_suspect_source, at the top level
+ or on the judge_previous item it belongs to), so a case a later verdict no
+ longer flags still counts as judge-flagged.
+ """
+ verdicts = [entry, *entry.get("judge_previous", [])]
+ return any(
+ bool(item.get("judge_reference_suspect"))
+ or bool(item.get("judge_reference_suspect_source"))
+ for item in verdicts
+ )
diff --git a/policybench/paper_results.py b/policybench/paper_results.py
index 358731c9..1373b245 100644
--- a/policybench/paper_results.py
+++ b/policybench/paper_results.py
@@ -633,6 +633,8 @@ def references_as_of(
"qwen3.8-max": "Qwen3.8-Max",
"inkling": "Inkling",
"muse-wonder": "Muse Wonder",
+ "muse-spark-1.3": "Muse Spark 1.3",
+ "gemini-4-argon": "Gemini 4 Argon",
"grok-build-0.1": "Grok Build 0.1",
"claude-opus-4.8": "Claude Opus 4.8",
"claude-opus-4.7": "Claude Opus 4.7",
diff --git a/reference_audit/2026-09-28/verification/judge_verdicts.json b/reference_audit/2026-09-28/verification/judge_verdicts.json
index 68facb2c..924792a5 100644
--- a/reference_audit/2026-09-28/verification/judge_verdicts.json
+++ b/reference_audit/2026-09-28/verification/judge_verdicts.json
@@ -36,6 +36,12 @@
"release": "dashboard-data-20261010",
"pull_request": 208,
"committed_on": "2026-10-10"
+ },
+ "2026-10-14": {
+ "commit": null,
+ "release": "dashboard-data-20261014",
+ "pull_request": null,
+ "adjudications_written_on": "2026-10-14"
}
},
"cases": {
@@ -914,10 +920,10 @@
"tree": "stage",
"judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
"case_failure_source": "llm_error",
- "case_failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
- "reference_suspect": false,
- "judged_at_utc": "2026-09-29T01:49:55.706215+00:00",
- "verdict_sha256": "806778b3960b2cb8e5aa46de8a5ccf1ab4191f09a7eecd45f6a31d96ee0fd4fa"
+ "case_failure_subtype": "state_local_rule",
+ "reference_suspect": true,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-14T00:30:26.806983+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "724440358489b273096ef969de46a9974e853c6e0b360594ac3519d2e1271ef8"
},
"previous": {
"tree": "20260922c",
@@ -927,14 +933,6 @@
"reference_suspect": false,
"judged_at_utc": "2026-09-23T00:27:11.981428+00:00",
"verdict_sha256": "0ae103e79bef21843fef6e173d865f26761c33ed1648a8d6d9fe1877c0d11408"
- },
- "published": {
- "release": "dashboard-data-20260922",
- "commit": "56844e2fa795e7cedc04cd3c34cfb4e67e6f08b5",
- "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
- "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
- "case_failure_subtype": "taxable_income_or_deductions",
- "judged_on_utc": null
}
},
"us__scenario_066__snap": {
@@ -2120,6 +2118,17 @@
"case_failure_subtype": "state_local_rule",
"judged_on_utc": "2026-10-10"
}
+ },
+ "us__scenario_009__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits": {
+ "current": {
+ "tree": "stage",
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
+ "reference_suspect": false,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T19:09:37.041751+00:00",
+ "verdict_sha256": "72a05641e920398bbc9226f62c6218c8c7e7d3c85cb61ede2e8ed7bf04ee6636"
+ }
}
}
}
diff --git a/reference_audit/2026-10-12-engine-upgrade/README.md b/reference_audit/2026-10-12-engine-upgrade/README.md
index 23b01d3f..50d5d864 100644
--- a/reference_audit/2026-10-12-engine-upgrade/README.md
+++ b/reference_audit/2026-10-12-engine-upgrade/README.md
@@ -47,6 +47,13 @@ Before publication, PolicyBench re-swept every output on 2.41.2, the newest rele
PyPI at 11:34 UTC (`verification/publication_check_2_41_2.csv`): all 1,984 are identical to
2.41.0's.
+For the next release (Gemini 4 Argon and Muse Spark 1.3), which keeps these references,
+PolicyBench re-swept every output on 2.41.3, the newest release when it checked PyPI at 17:22 UTC
+on 2026-10-13 (`verification/publication_check_2_41_3.csv`): all 1,984 are again identical to
+2.41.0's. After that release froze, it checked once more on 2.42.4, the newest release when it
+checked PyPI at 04:03 UTC on 2026-10-14 (`verification/publication_check_2_42_4.csv`): all 1,984
+are still identical. `verification/sweep_timing.json` holds the latest check.
+
## Files
- `final_actions.json`: the reviewed actions the build ran on. Its sha256, `cfe9f335…`, is the
diff --git a/reference_audit/2026-10-12-engine-upgrade/verification/publication_check_2_41_3.csv b/reference_audit/2026-10-12-engine-upgrade/verification/publication_check_2_41_3.csv
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..c60bdda1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/reference_audit/2026-10-12-engine-upgrade/verification/publication_check_2_41_3.csv
@@ -0,0 +1,1985 @@
+scenario_id,state,variable,reference_engine,engine,reference_value,value,delta,same,scored
+scenario_000,TX,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,2906.45361328125,2906.45361328125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_000,TX,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_000,TX,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_000,TX,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_000,TX,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_000,TX,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_000,TX,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_000,TX,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_000,TX,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_000,TX,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_000,TX,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_000,TX,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_000,TX,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_000,TX,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_000,TX,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_000,TX,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_001,VA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_001,VA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_001,VA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_001,VA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_001,VA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_001,VA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_001,VA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_001,VA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_001,VA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,2223.393798828125,2223.393798828125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_001,VA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_001,VA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_001,VA,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_001,VA,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_001,VA,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_001,VA,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_001,VA,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_001,VA,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_001,VA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_001,VA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_001,VA,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_002,WA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_002,WA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_002,WA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_002,WA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_002,WA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_002,WA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_002,WA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_002,WA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_002,WA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_002,WA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_002,WA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_002,WA,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_002,WA,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_002,WA,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_002,WA,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_002,WA,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_002,WA,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_002,WA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_002,WA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_002,WA,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_003,TX,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,22400.654296875,22400.654296875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_003,TX,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_003,TX,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_003,TX,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_003,TX,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_003,TX,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_003,TX,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_003,TX,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_003,TX,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_003,TX,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_003,TX,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_003,TX,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_003,TX,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_003,TX,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_003,TX,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_003,TX,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_003,TX,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_003,TX,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_003,TX,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_003,TX,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_004,NY,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_004,NY,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_004,NY,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_004,NY,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_004,NY,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_004,NY,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_004,NY,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_004,NY,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_004,NY,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_004,NY,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_004,NY,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_004,NY,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_004,NY,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_004,NY,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_004,NY,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_004,NY,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_004,NY,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_004,NY,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_004,NY,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_004,NY,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_005,CA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,108525.578125,108525.578125,0.0,True,False
+scenario_005,CA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_005,CA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_005,CA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_005,CA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_005,CA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_005,CA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_005,CA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_005,CA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,36044.0,36044.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_005,CA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_005,CA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_005,CA,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_005,CA,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_005,CA,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_005,CA,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_005,CA,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_005,CA,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_005,CA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,40975.25390625,40975.25390625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_005,CA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_005,CA,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_007,ID,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,3707.695068359375,3707.695068359375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_007,ID,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_007,ID,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_007,ID,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_007,ID,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_007,ID,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_007,ID,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_007,ID,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_007,ID,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_007,ID,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_007,ID,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_007,ID,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_007,ID,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_007,ID,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,661.3170166015625,661.3170166015625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_007,ID,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,155.0,155.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_007,ID,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child1_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child1_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child2_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child2_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child2_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child2_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child2_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child2_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child3_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child3_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child3_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child3_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child3_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child3_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child4_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child4_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child4_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child4_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child4_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child4_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child5_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child5_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child5_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child5_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child5_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child5_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child6_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child6_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child6_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child6_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child6_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child6_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,12433.611328125,12433.611328125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,2276.659912109375,2276.659912109375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,565.1820068359375,565.1820068359375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,15108.0,15108.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,264.80999755859375,264.80999755859375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,5842.39990234375,5842.39990234375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_009,NC,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,8348.0,8348.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_009,NC,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_009,NC,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_009,NC,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_009,NC,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_009,NC,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_009,NC,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_009,NC,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_009,NC,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,4590.0,4590.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_009,NC,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_009,NC,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_009,NC,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_009,NC,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_009,NC,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_009,NC,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_009,NC,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_009,NC,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_009,NC,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,2190.510009765625,2190.510009765625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_009,NC,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_009,NC,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,child1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,child1_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,child1_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,child1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,child1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,child1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,6127.0,6127.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,1683.0,1683.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,4884.0,4884.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_013,AZ,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_013,AZ,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_013,AZ,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_013,AZ,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_013,AZ,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_013,AZ,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_013,AZ,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_013,AZ,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_013,AZ,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_013,AZ,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_013,AZ,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_013,AZ,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,240.0,240.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_013,AZ,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_013,AZ,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_013,AZ,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,25.0,25.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_013,AZ,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_014,WV,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,6311.31787109375,6311.31787109375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_014,WV,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_014,WV,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_014,WV,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_014,WV,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_014,WV,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_014,WV,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_014,WV,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_014,WV,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,6802.96484375,6802.96484375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_014,WV,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_014,WV,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_014,WV,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_014,WV,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_014,WV,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_014,WV,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_014,WV,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_014,WV,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_014,WV,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,3092.186279296875,3092.186279296875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_014,WV,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_014,WV,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_015,IN,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,2969.1259765625,2969.1259765625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_015,IN,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_015,IN,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_015,IN,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_015,IN,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_015,IN,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_015,IN,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_015,IN,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,670.5501098632812,670.5501098632812,0.0,True,False
+scenario_015,IN,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,3442.5,3442.5,0.0,True,True
+scenario_015,IN,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_015,IN,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_015,IN,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_015,IN,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_015,IN,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,1236.3267822265625,1236.3267822265625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_015,IN,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_015,IN,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_016,FL,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_016,FL,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_016,FL,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_016,FL,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_016,FL,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_016,FL,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_016,FL,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_016,FL,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_016,FL,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,2649.80224609375,2649.80224609375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_016,FL,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_016,FL,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_016,FL,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_016,FL,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_016,FL,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_016,FL,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_016,FL,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_018,AZ,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,5211.05078125,5211.05078125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_018,AZ,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_018,AZ,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_018,AZ,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_018,AZ,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_018,AZ,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_018,AZ,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_018,AZ,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_018,AZ,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,5202.38232421875,5202.38232421875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_018,AZ,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_018,AZ,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_018,AZ,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_018,AZ,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_018,AZ,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,1137.30224609375,1137.30224609375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_018,AZ,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_018,AZ,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_020,TX,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,68334.734375,68334.734375,0.0,True,False
+scenario_020,TX,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_020,TX,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_020,TX,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_020,TX,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_020,TX,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_020,TX,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_020,TX,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_020,TX,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,16689.0,16689.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_020,TX,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_020,TX,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_020,TX,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_020,TX,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_020,TX,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_020,TX,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_020,TX,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_021,MO,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_021,MO,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_021,MO,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_021,MO,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_021,MO,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_021,MO,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_021,MO,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_021,MO,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_021,MO,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_021,MO,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_021,MO,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_021,MO,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_021,MO,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_021,MO,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_021,MO,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_021,MO,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_022,CA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,11113.5703125,11113.5703125,0.0,True,False
+scenario_022,CA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_022,CA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_022,CA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_022,CA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_022,CA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_022,CA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_022,CA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_022,CA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,4710.83251953125,4710.83251953125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_022,CA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_022,CA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_022,CA,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_022,CA,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_022,CA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,1968.805419921875,1968.805419921875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_022,CA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_022,CA,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_023,CA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,643.43359375,643.43359375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_023,CA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_023,CA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_023,CA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_023,CA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_023,CA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_023,CA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_023,CA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_023,CA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,1561.1168212890625,1561.1168212890625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_023,CA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_023,CA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_023,CA,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,408.0,408.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_023,CA,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_023,CA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,12.776718139648438,12.776718139648438,0.0,True,True
+scenario_023,CA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,95.15400695800781,95.15400695800781,0.0,True,True
+scenario_023,CA,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_025,OH,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,7031.03564453125,7031.03564453125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_025,OH,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_025,OH,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_025,OH,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_025,OH,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_025,OH,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_025,OH,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_025,OH,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_025,OH,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,4798.48486328125,4798.48486328125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_025,OH,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_025,OH,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_025,OH,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_025,OH,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_025,OH,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_025,OH,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_025,OH,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_025,OH,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_025,OH,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,1916.606201171875,1916.606201171875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_025,OH,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_025,OH,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,child1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,child1_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,child1_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,child1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,child1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,child1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,child2_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,child2_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,child2_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,child2_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,child2_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,child2_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,child3_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,child3_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,child3_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,child3_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,child3_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,child3_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,2013.4892578125,2013.4892578125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,6518.474609375,6518.474609375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,2086.79052734375,2086.79052734375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_027,CT,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_027,CT,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_027,CT,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_027,CT,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_027,CT,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_027,CT,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_027,CT,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_027,CT,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_027,CT,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_027,CT,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_027,CT,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_027,CT,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,288.0,288.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_027,CT,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_027,CT,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_027,CT,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_027,CT,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_027,CT,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_027,CT,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_027,CT,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_027,CT,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,child1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,child1_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,child1_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,child1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,child1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,child1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,child2_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,child2_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,child2_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,child2_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,child2_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,child2_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,child3_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,child3_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,child3_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,child3_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,child3_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,child3_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,3274.927978515625,3274.927978515625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,4632.0,4632.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,1842.3070068359375,1842.3070068359375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,62.41279220581055,62.41279220581055,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_029,OK,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_029,OK,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_029,OK,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_029,OK,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_029,OK,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_029,OK,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_029,OK,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_029,OK,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_029,OK,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_029,OK,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_029,OK,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_029,OK,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_029,OK,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_029,OK,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_029,OK,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,40.0,40.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_029,OK,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_030,TX,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_030,TX,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_030,TX,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_030,TX,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_030,TX,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_030,TX,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_030,TX,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_030,TX,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_030,TX,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,994.5,994.5,0.0,True,True
+scenario_030,TX,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_030,TX,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_030,TX,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,288.0,288.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_030,TX,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_030,TX,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_030,TX,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_030,TX,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_031,CA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_031,CA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_031,CA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_031,CA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_031,CA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_031,CA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_031,CA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_031,CA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_031,CA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_031,CA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_031,CA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_031,CA,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_031,CA,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_031,CA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_031,CA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_031,CA,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,child1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,child1_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,child1_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,child1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,child1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,child1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,6127.0,6127.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,2346.10009765625,2346.10009765625,0.0,True,False
+scenario_032,MN,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,2187.60009765625,2187.60009765625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_033,SD,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,3818.148193359375,3818.148193359375,0.0,True,False
+scenario_033,SD,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_033,SD,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_033,SD,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_033,SD,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_033,SD,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_033,SD,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_033,SD,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_033,SD,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,6043.5,6043.5,0.0,True,True
+scenario_033,SD,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_033,SD,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_033,SD,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_033,SD,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_033,SD,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_033,SD,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_033,SD,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_033,SD,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_033,SD,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_033,SD,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_033,SD,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_036,NJ,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,4926.39990234375,4926.39990234375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_036,NJ,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_036,NJ,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_036,NJ,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_036,NJ,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_036,NJ,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_036,NJ,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_036,NJ,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_036,NJ,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_036,NJ,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_036,NJ,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_036,NJ,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_036,NJ,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_036,NJ,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,1724.155029296875,1724.155029296875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_036,NJ,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_036,NJ,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_037,NC,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,1649.2513427734375,1649.2513427734375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_037,NC,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_037,NC,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_037,NC,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_037,NC,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_037,NC,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_037,NC,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_037,NC,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_037,NC,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,3208.668701171875,3208.668701171875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_037,NC,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_037,NC,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_037,NC,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_037,NC,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_037,NC,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,1148.69921875,1148.69921875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_037,NC,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_037,NC,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,child1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,child1_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,child1_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,child1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,child1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,child1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,child2_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,child2_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,child2_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,child2_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,child2_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,child2_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,10225.353515625,10225.353515625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,571.2637329101562,571.2637329101562,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,2193.612548828125,2193.612548828125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,7212.0,7212.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,365.8000183105469,365.8000183105469,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_039,VA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,8596.0283203125,8596.0283203125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_039,VA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_039,VA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_039,VA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_039,VA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_039,VA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_039,VA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_039,VA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_039,VA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_039,VA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_039,VA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_039,VA,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_039,VA,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_039,VA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,1975.7982177734375,1975.7982177734375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_039,VA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_039,VA,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_040,AZ,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_040,AZ,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_040,AZ,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_040,AZ,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_040,AZ,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_040,AZ,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_040,AZ,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_040,AZ,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_040,AZ,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,2142.0,2142.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_040,AZ,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_040,AZ,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_040,AZ,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_040,AZ,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_040,AZ,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_040,AZ,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_040,AZ,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_040,AZ,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_040,AZ,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_040,AZ,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_040,AZ,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_042,WI,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,2361.96484375,2361.96484375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_042,WI,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_042,WI,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_042,WI,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_042,WI,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_042,WI,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_042,WI,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_042,WI,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_042,WI,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_042,WI,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_042,WI,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_042,WI,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_042,WI,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_042,WI,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_042,WI,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_042,WI,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_043,CO,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_043,CO,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_043,CO,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_043,CO,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_043,CO,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_043,CO,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_043,CO,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_043,CO,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_043,CO,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,330.7310791015625,330.7310791015625,0.0,True,False
+scenario_043,CO,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_043,CO,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_043,CO,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,3576.0,3576.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_043,CO,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_043,CO,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_043,CO,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_043,CO,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_044,KS,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_044,KS,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_044,KS,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_044,KS,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_044,KS,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_044,KS,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_044,KS,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_044,KS,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_044,KS,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_044,KS,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_044,KS,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_044,KS,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_044,KS,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_044,KS,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_044,KS,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_044,KS,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_044,KS,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_044,KS,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_044,KS,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_044,KS,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_045,MI,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,2173.07080078125,2173.07080078125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_045,MI,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_045,MI,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_045,MI,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_045,MI,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_045,MI,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_045,MI,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_045,MI,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_045,MI,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,2775.08251953125,2775.08251953125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_045,MI,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_045,MI,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_045,MI,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_045,MI,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_045,MI,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,1290.9625244140625,1290.9625244140625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_045,MI,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,760.7887573242188,760.7887573242188,0.0,True,True
+scenario_045,MI,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,child1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,child1_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,child1_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,child1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,child1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,child1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,child2_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,child2_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,child2_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,child2_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,child2_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,child2_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,499.71484375,499.71484375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,7038.0,7038.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,2739.135009765625,2739.135009765625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_048,OH,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_048,OH,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_048,OH,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_048,OH,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_048,OH,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_048,OH,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_048,OH,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_048,OH,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_048,OH,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,585.6839599609375,585.6839599609375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_048,OH,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_048,OH,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_048,OH,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_048,OH,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_048,OH,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_048,OH,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_048,OH,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_049,NH,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,30702.58984375,30702.58984375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_049,NH,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_049,NH,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_049,NH,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_049,NH,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_049,NH,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_049,NH,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_049,NH,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_049,NH,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,15134.5,15134.5,0.0,True,True
+scenario_049,NH,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_049,NH,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_049,NH,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_049,NH,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_049,NH,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_049,NH,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_049,NH,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_049,NH,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_049,NH,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_049,NH,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_049,NH,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_051,LA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,2620.0,2620.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_051,LA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_051,LA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_051,LA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_051,LA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_051,LA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_051,LA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_051,LA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_051,LA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,3060.0,3060.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_051,LA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_051,LA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_051,LA,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_051,LA,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_051,LA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,820.260009765625,820.260009765625,0.0,True,False
+scenario_051,LA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_051,LA,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_052,TX,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,104225.2578125,104225.2578125,0.0,True,False
+scenario_052,TX,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_052,TX,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_052,TX,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_052,TX,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_052,TX,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_052,TX,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_052,TX,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_052,TX,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,20939.0,20939.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_052,TX,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_052,TX,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_052,TX,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_052,TX,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_052,TX,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_052,TX,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_052,TX,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_052,TX,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_052,TX,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_052,TX,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_052,TX,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_053,ID,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,5903.109375,5903.109375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_053,ID,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_053,ID,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_053,ID,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_053,ID,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_053,ID,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_053,ID,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_053,ID,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_053,ID,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,5123.10400390625,5123.10400390625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_053,ID,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_053,ID,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_053,ID,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_053,ID,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_053,ID,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,2186.05712890625,2186.05712890625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_053,ID,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,155.0,155.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_053,ID,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,child1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,child1_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,child1_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,child1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,child1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,child1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,child2_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,child2_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,child2_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,child2_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,child2_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,child2_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,8365.55859375,8365.55859375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,2416.15283203125,2416.15283203125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,6060.0,6060.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_055,FL,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,25238.578125,25238.578125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_055,FL,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_055,FL,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_055,FL,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_055,FL,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_055,FL,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_055,FL,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_055,FL,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_055,FL,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,6398.08837890625,6398.08837890625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_055,FL,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_055,FL,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_055,FL,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_055,FL,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_055,FL,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_055,FL,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_055,FL,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_056,NJ,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_056,NJ,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_056,NJ,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_056,NJ,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_056,NJ,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_056,NJ,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_056,NJ,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_056,NJ,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_056,NJ,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_056,NJ,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_056,NJ,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,613.2224731445312,613.2224731445312,0.0,True,True
+scenario_056,NJ,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,95.0,95.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_056,NJ,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_056,NJ,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_056,NJ,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,265.6000061035156,265.6000061035156,0.0,True,True
+scenario_056,NJ,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_057,LA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_057,LA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,664.0,664.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_057,LA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_057,LA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_057,LA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_057,LA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_057,LA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_057,LA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_057,LA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_057,LA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_057,LA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,1469.4732666015625,1469.4732666015625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_057,LA,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,2628.0,2628.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_057,LA,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_057,LA,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_057,LA,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_057,LA,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_057,LA,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,7231.00146484375,7231.00146484375,0.0,True,False
+scenario_057,LA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_057,LA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,33.20000076293945,33.20000076293945,0.0,True,True
+scenario_057,LA,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_059,FL,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_059,FL,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_059,FL,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_059,FL,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_059,FL,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_059,FL,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_059,FL,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_059,FL,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_059,FL,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_059,FL,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_059,FL,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_059,FL,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_059,FL,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_059,FL,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_059,FL,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_059,FL,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_059,FL,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_059,FL,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_059,FL,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_059,FL,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_060,TX,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_060,TX,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_060,TX,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_060,TX,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_060,TX,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_060,TX,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_060,TX,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_060,TX,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_060,TX,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,229.5,229.5,0.0,True,True
+scenario_060,TX,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_060,TX,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_060,TX,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_060,TX,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_060,TX,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_060,TX,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_060,TX,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_062,FL,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_062,FL,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_062,FL,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_062,FL,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_062,FL,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_062,FL,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_062,FL,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_062,FL,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_062,FL,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_062,FL,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_062,FL,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_062,FL,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_062,FL,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_062,FL,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_062,FL,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_062,FL,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,child1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,child1_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,child1_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,child1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,child1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,child1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,dependent1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_064,WI,dependent1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,dependent1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,dependent2_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,dependent2_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_064,WI,dependent2_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,dependent2_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,4441.455078125,4441.455078125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,7443.0673828125,7443.0673828125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_064,WI,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,4599.62158203125,4599.62158203125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_066,VA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_066,VA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,39.779998779296875,39.779998779296875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_066,VA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_066,VA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_066,VA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_066,VA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_066,VA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_066,VA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_066,VA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,39.779998779296875,39.779998779296875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_066,VA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_066,VA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_066,VA,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,3576.0,3576.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_066,VA,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_066,VA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_066,VA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,7.955999851226807,7.955999851226807,0.0,True,True
+scenario_066,VA,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,dependent1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_067,IN,dependent1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,dependent1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,5616.240234375,5616.240234375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,1348.83203125,1348.83203125,0.0,True,False
+scenario_067,IN,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,6300.5400390625,6300.5400390625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_067,IN,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,2486.908935546875,2486.908935546875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_068,MD,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,1910.0238037109375,1910.0238037109375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_068,MD,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_068,MD,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_068,MD,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_068,MD,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_068,MD,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_068,MD,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_068,MD,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_068,MD,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,2607.39013671875,2607.39013671875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_068,MD,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_068,MD,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_068,MD,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_068,MD,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_068,MD,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,1255.3427734375,1255.3427734375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_068,MD,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_068,MD,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_070,IL,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,1979.9605712890625,1979.9605712890625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_070,IL,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_070,IL,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_070,IL,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_070,IL,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_070,IL,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_070,IL,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_070,IL,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_070,IL,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,2907.0,2907.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_070,IL,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_070,IL,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_070,IL,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_070,IL,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_070,IL,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,1650.561279296875,1650.561279296875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_070,IL,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_070,IL,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_071,NY,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_071,NY,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_071,NY,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_071,NY,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_071,NY,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_071,NY,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_071,NY,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_071,NY,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_071,NY,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_071,NY,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_071,NY,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_071,NY,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_071,NY,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_071,NY,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_071,NY,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_071,NY,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_072,MI,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_072,MI,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_072,MI,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_072,MI,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_072,MI,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_072,MI,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_072,MI,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_072,MI,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_072,MI,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,1530.0,1530.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_072,MI,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_072,MI,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_072,MI,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_072,MI,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_072,MI,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_072,MI,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_072,MI,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_072,MI,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_072,MI,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_072,MI,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_072,MI,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_073,MI,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_073,MI,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_073,MI,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_073,MI,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_073,MI,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_073,MI,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_073,MI,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_073,MI,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_073,MI,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_073,MI,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_073,MI,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_073,MI,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,288.0,288.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_073,MI,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_073,MI,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_073,MI,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_073,MI,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_074,LA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_074,LA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_074,LA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_074,LA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_074,LA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_074,LA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_074,LA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_074,LA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_074,LA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_074,LA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_074,LA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_074,LA,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_074,LA,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_074,LA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_074,LA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_074,LA,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_075,FL,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,14777.1455078125,14777.1455078125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_075,FL,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_075,FL,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_075,FL,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_075,FL,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_075,FL,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_075,FL,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_075,FL,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_075,FL,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,968.2120971679688,968.2120971679688,0.0,True,True
+scenario_075,FL,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_075,FL,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_075,FL,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_075,FL,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_075,FL,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_075,FL,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_075,FL,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,child1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,child1_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,child1_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,child1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,child1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,child1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,child2_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,child2_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,child2_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,child2_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,child2_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,child2_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,19611.80078125,19611.80078125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,12240.0,12240.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,6828.34423828125,6828.34423828125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,465.0,465.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_077,LA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,690.6175537109375,690.6175537109375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_077,LA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_077,LA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_077,LA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_077,LA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_077,LA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_077,LA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_077,LA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_077,LA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,1989.472412109375,1989.472412109375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_077,LA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_077,LA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_077,LA,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_077,LA,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_077,LA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,305.0452575683594,305.0452575683594,0.0,True,False
+scenario_077,LA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_077,LA,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_078,MD,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,24164.45703125,24164.45703125,0.0,True,False
+scenario_078,MD,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_078,MD,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_078,MD,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_078,MD,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_078,MD,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_078,MD,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_078,MD,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_078,MD,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,14317.322265625,14317.322265625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_078,MD,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_078,MD,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_078,MD,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_078,MD,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_078,MD,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,6936.87646484375,6936.87646484375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_078,MD,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_078,MD,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_079,AZ,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_079,AZ,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_079,AZ,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_079,AZ,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_079,AZ,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_079,AZ,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_079,AZ,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_079,AZ,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_079,AZ,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_079,AZ,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_079,AZ,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_079,AZ,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,2376.0,2376.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_079,AZ,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_079,AZ,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_079,AZ,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_079,AZ,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_079,AZ,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,10572.0,10572.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_079,AZ,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_079,AZ,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,50.0,50.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_079,AZ,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_080,PA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_080,PA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_080,PA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_080,PA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_080,PA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_080,PA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_080,PA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_080,PA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_080,PA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_080,PA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_080,PA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_080,PA,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,3240.0,3240.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_080,PA,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_080,PA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_080,PA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_080,PA,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_081,MA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,26932.2734375,26932.2734375,0.0,True,False
+scenario_081,MA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_081,MA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_081,MA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_081,MA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_081,MA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_081,MA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_081,MA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_081,MA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,14192.662109375,14192.662109375,0.0,True,False
+scenario_081,MA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_081,MA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_081,MA,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_081,MA,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_081,MA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,8232.900390625,8232.900390625,0.0,True,False
+scenario_081,MA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_081,MA,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,child1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,child1_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,child1_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,child1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,child1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,child1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,9579.767578125,9579.767578125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,8108.02734375,8108.02734375,0.0,True,False
+scenario_082,NY,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,5599.1435546875,5599.1435546875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,1187.5478515625,1187.5478515625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_083,TX,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_083,TX,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_083,TX,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_083,TX,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_083,TX,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_083,TX,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_083,TX,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_083,TX,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_083,TX,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,539.3250122070312,539.3250122070312,0.0,True,True
+scenario_083,TX,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_083,TX,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_083,TX,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_083,TX,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_083,TX,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_083,TX,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_083,TX,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_084,NC,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_084,NC,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_084,NC,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_084,NC,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_084,NC,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_084,NC,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_084,NC,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_084,NC,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_084,NC,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_084,NC,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_084,NC,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_084,NC,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_084,NC,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_084,NC,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_084,NC,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_084,NC,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_085,PA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,2322.8486328125,2322.8486328125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_085,PA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_085,PA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_085,PA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_085,PA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_085,PA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_085,PA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_085,PA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_085,PA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_085,PA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_085,PA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_085,PA,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_085,PA,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_085,PA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_085,PA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_085,PA,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,child1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,child1_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,child1_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,child1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,child1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,child1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,3255.5478515625,3255.5478515625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,4743.0,4743.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,2078.958740234375,2078.958740234375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_088,TX,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_088,TX,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_088,TX,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_088,TX,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_088,TX,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_088,TX,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_088,TX,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_088,TX,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_088,TX,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,1421.1448974609375,1421.1448974609375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_088,TX,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_088,TX,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_088,TX,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_088,TX,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_088,TX,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_088,TX,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_088,TX,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_089,NC,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,6819.7119140625,6819.7119140625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_089,NC,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_089,NC,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_089,NC,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_089,NC,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_089,NC,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_089,NC,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_089,NC,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_089,NC,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,5039.91015625,5039.91015625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_089,NC,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_089,NC,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,4286.24072265625,4286.24072265625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_089,NC,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_089,NC,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_089,NC,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_089,NC,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_089,NC,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_089,NC,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_089,NC,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,3219.935302734375,3219.935302734375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_089,NC,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_089,NC,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_090,KS,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_090,KS,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_090,KS,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_090,KS,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_090,KS,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_090,KS,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_090,KS,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_090,KS,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_090,KS,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,535.5,535.5,0.0,True,True
+scenario_090,KS,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_090,KS,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_090,KS,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_090,KS,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_090,KS,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_090,KS,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_090,KS,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_091,WI,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,1349.998779296875,1349.998779296875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_091,WI,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_091,WI,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_091,WI,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_091,WI,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_091,WI,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_091,WI,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_091,WI,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_091,WI,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,2065.5,2065.5,0.0,True,True
+scenario_091,WI,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_091,WI,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_091,WI,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_091,WI,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_091,WI,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,878.5157470703125,878.5157470703125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_091,WI,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_091,WI,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_092,AL,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_092,AL,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_092,AL,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_092,AL,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_092,AL,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_092,AL,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_092,AL,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_092,AL,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_092,AL,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_092,AL,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_092,AL,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_092,AL,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_092,AL,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_092,AL,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_092,AL,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_092,AL,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,dependent1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,dependent1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,dependent1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,8628.990234375,8628.990234375,0.0,True,False
+scenario_093,MO,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,12469.5,12469.5,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,3388.24560546875,3388.24560546875,0.0,True,False
+scenario_093,MO,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_095,NJ,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_095,NJ,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_095,NJ,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_095,NJ,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_095,NJ,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_095,NJ,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_095,NJ,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_095,NJ,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_095,NJ,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_095,NJ,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_095,NJ,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,593.2291259765625,593.2291259765625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_095,NJ,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_095,NJ,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_095,NJ,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_095,NJ,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_095,NJ,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_098,IL,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_098,IL,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_098,IL,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_098,IL,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_098,IL,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_098,IL,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_098,IL,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_098,IL,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_098,IL,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_098,IL,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_098,IL,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_098,IL,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_098,IL,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_098,IL,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_098,IL,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_098,IL,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,child1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,child1_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,child1_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,child1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,child1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,child1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,child2_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,child2_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,child2_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,child2_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,child2_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,child2_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,10711.484375,10711.484375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,14767.5,14767.5,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,4615.48388671875,4615.48388671875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,child1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,child1_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,child1_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,child1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,child1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,child1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,child2_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,child2_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,child2_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,child2_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,child2_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,child2_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,822.2882690429688,822.2882690429688,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,452.47613525390625,452.47613525390625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,6924.0,6924.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_100,MT,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,164.45765686035156,164.45765686035156,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,6064.958984375,6064.958984375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_101,TX,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,13418.599609375,13418.599609375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_101,TX,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_101,TX,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_101,TX,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_101,TX,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_101,TX,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_101,TX,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_101,TX,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_101,TX,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,7879.5,7879.5,0.0,True,True
+scenario_101,TX,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_101,TX,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_101,TX,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_101,TX,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_101,TX,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_101,TX,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_101,TX,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_102,NC,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,6104.09619140625,6104.09619140625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_102,NC,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_102,NC,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_102,NC,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_102,NC,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_102,NC,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_102,NC,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_102,NC,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_102,NC,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,6670.7998046875,6670.7998046875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_102,NC,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_102,NC,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_102,NC,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_102,NC,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_102,NC,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_102,NC,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_102,NC,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_102,NC,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_102,NC,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,2461.869873046875,2461.869873046875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_102,NC,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_102,NC,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_104,NY,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_104,NY,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_104,NY,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_104,NY,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_104,NY,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_104,NY,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_104,NY,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_104,NY,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_104,NY,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_104,NY,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_104,NY,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_104,NY,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_104,NY,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_104,NY,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_104,NY,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_104,NY,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_107,OH,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_107,OH,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_107,OH,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_107,OH,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_107,OH,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_107,OH,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_107,OH,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_107,OH,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_107,OH,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,486.9607238769531,486.9607238769531,0.0,True,True
+scenario_107,OH,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_107,OH,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_107,OH,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_107,OH,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_107,OH,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_107,OH,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_107,OH,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_108,WI,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_108,WI,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_108,WI,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_108,WI,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_108,WI,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_108,WI,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_108,WI,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_108,WI,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_108,WI,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,585.6839599609375,585.6839599609375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_108,WI,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_108,WI,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_108,WI,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,288.0,288.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_108,WI,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_108,WI,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_108,WI,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,271.3916015625,271.3916015625,0.0,True,False
+scenario_108,WI,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,child1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,child1_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,child1_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,child1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,child1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,child1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,child2_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,child2_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,child2_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,child2_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,child2_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,child2_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,child3_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,child3_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,child3_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,child3_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,child3_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,child3_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,12038.0859375,12038.0859375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,4238.86474609375,4238.86474609375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,7932.0,7932.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_110,OH,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,25747.7734375,25747.7734375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_110,OH,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_110,OH,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_110,OH,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_110,OH,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_110,OH,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_110,OH,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_110,OH,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_110,OH,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,7650.0,7650.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_110,OH,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_110,OH,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_110,OH,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_110,OH,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_110,OH,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,4236.8076171875,4236.8076171875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_110,OH,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_110,OH,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_111,WA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_111,WA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_111,WA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_111,WA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_111,WA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_111,WA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_111,WA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_111,WA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_111,WA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_111,WA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_111,WA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_111,WA,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_111,WA,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_111,WA,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_111,WA,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_111,WA,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_111,WA,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_111,WA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_111,WA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_111,WA,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_112,TX,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_112,TX,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,453.09600830078125,453.09600830078125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_112,TX,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_112,TX,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_112,TX,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_112,TX,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_112,TX,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_112,TX,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_112,TX,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,453.09600830078125,453.09600830078125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_112,TX,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_112,TX,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_112,TX,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_112,TX,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_112,TX,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_112,TX,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_112,TX,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_114,VA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,10729.6123046875,10729.6123046875,0.0,True,False
+scenario_114,VA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_114,VA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_114,VA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_114,VA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_114,VA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_114,VA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_114,VA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_114,VA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,1736.550048828125,1736.550048828125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_114,VA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_114,VA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_114,VA,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_114,VA,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_114,VA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,3514.14501953125,3514.14501953125,0.0,True,False
+scenario_114,VA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_114,VA,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_115,AL,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_115,AL,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_115,AL,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_115,AL,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_115,AL,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_115,AL,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_115,AL,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_115,AL,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_115,AL,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_115,AL,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_115,AL,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_115,AL,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_115,AL,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_115,AL,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,4.679999828338623,4.679999828338623,0.0,True,True
+scenario_115,AL,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_115,AL,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_116,FL,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_116,FL,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_116,FL,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_116,FL,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_116,FL,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_116,FL,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_116,FL,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_116,FL,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_116,FL,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_116,FL,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_116,FL,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_116,FL,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_116,FL,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_116,FL,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_116,FL,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_116,FL,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_116,FL,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_116,FL,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_116,FL,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_116,FL,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,child1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,child1_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,child1_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,child1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,child1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,child1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,child2_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,child2_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,child2_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,child2_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,child2_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,child2_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,child3_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,child3_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,child3_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,child3_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,child3_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,child3_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,24961.33984375,24961.33984375,0.0,True,False
+scenario_117,AR,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,15044.787109375,15044.787109375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,7984.53369140625,7984.53369140625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_118,NY,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_118,NY,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_118,NY,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_118,NY,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_118,NY,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_118,NY,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_118,NY,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_118,NY,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_118,NY,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_118,NY,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_118,NY,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_118,NY,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,2868.0,2868.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_118,NY,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,9368.0,9368.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_118,NY,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_118,NY,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,375.0,375.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_118,NY,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,child1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,child1_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,child1_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,child1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,child1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,child1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,child2_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,child2_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,child2_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,child2_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,child2_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,child2_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,3366.07373046875,3366.07373046875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,4207.5,4207.5,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,1756.681396484375,1756.681396484375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_120,CT,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,40423.17578125,40423.17578125,0.0,True,False
+scenario_120,CT,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_120,CT,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_120,CT,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_120,CT,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_120,CT,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_120,CT,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_120,CT,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_120,CT,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,13496.1552734375,13496.1552734375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_120,CT,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_120,CT,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_120,CT,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_120,CT,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_120,CT,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,11919.0576171875,11919.0576171875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_120,CT,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_120,CT,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_121,SC,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_121,SC,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_121,SC,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_121,SC,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_121,SC,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_121,SC,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_121,SC,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_121,SC,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_121,SC,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,1963.3724365234375,1963.3724365234375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_121,SC,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_121,SC,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_121,SC,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_121,SC,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_121,SC,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_121,SC,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_121,SC,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_122,MN,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,4746.66162109375,4746.66162109375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_122,MN,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_122,MN,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_122,MN,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_122,MN,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_122,MN,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_122,MN,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_122,MN,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_122,MN,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_122,MN,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_122,MN,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_122,MN,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_122,MN,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_122,MN,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,1025.54150390625,1025.54150390625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_122,MN,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_122,MN,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,child1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,child1_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,child1_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,child1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,child1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,child1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,5200.240234375,5200.240234375,0.0,True,False
+scenario_123,PA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,11194.0,11194.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,snap,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,ssi,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,3070.061279296875,3070.061279296875,0.0,True,False
+scenario_123,PA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,tanf,2.41.0,2.41.3,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
diff --git a/reference_audit/2026-10-12-engine-upgrade/verification/publication_check_2_42_4.csv b/reference_audit/2026-10-12-engine-upgrade/verification/publication_check_2_42_4.csv
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..cfcd8094
--- /dev/null
+++ b/reference_audit/2026-10-12-engine-upgrade/verification/publication_check_2_42_4.csv
@@ -0,0 +1,1985 @@
+scenario_id,state,variable,reference_engine,engine,reference_value,value,delta,same,scored
+scenario_000,TX,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,2906.45361328125,2906.45361328125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_000,TX,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_000,TX,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_000,TX,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_000,TX,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_000,TX,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_000,TX,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_000,TX,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_000,TX,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_000,TX,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_000,TX,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_000,TX,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_000,TX,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_000,TX,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_000,TX,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_000,TX,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_001,VA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_001,VA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_001,VA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_001,VA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_001,VA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_001,VA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_001,VA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_001,VA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_001,VA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,2223.393798828125,2223.393798828125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_001,VA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_001,VA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_001,VA,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_001,VA,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_001,VA,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_001,VA,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_001,VA,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_001,VA,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_001,VA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_001,VA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_001,VA,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_002,WA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_002,WA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_002,WA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_002,WA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_002,WA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_002,WA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_002,WA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_002,WA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_002,WA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_002,WA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_002,WA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_002,WA,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_002,WA,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_002,WA,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_002,WA,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_002,WA,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_002,WA,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_002,WA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_002,WA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_002,WA,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_003,TX,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,22400.654296875,22400.654296875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_003,TX,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_003,TX,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_003,TX,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_003,TX,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_003,TX,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_003,TX,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_003,TX,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_003,TX,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_003,TX,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_003,TX,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_003,TX,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_003,TX,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_003,TX,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_003,TX,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_003,TX,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_003,TX,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_003,TX,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_003,TX,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_003,TX,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_004,NY,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_004,NY,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_004,NY,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_004,NY,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_004,NY,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_004,NY,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_004,NY,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_004,NY,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_004,NY,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_004,NY,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_004,NY,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_004,NY,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_004,NY,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_004,NY,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_004,NY,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_004,NY,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_004,NY,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_004,NY,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_004,NY,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_004,NY,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_005,CA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,108525.578125,108525.578125,0.0,True,False
+scenario_005,CA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_005,CA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_005,CA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_005,CA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_005,CA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_005,CA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_005,CA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_005,CA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,36044.0,36044.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_005,CA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_005,CA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_005,CA,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_005,CA,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_005,CA,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_005,CA,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_005,CA,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_005,CA,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_005,CA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,40975.25390625,40975.25390625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_005,CA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_005,CA,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_007,ID,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,3707.695068359375,3707.695068359375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_007,ID,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_007,ID,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_007,ID,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_007,ID,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_007,ID,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_007,ID,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_007,ID,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_007,ID,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_007,ID,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_007,ID,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_007,ID,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_007,ID,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_007,ID,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,661.3170166015625,661.3170166015625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_007,ID,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,155.0,155.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_007,ID,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child1_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child1_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child2_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child2_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child2_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child2_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child2_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child2_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child3_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child3_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child3_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child3_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child3_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child3_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child4_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child4_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child4_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child4_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child4_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child4_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child5_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child5_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child5_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child5_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child5_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child5_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child6_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child6_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child6_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child6_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child6_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,child6_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,12433.611328125,12433.611328125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,2276.659912109375,2276.659912109375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,565.1820068359375,565.1820068359375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,15108.0,15108.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,264.80999755859375,264.80999755859375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,5842.39990234375,5842.39990234375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_008,NJ,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_009,NC,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,8348.0,8348.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_009,NC,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_009,NC,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_009,NC,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_009,NC,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_009,NC,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_009,NC,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_009,NC,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_009,NC,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,4590.0,4590.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_009,NC,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_009,NC,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_009,NC,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_009,NC,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_009,NC,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_009,NC,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_009,NC,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_009,NC,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_009,NC,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,2190.510009765625,2190.510009765625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_009,NC,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_009,NC,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,child1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,child1_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,child1_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,child1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,child1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,child1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,6127.0,6127.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,1683.0,1683.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,4884.0,4884.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_012,MS,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_013,AZ,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_013,AZ,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_013,AZ,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_013,AZ,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_013,AZ,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_013,AZ,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_013,AZ,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_013,AZ,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_013,AZ,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_013,AZ,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_013,AZ,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_013,AZ,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,240.0,240.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_013,AZ,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_013,AZ,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_013,AZ,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,25.0,25.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_013,AZ,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_014,WV,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,6311.31787109375,6311.31787109375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_014,WV,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_014,WV,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_014,WV,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_014,WV,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_014,WV,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_014,WV,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_014,WV,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_014,WV,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,6802.96484375,6802.96484375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_014,WV,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_014,WV,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_014,WV,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_014,WV,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_014,WV,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_014,WV,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_014,WV,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_014,WV,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_014,WV,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,3092.186279296875,3092.186279296875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_014,WV,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_014,WV,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_015,IN,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,2969.1259765625,2969.1259765625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_015,IN,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_015,IN,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_015,IN,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_015,IN,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_015,IN,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_015,IN,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_015,IN,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,670.5501098632812,670.5501098632812,0.0,True,False
+scenario_015,IN,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,3442.5,3442.5,0.0,True,True
+scenario_015,IN,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_015,IN,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_015,IN,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_015,IN,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_015,IN,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,1236.3267822265625,1236.3267822265625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_015,IN,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_015,IN,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_016,FL,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_016,FL,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_016,FL,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_016,FL,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_016,FL,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_016,FL,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_016,FL,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_016,FL,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_016,FL,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,2649.80224609375,2649.80224609375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_016,FL,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_016,FL,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_016,FL,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_016,FL,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_016,FL,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_016,FL,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_016,FL,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_018,AZ,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,5211.05078125,5211.05078125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_018,AZ,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_018,AZ,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_018,AZ,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_018,AZ,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_018,AZ,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_018,AZ,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_018,AZ,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_018,AZ,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,5202.38232421875,5202.38232421875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_018,AZ,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_018,AZ,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_018,AZ,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_018,AZ,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_018,AZ,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,1137.30224609375,1137.30224609375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_018,AZ,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_018,AZ,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_020,TX,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,68334.734375,68334.734375,0.0,True,False
+scenario_020,TX,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_020,TX,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_020,TX,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_020,TX,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_020,TX,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_020,TX,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_020,TX,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_020,TX,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,16689.0,16689.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_020,TX,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_020,TX,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_020,TX,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_020,TX,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_020,TX,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_020,TX,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_020,TX,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_021,MO,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_021,MO,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_021,MO,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_021,MO,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_021,MO,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_021,MO,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_021,MO,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_021,MO,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_021,MO,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_021,MO,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_021,MO,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_021,MO,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_021,MO,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_021,MO,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_021,MO,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_021,MO,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_022,CA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,11113.5703125,11113.5703125,0.0,True,False
+scenario_022,CA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_022,CA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_022,CA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_022,CA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_022,CA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_022,CA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_022,CA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_022,CA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,4710.83251953125,4710.83251953125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_022,CA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_022,CA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_022,CA,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_022,CA,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_022,CA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,1968.805419921875,1968.805419921875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_022,CA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_022,CA,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_023,CA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,643.43359375,643.43359375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_023,CA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_023,CA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_023,CA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_023,CA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_023,CA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_023,CA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_023,CA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_023,CA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,1561.1168212890625,1561.1168212890625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_023,CA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_023,CA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_023,CA,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,408.0,408.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_023,CA,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_023,CA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,12.776718139648438,12.776718139648438,0.0,True,True
+scenario_023,CA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,95.15400695800781,95.15400695800781,0.0,True,True
+scenario_023,CA,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_025,OH,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,7031.03564453125,7031.03564453125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_025,OH,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_025,OH,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_025,OH,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_025,OH,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_025,OH,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_025,OH,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_025,OH,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_025,OH,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,4798.48486328125,4798.48486328125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_025,OH,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_025,OH,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_025,OH,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_025,OH,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_025,OH,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_025,OH,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_025,OH,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_025,OH,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_025,OH,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,1916.606201171875,1916.606201171875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_025,OH,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_025,OH,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,child1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,child1_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,child1_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,child1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,child1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,child1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,child2_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,child2_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,child2_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,child2_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,child2_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,child2_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,child3_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,child3_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,child3_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,child3_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,child3_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,child3_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,2013.4892578125,2013.4892578125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,6518.474609375,6518.474609375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,2086.79052734375,2086.79052734375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_026,NC,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_027,CT,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_027,CT,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_027,CT,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_027,CT,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_027,CT,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_027,CT,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_027,CT,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_027,CT,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_027,CT,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_027,CT,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_027,CT,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_027,CT,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,288.0,288.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_027,CT,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_027,CT,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_027,CT,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_027,CT,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_027,CT,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_027,CT,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_027,CT,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_027,CT,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,child1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,child1_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,child1_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,child1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,child1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,child1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,child2_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,child2_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,child2_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,child2_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,child2_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,child2_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,child3_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,child3_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,child3_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,child3_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,child3_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,child3_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,3274.927978515625,3274.927978515625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,4632.0,4632.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,1842.3070068359375,1842.3070068359375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,62.41279220581055,62.41279220581055,0.0,True,True
+scenario_028,PA,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_029,OK,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_029,OK,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_029,OK,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_029,OK,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_029,OK,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_029,OK,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_029,OK,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_029,OK,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_029,OK,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_029,OK,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_029,OK,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_029,OK,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_029,OK,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_029,OK,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_029,OK,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,40.0,40.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_029,OK,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_030,TX,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_030,TX,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_030,TX,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_030,TX,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_030,TX,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_030,TX,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_030,TX,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_030,TX,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_030,TX,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,994.5,994.5,0.0,True,True
+scenario_030,TX,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_030,TX,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_030,TX,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,288.0,288.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_030,TX,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_030,TX,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_030,TX,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_030,TX,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_031,CA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_031,CA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_031,CA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_031,CA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_031,CA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_031,CA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_031,CA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_031,CA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_031,CA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_031,CA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_031,CA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_031,CA,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_031,CA,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_031,CA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_031,CA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_031,CA,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,child1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,child1_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,child1_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,child1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,child1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,child1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,6127.0,6127.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,2346.10009765625,2346.10009765625,0.0,True,False
+scenario_032,MN,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,2187.60009765625,2187.60009765625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_032,MN,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_033,SD,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,3818.148193359375,3818.148193359375,0.0,True,False
+scenario_033,SD,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_033,SD,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_033,SD,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_033,SD,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_033,SD,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_033,SD,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_033,SD,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_033,SD,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,6043.5,6043.5,0.0,True,True
+scenario_033,SD,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_033,SD,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_033,SD,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_033,SD,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_033,SD,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_033,SD,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_033,SD,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_033,SD,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_033,SD,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_033,SD,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_033,SD,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_036,NJ,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,4926.39990234375,4926.39990234375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_036,NJ,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_036,NJ,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_036,NJ,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_036,NJ,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_036,NJ,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_036,NJ,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_036,NJ,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_036,NJ,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_036,NJ,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_036,NJ,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_036,NJ,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_036,NJ,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_036,NJ,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,1724.155029296875,1724.155029296875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_036,NJ,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_036,NJ,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_037,NC,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,1649.2513427734375,1649.2513427734375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_037,NC,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_037,NC,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_037,NC,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_037,NC,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_037,NC,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_037,NC,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_037,NC,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_037,NC,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,3208.668701171875,3208.668701171875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_037,NC,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_037,NC,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_037,NC,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_037,NC,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_037,NC,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,1148.69921875,1148.69921875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_037,NC,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_037,NC,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,child1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,child1_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,child1_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,child1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,child1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,child1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,child2_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,child2_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,child2_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,child2_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,child2_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,child2_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,10225.353515625,10225.353515625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,571.2637329101562,571.2637329101562,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,2193.612548828125,2193.612548828125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,7212.0,7212.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,365.8000183105469,365.8000183105469,0.0,True,True
+scenario_038,LA,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_039,VA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,8596.0283203125,8596.0283203125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_039,VA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_039,VA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_039,VA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_039,VA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_039,VA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_039,VA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_039,VA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_039,VA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_039,VA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_039,VA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_039,VA,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_039,VA,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_039,VA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,1975.7982177734375,1975.7982177734375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_039,VA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_039,VA,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_040,AZ,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_040,AZ,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_040,AZ,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_040,AZ,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_040,AZ,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_040,AZ,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_040,AZ,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_040,AZ,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_040,AZ,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,2142.0,2142.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_040,AZ,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_040,AZ,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_040,AZ,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_040,AZ,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_040,AZ,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_040,AZ,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_040,AZ,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_040,AZ,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_040,AZ,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_040,AZ,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_040,AZ,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_042,WI,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,2361.96484375,2361.96484375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_042,WI,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_042,WI,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_042,WI,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_042,WI,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_042,WI,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_042,WI,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_042,WI,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_042,WI,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_042,WI,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_042,WI,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_042,WI,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_042,WI,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_042,WI,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_042,WI,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_042,WI,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_043,CO,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_043,CO,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_043,CO,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_043,CO,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_043,CO,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_043,CO,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_043,CO,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_043,CO,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_043,CO,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,330.7310791015625,330.7310791015625,0.0,True,False
+scenario_043,CO,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_043,CO,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_043,CO,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,3576.0,3576.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_043,CO,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_043,CO,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_043,CO,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_043,CO,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_044,KS,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_044,KS,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_044,KS,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_044,KS,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_044,KS,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_044,KS,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_044,KS,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_044,KS,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_044,KS,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_044,KS,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_044,KS,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_044,KS,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_044,KS,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_044,KS,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_044,KS,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_044,KS,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_044,KS,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_044,KS,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_044,KS,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_044,KS,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_045,MI,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,2173.07080078125,2173.07080078125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_045,MI,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_045,MI,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_045,MI,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_045,MI,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_045,MI,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_045,MI,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_045,MI,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_045,MI,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,2775.08251953125,2775.08251953125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_045,MI,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_045,MI,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_045,MI,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_045,MI,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_045,MI,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,1290.9625244140625,1290.9625244140625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_045,MI,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,760.7887573242188,760.7887573242188,0.0,True,True
+scenario_045,MI,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,child1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,child1_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,child1_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,child1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,child1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,child1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,child2_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,child2_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,child2_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,child2_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,child2_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,child2_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,499.71484375,499.71484375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,7038.0,7038.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,2739.135009765625,2739.135009765625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_046,OK,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_048,OH,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_048,OH,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_048,OH,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_048,OH,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_048,OH,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_048,OH,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_048,OH,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_048,OH,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_048,OH,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,585.6839599609375,585.6839599609375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_048,OH,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_048,OH,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_048,OH,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_048,OH,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_048,OH,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_048,OH,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_048,OH,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_049,NH,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,30702.58984375,30702.58984375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_049,NH,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_049,NH,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_049,NH,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_049,NH,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_049,NH,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_049,NH,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_049,NH,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_049,NH,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,15134.5,15134.5,0.0,True,True
+scenario_049,NH,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_049,NH,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_049,NH,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_049,NH,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_049,NH,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_049,NH,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_049,NH,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_049,NH,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_049,NH,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_049,NH,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_049,NH,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_051,LA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,2620.0,2620.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_051,LA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_051,LA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_051,LA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_051,LA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_051,LA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_051,LA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_051,LA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_051,LA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,3060.0,3060.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_051,LA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_051,LA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_051,LA,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_051,LA,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_051,LA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,820.260009765625,820.260009765625,0.0,True,False
+scenario_051,LA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_051,LA,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_052,TX,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,104225.2578125,104225.2578125,0.0,True,False
+scenario_052,TX,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_052,TX,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_052,TX,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_052,TX,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_052,TX,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_052,TX,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_052,TX,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_052,TX,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,20939.0,20939.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_052,TX,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_052,TX,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_052,TX,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_052,TX,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_052,TX,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_052,TX,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_052,TX,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_052,TX,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_052,TX,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_052,TX,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_052,TX,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_053,ID,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,5903.109375,5903.109375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_053,ID,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_053,ID,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_053,ID,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_053,ID,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_053,ID,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_053,ID,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_053,ID,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_053,ID,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,5123.10400390625,5123.10400390625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_053,ID,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_053,ID,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_053,ID,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_053,ID,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_053,ID,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,2186.05712890625,2186.05712890625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_053,ID,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,155.0,155.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_053,ID,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,child1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,child1_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,child1_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,child1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,child1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,child1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,child2_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,child2_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,child2_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,child2_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,child2_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,child2_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,8365.55859375,8365.55859375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,2416.15283203125,2416.15283203125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,6060.0,6060.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_054,NC,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_055,FL,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,25238.578125,25238.578125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_055,FL,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_055,FL,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_055,FL,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_055,FL,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_055,FL,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_055,FL,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_055,FL,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_055,FL,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,6398.08837890625,6398.08837890625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_055,FL,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_055,FL,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_055,FL,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_055,FL,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_055,FL,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_055,FL,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_055,FL,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_056,NJ,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_056,NJ,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_056,NJ,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_056,NJ,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_056,NJ,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_056,NJ,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_056,NJ,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_056,NJ,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_056,NJ,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_056,NJ,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_056,NJ,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,613.2224731445312,613.2224731445312,0.0,True,True
+scenario_056,NJ,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,95.0,95.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_056,NJ,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_056,NJ,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_056,NJ,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,265.6000061035156,265.6000061035156,0.0,True,True
+scenario_056,NJ,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_057,LA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_057,LA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,664.0,664.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_057,LA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_057,LA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_057,LA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_057,LA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_057,LA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_057,LA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_057,LA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_057,LA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_057,LA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,1469.4732666015625,1469.4732666015625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_057,LA,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,2628.0,2628.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_057,LA,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_057,LA,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_057,LA,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_057,LA,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_057,LA,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,7231.00146484375,7231.00146484375,0.0,True,False
+scenario_057,LA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_057,LA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,33.20000076293945,33.20000076293945,0.0,True,True
+scenario_057,LA,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_059,FL,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_059,FL,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_059,FL,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_059,FL,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_059,FL,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_059,FL,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_059,FL,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_059,FL,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_059,FL,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_059,FL,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_059,FL,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_059,FL,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_059,FL,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_059,FL,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_059,FL,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_059,FL,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_059,FL,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_059,FL,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_059,FL,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_059,FL,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_060,TX,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_060,TX,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_060,TX,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_060,TX,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_060,TX,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_060,TX,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_060,TX,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_060,TX,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_060,TX,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,229.5,229.5,0.0,True,True
+scenario_060,TX,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_060,TX,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_060,TX,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_060,TX,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_060,TX,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_060,TX,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_060,TX,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_062,FL,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_062,FL,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_062,FL,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_062,FL,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_062,FL,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_062,FL,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_062,FL,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_062,FL,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_062,FL,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_062,FL,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_062,FL,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_062,FL,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_062,FL,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_062,FL,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_062,FL,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_062,FL,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,child1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,child1_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,child1_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,child1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,child1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,child1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,dependent1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_064,WI,dependent1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,dependent1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,dependent2_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,dependent2_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_064,WI,dependent2_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,dependent2_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,4441.455078125,4441.455078125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,7443.0673828125,7443.0673828125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_064,WI,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,4599.62158203125,4599.62158203125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_064,WI,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_066,VA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_066,VA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,39.779998779296875,39.779998779296875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_066,VA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_066,VA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_066,VA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_066,VA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_066,VA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_066,VA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_066,VA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,39.779998779296875,39.779998779296875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_066,VA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_066,VA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_066,VA,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,3576.0,3576.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_066,VA,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_066,VA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_066,VA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,7.955999851226807,7.955999851226807,0.0,True,True
+scenario_066,VA,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,dependent1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_067,IN,dependent1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,dependent1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,5616.240234375,5616.240234375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,1348.83203125,1348.83203125,0.0,True,False
+scenario_067,IN,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,6300.5400390625,6300.5400390625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_067,IN,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,2486.908935546875,2486.908935546875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_067,IN,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_068,MD,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,1910.0238037109375,1910.0238037109375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_068,MD,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_068,MD,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_068,MD,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_068,MD,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_068,MD,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_068,MD,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_068,MD,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_068,MD,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,2607.39013671875,2607.39013671875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_068,MD,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_068,MD,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_068,MD,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_068,MD,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_068,MD,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,1255.3427734375,1255.3427734375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_068,MD,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_068,MD,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_070,IL,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,1979.9605712890625,1979.9605712890625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_070,IL,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_070,IL,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_070,IL,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_070,IL,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_070,IL,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_070,IL,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_070,IL,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_070,IL,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,2907.0,2907.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_070,IL,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_070,IL,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_070,IL,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_070,IL,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_070,IL,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,1650.561279296875,1650.561279296875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_070,IL,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_070,IL,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_071,NY,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_071,NY,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_071,NY,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_071,NY,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_071,NY,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_071,NY,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_071,NY,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_071,NY,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_071,NY,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_071,NY,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_071,NY,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_071,NY,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_071,NY,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_071,NY,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_071,NY,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_071,NY,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_072,MI,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_072,MI,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_072,MI,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_072,MI,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_072,MI,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_072,MI,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_072,MI,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_072,MI,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_072,MI,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,1530.0,1530.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_072,MI,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_072,MI,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_072,MI,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_072,MI,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_072,MI,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_072,MI,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_072,MI,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_072,MI,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_072,MI,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_072,MI,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_072,MI,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_073,MI,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_073,MI,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_073,MI,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_073,MI,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_073,MI,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_073,MI,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_073,MI,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_073,MI,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_073,MI,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_073,MI,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_073,MI,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_073,MI,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,288.0,288.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_073,MI,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_073,MI,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_073,MI,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_073,MI,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_074,LA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_074,LA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_074,LA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_074,LA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_074,LA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_074,LA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_074,LA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_074,LA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_074,LA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_074,LA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_074,LA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_074,LA,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_074,LA,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_074,LA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_074,LA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_074,LA,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_075,FL,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,14777.1455078125,14777.1455078125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_075,FL,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_075,FL,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_075,FL,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_075,FL,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_075,FL,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_075,FL,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_075,FL,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_075,FL,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,968.2120971679688,968.2120971679688,0.0,True,True
+scenario_075,FL,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_075,FL,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_075,FL,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_075,FL,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_075,FL,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_075,FL,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_075,FL,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,child1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,child1_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,child1_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,child1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,child1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,child1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,child2_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,child2_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,child2_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,child2_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,child2_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,child2_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,19611.80078125,19611.80078125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,12240.0,12240.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,6828.34423828125,6828.34423828125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,465.0,465.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_076,ID,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_077,LA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,690.6175537109375,690.6175537109375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_077,LA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_077,LA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_077,LA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_077,LA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_077,LA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_077,LA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_077,LA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_077,LA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,1989.472412109375,1989.472412109375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_077,LA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_077,LA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_077,LA,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_077,LA,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_077,LA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,305.0452575683594,305.0452575683594,0.0,True,False
+scenario_077,LA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_077,LA,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_078,MD,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,24164.45703125,24164.45703125,0.0,True,False
+scenario_078,MD,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_078,MD,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_078,MD,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_078,MD,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_078,MD,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_078,MD,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_078,MD,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_078,MD,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,14317.322265625,14317.322265625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_078,MD,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_078,MD,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_078,MD,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_078,MD,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_078,MD,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,6936.87646484375,6936.87646484375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_078,MD,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_078,MD,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_079,AZ,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_079,AZ,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_079,AZ,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_079,AZ,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_079,AZ,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_079,AZ,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_079,AZ,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_079,AZ,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_079,AZ,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_079,AZ,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_079,AZ,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_079,AZ,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,2376.0,2376.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_079,AZ,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_079,AZ,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_079,AZ,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_079,AZ,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_079,AZ,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,10572.0,10572.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_079,AZ,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_079,AZ,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,50.0,50.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_079,AZ,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_080,PA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_080,PA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_080,PA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_080,PA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_080,PA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_080,PA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_080,PA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_080,PA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_080,PA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_080,PA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_080,PA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_080,PA,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,3240.0,3240.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_080,PA,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_080,PA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_080,PA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_080,PA,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_081,MA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,26932.2734375,26932.2734375,0.0,True,False
+scenario_081,MA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_081,MA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_081,MA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_081,MA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_081,MA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_081,MA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_081,MA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_081,MA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,14192.662109375,14192.662109375,0.0,True,False
+scenario_081,MA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_081,MA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_081,MA,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_081,MA,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_081,MA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,8232.900390625,8232.900390625,0.0,True,False
+scenario_081,MA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_081,MA,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,child1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,child1_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,child1_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,child1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,child1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,child1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,9579.767578125,9579.767578125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,8108.02734375,8108.02734375,0.0,True,False
+scenario_082,NY,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,5599.1435546875,5599.1435546875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,1187.5478515625,1187.5478515625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_082,NY,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_083,TX,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_083,TX,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_083,TX,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_083,TX,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_083,TX,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_083,TX,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_083,TX,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_083,TX,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_083,TX,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,539.3250122070312,539.3250122070312,0.0,True,True
+scenario_083,TX,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_083,TX,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_083,TX,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_083,TX,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_083,TX,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_083,TX,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_083,TX,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_084,NC,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_084,NC,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_084,NC,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_084,NC,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_084,NC,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_084,NC,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_084,NC,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_084,NC,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_084,NC,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_084,NC,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_084,NC,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_084,NC,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_084,NC,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_084,NC,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_084,NC,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_084,NC,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_085,PA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,2322.8486328125,2322.8486328125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_085,PA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_085,PA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_085,PA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_085,PA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_085,PA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_085,PA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_085,PA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_085,PA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_085,PA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_085,PA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_085,PA,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_085,PA,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_085,PA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_085,PA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_085,PA,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,child1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,child1_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,child1_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,child1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,child1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,child1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,3255.5478515625,3255.5478515625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,4743.0,4743.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,2078.958740234375,2078.958740234375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_086,GA,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_088,TX,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_088,TX,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_088,TX,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_088,TX,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_088,TX,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_088,TX,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_088,TX,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_088,TX,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_088,TX,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,1421.1448974609375,1421.1448974609375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_088,TX,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_088,TX,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_088,TX,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_088,TX,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_088,TX,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_088,TX,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_088,TX,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_089,NC,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,6819.7119140625,6819.7119140625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_089,NC,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_089,NC,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_089,NC,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_089,NC,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_089,NC,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_089,NC,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_089,NC,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_089,NC,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,5039.91015625,5039.91015625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_089,NC,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_089,NC,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,4286.24072265625,4286.24072265625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_089,NC,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_089,NC,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_089,NC,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_089,NC,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_089,NC,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_089,NC,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_089,NC,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,3219.935302734375,3219.935302734375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_089,NC,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_089,NC,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_090,KS,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_090,KS,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_090,KS,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_090,KS,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_090,KS,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_090,KS,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_090,KS,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_090,KS,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_090,KS,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,535.5,535.5,0.0,True,True
+scenario_090,KS,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_090,KS,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_090,KS,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_090,KS,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_090,KS,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_090,KS,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_090,KS,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_091,WI,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,1349.998779296875,1349.998779296875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_091,WI,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_091,WI,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_091,WI,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_091,WI,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_091,WI,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_091,WI,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_091,WI,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_091,WI,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,2065.5,2065.5,0.0,True,True
+scenario_091,WI,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_091,WI,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_091,WI,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_091,WI,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_091,WI,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,878.5157470703125,878.5157470703125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_091,WI,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_091,WI,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_092,AL,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_092,AL,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_092,AL,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_092,AL,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_092,AL,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_092,AL,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_092,AL,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_092,AL,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_092,AL,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_092,AL,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_092,AL,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_092,AL,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_092,AL,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_092,AL,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_092,AL,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_092,AL,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,dependent1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,dependent1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,dependent1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,dependent1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,8628.990234375,8628.990234375,0.0,True,False
+scenario_093,MO,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,12469.5,12469.5,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,3388.24560546875,3388.24560546875,0.0,True,False
+scenario_093,MO,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_093,MO,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_095,NJ,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_095,NJ,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_095,NJ,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_095,NJ,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_095,NJ,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_095,NJ,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_095,NJ,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_095,NJ,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_095,NJ,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_095,NJ,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_095,NJ,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,593.2291259765625,593.2291259765625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_095,NJ,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_095,NJ,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_095,NJ,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_095,NJ,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_095,NJ,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_098,IL,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_098,IL,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_098,IL,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_098,IL,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_098,IL,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_098,IL,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_098,IL,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_098,IL,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_098,IL,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_098,IL,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_098,IL,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_098,IL,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_098,IL,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_098,IL,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_098,IL,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_098,IL,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,child1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,child1_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,child1_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,child1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,child1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,child1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,child2_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,child2_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,child2_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,child2_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,child2_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,child2_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,10711.484375,10711.484375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,14767.5,14767.5,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,4615.48388671875,4615.48388671875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_099,CA,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,child1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,child1_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,child1_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,child1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,child1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,child1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,child2_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,child2_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,child2_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,child2_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,child2_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,child2_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,822.2882690429688,822.2882690429688,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,452.47613525390625,452.47613525390625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,6924.0,6924.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_100,MT,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,164.45765686035156,164.45765686035156,0.0,True,True
+scenario_100,MT,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,6064.958984375,6064.958984375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_101,TX,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,13418.599609375,13418.599609375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_101,TX,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_101,TX,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_101,TX,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_101,TX,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_101,TX,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_101,TX,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_101,TX,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_101,TX,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,7879.5,7879.5,0.0,True,True
+scenario_101,TX,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_101,TX,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_101,TX,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_101,TX,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_101,TX,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_101,TX,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_101,TX,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_102,NC,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,6104.09619140625,6104.09619140625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_102,NC,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_102,NC,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_102,NC,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_102,NC,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_102,NC,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_102,NC,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_102,NC,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_102,NC,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,6670.7998046875,6670.7998046875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_102,NC,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_102,NC,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_102,NC,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_102,NC,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_102,NC,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_102,NC,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_102,NC,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_102,NC,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_102,NC,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,2461.869873046875,2461.869873046875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_102,NC,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_102,NC,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_104,NY,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_104,NY,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_104,NY,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_104,NY,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_104,NY,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_104,NY,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_104,NY,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_104,NY,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_104,NY,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_104,NY,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_104,NY,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_104,NY,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_104,NY,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_104,NY,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_104,NY,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_104,NY,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_107,OH,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_107,OH,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_107,OH,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_107,OH,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_107,OH,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_107,OH,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_107,OH,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_107,OH,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_107,OH,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,486.9607238769531,486.9607238769531,0.0,True,True
+scenario_107,OH,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_107,OH,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_107,OH,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_107,OH,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_107,OH,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_107,OH,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_107,OH,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_108,WI,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_108,WI,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_108,WI,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_108,WI,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_108,WI,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_108,WI,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_108,WI,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_108,WI,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_108,WI,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,585.6839599609375,585.6839599609375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_108,WI,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_108,WI,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_108,WI,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,288.0,288.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_108,WI,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_108,WI,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_108,WI,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,271.3916015625,271.3916015625,0.0,True,False
+scenario_108,WI,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,child1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,child1_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,child1_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,child1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,child1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,child1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,child2_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,child2_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,child2_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,child2_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,child2_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,child2_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,child3_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,child3_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,child3_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,child3_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,child3_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,child3_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,12038.0859375,12038.0859375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,4238.86474609375,4238.86474609375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,7932.0,7932.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_109,FL,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_110,OH,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,25747.7734375,25747.7734375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_110,OH,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_110,OH,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_110,OH,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_110,OH,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_110,OH,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_110,OH,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_110,OH,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_110,OH,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,7650.0,7650.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_110,OH,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_110,OH,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_110,OH,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_110,OH,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_110,OH,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,4236.8076171875,4236.8076171875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_110,OH,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_110,OH,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_111,WA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_111,WA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_111,WA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_111,WA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_111,WA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_111,WA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_111,WA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_111,WA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_111,WA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_111,WA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_111,WA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_111,WA,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_111,WA,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_111,WA,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_111,WA,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_111,WA,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_111,WA,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_111,WA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_111,WA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_111,WA,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_112,TX,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_112,TX,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,453.09600830078125,453.09600830078125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_112,TX,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_112,TX,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_112,TX,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_112,TX,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_112,TX,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_112,TX,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_112,TX,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,453.09600830078125,453.09600830078125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_112,TX,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_112,TX,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_112,TX,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_112,TX,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_112,TX,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_112,TX,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_112,TX,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_114,VA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,10729.6123046875,10729.6123046875,0.0,True,False
+scenario_114,VA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_114,VA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_114,VA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_114,VA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_114,VA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_114,VA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_114,VA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_114,VA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,1736.550048828125,1736.550048828125,0.0,True,True
+scenario_114,VA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_114,VA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_114,VA,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_114,VA,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_114,VA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,3514.14501953125,3514.14501953125,0.0,True,False
+scenario_114,VA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_114,VA,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_115,AL,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_115,AL,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_115,AL,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_115,AL,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_115,AL,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_115,AL,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_115,AL,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_115,AL,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_115,AL,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_115,AL,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_115,AL,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_115,AL,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_115,AL,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_115,AL,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,4.679999828338623,4.679999828338623,0.0,True,True
+scenario_115,AL,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_115,AL,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_116,FL,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_116,FL,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_116,FL,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_116,FL,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_116,FL,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_116,FL,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_116,FL,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_116,FL,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_116,FL,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_116,FL,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_116,FL,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_116,FL,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_116,FL,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_116,FL,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_116,FL,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_116,FL,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_116,FL,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_116,FL,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_116,FL,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_116,FL,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,child1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,child1_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,child1_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,child1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,child1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,child1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,child2_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,child2_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,child2_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,child2_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,child2_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,child2_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,child3_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,child3_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,child3_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,child3_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,child3_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,child3_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,24961.33984375,24961.33984375,0.0,True,False
+scenario_117,AR,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,15044.787109375,15044.787109375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,7984.53369140625,7984.53369140625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_117,AR,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_118,NY,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_118,NY,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_118,NY,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_118,NY,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_118,NY,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_118,NY,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_118,NY,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_118,NY,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_118,NY,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_118,NY,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_118,NY,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_118,NY,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,2868.0,2868.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_118,NY,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,9368.0,9368.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_118,NY,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_118,NY,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,375.0,375.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_118,NY,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,child1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,child1_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,child1_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,child1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,child1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,child1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,child2_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,child2_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,child2_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,child2_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,child2_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,child2_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,3366.07373046875,3366.07373046875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,4207.5,4207.5,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,1756.681396484375,1756.681396484375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_119,VA,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_120,CT,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,40423.17578125,40423.17578125,0.0,True,False
+scenario_120,CT,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_120,CT,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_120,CT,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_120,CT,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_120,CT,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_120,CT,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_120,CT,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_120,CT,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,13496.1552734375,13496.1552734375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_120,CT,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_120,CT,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_120,CT,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_120,CT,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_120,CT,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,11919.0576171875,11919.0576171875,0.0,True,True
+scenario_120,CT,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_120,CT,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_121,SC,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_121,SC,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_121,SC,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_121,SC,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_121,SC,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_121,SC,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_121,SC,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_121,SC,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_121,SC,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,1963.3724365234375,1963.3724365234375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_121,SC,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_121,SC,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_121,SC,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_121,SC,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_121,SC,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,False
+scenario_121,SC,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_121,SC,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_122,MN,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,4746.66162109375,4746.66162109375,0.0,True,True
+scenario_122,MN,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_122,MN,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_122,MN,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_122,MN,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_122,MN,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,1.0,1.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_122,MN,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_122,MN,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_122,MN,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_122,MN,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_122,MN,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_122,MN,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_122,MN,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_122,MN,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,1025.54150390625,1025.54150390625,0.0,True,True
+scenario_122,MN,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_122,MN,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,child1_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,child1_early_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,child1_head_start_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,child1_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,child1_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,child1_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,5200.240234375,5200.240234375,0.0,True,False
+scenario_123,PA,federal_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,free_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,head_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,head_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,head_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,head_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,local_income_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,payroll_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,11194.0,11194.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,reduced_price_school_meals_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,self_employment_tax,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,snap,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,spouse_chip_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,spouse_medicaid_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,spouse_medicare_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,spouse_wic_eligible,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,ssi,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,3070.061279296875,3070.061279296875,0.0,True,False
+scenario_123,PA,state_refundable_credits,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
+scenario_123,PA,tanf,2.41.0,2.42.4,0.0,0.0,0.0,True,True
diff --git a/reference_audit/2026-10-12-engine-upgrade/verification/sweep_timing.json b/reference_audit/2026-10-12-engine-upgrade/verification/sweep_timing.json
index 228d4957..b636db8b 100644
--- a/reference_audit/2026-10-12-engine-upgrade/verification/sweep_timing.json
+++ b/reference_audit/2026-10-12-engine-upgrade/verification/sweep_timing.json
@@ -2,12 +2,15 @@
"note": "When PolicyBench began sweeping the references for the 2026-10-12 move, which policyengine-us release was the newest then and at publication, and the publication check. Times are UTC. The PyPI upload times were read from the PyPI JSON API; the install and first-output times are filesystem birth times (st_birthtime) of the engine's dist-info directory and of the first file the sweep wrote.",
"pypi": {
"source": "https://pypi.org/pypi/policyengine-us/json",
- "read_at_utc": "2026-10-13T11:34:13Z",
- "newest_at_read": "2.41.2",
+ "read_at_utc": "2026-10-14T04:03:05Z",
+ "newest_at_read": "2.42.4",
"wheel_uploaded_at_utc": {
"2.41.0": "2026-10-13T01:44:55.991829Z",
"2.41.1": "2026-10-13T07:38:49.871102Z",
- "2.41.2": "2026-10-13T10:49:01.550263Z"
+ "2.41.2": "2026-10-13T10:49:01.550263Z",
+ "2.41.3": "2026-10-13T15:15:33.955827Z",
+ "2.41.4": "2026-10-13T19:58:54.450468Z",
+ "2.42.4": "2026-10-14T03:40:42.303987Z"
},
"yanked_newer": {}
},
@@ -28,28 +31,28 @@
"first_output_sha256": "a30d2d84494fd6a4b2aadb4c493736cee1f439d177c69acdc432efc350725926"
},
"publication_check": {
- "engine": "2.41.2",
- "engine_installed_at_utc": "2026-10-13T11:29:07Z",
- "engine_installed_evidence": "results/local/musewonder/check-venv-2.41.2/lib/python3.12/site-packages/policyengine_us-2.41.2.dist-info",
- "check_computed": "results/local/check-sweep-2.41.2-xq2tac5o/sweep/computed.csv",
+ "engine": "2.42.4",
+ "engine_installed_at_utc": "2026-10-14T04:02:56Z",
+ "engine_installed_evidence": "results/local/argon/check-venv-2.42.4/lib/python3.12/site-packages/policyengine_us-2.42.4.dist-info",
+ "check_computed": "results/local/check-sweep-2.42.4-neiuuvfr/sweep/computed.csv",
"check_computed_sha256": "a30d2d84494fd6a4b2aadb4c493736cee1f439d177c69acdc432efc350725926",
"check_sweep": {
"builder_sha256": "106359647da224dae243c6365b78fa324102f832e830cbc2d1b82a1ba1e7cf29",
- "venv": "results/local/musewonder/check-venv-2.41.2",
+ "venv": "results/local/argon/check-venv-2.42.4",
"command": "build_references_upgrade.py --actions --allow-draft",
"exit_code": 1,
"engine_install": {
- "version": "2.41.2",
- "files_verified": 18508,
+ "version": "2.42.4",
+ "files_verified": 18579,
"editable": false,
"imported_from_package": true,
"fresh_bytecode_cache": true
}
},
- "output_at_utc": "2026-10-13T11:37:39Z",
- "output": "reference_audit/2026-10-12-engine-upgrade/verification/publication_check_2_41_2.csv",
- "output_sha256": "463bb8fd3a4c296e67d6b1dfeb4353e0d020831d4d4a0af82673d14d8fe4c8c6",
- "build": "results/local/musewonder/engine/final2/build",
+ "output_at_utc": "2026-10-14T04:03:58Z",
+ "output": "reference_audit/2026-10-12-engine-upgrade/verification/publication_check_2_42_4.csv",
+ "output_sha256": "3cc82b7e7b8a08d19ce465f351d081a38959e96fa2a1f126711da396d73b7732",
+ "build": "/Users/maxghenis/reviews/policybench-muse-wonder/engine-2.41.0/final2/build",
"build_sha256": {
"computed.csv": "a30d2d84494fd6a4b2aadb4c493736cee1f439d177c69acdc432efc350725926",
"reference_outputs.csv": "2d00cf595adf183fcfa3d069756723b5ce09bd4123fbf3e673635474346b3a0c",
diff --git a/reference_audit/held_references.json b/reference_audit/held_references.json
index 65a62251..ac3bca6a 100644
--- a/reference_audit/held_references.json
+++ b/reference_audit/held_references.json
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@
],
"independent_review": "GPT-6.1 Sol, 2026-10-10 (reference_audit/2026-10-10-held-references/reviews/review_va039.md): reproduces $8,596.03 and $5,145.11, and puts single as the filing status of a widow with no qualifying child above 99%.",
"reviewer_dissent": "The reviewer's verdict is \"Scenario ambiguous\", on a ground the consensus does not raise: \"estate income\" states no character, and read as qualified dividends or long-term gain the same $25,950 gives $6,259.99 (75% confidence in excluding). The check did not adopt it: the preface sets unlisted numeric inputs to 0, and qualified dividends and capital gains are separate inputs.",
- "open_decision": "Whether to keep scoring this output or exclude it on the reviewer's ground is Max's call, queued as cos decision d1252 on 2026-10-10 and not ruled when this record was written. This record does not act on it."
+ "open_decision": "Whether to keep scoring this output or exclude it on the reviewer's ground was Max's call, queued as cos decision d1252 on 2026-10-10. He ruled on 2026-10-13: keep scoring it, and fix the label the reviewer found ambiguous in the v2 prompt (#165)."
},
{
"scenario_id": "scenario_025",
@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@
],
"independent_review": "GPT-6.1 Sol, 2026-10-10 (reference_audit/2026-10-10-held-references/reviews/review_oh025.md): reproduces $1,916.60 and $1,589.56, and finds the $332.00, the $26,050 threshold and the frozen exemptions settled in the reference's favor.",
"reviewer_dissent": "The reviewer's verdict is \"Scenario ambiguous\", on a ground the consensus does not raise: \"employer sponsored insurance premiums: $21,208\" does not say who paid. Read as paid by the head after tax it gives $1,319.65, or $1,145.86 if the plan is also unsubsidized. The check did not adopt it: the prompt gives the head's premiums as $6,500 in total, and the 2026-10-06 verification weighed this reading (its R4) and rejected it.",
- "open_decision": "Whether to keep scoring this output or exclude it on the reviewer's ground is Max's call, queued as cos decision d1252 on 2026-10-10 and not ruled when this record was written. This record does not act on it."
+ "open_decision": "Whether to keep scoring this output or exclude it on the reviewer's ground was Max's call, queued as cos decision d1252 on 2026-10-10. He ruled on 2026-10-13: keep scoring it, and fix the label the reviewer found ambiguous in the v2 prompt (#165)."
}
]
}
diff --git a/scripts/date_argon_judge_verdicts.py b/scripts/date_argon_judge_verdicts.py
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..22823b66
--- /dev/null
+++ b/scripts/date_argon_judge_verdicts.py
@@ -0,0 +1,256 @@
+"""Record the verdicts release dashboard-data-20261014's adjudications name.
+
+Adapted from scripts/date_musewonder_judge_verdicts.py and, for the wave,
+scripts/date_haiku55_judge_verdicts.py. The Gemini 4 Argon and Muse Spark 1.3
+release restated the judge fields of every decision on a case a new model
+re-opened (scripts/restate_gpt61sol_adjudications.py). It rules nothing and
+installs no engine upgrade; its one wave is its own triage decisions (the
+spec's triage_adjudications, dated by its triage_decided_on), each keeping an
+output scored. Run on the exported stage after the freeze, this script
+
+- writes docs/argon/judge_verdicts_.json: for each committed
+ decision on a re-opened case, the triage decisions included, the case's
+ verdict in the stage, read from verdict.json and its sha256-bound
+ verdict.meta.json, as release 20261013's did; and
+- updates reference_audit/2026-09-28/verification/judge_verdicts.json:
+ releases 20261013 and 20261013b decided no wave, so no earlier wave waits
+ for the base commit to fill it; this release's triage wave joins,
+ uncommitted (no commit or pull request until the next release fills them,
+ and the day its decisions were written), and each of its decisions gains
+ the stage verdict it names, as release 20261010's waves did. Any other
+ wave beyond release 20261013b's is refused.
+
+tests/test_adjudications.py reads both files on machines without the stage.
+A second run on the same stage writes the same bytes.
+
+ python scripts/date_argon_judge_verdicts.py --stage-dir STAGE
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+import argparse
+import copy
+import hashlib
+import json
+import sys
+from pathlib import Path
+
+ROOT = Path(__file__).resolve().parents[1]
+sys.path.insert(0, str(ROOT / "scripts"))
+
+import finish_argon as driver # noqa: E402
+from date_adds0928_judge_verdicts import _evidence # noqa: E402
+
+# Named for the release tag's date (dashboard-data-YYYYMMDD).
+OUT = ROOT / f"docs/argon/judge_verdicts_{driver.RELEASE_TAG[-8:]}.json"
+EVIDENCE = ROOT / "reference_audit/2026-09-28/verification/judge_verdicts.json"
+# Release 20261013b's waves: release 20261010's, since releases 20261013 and
+# 20261013b decided none. Each already names the commit that published it.
+BASE_WAVES = [
+ "2026-09-05",
+ "2026-09-22",
+ "2026-09-29",
+ "2026-10-05",
+ "2026-10-06",
+ "2026-10-10",
+]
+
+
+def case_id(entry: dict) -> str:
+ return f"{entry['country']}__{entry['scenario_id']}__{entry['variable']}"
+
+
+def bound_verdict(folder: Path) -> tuple[dict, dict]:
+ raw = (folder / "verdict.json").read_bytes()
+ meta = json.loads((folder / "verdict.meta.json").read_text())
+ driver.require(
+ meta["verdict_sha256"] == hashlib.sha256(raw).hexdigest(),
+ f"{folder.name}: the sidecar does not bind this verdict",
+ )
+ return json.loads(raw), meta
+
+
+def judge_disagreements(entry: dict, verdict: dict, meta: dict) -> list[str]:
+ """Where a decision's judge fields depart from the verdict it names: the
+ judge, the classes, the UTC day, and the reference flag. The flag may be
+ set from an earlier run the verdict does not repeat, but only with its
+ judge_reference_suspect_source saying so."""
+ problems = []
+ expected = {
+ "judge_model": meta["judge_model_requested"],
+ "judge_failure_source": verdict["case_failure_source"],
+ "judge_failure_subtype": verdict["case_failure_subtype"],
+ }
+ for field, value in expected.items():
+ if entry.get(field) != value:
+ problems.append(f"{field} {entry.get(field)!r} != {value!r}")
+ day = entry.get("judge_rejudged_on") or entry.get("judged_on_utc")
+ if day != meta["judged_at_utc"][:10]:
+ problems.append(
+ f"judged on {day!r}, the verdict on {meta['judged_at_utc'][:10]}"
+ )
+ flagged, now = (
+ bool(entry.get("judge_reference_suspect")),
+ bool(verdict["reference_suspect"]),
+ )
+ if flagged != now and not (
+ flagged and not now and entry.get("judge_reference_suspect_source")
+ ):
+ problems.append(f"reference flag {flagged} != the verdict's {now}")
+ return problems
+
+
+def committed_record() -> dict:
+ return json.loads((driver.ANNOTATIONS / driver.ADJUDICATIONS).read_text())
+
+
+def restatements(stage: Path, record: dict) -> dict:
+ """The current verdict of each committed decision on a re-opened case."""
+ spec = driver.load_spec()
+ triage = [
+ e
+ for e in record["adjudications"]
+ if spec.get("triage_adjudications")
+ and e["adjudicated_on"] == spec["triage_decided_on"]
+ ]
+ triage_day = spec.get("triage_decided_on")
+ reopened = {
+ entry["case_id"]
+ for entry in json.loads(driver.JUDGE_PROVENANCE.read_text())["verdicts"]
+ }
+ cases = {}
+ for entry in record["adjudications"]:
+ case = case_id(entry)
+ if case not in reopened:
+ continue
+ verdict, meta = bound_verdict(stage / "audit" / "cases" / case)
+ wrong = judge_disagreements(entry, verdict, meta)
+ driver.require(
+ not wrong, f"{case}: the decision does not name its verdict: {wrong}"
+ )
+ cases[case] = {
+ "judge_model": meta["judge_model_requested"],
+ "case_failure_source": verdict["case_failure_source"],
+ "case_failure_subtype": verdict["case_failure_subtype"],
+ "reference_suspect": bool(verdict["reference_suspect"]),
+ "judged_at_utc": meta["judged_at_utc"],
+ "verdict_sha256": meta["verdict_sha256"],
+ }
+ note = (
+ f"The verdicts release {driver.RELEASE_TAG}'s adjudication entries "
+ "name on the cases a new model re-opened: for each committed "
+ "decision on such a case, the case's verdict in the "
+ "exported stage, read by scripts/date_argon_judge_verdicts.py "
+ "from verdict.json and its sha256-bound verdict.meta.json. The "
+ "verdict each restatement replaced is release 20261013b's entry (git show "
+ f"{driver.BASE_COMMIT[:12]}:annotations/{driver.RUN_NAME}/"
+ f"{driver.ADJUDICATIONS})."
+ )
+ if triage:
+ note += (
+ f" The {len(triage)} triage decisions of the {triage_day} wave are "
+ "new and restate nothing."
+ )
+ return {
+ "note": note,
+ "release": driver.RELEASE_TAG,
+ "base_commit": driver.BASE_COMMIT,
+ "cases": dict(sorted(cases.items())),
+ }
+
+
+def new_waves(record: dict, spec: dict | None = None) -> dict[str, str]:
+ """The waves the record names beyond release 20261013b's, each with the
+ UTC day its decisions were written. The release rules nothing and installs
+ no engine upgrade, so the only one allowed is its triage wave (the spec's
+ triage_decided_on, written on its triage_adjudications_written_on), and
+ only when the spec lists triage decisions."""
+ spec = driver.load_spec() if spec is None else spec
+ waves = sorted(
+ {e["adjudicated_on"] for e in record["adjudications"]} - set(BASE_WAVES)
+ )
+ allowed = {spec["triage_decided_on"]} if spec.get("triage_adjudications") else set()
+ driver.require(
+ set(waves) <= allowed,
+ f"this release decides only its triage wave {sorted(allowed)}, but the "
+ f"record names {waves}",
+ )
+ written = {}
+ for wave in waves:
+ written[wave] = spec["triage_adjudications_written_on"]
+ driver.require(wave <= written[wave], f"the {wave} wave was written before it")
+ return written
+
+
+def base_wave_releases(waves: dict) -> dict:
+ """Release 20261013b's waves alone, each naming the commit that published
+ it: nothing waits to be filled. Waves after them are this release's own,
+ uncommitted, from an earlier pass; they are dropped and written again."""
+ driver.require(
+ list(waves)[: len(BASE_WAVES)] == BASE_WAVES,
+ "the evidence's waves are not release 20261013b's",
+ )
+ ours = [
+ wave
+ for wave in list(waves)[len(BASE_WAVES) :]
+ if waves[wave].get("commit") is None
+ and waves[wave].get("release") == driver.RELEASE_TAG
+ ]
+ driver.require(
+ ours == list(waves)[len(BASE_WAVES) :],
+ "the evidence names waves after release 20261013b's that are not this "
+ "release's",
+ )
+ unfilled = [wave for wave in BASE_WAVES if waves[wave].get("commit") is None]
+ driver.require(
+ not unfilled,
+ f"the evidence leaves release 20261013b's waves unfilled: {unfilled}",
+ )
+ return {wave: waves[wave] for wave in BASE_WAVES}
+
+
+def updated_evidence(evidence: dict, stage: Path, record: dict) -> dict:
+ """The evidence, checked against this release and given its wave: the
+ earlier waves are release 20261013b's, all published, and are kept as
+ they are; this release's triage wave joins uncommitted, and each of its
+ decisions gains the stage verdict it names ('current')."""
+ evidence = copy.deepcopy(evidence)
+ waves = base_wave_releases(evidence["wave_releases"])
+ for wave, written in new_waves(record).items():
+ waves[wave] = {
+ "commit": None,
+ "release": driver.RELEASE_TAG,
+ "pull_request": None,
+ "adjudications_written_on": written,
+ }
+ for entry in record["adjudications"]:
+ if entry["adjudicated_on"] != wave:
+ continue
+ case = case_id(entry)
+ verdict, meta = bound_verdict(stage / "audit" / "cases" / case)
+ wrong = judge_disagreements(entry, verdict, meta)
+ driver.require(
+ not wrong, f"{case}: the decision does not name its verdict: {wrong}"
+ )
+ found = evidence["cases"].setdefault(case, {})
+ found["current"] = _evidence("stage", (verdict, meta))
+ found.pop("published", None)
+ evidence["wave_releases"] = dict(sorted(waves.items()))
+ return evidence
+
+
+def main(argv: list[str] | None = None) -> None:
+ parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(description=__doc__.splitlines()[0])
+ parser.add_argument("--stage-dir", type=Path, required=True)
+ args = parser.parse_args(argv)
+ record = committed_record()
+ OUT.write_text(json.dumps(restatements(args.stage_dir, record), indent=1) + "\n")
+ evidence = updated_evidence(
+ json.loads(EVIDENCE.read_text()), args.stage_dir, record
+ )
+ EVIDENCE.write_text(json.dumps(evidence, indent=2) + "\n")
+ print(f"Wrote {OUT.relative_to(ROOT)} and {EVIDENCE.relative_to(ROOT)}")
+
+
+if __name__ == "__main__":
+ main()
diff --git a/scripts/finish_argon.py b/scripts/finish_argon.py
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..3c5027df
--- /dev/null
+++ b/scripts/finish_argon.py
@@ -0,0 +1,3499 @@
+"""Stage the Gemini 4 Argon and Muse Spark 1.3 additions; never publish.
+
+Adapted from finish_musewonder.py. It folds two supervised runs, Google's
+Gemini 4 Argon and Meta's Muse Spark 1.3 (Max, 2026-10-13, d1441), onto the
+48-model board of release dashboard-data-20261013b, and changes no tracked
+data. The references stay that
+release's, computed on policyengine-us 2.41.0: the newest release when this
+one was staged, 2.41.3, and when it was frozen, 2.42.4, give the same value
+for every output
+(reference_audit/2026-10-12-engine-upgrade/verification/), so the driver
+installs no reference build and has no --step install-references (see "No
+engine upgrade of the references" below). The release rules no new exclusion,
+so docs/argon/spec.json lists
+no proposals and --step install-exclusions installs release 20261013b's record
+unchanged. All outputs, including audit verdicts and adjudications, stay in
+--stage-dir. See docs/argon/design.md for the run and release procedure.
+
+The seed is release 20261013b's judged audit, kept when that release's stage
+was removed (docs/argon/design.md): every judged case keeps the prompt and
+verdict its judge wrote, on the judge template version its sidecar records,
+and new and re-opened cases render on judge template v2
+(JUDGE_TEMPLATE_VERSION).
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+import argparse
+import gzip
+import hashlib
+import json
+import os
+import re
+import shutil
+import subprocess
+import sys
+from dataclasses import dataclass
+from pathlib import Path
+
+os.environ["OPENBLAS_NUM_THREADS"] = "1"
+ROOT = Path(__file__).resolve().parents[1]
+sys.path.insert(0, str(ROOT))
+
+RUN_NAME = "us_full_run_20260612_policyengine_4_16_1_populace"
+SNAPSHOT = ROOT / "paper/snapshot/20260501/runs" / RUN_NAME
+ANNOTATIONS = ROOT / "annotations" / RUN_NAME
+BASE_TAG = "dashboard-data-20261013b"
+# The one place the new release's tag is named. The lead may change it at
+# freeze time; freeze_argon.py and the design note read it from here.
+RELEASE_TAG = "dashboard-data-20261014"
+# Release 20261013b's payload, as published (PR #218, merged 2026-10-14).
+BASE_SHA256 = "0a4b754a4ce3b249e0608efac62e52646e4c6f33c6a28c1a496c4c9fda49b507"
+BASE_MODELS = 48
+BASE_OUTPUTS = 1984
+BASE_EXCLUSIONS = 49
+BASE_SCORED = BASE_OUTPUTS - BASE_EXCLUSIONS
+# Ruled exclusions, installed by --step install-exclusions and adjudicated by
+# --step adjudicate-exclusions, as docs/argon/spec.json lists them. This
+# release rules none: Max ruled d1252 (VA 039, OH 025) and d1263 (the Tax
+# Table) on 2026-10-13, both to keep, so nothing scored changes on their points.
+SPEC_PATH = Path("docs/argon/spec.json")
+NEW_EXCLUSIONS = 0
+RELEASE_EXCLUSIONS = BASE_EXCLUSIONS + NEW_EXCLUSIONS
+RELEASE_SCORED = BASE_OUTPUTS - RELEASE_EXCLUSIONS
+MODELS = {"argon": "gemini-4-argon", "musespark": "muse-spark-1.3"}
+BOARD_MODELS = BASE_MODELS + len(MODELS)
+REFERENCE_FILES = (
+ "reference_outputs.csv",
+ "reference_outputs.csv.meta.json",
+ "reference_exclusions.json",
+ "scenarios.csv",
+ "scenarios.csv.meta.json",
+)
+ANNOTATION_FILES = (
+ "us_audit_row_annotations.csv",
+ "us_case_notes.csv",
+ "us_case_reference_explanations.csv",
+ "us_adjudications.json",
+)
+JUDGE_MODEL = "claude-opus-5-5"
+# The judge template (policybench.judge_template) this driver renders new
+# and re-opened cases on: v2, which drops v1's claim that the reference
+# pipeline survived an adversarial review with its real bugs fixed (#210). A
+# seed case keeps the version its sidecar records (v1 for the cases judged
+# before release 20261013, v2 for the 151 that release judged and the five
+# release 20261013b re-judged), so the stage's audit mixes the two.
+JUDGE_TEMPLATE_VERSION = 2
+ADJUDICATIONS = "us_adjudications.json"
+# Stage files export binds: the cases a new model re-opened, and the
+# wording-only amendments a developer lists for them.
+PROMPT_CHANGES = "prompt-changes.json"
+AMENDMENTS = "wording-amendments.json"
+# The published record of how each new verdict (a case a new model re-opened)
+# was judged. Export requires it to describe the staged verdicts and binds its
+# bytes in the receipt.
+JUDGE_PROVENANCE_PATH = "docs/argon/judge_provenance.json"
+JUDGE_PROVENANCE = ROOT / JUDGE_PROVENANCE_PATH
+# The record's keys, and each entry's: every one is checked, against the
+# case's verdict, prompt or sidecar, the entries' tally, or the isolated flag.
+JUDGE_PROVENANCE_KEYS = frozenset({"note", "counts", "verdicts"})
+JUDGE_PROVENANCE_ENTRY_KEYS = frozenset(
+ {
+ "case_id",
+ "group",
+ "isolated",
+ "judge_account_declared",
+ "judge_effort",
+ "judge_model_reported",
+ "judged_at_utc",
+ "judge_template_version",
+ "prompt_sha256",
+ "verdict_sha256",
+ }
+)
+# The entry fields copied from the verdict's sidecar, an e-mail address in any
+# of them withheld as WITHHELD_ADDRESS: the record is public.
+JUDGE_SIDECAR_FIELDS = (
+ "judge_effort",
+ "judge_model_reported",
+ "judged_at_utc",
+ "judge_account_declared",
+ "judge_template_version",
+)
+WITHHELD_ADDRESS = ""
+# The context attachments an isolated judge's transcript may carry: ATTACHMENTS
+# in scripts/run_audit_claude.sh, which a test keeps equal to this set.
+JUDGE_ATTACHMENTS = frozenset(
+ {
+ "environment",
+ "model",
+ "date",
+ "session_context",
+ "total_tokens_reminder",
+ "prompt_snapshot",
+ "structured_output",
+ "silent_turn_reminder",
+ }
+)
+# The event types an isolated judge's transcript may carry, the types the
+# stage's 60 isolated transcripts carry: EVENT_TYPES in
+# scripts/run_audit_claude.sh, which a test keeps equal to this set.
+JUDGE_EVENT_TYPES = frozenset(
+ {
+ "queue-operation",
+ "user",
+ "attachment",
+ "atis-latch",
+ "last-prompt",
+ "assistant",
+ "cost-state",
+ }
+)
+# Account data an isolated judge's transcript may not carry outside the judged
+# prompt's own user message and the judge's own words: an e-mail address in any
+# key or string, or a key that names an account, at any depth. The runner's
+# extract_verdict uses the same two patterns.
+ACCOUNT_KEY = re.compile(r"email|account|credential|organi[sz]ation|gitstatus", re.I)
+EMAIL_ADDRESS = re.compile(r"[A-Za-z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Za-z0-9.-]+\.[A-Za-z]{2,}")
+# Claude Code's own nudge to a judge that answered in text, the one user text
+# message an isolated judge's transcript may carry besides its prompt:
+# PROMPT_NUDGE in scripts/run_audit_claude.sh, which a test keeps equal to this.
+JUDGE_PROMPT_NUDGE = (
+ "[structured-output-enforce] You MUST call the StructuredOutput tool to "
+ "complete this request. Call this tool now."
+)
+# The commit whose tree holds release 20261013b: PR #218's squash merge on
+# main (2026-10-14 06:10 UTC). Its data trees (annotations, snapshot, audit
+# records) are those of #218's frozen head, 6c44858f, on which the stage
+# was prepared; the squash differs from that head merged with main only in
+# app/tests/notes.test.ts.
+BASE_COMMIT = "2cb77a17739abeace3ff32391f902a39127843c0"
+# Release 20261013b's references (policyengine-us 2.41.0), which are release
+# 20261013's byte for byte: 20261013b re-judged five verdicts and changed no
+# reference. Prepare stages them unchanged, and they stay the release's.
+BASE_REFERENCE_SHA256 = {
+ "reference_outputs.csv": (
+ "2d00cf595adf183fcfa3d069756723b5ce09bd4123fbf3e673635474346b3a0c"
+ ),
+ "reference_outputs.csv.meta.json": (
+ "0dc1ba15a11a20d9a3915a4537a33127e5406b5fde4797586d39ce5dbf170915"
+ ),
+ "reference_exclusions.json": (
+ "a2ddf91634ed66124d13105a09badea39ec6b5f11863011fa51f9ca17f8f3939"
+ ),
+ "scenarios.csv": (
+ "71b16212f0c0b3e5d13d8694ce57e362c23248665806c4d6dea7b23ef472858a"
+ ),
+ "scenarios.csv.meta.json": (
+ "03a66e90b86e9bd0cc77f27520784bd581777762f749675dc716e24c1b8eaebb"
+ ),
+}
+# The grounding the 20260929 stage (adds0928-v3) rendered into its prompts, and
+# every stage after it through release 20261013b's:
+# results/local/unified_audit/grounding.csv in the main clone. Every seed
+# prompt re-renders byte-identically from it and the committed snapshot, so a
+# different grounding would silently invalidate carried-over verdicts.
+GROUNDING_SHA256 = "b1e4a9bc74d762f410524a147efcda7d705c3afcfa3dc27f720fa60c54a7b55c"
+# The seed: every judged case of release 20261013b's audit, with the sha256 of
+# its prompt and of its verdict, committed at docs/argon/seed_digest.csv:
+# release 20261013's 677 judged cases (docs/musewonder/seed_digest.csv with the
+# 151 that release judged, docs/musewonder/judge_provenance.json, written over
+# them) with the five that release 20261013b re-judged written over those.
+# This pins that file's bytes; prepare refuses any other seed and binds this
+# one in stage.json, and a carried-over verdict must keep the seed's bytes.
+SEED_DIGEST = ROOT / "docs/argon/seed_digest.csv"
+# docs/release_20261013b/seed_digest.csv, copied.
+SEED_DIGEST_SHA256 = "0f59925720a5c4f73f05585d7fffce4df8f70d78f506d0ed3c58587bddff911d"
+# Each new model's supervised run as it finished, pinned outside the stage: the
+# sha256 of the run directory's predictions.csv and run_state.json, which
+# --step pin-inputs writes here. Export and the freeze read the file as
+# committed at HEAD, and the stage's inputs// copies must be those bytes.
+INPUT_PINS_PATH = "docs/argon/input_pins.json"
+INPUT_PINS = ROOT / INPUT_PINS_PATH
+PINNED_INPUTS = ("predictions.csv", "run_state.json")
+# Incumbent usage the exporter cannot recompute from committed predictions:
+# Fable 5 ran through the Anthropic batch adapter, and its rows carry no cost,
+# token or latency fields, so export_full_run reports $0 and omits the rest.
+# The released values are carried over; the drift gate then checks every field.
+CARRIED_USAGE = {
+ "claude-fable-5": ("costUsd", "costPerHousehold", "totalTokens", "latencySeconds")
+}
+KEY = ["scenario_id", "variable"]
+# The tree whose committed annotations render every seed prompt: release
+# 20261013b's own (PR #218's merge). Every judged case re-renders from it on
+# the template version its sidecar records (tests/test_judge_template.py's
+# committed-prompt invariant), so this is BASE_COMMIT.
+SEED_RELEASE_COMMIT = BASE_COMMIT
+REFERENCE_EXPLANATIONS = (
+ Path("annotations") / RUN_NAME / "us_case_reference_explanations.csv"
+)
+# The cases whose reference explanation changed between the seed's rendering
+# and the base. Both are release 20261013b, so none: reworded_since_seed()
+# derives the set from git and must find it empty.
+REWORDED_SINCE_SEED: frozenset[str] = frozenset()
+
+
+def require(condition: bool, message: str) -> None:
+ """Fail before an unsafe or incomplete stage can proceed."""
+ if not condition:
+ raise SystemExit(message)
+
+
+def digest(path: Path) -> str:
+ """Hash a file without retaining its contents in memory."""
+ value = hashlib.sha256()
+ with path.open("rb") as stream:
+ for block in iter(lambda: stream.read(1024 * 1024), b""):
+ value.update(block)
+ return value.hexdigest()
+
+
+def write_json(path: Path, value: object) -> None:
+ """Write a deterministic, finite JSON artifact."""
+ path.write_text(json.dumps(value, indent=2, sort_keys=True, allow_nan=False) + "\n")
+
+
+def verify_reference_pins(
+ directory: Path,
+ label: str,
+ exclusions_sha256: str | None = None,
+ pins: dict[str, str] | None = None,
+) -> None:
+ """Every reference file in ``directory`` must equal its 20261013b pin; the
+ exclusion record may instead be the release's (``exclusions_sha256``).
+
+ ``pins`` replaces the 20261013b pins outright: an installed engine upgrade
+ names its build's hashes (upgraded_reference_pins)."""
+ for name, pin in (BASE_REFERENCE_SHA256 if pins is None else pins).items():
+ if name == "reference_exclusions.json" and exclusions_sha256 is not None:
+ pin = exclusions_sha256
+ path = directory / name
+ require(
+ path.is_file() and digest(path) == pin,
+ f"{label} {name} does not match its pin; "
+ + (
+ "this release revises no reference value"
+ if pins is None
+ else "it is not the installed engine upgrade's build"
+ ),
+ )
+
+
+@dataclass(frozen=True)
+class NewRun:
+ slug: str
+ model: str
+ run_dir: Path
+ predictions: Path
+ state: dict
+
+
+def discover_new_models(runs_root: Path) -> list[NewRun]:
+ """Require every named run to be completed and unstopped, as before."""
+ found = []
+ skipped = []
+ for slug, expected in MODELS.items():
+ directory = runs_root / slug / "run"
+ state_path = directory / "run_state.json"
+ if not state_path.is_file():
+ skipped.append(f"{slug}: no run_state.json")
+ continue
+ state = json.loads(state_path.read_text())
+ completed, total = state.get("completed"), state.get("total")
+ reason = state.get("stopped_reason")
+ predictions = directory / "predictions.csv"
+ if (
+ type(total) is not int
+ or type(completed) is not int
+ or total <= 0
+ or completed != total
+ or reason is not None
+ ):
+ skipped.append(f"{slug}: {completed}/{total}, stopped_reason={reason!r}")
+ elif state.get("model") != expected:
+ skipped.append(f"{slug}: unexpected model {state.get('model')!r}")
+ elif not predictions.is_file():
+ skipped.append(f"{slug}: no predictions.csv")
+ else:
+ found.append(NewRun(slug, expected, directory, predictions, state))
+ require(not skipped, "refusing incomplete additions: " + "; ".join(skipped))
+ return found
+
+
+def input_pins_record(runs_root: Path) -> dict:
+ """The record --step pin-inputs writes: the sha256 of each new model's
+ finished run files, read from the run directory under ``runs_root``."""
+ return {
+ "note": (
+ "The sha256 of each new model's supervised run files as the run "
+ "finished, written by scripts/finish_argon.py --step pin-inputs "
+ "from the run directory. prepare copies them into the stage's "
+ "inputs//; export and the freeze refuse a staged copy that "
+ "is not these bytes, and read this file as committed at HEAD."
+ ),
+ "inputs": {
+ run.slug: {
+ "run": f"{runs_root.name}/{run.slug}/run",
+ "sha256": {name: digest(run.run_dir / name) for name in PINNED_INPUTS},
+ }
+ for run in discover_new_models(runs_root)
+ },
+ }
+
+
+def pin_inputs(args) -> None:
+ """Write INPUT_PINS from the finished run; commit it before export."""
+ write_json(INPUT_PINS, input_pins_record(args.runs_root))
+ print(f"Pinned {', '.join(PINNED_INPUTS)} of {sorted(MODELS)} in {INPUT_PINS_PATH}")
+
+
+def head_blob(path: str) -> bytes:
+ """A repository file as committed at HEAD, never the working tree's copy,
+ which could be edited together with the stage it pins."""
+ result = subprocess.run(
+ ["git", "-C", str(ROOT), "show", f"HEAD:{path}"], capture_output=True
+ )
+ require(
+ result.returncode == 0,
+ f"{path} is not committed at HEAD; commit it: {result.stderr.decode().strip()}",
+ )
+ return result.stdout
+
+
+def committed_input_pins() -> dict[str, dict[str, str]]:
+ """Each new model's pinned run-file sha256, as committed at HEAD.
+
+ The working-tree file must be HEAD's too, so pins written and not yet
+ committed are refused rather than silently ignored.
+ """
+ blob = head_blob(INPUT_PINS_PATH)
+ require(
+ INPUT_PINS.is_file() and INPUT_PINS.read_bytes() == blob,
+ f"{INPUT_PINS_PATH} differs from its HEAD commit; commit it",
+ )
+ record = json.loads(blob)
+ inputs = record.get("inputs") if isinstance(record, dict) else None
+ require(
+ isinstance(inputs, dict)
+ and set(inputs) == set(MODELS)
+ and all(
+ isinstance(item, dict)
+ and isinstance(item.get("sha256"), dict)
+ and set(item["sha256"]) == set(PINNED_INPUTS)
+ for item in inputs.values()
+ ),
+ f"{INPUT_PINS_PATH} does not pin {list(PINNED_INPUTS)} for {sorted(MODELS)}",
+ )
+ return {slug: item["sha256"] for slug, item in inputs.items()}
+
+
+def verify_input_pins(stage: Path) -> None:
+ """The stage's copies of each new model's run files are the pinned bytes."""
+ for slug, pins in committed_input_pins().items():
+ for name, pin in pins.items():
+ path = stage / "inputs" / slug / name
+ require(
+ path.is_file() and digest(path) == pin,
+ f"staged inputs/{slug}/{name} is not the run file "
+ f"{INPUT_PINS_PATH} pins; prepare a new stage from the pinned run",
+ )
+
+
+def verify_prepared_inputs(stage: Path) -> None:
+ """The prepare-time hashes in stage.json and model-provenance.json hold.
+
+ stage.json records every file prepare copied or folded (each new model's
+ run files, the bundle's predictions and references); model-provenance.json
+ records each new model's predictions sha256 and treatment fingerprint.
+ """
+ receipt = json.loads((stage / "stage.json").read_text())
+ files = receipt.get("files") if isinstance(receipt, dict) else None
+ require(isinstance(files, dict), "stage.json records no prepared files")
+ us = Path("publish") / RUN_NAME / "us"
+ expected = {str(us / name) for name in (*REFERENCE_FILES, "predictions.csv")}
+ expected |= {
+ str(Path("inputs") / slug / name) for slug in MODELS for name in PINNED_INPUTS
+ }
+ require(
+ expected <= set(files),
+ f"stage.json does not record {sorted(expected - set(files))}",
+ )
+ for name, pin in files.items():
+ path = (stage / name).resolve()
+ require(
+ path.is_relative_to(stage.resolve())
+ and path.is_file()
+ and digest(path) == pin,
+ f"staged input changed since prepare: {name}",
+ )
+ provenance = json.loads((stage / "model-provenance.json").read_text())
+ require(
+ isinstance(provenance, dict) and set(provenance) == set(MODELS.values()),
+ f"model-provenance.json does not describe exactly {sorted(MODELS.values())}",
+ )
+ for slug, model in MODELS.items():
+ inputs = stage / "inputs" / slug
+ state = json.loads((inputs / "run_state.json").read_text())
+ entry = provenance[model]
+ fingerprint = state.get("treatment_fingerprint")
+ require(
+ isinstance(entry, dict)
+ and entry.get("predictions_sha256") == digest(inputs / "predictions.csv")
+ and entry.get("treatment_fingerprint") == fingerprint,
+ f"model-provenance.json disagrees with the staged run of {model}",
+ )
+
+
+def new_model_row_differences(stage: Path, limit: int = 5) -> list[str]:
+ """Where a new model's rows in the bundle's predictions are not its run's.
+
+ Every column of the staged run file (inputs//predictions.csv, which
+ verify_input_pins pins) is compared cell by cell, as text, keyed by
+ scenario and variable: the answers and also the cost, token and latency
+ columns the payload's costUsd, totalTokens and latencySeconds come from.
+ No column is exempt. prepare_inputs copies the run file, and fold_board
+ reads it with read_csv and writes its concat with the base by to_csv.
+ That round trip could rewrite a cell (an integer column the base leaves
+ blank would come back as a float), and such a cell is refused, never
+ skipped; on the real stage it changes no cell of the run's 26 columns
+ (its token and cost columns are already floats). A bundle column the run
+ lacks (a base column the concat adds) must be empty on the new model's
+ rows.
+ """
+ import pandas as pd
+
+ text = {"dtype": str, "keep_default_na": False}
+ us = stage / "publish" / RUN_NAME / "us" / "predictions.csv"
+ header = list(pd.read_csv(us, nrows=0, **text).columns)
+ if "model" not in header:
+ return [f"{us.name} has no model column"]
+ parts: dict[str, list] = {}
+ for chunk in pd.read_csv(us, chunksize=100_000, **text):
+ for model in MODELS.values():
+ rows = chunk[chunk["model"] == model]
+ if len(rows):
+ parts.setdefault(model, []).append(rows)
+ found = []
+ for slug, model in MODELS.items():
+ source = pd.read_csv(stage / "inputs" / slug / "predictions.csv", **text)
+ folded = (
+ pd.concat(parts[model]) if model in parts else pd.DataFrame(columns=header)
+ )
+ missing = [column for column in source.columns if column not in header]
+ if missing or not set(KEY) <= set(source.columns):
+ found.append(f"{model}: run columns {missing or KEY} not in the bundle")
+ continue
+ run = source.sort_values(KEY, kind="stable").reset_index(drop=True)
+ board = folded.sort_values(KEY, kind="stable").reset_index(drop=True)
+ if (
+ run.duplicated(KEY).any()
+ or len(run) != len(board)
+ or not run[KEY].equals(board[KEY])
+ ):
+ found.append(
+ f"{model}: the bundle holds {len(board)} rows, not the run's "
+ f"{len(run)} scenario and variable keys"
+ )
+ continue
+ for column in header:
+ if column in run.columns:
+ differ = run[column] != board[column]
+ what = "differs from the run"
+ else:
+ differ = board[column] != ""
+ what = "is filled, and the run has no such column"
+ if differ.any():
+ first = board.loc[differ.idxmax(), KEY]
+ found.append(
+ f"{model} {column} {what} on {int(differ.sum())} rows "
+ f"(first {'__'.join(first)})"
+ )
+ return found[:limit]
+
+
+def verify_new_model_inputs(stage: Path) -> None:
+ """Each new model's staged inputs are its pinned run, as prepare folded it.
+
+ Its staged run files are the bytes INPUT_PINS (committed at HEAD) records,
+ the prepare-time hashes in stage.json and model-provenance.json still
+ hold, and its rows in the bundle's predictions are its run file's, every
+ column, so its published cost, tokens and latency are the run's.
+ """
+ verify_input_pins(stage)
+ verify_prepared_inputs(stage)
+ differ = new_model_row_differences(stage)
+ require(
+ not differ,
+ f"{sorted(MODELS.values())} rows in the bundle's predictions are not the "
+ f"pinned run's: {differ}; prepare a new stage",
+ )
+
+
+def validate_stage_path(stage: Path, sources: list[Path]) -> None:
+ """Allow only scratch outputs, disjoint from every read-only source."""
+ stage = stage.resolve()
+ scratch = (ROOT / "results/local").resolve()
+ require(scratch in stage.parents, f"stage-dir must be below {scratch}")
+ for source in sources:
+ source = source.resolve()
+ require(
+ source != stage
+ and source not in stage.parents
+ and stage not in source.parents,
+ f"stage-dir overlaps input: {source}",
+ )
+ if stage.exists():
+ require(
+ not any(p.is_symlink() for p in stage.rglob("*")), "symlink in stage-dir"
+ )
+
+
+def validate_keys(frame, reference, model: str) -> None:
+ """Row count alone cannot detect substituted or missing output keys."""
+ require(set(frame.model) == {model}, f"unexpected model rows for {model}")
+ require(not frame.duplicated(KEY).any(), f"duplicate prediction keys: {model}")
+ expected = set(reference[KEY].itertuples(index=False, name=None))
+ actual = set(frame[KEY].itertuples(index=False, name=None))
+ require(actual == expected, f"prediction keys differ from reference: {model}")
+
+
+def live_pointer() -> dict:
+ """The committed dashboard pointer (release 20261013b until the freeze)."""
+ return json.loads((ROOT / "app/src/data.artifact.json").read_text())
+
+
+def resolve_base(args):
+ """Pin the live payload and its committed predictions/reference bundle."""
+ import pandas as pd
+
+ # Pandas 3 infers Arrow strings and expands repeated full raw responses
+ # into large buffers. Object strings retain the CSV parser's deduplication,
+ # as in the Pandas 2 environment used for the previous release.
+ if hasattr(pd.options, "future") and hasattr(pd.options.future, "infer_string"):
+ pd.options.future.infer_string = False
+
+ verify_reference_pins(SNAPSHOT, "committed reference")
+ pointer = live_pointer()
+ require(
+ pointer["tag"] == BASE_TAG and pointer["sha256"] == BASE_SHA256,
+ "base pointer changed; review the base before staging",
+ )
+ opener = gzip.open if args.base_payload.suffix == ".gz" else open
+ with opener(args.base_payload, "rb") as stream:
+ raw = stream.read()
+ live = json.loads(raw)
+ if "countries" not in live:
+ # The compact snapshot freezes the country payload, not its wrapper.
+ live = {"countries": {"us": live}}
+ raw = json.dumps(live).encode()
+ require(
+ hashlib.sha256(raw).hexdigest() == BASE_SHA256, "base payload SHA256 mismatch"
+ )
+ require(
+ len(live["countries"]["us"]["modelStats"]) == BASE_MODELS,
+ f"base must have {BASE_MODELS} models",
+ )
+
+ # An explicit alternative is allowed only if it has identical CSV bytes.
+ def csv_digest(path):
+ opener = gzip.open if path.suffix == ".gz" else open
+ h = hashlib.sha256()
+ with opener(path, "rb") as stream:
+ for block in iter(lambda: stream.read(1024 * 1024), b""):
+ h.update(block)
+ return h.hexdigest()
+
+ verify_base_predictions(SNAPSHOT)
+ if args.base_predictions.resolve() != (SNAPSHOT / "predictions.csv.gz").resolve():
+ require(
+ csv_digest(args.base_predictions)
+ == csv_digest(SNAPSHOT / "predictions.csv.gz"),
+ "base predictions differ from committed 20261013b snapshot",
+ )
+ print("Reading pinned base predictions", flush=True)
+ # Rehearsals do not need repeated raw provider transcripts for incumbents.
+ # Their full original CSV remains hash-pinned and untouched in the snapshot.
+ usecols = (lambda column: column != "raw_response") if args.partial else None
+ base = pd.read_csv(args.base_predictions, low_memory=True, usecols=usecols)
+ reference = pd.read_csv(SNAPSHOT / "reference_outputs.csv")
+ require(
+ len(reference) == BASE_OUTPUTS and reference.scenario_id.nunique() == 100,
+ "unexpected reference universe",
+ )
+ require(
+ base.model.nunique() == BASE_MODELS,
+ f"base predictions must have {BASE_MODELS} models",
+ )
+ for model, frame in base.groupby("model"):
+ validate_keys(frame, reference, model)
+ from policybench.reference_exclusions import (
+ load_reference_exclusions,
+ split_reference,
+ )
+
+ exclusions = load_reference_exclusions(SNAPSHOT)
+ require(
+ len(exclusions) == BASE_EXCLUSIONS, f"expected {BASE_EXCLUSIONS} exclusions"
+ )
+ require(
+ len(split_reference(reference, exclusions)[0]) == BASE_SCORED,
+ f"expected {BASE_SCORED} scored outputs",
+ )
+ return base, reference, live
+
+
+def base_commit_blob(path: Path) -> bytes:
+ """A file as committed at BASE_COMMIT, whose tree holds release 20261013b.
+
+ The checkout must hold that commit: a shallow clone (CI's default) does
+ not, so the CI test job checks out full history.
+ """
+ result = subprocess.run(
+ ["git", "-C", str(ROOT), "show", f"{BASE_COMMIT}:{path.as_posix()}"],
+ capture_output=True,
+ )
+ require(
+ result.returncode == 0,
+ f"cannot read {path} at base commit {BASE_COMMIT[:12]}; fetch full "
+ f"history (git fetch --unshallow): {result.stderr.decode().strip()}",
+ )
+ return result.stdout
+
+
+def verify_base_predictions(snapshot: Path) -> None:
+ """The snapshot's predictions are release 20261013b's.
+
+ The pin is that release's own: the snapshot manifest as committed at
+ BASE_COMMIT, not the working tree's, which could be edited together with
+ the predictions it pins.
+ """
+ manifest = json.loads(
+ base_commit_blob(Path("paper/snapshot/20260501/manifest.json"))
+ )
+ pin = manifest["source_run_artifacts"][RUN_NAME]["files"]["predictions.csv.gz"]
+ require(
+ digest(snapshot / "predictions.csv.gz") == pin,
+ "committed base predictions fail release 20261013b's manifest hash",
+ )
+
+
+def base_payload_from_commit() -> dict:
+ """Release 20261013b's payload, read from BASE_COMMIT and checked."""
+ blob = base_commit_blob((SNAPSHOT / "data.json.gz").relative_to(ROOT))
+ live = {"countries": {"us": json.loads(gzip.decompress(blob))}}
+ require(
+ hashlib.sha256(json.dumps(live).encode()).hexdigest() == BASE_SHA256,
+ "base payload SHA256 mismatch",
+ )
+ require(
+ len(live["countries"]["us"]["modelStats"]) == BASE_MODELS,
+ f"base must have {BASE_MODELS} models",
+ )
+ return live
+
+
+def base_adjudication_record() -> dict:
+ """Release 20261013b's adjudication record file, read from BASE_COMMIT.
+
+ The working-tree copy is not a baseline: the freeze overwrites it, and a
+ freeze that stops partway would leave the staged record in its place.
+ """
+ path = Path("annotations") / RUN_NAME / ADJUDICATIONS
+ return json.loads(base_commit_blob(path))
+
+
+def base_adjudications() -> list[dict]:
+ """Release 20261013b's adjudication entries, read from BASE_COMMIT."""
+ from policybench.adjudications import parse_adjudications
+
+ path = Path("annotations") / RUN_NAME / ADJUDICATIONS
+ return parse_adjudications(base_adjudication_record(), f"{BASE_COMMIT[:12]}:{path}")
+
+
+# --- Ruled exclusions (none in this release) ---------------------------------
+
+EXCLUSION_REASON_CODES = {
+ "reference_engine_defect": ("reference_engine_defect", "engine_defect"),
+ "reference_depends_on_unlisted_input": ("prompt_ambiguity", "unlisted_input"),
+ "reference_law_published_after_freeze": ("reference_later_law", "later_law"),
+}
+# Release 20261013b's date conventions: the waves it names, and the end of the
+# sentence on its last wave, after which a new wave's sentence goes.
+DATE_CONVENTIONS_BASE = (
+ "adjudicated_on names the audit wave that made the decision (2026-09-05, "
+ "2026-09-22, 2026-09-29, 2026-10-05, 2026-10-06 or 2026-10-10)."
+)
+DATE_CONVENTIONS_LAST_WAVE = " or 2026-10-10)"
+DATE_CONVENTIONS_ANCHOR = (
+ "moved onto an input the prompt does not state, and were written on 2026-10-10 UTC."
+)
+
+
+def load_spec() -> dict:
+ return json.loads((ROOT / SPEC_PATH).read_text())
+
+
+def spec_key(item: dict) -> tuple[str, str]:
+ return item["scenario_id"], item["variable"]
+
+
+def spec_records(spec: dict) -> list[dict]:
+ """The ruled records, exactly the outputs each proposal names, in
+ (scenario_id, variable) order; each proposal file must be the bytes the
+ spec pins."""
+ import copy
+
+ records = []
+ for proposal in spec["proposals"]:
+ path = ROOT / proposal["path"]
+ require(
+ digest(path) == proposal["sha256"],
+ f"{proposal['path']} is not the file the spec pins",
+ )
+ doc = json.loads(path.read_text())
+ if proposal["records"] == "root_causes.*.exclusions":
+ found = [
+ record
+ for cause in doc["root_causes"].values()
+ for record in cause["exclusions"]
+ ]
+ else:
+ require(proposal["records"] == "exclusions", "unknown record pointer")
+ found = doc["exclusions"]
+ named = sorted(tuple(output) for output in proposal["outputs"])
+ chosen = [record for record in found if spec_key(record) in set(named)]
+ require(
+ sorted(spec_key(record) for record in chosen) == named,
+ f"{proposal['path']} does not hold exactly the ruled outputs {named}",
+ )
+ records.extend(copy.deepcopy(chosen))
+ keys = [spec_key(record) for record in records]
+ require(len(set(keys)) == len(keys), f"two ruled records share an output: {keys}")
+ require(len(records) == NEW_EXCLUSIONS, f"expected {NEW_EXCLUSIONS} records")
+ for record in records:
+ require(
+ record["reason_code"] in EXCLUSION_REASON_CODES
+ and record["decided_on"] == spec["decided_on"]
+ and record["decided_by"] == "developer"
+ and record["engine_version"] == BASE_ENGINE,
+ f"{spec_key(record)} is not a {spec['decided_on']} developer record on "
+ f"{BASE_ENGINE}",
+ )
+ return sorted(records, key=spec_key)
+
+
+def base_exclusion_record() -> dict:
+ """Release 20261013b's exclusion record, read from BASE_COMMIT and pinned."""
+ blob = base_commit_blob((SNAPSHOT / "reference_exclusions.json").relative_to(ROOT))
+ require(
+ hashlib.sha256(blob).hexdigest()
+ == BASE_REFERENCE_SHA256["reference_exclusions.json"],
+ "release 20261013b's exclusion record does not match its pin",
+ )
+ return json.loads(blob)
+
+
+def build_release_exclusions(base: dict, spec: dict) -> dict:
+ """Release 20261013b's record plus the spec's ruled records (none here).
+
+ The new records go after the earlier waves' and before the audit's
+ trailing scenario_023 record (tests/test_reference_upgrade.py requires that
+ tail); the derivation's new sentence goes before the 2026-09-29 marker, as
+ release 20261013b's did. Every earlier record keeps its bytes.
+ """
+ import copy
+ import tempfile
+
+ from policybench.reference_exclusions import load_reference_exclusions
+
+ doc = copy.deepcopy(base)
+ new = spec_records(spec)
+ if not new:
+ # Nothing ruled: the release's record is release 20261013b's, and the
+ # spec may carry no edit or derivation sentence for records it lacks.
+ require(
+ not spec.get("record_edits") and not spec.get("derivation_insert"),
+ "the spec edits records or the derivation but rules no record",
+ )
+ return doc
+ tail = doc["exclusions"][-1]
+ require(
+ spec_key(tail) == ("scenario_023", "head_medicaid_eligible"),
+ "release 20261013b's record does not end with the audit's scenario_023 record",
+ )
+ existing = {spec_key(record) for record in doc["exclusions"]}
+ require(
+ not existing & {spec_key(record) for record in new},
+ "a ruled output is already excluded",
+ )
+ by_key = {spec_key(record): record for record in new}
+ for edit in spec.get("record_edits", []):
+ record = by_key.get(spec_key(edit))
+ require(record is not None, f"no ruled record for edit {spec_key(edit)}")
+ text = record[edit["field"]]
+ require(
+ text == edit["replace"],
+ f"{spec_key(edit)} {edit['field']} is not the text the edit replaces",
+ )
+ record[edit["field"]] = edit["with"]
+ doc["exclusions"] = doc["exclusions"][:-1] + new + [tail]
+ insert = spec["derivation_insert"]
+ require(
+ doc["derivation"].count(insert["before"]) == 1,
+ "the derivation does not hold its 2026-09-29 marker exactly once",
+ )
+ doc["derivation"] = doc["derivation"].replace(
+ insert["before"], insert["text"] + insert["before"]
+ )
+ with tempfile.TemporaryDirectory() as scratch:
+ # The loader is the record's one validator: reason codes, required
+ # fields, numeric values that differ, and no output listed twice.
+ (Path(scratch) / "reference_exclusions.json").write_text(exclusions_text(doc))
+ loaded = load_reference_exclusions(Path(scratch))
+ require(len(loaded) == RELEASE_EXCLUSIONS, "wrong exclusion count")
+ return doc
+
+
+def exclusions_text(doc: dict) -> str:
+ """The exclusion record as the reference builder spells it."""
+ return json.dumps(doc, indent=2) + "\n"
+
+
+def release_exclusions_sha256() -> str:
+ return hashlib.sha256(
+ exclusions_text(
+ build_release_exclusions(base_exclusion_record(), load_spec())
+ ).encode()
+ ).hexdigest()
+
+
+def install_exclusions(args) -> None:
+ """Write the release's exclusion record into the stage and rebind it.
+
+ Prepare staged release 20261013b's record (pinned); this step replaces it
+ in the stage's scoring source and bundle with build_release_exclusions'
+ bytes and records the change in stage.json, so every later step's input
+ check binds the installed record. Judge prompts do not render exclusions.
+ """
+ stage = args.stage_dir
+ receipt_path = stage / "stage.json"
+ receipt = json.loads(receipt_path.read_text())
+ bound = f"publish/{RUN_NAME}/us/reference_exclusions.json"
+ require(bound in receipt["files"], "stage.json does not bind the exclusions")
+ stage_upgrade(stage)
+ text = exclusions_text(
+ build_release_exclusions(base_exclusion_record(), load_spec())
+ )
+ installed = hashlib.sha256(text.encode()).hexdigest()
+ previous = receipt.get("exclusions_installed")
+ if previous is None:
+ require(
+ receipt["files"][bound]
+ == BASE_REFERENCE_SHA256["reference_exclusions.json"],
+ "the stage's exclusion record is not release 20261013b's",
+ )
+ for target in (stage / "scoring", stage / "publish" / RUN_NAME / "us"):
+ (target / "reference_exclusions.json").write_text(text)
+ receipt["files"][bound] = installed
+ receipt["exclusions_installed"] = {
+ "base_sha256": BASE_REFERENCE_SHA256["reference_exclusions.json"],
+ "sha256": installed,
+ "spec_sha256": digest(ROOT / SPEC_PATH),
+ "records": RELEASE_EXCLUSIONS,
+ }
+ write_json(receipt_path, receipt)
+ print(
+ f"Installed {RELEASE_EXCLUSIONS} exclusions ({NEW_EXCLUSIONS} new): {installed}"
+ )
+
+
+def exclusion_entry(
+ base: dict | None,
+ item: dict,
+ record: dict,
+ case_dir: Path,
+ adjudicated_on: str | None = None,
+) -> dict:
+ """The adjudication of one ruled output (or, with ``adjudicated_on`` its
+ record's day, one output an engine upgrade newly excludes).
+
+ A new entry carries the case's bound Opus 5.5 verdict (in this release's
+ audit tree) as its judge fields, in release 20261013b's entry order. An
+ output that already has a decision (scenario_051's 2026-09-22
+ regeneration) keeps its judge fields, which the restate script set, and
+ takes the ruling's decision fields in their places; its reasoning keeps the
+ earlier decision's history ahead of the ruling's text.
+ """
+ from date_adds0928_judge_verdicts import _judge
+ from release_20261006 import ENTRY_FIELDS, bound_verdict
+
+ source, verdict_kind = EXCLUSION_REASON_CODES[record["reason_code"]]
+ basis = {
+ "engine_defect": record.get("law"),
+ "unlisted_input": record.get("unlisted_input"),
+ "later_law": record.get("published"),
+ }[verdict_kind]
+ decision = {
+ "adjudicated_failure_source": source,
+ "adjudicated_failure_subtype": item["adjudicated_failure_subtype"],
+ "adjudicated_on": adjudicated_on or load_spec()["decided_on"],
+ "adjudicator": "developer",
+ "excluded_from_scoring": True,
+ "reference_verdict": verdict_kind,
+ "reference_basis": basis,
+ }
+ require(
+ item["adjudicated_failure_source"] == source
+ and item["reference_verdict"] == verdict_kind,
+ f"{spec_key(item)}: the spec's classes do not match the record's reason",
+ )
+ if base is None:
+ verdict, meta = bound_verdict(case_dir)
+ entry = {
+ "country": "us",
+ "scenario_id": item["scenario_id"],
+ "variable": item["variable"],
+ "judge_model": _judge(meta),
+ "judge_failure_source": verdict["case_failure_source"],
+ "judge_failure_subtype": verdict["case_failure_subtype"],
+ **decision,
+ "judge_reference_suspect": bool(verdict.get("reference_suspect")),
+ "reasoning": item["reasoning"],
+ "judged_on_utc": meta["judged_at_utc"][:10],
+ }
+ entry = {name: entry[name] for name in ENTRY_FIELDS}
+ require(list(entry) == list(ENTRY_FIELDS), "entry fields out of order")
+ return entry
+ entry = {}
+ for name, value in base.items():
+ entry[name] = decision.get(name, value)
+ if name == "adjudicator" and "excluded_from_scoring" not in base:
+ # In release 20261013b's entry order, the flag follows the adjudicator.
+ entry["excluded_from_scoring"] = True
+ require(
+ set(decision) <= set(entry), f"{spec_key(item)}: a decision field is missing"
+ )
+ entry["reasoning"] = base["reasoning"] + " " + item["reasoning"]
+ return entry
+
+
+# A triage decision's fields, in release 20261013b's entry order (an affirmed
+# reference carries no excluded_from_scoring, as release 20261013b's do not).
+# A decision on a case whose verdict flags nothing carries no reference_verdict
+# or reference_basis, as release 20261013b's scenario_007 and scenario_008
+# decisions do not.
+TRIAGE_FIELDS = (
+ "country",
+ "scenario_id",
+ "variable",
+ "judge_model",
+ "judge_failure_source",
+ "judge_failure_subtype",
+ "adjudicated_failure_source",
+ "adjudicated_failure_subtype",
+ "adjudicated_on",
+ "adjudicator",
+ "judge_reference_suspect",
+ "reference_verdict",
+ "reference_basis",
+ "reasoning",
+ "judged_on_utc",
+)
+TRIAGE_ITEM_KEYS = frozenset(
+ {
+ "scenario_id",
+ "variable",
+ "adjudicated_failure_source",
+ "adjudicated_failure_subtype",
+ "adjudicated_on",
+ "reference_verdict",
+ "reference_basis",
+ "reasoning",
+ }
+)
+
+
+def triage_items(upgrade, spec: dict | None = None) -> list[dict]:
+ """docs/argon/spec.json's triage_adjudications: the developer's decisions
+ on re-opened cases whose verdict triage could not accept as it stands.
+ Each keeps the output scored and gives the case's rows the decided final
+ class. It either affirms a reference the case's verdict flagged
+ (reference_verdict "affirmed", with its basis) or, where the verdict flags
+ nothing, resolves rows the judge gave a class outside the final set (no
+ reference verdict or basis, as release 20261013b's scenario_007 decision).
+ An exclusion is ruled, never a triage decision.
+
+ The driver installs no engine upgrade (``upgrade`` is always None), so the
+ decisions are this release's own wave: each is dated by the spec's
+ triage_decided_on."""
+ require(upgrade is None, "this release's driver installs no engine upgrade")
+ spec = load_spec() if spec is None else spec
+ items = spec.get("triage_adjudications", [])
+ require(
+ isinstance(items, list)
+ and all(isinstance(i, dict) and set(i) == TRIAGE_ITEM_KEYS for i in items),
+ "the spec's triage_adjudications must be items with "
+ f"{sorted(TRIAGE_ITEM_KEYS)}",
+ )
+ keys = [spec_key(item) for item in items]
+ require(len(set(keys)) == len(keys), f"a triage decision is listed twice: {keys}")
+ require(
+ all(
+ (
+ item["reference_verdict"] == "affirmed"
+ and isinstance(item["reference_basis"], str)
+ and bool(item["reference_basis"].strip())
+ )
+ or (item["reference_verdict"] is None and item["reference_basis"] is None)
+ for item in items
+ ),
+ "a triage decision may only affirm a reference, with its basis, or leave "
+ "an unflagged reference without a verdict or basis; an exclusion is ruled",
+ )
+ if not items:
+ return []
+ day = spec.get("triage_decided_on")
+ require(
+ isinstance(day, str) and re.fullmatch(r"\d{4}-\d{2}-\d{2}", day) is not None,
+ f"{SPEC_PATH} names no triage_decided_on (YYYY-MM-DD), the wave its "
+ "triage decisions are dated by",
+ )
+ wrong = sorted(spec_key(i) for i in items if i["adjudicated_on"] != day)
+ require(
+ not wrong,
+ f"a triage decision is dated by this release's wave ({day}): {wrong}",
+ )
+ return sorted(items, key=spec_key)
+
+
+# The classes triage accepts on a scored row (triage's own list).
+TRIAGE_FINAL_SOURCES = frozenset(
+ {"llm_error", "parse_contract_failure", "budget_exhausted_at_ceiling"}
+)
+
+
+def triage_entry(item: dict, case_dir: Path) -> dict:
+ """The adjudication of a triage decision, with the case's bound Opus 5.5
+ verdict as its judge fields.
+
+ The decision must answer what triage stops on in that verdict: an
+ affirmation needs the verdict's reference flag, and a decision without a
+ reference verdict needs an unflagged verdict whose case or rows carry a
+ class outside the final set."""
+ from date_adds0928_judge_verdicts import _judge
+ from release_20261006 import bound_verdict
+
+ verdict, meta = bound_verdict(case_dir)
+ flagged = bool(verdict.get("reference_suspect"))
+ affirms = item["reference_verdict"] == "affirmed"
+ require(
+ flagged == affirms,
+ f"{case_dir.name}: a triage decision affirms the reference exactly when "
+ f"the case's verdict flags it (flagged {flagged}, affirmed {affirms})",
+ )
+ open_classes = {verdict["case_failure_source"]} | {
+ model["failure_source"] for model in verdict.get("models", [])
+ }
+ require(
+ affirms or bool(open_classes - TRIAGE_FINAL_SOURCES),
+ f"{case_dir.name}: the verdict leaves triage nothing to decide",
+ )
+ entry = {
+ "country": "us",
+ "scenario_id": item["scenario_id"],
+ "variable": item["variable"],
+ "judge_model": _judge(meta),
+ "judge_failure_source": verdict["case_failure_source"],
+ "judge_failure_subtype": verdict["case_failure_subtype"],
+ "adjudicated_failure_source": item["adjudicated_failure_source"],
+ "adjudicated_failure_subtype": item["adjudicated_failure_subtype"],
+ "adjudicated_on": item["adjudicated_on"],
+ "adjudicator": "developer",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": flagged,
+ "reference_verdict": item["reference_verdict"],
+ "reference_basis": item["reference_basis"],
+ "reasoning": item["reasoning"],
+ "judged_on_utc": meta["judged_at_utc"][:10],
+ }
+ fields = TRIAGE_FIELDS
+ if not affirms:
+ fields = tuple(
+ f
+ for f in TRIAGE_FIELDS
+ if f not in ("reference_verdict", "reference_basis")
+ )
+ entry = {name: entry[name] for name in fields}
+ require(list(entry) == list(fields), "triage entry fields out of order")
+ return entry
+
+
+def exclusion_adjudications(
+ record: dict,
+ cases_dir: Path,
+ regenerated: frozenset = frozenset(),
+ added: list[tuple[dict, dict]] | tuple = (),
+ triage: list[dict] | tuple = (),
+) -> dict:
+ """``record`` (the staged adjudication record) with the ruled outputs
+ decided: an existing entry is restated in place, a new one appended in the
+ spec's order, and the date conventions name the 2026-10-06 wave. Each
+ ``triage`` item (triage_items) is appended last (triage_entry).
+
+ ``regenerated`` names the ruled outputs an installed engine upgrade
+ regenerated (spec_regenerated); they are scored again, so none is decided.
+ ``added`` (upgrade_decisions) decides the outputs the upgrade newly
+ excludes, each appended after the ruled ones and dated by its record; the
+ date conventions then name that wave too.
+ """
+ import copy
+
+ spec = load_spec()
+ records = {
+ spec_key(r): r for r in spec_records(spec) if spec_key(r) not in regenerated
+ }
+ items = [
+ item for item in spec["adjudications"] if spec_key(item) not in regenerated
+ ]
+ require(
+ set(records) == {spec_key(item) for item in items},
+ "the spec's adjudications and records name different outputs",
+ )
+ restated = {
+ spec_key(item) for item in spec.get("restated_adjudications", [])
+ } - regenerated
+ out = copy.deepcopy(record)
+ by_key = {
+ spec_key(entry): index for index, entry in enumerate(out["adjudications"])
+ }
+ require(
+ set(by_key) & set(records) == restated,
+ "existing decisions on ruled outputs differ from the spec's restated list: "
+ f"{sorted(set(by_key) & set(records))}",
+ )
+ appended = []
+ for item in items:
+ k = spec_key(item)
+ case_dir = cases_dir / f"us__{k[0]}__{k[1]}"
+ if k in by_key:
+ out["adjudications"][by_key[k]] = exclusion_entry(
+ out["adjudications"][by_key[k]], item, records[k], case_dir
+ )
+ else:
+ appended.append(exclusion_entry(None, item, records[k], case_dir))
+ for item, upgraded in added:
+ k = spec_key(item)
+ require(
+ k not in by_key,
+ f"{k}: the engine upgrade newly excludes an output that already has a "
+ "decision; restating one is not supported",
+ )
+ appended.append(
+ exclusion_entry(
+ None,
+ item,
+ upgraded,
+ cases_dir / f"us__{k[0]}__{k[1]}",
+ adjudicated_on=upgraded["decided_on"],
+ )
+ )
+ wave = decision_wave(added, triage)
+ for item in triage:
+ k = spec_key(item)
+ require(
+ k not in by_key,
+ f"{k}: a triage decision on a case that already has a decision; "
+ "restating one is not supported",
+ )
+ appended.append(triage_entry(item, cases_dir / f"us__{k[0]}__{k[1]}"))
+ out["adjudications"] = out["adjudications"] + appended
+ out["date_conventions"] = release_date_conventions(out["date_conventions"], wave)
+ return out
+
+
+@dataclass(frozen=True)
+class DecisionWave:
+ """A wave of decisions this release adds, and its UTC day.
+
+ With ``upgrade`` (the form finish_musewonder.py has), the wave of an
+ installed engine upgrade's decisions: whether they exclude outputs the
+ upgrade moved onto an unstated input (upgrade_decisions) or affirm
+ references it changed. Without it, this release's own triage wave
+ (triage_items): whether its decisions affirm a flagged reference
+ (``affirms``) or resolve rows the judge gave a class outside the final set
+ on an unflagged case (``resolves``). This driver installs no engine
+ upgrade, so decision_wave builds only the second form."""
+
+ day: str
+ excludes: bool
+ affirms: bool
+ upgrade: bool = True
+ resolves: bool = False
+
+
+def decision_wave(added, triage) -> DecisionWave | None:
+ """The DecisionWave of the release's triage decisions (``triage``, as
+ triage_items lists them), or None when there are none, all dated by one
+ day, their adjudicated_on. ``added`` (upgrade_decisions) is always empty:
+ the driver installs no engine upgrade."""
+ require(not added, "this release's driver installs no engine upgrade")
+ days = {item["adjudicated_on"] for item in triage}
+ require(len(days) <= 1, f"the triage decisions name several days: {days}")
+ if not days:
+ return None
+ return DecisionWave(
+ next(iter(days)),
+ excludes=False,
+ affirms=any(item["reference_verdict"] == "affirmed" for item in triage),
+ upgrade=False,
+ resolves=any(item["reference_verdict"] is None for item in triage),
+ )
+
+
+def release_date_conventions(conventions: str, wave: DecisionWave | None = None) -> str:
+ """Release 20261013b's date conventions with each wave this release adds
+ named; the one definition the adjudicate step writes and the record gate
+ expects.
+
+ A wave is added for the spec's ruled records, when it rules any (its
+ decided_on, with its wave_sentence and adjudications_written_on), and for
+ ``wave`` (decision_wave): this release's triage decisions, with the day
+ the spec says they were written (triage_adjudications_written_on), or, in
+ finish_musewonder.py's form, an installed engine upgrade's decisions
+ (upgrade_adjudications_written_on). With neither, the conventions are
+ release 20261013b's, unchanged.
+ """
+ require(
+ conventions.count(DATE_CONVENTIONS_BASE) == 1
+ and conventions.count(DATE_CONVENTIONS_ANCHOR) == 1,
+ "the record's date conventions are not release 20261013b's",
+ )
+ spec = load_spec()
+ days, sentence = [], ""
+ if spec_records(spec):
+ day = spec["decided_on"]
+ days.append(day)
+ sentence += (
+ f" The {day} wave's decisions {spec['wave_sentence']} and were written "
+ f"on {spec['adjudications_written_on']} UTC."
+ )
+ if wave is not None and not wave.upgrade:
+ written = spec.get("triage_adjudications_written_on")
+ require(
+ isinstance(written, str) and written.strip(),
+ f"{SPEC_PATH} names no triage_adjudications_written_on, the UTC day "
+ "this release's triage decisions were written",
+ )
+ require(wave.day not in days, f"the {wave.day} wave is named twice")
+ require(not wave.excludes, "a triage decision never excludes an output")
+ days.append(wave.day)
+ how = []
+ if wave.affirms:
+ how.append("affirming a reference the case's verdict flagged")
+ if wave.resolves:
+ how.append("resolving rows the judge gave a class outside the final set")
+ require(bool(how), f"the {wave.day} wave decides nothing")
+ sentence += (
+ f" The {wave.day} wave's decisions keep scored outputs on cases this "
+ f"release's new models re-opened, {' or '.join(how)}, and were "
+ f"written on {written} UTC."
+ )
+ elif wave is not None:
+ upgrade_written = spec.get("upgrade_adjudications_written_on")
+ require(
+ isinstance(upgrade_written, str) and upgrade_written.strip(),
+ f"{SPEC_PATH} names no upgrade_adjudications_written_on, the UTC day "
+ "the engine upgrade's decisions were written",
+ )
+ require(wave.day not in days, f"the {wave.day} wave is named twice")
+ days.append(wave.day)
+ upgrade = f"the {wave.day} engine upgrade of the references"
+ what = []
+ if wave.excludes:
+ what.append(
+ f"exclude the outputs {upgrade} moved onto an input the prompt "
+ "does not state"
+ )
+ if wave.affirms:
+ what.append(
+ f"affirm references {upgrade} changed, which a re-judged case's "
+ "verdict flagged"
+ )
+ require(bool(what), f"the {wave.day} wave decides nothing")
+ sentence += (
+ f" The {wave.day} wave's decisions {' and '.join(what)}, and were "
+ f"written on {upgrade_written} UTC."
+ )
+ if not days:
+ return conventions
+ require(
+ DATE_CONVENTIONS_BASE.count(DATE_CONVENTIONS_LAST_WAVE) == 1,
+ "the base conventions do not end their wave list on 2026-10-10",
+ )
+ named = ", ".join(["2026-10-10", *days[:-1]]) + f" or {days[-1]})"
+ waves = DATE_CONVENTIONS_BASE.replace(DATE_CONVENTIONS_LAST_WAVE, ", " + named)
+ conventions = conventions.replace(DATE_CONVENTIONS_BASE, waves)
+ return conventions.replace(
+ DATE_CONVENTIONS_ANCHOR, DATE_CONVENTIONS_ANCHOR + sentence
+ )
+
+
+def upgrade_decisions(upgrade, spec: dict | None = None) -> list[tuple[dict, dict]]:
+ """The (spec item, build record) pairs that decide the outputs an installed
+ engine upgrade newly excludes, in (scenario_id, variable) order.
+
+ docs/argon/spec.json's upgrade_adjudications holds one item per such
+ output, in the spec adjudications' shape (classes and reasoning); each
+ record is the build's, computed on the build's engine and decided on its
+ revision's day. Without an upgrade, or one that excludes nothing new, none;
+ the spec may then name none either.
+ """
+ spec = load_spec() if spec is None else spec
+ items = spec.get("upgrade_adjudications", [])
+ require(
+ isinstance(items, list) and all(isinstance(i, dict) for i in items),
+ "the spec's upgrade_adjudications is not a list of items",
+ )
+ if upgrade is None:
+ return []
+ added = upgrade.added
+ keys = [spec_key(item) for item in items]
+ if not added:
+ require(
+ not keys,
+ f"the spec's upgrade_adjudications names {sorted(keys)}, but the engine "
+ "upgrade newly excludes nothing",
+ )
+ return []
+ require(
+ len(set(keys)) == len(keys) and set(keys) == set(added),
+ "the spec's upgrade_adjudications must decide exactly the outputs the "
+ f"engine upgrade newly excludes: {sorted(added)}, not {sorted(keys)}",
+ )
+ records = {
+ spec_key(record): record
+ for record in json.loads(upgrade.exclusions_text)["exclusions"]
+ }
+ pairs = []
+ for item in sorted(items, key=spec_key):
+ record = records[spec_key(item)]
+ require(
+ record["engine_version"] == upgrade.engine_version
+ and record["decided_on"] == upgrade.revision["date"],
+ f"{spec_key(item)}: the build's record is not decided on its engine and "
+ "day",
+ )
+ pairs.append((item, record))
+ return pairs
+
+
+def upgrade_wave(added) -> str | None:
+ """The day the upgrade's newly excluded outputs were decided, if any."""
+ days = {record["decided_on"] for _, record in added}
+ require(len(days) <= 1, f"the upgrade's new records name several days: {days}")
+ return next(iter(days), None)
+
+
+def adjudicate_exclusions(args) -> None:
+ """Decide the ruled outputs in the staged record (after judge and restate).
+
+ With an engine upgrade installed it decides only the ruled outputs the
+ build keeps excluded, and drops the decisions of the release 20261013b
+ records the build regenerated, as release 20260922c dropped scenario_045
+ SNAP's (#178). Each drop is recorded in stage.json (adjudications_dropped)
+ before the record is written, so triage can hold the record to it.
+ """
+ from policybench.adjudications import parse_adjudications
+
+ path = args.stage_dir / "publish" / RUN_NAME / "annotations" / ADJUDICATIONS
+ record = json.loads(path.read_text())
+ upgrade = stage_upgrade(args.stage_dir)
+ regenerated = frozenset() if upgrade is None else upgrade.regenerated_ruled
+ added = upgrade_decisions(upgrade)
+ keys = {spec_key(item) for item in load_spec()["adjudications"]}
+ keys |= {spec_key(item) for item, _ in added}
+ require(
+ not any(
+ entry.get("excluded_from_scoring") and spec_key(entry) in keys - regenerated
+ for entry in record["adjudications"]
+ ),
+ "the ruled outputs are already decided in the staged record",
+ )
+ require(
+ not any(
+ entry.get("excluded_from_scoring") and spec_key(entry) in regenerated
+ for entry in record["adjudications"]
+ ),
+ "the staged record excludes ruled outputs the engine upgrade regenerated; "
+ "put the staged record back to release 20261013b's (from git at "
+ "BASE_COMMIT), then restate and decide again",
+ )
+ staged = exclusion_adjudications(
+ record,
+ args.stage_dir / "audit" / "cases",
+ regenerated,
+ added,
+ triage_items(upgrade),
+ )
+ parse_adjudications(staged, path)
+ path.write_text(record_text(staged))
+ decided = len(keys - regenerated)
+ print(f"Decided {decided} ruled outputs in {path}")
+
+
+def record_text(record: dict) -> str:
+ """An adjudication record as the committed file spells it."""
+ return json.dumps(record, indent=2, ensure_ascii=False) + "\n"
+
+
+def verify_record_form(text: str, base: dict, wave: DecisionWave | None = None) -> None:
+ """The staged record's bytes are exactly its parsed content, and its top
+ level other than the entries is release 20261013b's.
+
+ Duplicate keys, or any other bytes a parser drops, would ship in the
+ frozen file unseen by the entry gate; so would a rewritten note or date
+ convention.
+ """
+ record = json.loads(text)
+ require(
+ text == record_text(record),
+ "the staged adjudication record is not in the committed form (duplicate "
+ "keys or other bytes the entry gate cannot see); write it with "
+ "json.dumps(indent=2, ensure_ascii=False)",
+ )
+ expected = {k: v for k, v in base.items() if k != "adjudications"}
+ expected["date_conventions"] = release_date_conventions(
+ expected["date_conventions"], wave
+ )
+ require(
+ record_text({k: v for k, v in record.items() if k != "adjudications"})
+ == record_text(expected),
+ "the staged adjudication record changes its note, schema or date "
+ "conventions beyond naming this release's waves; only entries may change",
+ )
+
+
+def verify_restatements(
+ base: list[dict], staged: list[dict], rejudged: frozenset[str], cases_dir: Path
+) -> None:
+ """A re-opened entry's judge fields must be the restate script's.
+
+ Where they differ from 20261013b's, the entry must name the case's current
+ Opus 5.5 verdict (bound by its sidecar) as its judge, date it by that
+ sidecar's UTC day, and keep 20261013b's judge_previous with exactly one
+ item appended: the replaced verdict, which is the one 20261013b's entry
+ names (its judge, classes, flag and day are its seed verdict's, as the
+ sha256-bound sidecar records it). A new entry must name the current judge
+ too.
+ """
+ from restate_gpt61sol_adjudications import JUDGE_FIELDS, _utc_day, named_item
+
+ before = {case_id(entry): entry for entry in base}
+ wrong = []
+ for entry in staged:
+ case = case_id(entry)
+ if case not in rejudged:
+ continue
+ original = before.get(case)
+ judge = {k: v for k, v in entry.items() if k in JUDGE_FIELDS}
+ if original is not None and judge == {
+ k: v for k, v in original.items() if k in JUDGE_FIELDS
+ }:
+ continue
+ verdict = cases_dir / case / "verdict.json"
+ meta_path = verdict.with_name("verdict.meta.json")
+ meta = json.loads(meta_path.read_text()) if meta_path.is_file() else {}
+ bound = verdict.is_file() and meta.get("verdict_sha256") == digest(verdict)
+ day = _utc_day(meta["judged_at_utc"]) if meta.get("judged_at_utc") else None
+ problems = []
+ if not bound or entry.get("judge_model") != JUDGE_MODEL:
+ problems.append("judge is not the current Opus 5.5 verdict")
+ if original is not None:
+ previous = original.get("judge_previous", [])
+ restated = entry.get("judge_previous", [])
+ if len(restated) != len(previous) + 1 or restated[:-1] != previous:
+ problems.append("judge_previous is not 20261013b's plus one item")
+ elif restated[-1] != named_item(original):
+ problems.append(
+ "the appended judge_previous item is not the verdict "
+ "20261013b's entry names"
+ )
+ if (
+ entry.get("judge_rejudged_on") != day
+ or entry.get("judged_on_utc", day) != day
+ ):
+ problems.append(f"not dated by the current verdict's day {day}")
+ if problems:
+ wrong.append(f"{case}: {'; '.join(problems)}")
+ require(
+ not wrong,
+ f"re-opened adjudications not restated by the restate script: {wrong[:4]}",
+ )
+
+
+def rejudged_cases(stage: Path) -> frozenset[str]:
+ """The cases a new model re-opened: prompt-changes.json's changed and added.
+
+ load_seed re-derives prompt-changes.json from the stage's prompts and the
+ seed stage.json binds, so the lists cannot drift from the stage.
+ """
+ load_seed(stage)
+ changes = json.loads((stage / PROMPT_CHANGES).read_text())
+ return frozenset(changes["changed"]) | frozenset(changes["added"])
+
+
+def case_id(entry: dict) -> str:
+ """An adjudication entry's audit case id."""
+ return f"{entry['country']}__{entry['scenario_id']}__{entry['variable']}"
+
+
+# The only published wording an amendment may change, and where it lives: the
+# decision's reasoning in the adjudication record, the case note, and one
+# model's row annotation. None of them carries a class, an exclusion or a score.
+AMENDABLE_FIELDS = {
+ "reasoning": "adjudication record",
+ "case_annotation": "case note",
+ "annotation": "row annotation",
+}
+
+
+def load_amendments(stage: Path, rejudged: frozenset[str]) -> list[dict]:
+ """The stage's wording-only amendments, each checked for shape and scope.
+
+ Each names a case a new model re-opened, a wording field, the exact old
+ text, the new text and the reason; a row annotation also names its model.
+ An absent file lists none.
+ """
+ path = stage / AMENDMENTS
+ if not path.exists():
+ return []
+ payload = json.loads(path.read_text())
+ amendments = payload.get("amendments") if isinstance(payload, dict) else None
+ require(isinstance(amendments, list), f"{AMENDMENTS}: 'amendments' is not a list")
+ for item in amendments:
+ require(isinstance(item, dict), f"{AMENDMENTS}: {item!r} is not an object")
+ field = item.get("field")
+ require(
+ field in AMENDABLE_FIELDS,
+ f"{AMENDMENTS}: field {field!r} is not wording; only "
+ f"{sorted(AMENDABLE_FIELDS)} may be amended",
+ )
+ keys = {"case_id", "field", "old", "new", "reason"}
+ if field == "annotation":
+ keys.add("model")
+ require(
+ set(item) == keys,
+ f"{AMENDMENTS}: an amendment of {field} has keys {sorted(keys)}, "
+ f"not {sorted(item)}",
+ )
+ require(
+ item["case_id"] in rejudged,
+ f"{AMENDMENTS}: {item['case_id']} was not re-judged in this stage",
+ )
+ for key in ("old", "new", "reason", *(("model",) if "model" in keys else ())):
+ require(
+ isinstance(item[key], str) and item[key].strip(),
+ f"{AMENDMENTS}: {key} must be non-empty text: {item!r}",
+ )
+ require(
+ item["old"] != item["new"],
+ f"{AMENDMENTS}: an amendment changes nothing: {item!r}",
+ )
+ return amendments
+
+
+def amend_text(text: str, amendments: list[dict], label: str) -> str:
+ """``text`` with each amendment's old wording, found exactly once, replaced."""
+ for item in amendments:
+ count = text.count(item["old"])
+ require(
+ count == 1,
+ f"{label}: the old text of a wording amendment occurs {count} times, "
+ f"not once: {item['old'][:80]!r}",
+ )
+ text = text.replace(item["old"], item["new"])
+ return text
+
+
+def _record_amendments(amendments: list[dict]) -> dict[str, list[dict]]:
+ """The amendments of the adjudication record, by case."""
+ grouped: dict[str, list[dict]] = {}
+ for item in amendments:
+ if item["field"] == "reasoning":
+ grouped.setdefault(item["case_id"], []).append(item)
+ return grouped
+
+
+def ruled_adjudication_problems(
+ before: dict[str, dict],
+ after: dict[str, dict],
+ cases_dir: Path,
+ regenerated: frozenset = frozenset(),
+ added: list[tuple[dict, dict]] | tuple = (),
+ triage: list[dict] | tuple = (),
+) -> list[str]:
+ """Where the staged decisions on the ten ruled outputs are not exactly what
+ exclusion_entry builds: a new one from its case's bound verdict, and
+ scenario_051's from its release 20261013b entry with the judge fields the
+ restate script gave it.
+
+ A ruled output an installed engine upgrade regenerated (``regenerated``)
+ is scored again: no staged decision may exclude it, and any other decision
+ on it is an ordinary re-opened case's (verify_adjudication_changes). Each
+ output the upgrade newly excludes (``added``, upgrade_decisions) must have
+ exactly the new entry exclusion_entry builds from its item, its build
+ record and its case's bound verdict, dated by the record."""
+ from restate_gpt61sol_adjudications import JUDGE_FIELDS
+
+ spec = load_spec()
+ records = {spec_key(r): r for r in spec_records(spec)}
+ problems = []
+ for item in spec["adjudications"]:
+ k = spec_key(item)
+ case = f"us__{k[0]}__{k[1]}"
+ if k in regenerated:
+ if after.get(case, {}).get("excluded_from_scoring"):
+ problems.append(
+ f"{case}: the engine upgrade regenerated this output, so no "
+ "decision may exclude it"
+ )
+ continue
+ if case not in after:
+ problems.append(f"{case}: no staged decision")
+ continue
+ base = before.get(case)
+ if base is not None:
+ # The staged entry before the ruling: release 20261013b's decision
+ # fields and reasoning, with the judge fields the restate script
+ # wrote. Outside the judge fields it must be 20261013b's entry.
+ staged = after[case]
+ pre = {
+ name: value if name in JUDGE_FIELDS else base[name]
+ for name, value in staged.items()
+ if name in base or name in JUDGE_FIELDS
+ }
+
+ def outside_judge(entry: dict) -> list:
+ return [[n, v] for n, v in entry.items() if n not in JUDGE_FIELDS]
+
+ if outside_judge(pre) != outside_judge(base):
+ problems.append(f"{case}: fields moved outside the ruling")
+ continue
+ base = pre
+ expected = exclusion_entry(base, item, records[k], cases_dir / case)
+ if json.dumps(after[case], ensure_ascii=False) != json.dumps(
+ expected, ensure_ascii=False
+ ):
+ problems.append(f"{case}: differs from the ruling's entry")
+ for item, record in added:
+ k = spec_key(item)
+ case = f"us__{k[0]}__{k[1]}"
+ if case in before:
+ problems.append(f"{case}: release 20261013b already decides it")
+ continue
+ if case not in after:
+ problems.append(f"{case}: no staged decision")
+ continue
+ expected = exclusion_entry(
+ None, item, record, cases_dir / case, adjudicated_on=record["decided_on"]
+ )
+ if json.dumps(after[case], ensure_ascii=False) != json.dumps(
+ expected, ensure_ascii=False
+ ):
+ problems.append(f"{case}: differs from the upgrade's entry")
+ for item in triage:
+ k = spec_key(item)
+ case = f"us__{k[0]}__{k[1]}"
+ if case not in after:
+ problems.append(f"{case}: no staged triage decision")
+ continue
+ expected = triage_entry(item, cases_dir / case)
+ if json.dumps(after[case], ensure_ascii=False) != json.dumps(
+ expected, ensure_ascii=False
+ ):
+ problems.append(f"{case}: differs from the triage decision's entry")
+ return problems
+
+
+def verify_adjudication_changes(
+ base: list[dict],
+ staged: list[dict],
+ rejudged: frozenset[str],
+ amendments: list[dict],
+ cases_dir: Path,
+ *,
+ regenerated: frozenset = frozenset(),
+ dropped: frozenset[str] = frozenset(),
+ added: list[tuple[dict, dict]] | tuple = (),
+ triage: list[dict] | tuple = (),
+) -> int:
+ """A staged record differs from 20261013b's only where it has a reason to.
+
+ Only a case a new model re-opened (``rejudged``) may change, and only in
+ its judge fields (the restate script's JUDGE_FIELDS) and in the reasoning
+ wording the listed amendments change, exactly as they say. Every other
+ field of every committed entry keeps its value and its place, key order
+ included, and the committed entries keep their order. A new entry must be
+ one the spec lists (a ruled or triage decision), and none may be dropped.
+ Returns how many staged entries are new beyond those: always 0, since any
+ is refused.
+
+ With an engine upgrade installed, ``regenerated`` names the ruled outputs
+ it regenerated (no longer decided as ruled) and ``dropped`` the cases of
+ the release 20261013b records it regenerated: exactly those decisions must
+ be gone, and every other one stays. ``added`` (upgrade_decisions) decides
+ the outputs it newly excludes, gated as the ruled outputs are.
+ """
+ from restate_gpt61sol_adjudications import JUDGE_FIELDS
+
+ def serialized(entry: dict, rejudged_case: bool) -> str:
+ # A re-opened case may rewrite its judge fields; nothing else may move.
+ items = [
+ [key, value]
+ for key, value in entry.items()
+ if not (rejudged_case and key in JUDGE_FIELDS)
+ ]
+ return json.dumps(items, ensure_ascii=False, allow_nan=False)
+
+ before = {case_id(entry): entry for entry in base}
+ after = {case_id(entry): entry for entry in staged}
+ ruled = ruled_adjudication_problems(
+ before, after, cases_dir, regenerated, added, triage
+ )
+ triage_cases = {f"us__{k[0]}__{k[1]}" for k in map(spec_key, triage)}
+ require(
+ triage_cases <= rejudged,
+ "triage decisions name cases this stage did not re-open: "
+ f"{sorted(triage_cases - rejudged)[:8]}",
+ )
+ require(
+ not (triage_cases & set(before)) or triage_cases & set(before) <= dropped,
+ "a triage decision replaces a recorded decision: "
+ f"{sorted((triage_cases & set(before)) - dropped)[:8]}",
+ )
+ require(not ruled, f"Staged adjudications of the ruled outputs: {ruled[:8]}")
+ ruled_cases = {
+ f"us__{k[0]}__{k[1]}"
+ for k in (spec_key(item) for item in load_spec()["adjudications"])
+ if k not in regenerated
+ } | {f"us__{k[0]}__{k[1]}" for k in (spec_key(item) for item, _ in added)}
+ ruled_cases |= triage_cases
+ stray = sorted(dropped - set(before))
+ require(
+ not stray,
+ f"Staged adjudications drop decisions release 20261013b lacks: {stray[:8]}",
+ )
+ # A regenerated record's decision is gone; a triage decision may affirm the
+ # regenerated reference in its place (it is in ruled_cases, gated above).
+ kept = sorted((dropped & set(after)) - triage_cases)
+ require(
+ not kept,
+ "Staged adjudications keep the decisions of records the engine upgrade "
+ f"regenerated; run --step adjudicate-exclusions: {kept[:8]}",
+ )
+ before = {
+ case: entry
+ for case, entry in before.items()
+ if case not in ruled_cases and case not in dropped
+ }
+ after = {case: entry for case, entry in after.items() if case not in ruled_cases}
+ dropped = sorted(set(before) - set(after))
+ require(not dropped, f"Staged adjudications drop recorded decisions: {dropped}")
+ new = sorted(set(after) - set(before))
+ require(
+ set(new) <= rejudged,
+ "Staged adjudications add decisions on cases no new model "
+ f"re-opened: {sorted(set(new) - rejudged)[:8]}",
+ )
+ # The only new decisions this release makes are the spec's (ruled and
+ # triage, gated above as ruled_cases); any other would bypass the triage
+ # restrictions, an affirmation of an unflagged reference among them.
+ require(
+ not new,
+ "Staged adjudications add decisions the spec does not list: "
+ f"{new[:8]}; a new decision goes in docs/argon/spec.json's "
+ "triage_adjudications",
+ )
+ require(
+ [case for case in after if case in before] == list(before),
+ "Staged adjudications change the committed entry order",
+ )
+ grouped = _record_amendments(amendments)
+ require(
+ set(grouped) <= set(before),
+ f"Wording amendments name cases with no recorded decision: "
+ f"{sorted(set(grouped) - set(before))}",
+ )
+ changed = []
+ for case, entry in before.items():
+ if case in grouped:
+ entry = {
+ **entry,
+ "reasoning": amend_text(
+ entry["reasoning"], grouped[case], f"{case} reasoning"
+ ),
+ }
+ reopened = case in rejudged
+ if serialized(after[case], reopened) != serialized(entry, reopened):
+ changed.append(case)
+ require(
+ not changed,
+ "Staged adjudications change recorded decisions beyond the re-judged "
+ f"cases' judge fields and the listed wording amendments: {changed[:8]}",
+ )
+ return len(new)
+
+
+def stage_adjudications(
+ path: Path,
+ rejudged: frozenset[str],
+ amendments: list[dict],
+ cases_dir: Path,
+ *,
+ regenerated: frozenset = frozenset(),
+ dropped: frozenset[str] = frozenset(),
+ added: list[tuple[dict, dict]] | tuple = (),
+ triage: list[dict] | tuple = (),
+) -> list[dict]:
+ """The staged record, with its listed reasoning amendments applied.
+
+ Checked in memory against release 20261013b's record (from git) and the
+ stage's verdicts; written back only when an amendment was not applied yet.
+ ``regenerated``, ``dropped`` and ``added`` describe an installed engine
+ upgrade (verify_adjudication_changes).
+ """
+ from freeze_snapshot import verify_adjudications_keep_judge_verdicts
+
+ from policybench.adjudications import parse_adjudications
+
+ base_record = base_adjudication_record()
+ base = base_adjudications()
+ current = path.read_text()
+ wave = decision_wave(added, triage)
+ verify_record_form(current, base_record, wave)
+ record = json.loads(current)
+ grouped = _record_amendments(amendments)
+ original = {case_id(entry): entry for entry in base}
+ applied = False
+ for entry in record["adjudications"]:
+ case = case_id(entry)
+ if case in grouped and case in original:
+ wording = original[case]["reasoning"]
+ if entry["reasoning"] == wording:
+ entry["reasoning"] = amend_text(
+ wording, grouped[case], f"{case} reasoning"
+ )
+ applied = True
+ text = record_text(record)
+ verify_record_form(text, base_record, wave)
+ entries = parse_adjudications(json.loads(text), path)
+ verify_adjudication_changes(
+ base,
+ entries,
+ rejudged,
+ amendments,
+ cases_dir,
+ regenerated=regenerated,
+ dropped=dropped,
+ added=added,
+ triage=triage,
+ )
+ # A dropped decision is gone, so an entry on its case is new, not restated.
+ verify_restatements(
+ [entry for entry in base if case_id(entry) not in dropped],
+ entries,
+ rejudged,
+ cases_dir,
+ )
+ verify_adjudications_keep_judge_verdicts(entries, cases_dir)
+ if applied:
+ pending = path.with_name(path.name + ".amending")
+ pending.write_text(text)
+ os.replace(pending, path)
+ return entries
+
+
+def amend_annotations(rows, cases, amendments: list[dict]) -> None:
+ """Apply the listed case-note and row-annotation amendments in place.
+
+ Each must find exactly one row, and its old text exactly once in it.
+ """
+ for item in amendments:
+ if item["field"] == "reasoning":
+ continue
+ country, scenario, variable = item["case_id"].split("__", 2)
+ frame = cases if item["field"] == "case_annotation" else rows
+ mask = (
+ (frame["country"].astype(str) == country)
+ & (frame["scenario_id"].astype(str) == scenario)
+ & (frame["variable"].astype(str) == variable)
+ )
+ if item["field"] == "annotation":
+ mask &= frame["model"].astype(str) == item["model"]
+ require(
+ int(mask.sum()) == 1,
+ f"a wording amendment of {item['case_id']} {item['field']} "
+ f"matches {int(mask.sum())} rows, not one",
+ )
+ index = frame.index[mask][0]
+ frame.loc[index, item["field"]] = amend_text(
+ str(frame.loc[index, item["field"]]),
+ [item],
+ f"{item['case_id']} {item['field']}",
+ )
+
+
+def annotation_csv_text(frame) -> str:
+ """The bytes triage writes for the row annotations or the case notes, and
+ the freeze rebuilds: every column, in collect_audit's row order."""
+ return frame.to_csv(index=False)
+
+
+def resolve_live_base(args) -> dict:
+ """The 20261013b payload an export compares the incumbents against.
+
+ Before the freeze the live pointer and the committed snapshot are
+ 20261013b's, and resolve_base checks all of them. After the freeze they are
+ this release's own, so a re-export (after a fix to the staged annotations)
+ reads the 20261013b run payload from BASE_COMMIT instead and checks that it
+ rewraps to the 20261013b release asset (BASE_SHA256). Any other pointer is
+ refused.
+ """
+ pointer = live_pointer()
+ if pointer["tag"] == BASE_TAG:
+ return resolve_base(args)[2]
+ require(
+ pointer["tag"] == RELEASE_TAG,
+ "base pointer changed; review the base before staging",
+ )
+ return base_payload_from_commit()
+
+
+def resolved_model_id(route: str) -> str:
+ """The model id a provider's responses report for a registry route.
+
+ OpenRouter reports its own id, the route after "openrouter/" (Muse
+ Wonder's rows say "meta/muse-wonder"); a first-party provider reports the
+ bare model id, the route's last segment (Gemini 4 Argon's rows say
+ "gemini-4-argon").
+ """
+ if route.startswith("openrouter/"):
+ return route.removeprefix("openrouter/")
+ return route.split("/")[-1]
+
+
+def prepare_inputs(args, runs, base, reference) -> tuple[Path, dict]:
+ """Copy immutable inputs and fold full or explicitly partial cohorts."""
+ import pandas as pd
+
+ from policybench.config import MODELS as registry
+ from policybench.config import PRICE_OVERRIDES_PER_1M
+ from policybench.fold_board import fold_board
+
+ stage = args.stage_dir
+ frames = {}
+ provenance = {}
+ for run in runs:
+ frame = pd.read_csv(run.predictions, low_memory=False)
+ if args.partial:
+ frame = frame.drop(columns=["raw_response"], errors="ignore")
+ households = set(frame.scenario_id)
+ require(
+ len(households) == run.state["total"],
+ f"state/CSV household mismatch: {run.model}",
+ )
+ require(
+ households <= set(reference.scenario_id), f"unknown households: {run.model}"
+ )
+ validate_keys(
+ frame, reference[reference.scenario_id.isin(households)], run.model
+ )
+ require(
+ run.model in registry and run.model in PRICE_OVERRIDES_PER_1M,
+ f"missing model registration/pricing: {run.model}",
+ )
+ if not args.partial:
+ require(
+ run.state["total"] == 100 and households == set(reference.scenario_id),
+ f"full release requires 100 households: {run.model}",
+ )
+ require(
+ not run.state.get("synthetic_partial"),
+ "synthetic run state is partial only",
+ )
+ fingerprint = run.state.get("treatment_fingerprint")
+ require(
+ isinstance(fingerprint, dict)
+ and fingerprint.get("model_id") == registry[run.model],
+ f"missing/mismatched treatment fingerprint: {run.model}",
+ )
+ import freeze_snapshot as freezer
+ from freeze_gpt61sol import validate_treatment
+
+ validate_treatment(
+ freezer,
+ run.state,
+ run.run_dir / "run_state.json",
+ SNAPSHOT / "scenarios.csv",
+ )
+ for field in (
+ "estimated_cost_usd",
+ "total_tokens",
+ "provider_resolved_model",
+ "provider_response_id",
+ ):
+ require(
+ field in frame and frame[field].notna().all(),
+ f"missing {field}: {run.model}",
+ )
+ expected_provider = resolved_model_id(registry[run.model])
+ require(
+ set(frame.provider_resolved_model) == {expected_provider},
+ f"unexpected provider-resolved model: {run.model}",
+ )
+ target = stage / "inputs" / run.slug
+ target.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
+ shutil.copyfile(run.predictions, target / "predictions.csv")
+ shutil.copyfile(run.run_dir / "run_state.json", target / "run_state.json")
+ frames[run.model] = frame
+ provenance[run.model] = {
+ "households": len(households),
+ "rows": len(frame),
+ "predictions_sha256": digest(target / "predictions.csv"),
+ "treatment_fingerprint": run.state.get("treatment_fingerprint"),
+ "provider_resolved_models": sorted(
+ frame.provider_resolved_model.dropna().unique()
+ ),
+ "provider_system_fingerprints": sorted(
+ frame.get("provider_system_fingerprint", pd.Series(dtype=str))
+ .dropna()
+ .unique()
+ ),
+ }
+ shared = set.intersection(*(set(frame.scenario_id) for frame in frames.values()))
+ require(bool(shared), "no households completed by every addition")
+ selected = (
+ reference[reference.scenario_id.isin(shared)] if args.partial else reference
+ )
+ scoring = stage / "scoring"
+ scoring.mkdir(exist_ok=True)
+ for name in REFERENCE_FILES:
+ shutil.copyfile(SNAPSHOT / name, scoring / name)
+ if args.partial:
+ selected.to_csv(scoring / "reference_outputs.csv", index=False)
+ meta = json.loads((scoring / "reference_outputs.csv.meta.json").read_text())
+ meta.update(
+ reference_csv_sha256=digest(scoring / "reference_outputs.csv"),
+ row_count=len(selected),
+ partial=True,
+ )
+ write_json(scoring / "reference_outputs.csv.meta.json", meta)
+ scenarios = pd.read_csv(scoring / "scenarios.csv")
+ scenarios[scenarios.scenario_id.isin(shared)].to_csv(
+ scoring / "scenarios.csv", index=False
+ )
+ exclusions = json.loads((scoring / "reference_exclusions.json").read_text())
+ exclusions["exclusions"] = [
+ e for e in exclusions["exclusions"] if e["scenario_id"] in shared
+ ]
+ write_json(scoring / "reference_exclusions.json", exclusions)
+ base = base[base.scenario_id.isin(shared)]
+ else:
+ verify_reference_pins(scoring, "staged reference")
+ base_path = stage / "base-predictions.csv"
+ base.to_csv(base_path, index=False)
+ additions = []
+ for run in runs:
+ path = stage / "inputs" / run.slug / "fold.csv"
+ frames[run.model][frames[run.model].scenario_id.isin(shared)].to_csv(
+ path, index=False
+ )
+ additions.append(path)
+ result = fold_board(base_path, additions, scoring, stage / "fold", export=False)
+ require(
+ not result["excluded"] and result["models"] == BOARD_MODELS,
+ f"fold refused additions: {result}",
+ )
+ bundle = stage / "publish" / RUN_NAME
+ us = bundle / "us"
+ us.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
+ require(
+ not (us / "by_model").exists(), "by_model would shadow combined predictions"
+ )
+ shutil.copyfile(stage / "fold/us/predictions.csv", us / "predictions.csv")
+ for name in REFERENCE_FILES:
+ shutil.copyfile(scoring / name, us / name)
+ annotations = bundle / "annotations"
+ annotations.mkdir(exist_ok=True)
+ for name in ANNOTATION_FILES:
+ # Re-preparing must not overwrite a recorded stage adjudication.
+ if not (annotations / name).exists():
+ shutil.copyfile(ANNOTATIONS / name, annotations / name)
+ write_json(stage / "model-provenance.json", provenance)
+ return bundle, frames
+
+
+def partial_scores(args, base, reference, frames) -> None:
+ """Rank each addition against incumbents on its own completed households."""
+ import pandas as pd
+
+ from policybench.analysis import analyze_no_tools
+ from policybench.reference_exclusions import (
+ load_reference_exclusions,
+ split_reference,
+ )
+
+ scored, _ = split_reference(reference, load_reference_exclusions(SNAPSHOT))
+ scenarios = pd.read_csv(SNAPSHOT / "scenarios.csv")
+ results = []
+ for model, frame in frames.items():
+ ids = set(frame.scenario_id)
+ cohort = pd.concat([base[base.scenario_id.isin(ids)], frame], ignore_index=True)
+ analysis = analyze_no_tools(
+ scored[scored.scenario_id.isin(ids)],
+ cohort,
+ scenarios=scenarios[scenarios.scenario_id.isin(ids)],
+ )
+ stats = analysis["bounded_summary"].set_index("model")
+ exact = float(stats.loc[model, "weighted_exact"])
+ rank = 1 + int((stats.weighted_exact > exact).sum())
+ result = {
+ "label": "PARTIAL",
+ "model": model,
+ "households": len(ids),
+ "scored_outputs": int(scored.scenario_id.isin(ids).sum()),
+ "exact_percent": exact * 100,
+ "rank": rank,
+ "models": len(stats),
+ }
+ results.append(result)
+ print(json.dumps(result))
+ write_json(args.stage_dir / "partial-scores.json", results)
+
+
+def seed_prompt_digests(audit: Path) -> dict[str, str]:
+ """The sha256 of every prompt a case carries, keyed by case id."""
+ return {
+ case.name: digest(case / "prompt.md")
+ for case in sorted((audit / "cases").glob("*"))
+ if (case / "prompt.md").is_file()
+ }
+
+
+def seed_digest(audit: Path) -> dict[str, dict[str, str]]:
+ """Each judged case's prompt and verdict sha256, keyed by case id."""
+ seed = {}
+ for case in sorted((audit / "cases").glob("*")):
+ if not (case / "prompt.md").is_file():
+ continue
+ require((case / "verdict.json").is_file(), f"seed case unjudged: {case.name}")
+ seed[case.name] = {
+ "prompt_sha256": digest(case / "prompt.md"),
+ "verdict_sha256": digest(case / "verdict.json"),
+ }
+ return seed
+
+
+def seed_digest_text(seed: dict[str, dict[str, str]]) -> str:
+ """The seed digest as docs/argon/seed_digest.csv spells it."""
+ rows = [
+ f"{case},{item['prompt_sha256']},{item['verdict_sha256']}\n"
+ for case, item in sorted(seed.items())
+ ]
+ return "case_id,prompt_sha256,verdict_sha256\n" + "".join(rows)
+
+
+def verify_seed(seed: dict[str, dict[str, str]]) -> None:
+ """The seed must be the 20261013b audit the committed digest records."""
+ require(
+ hashlib.sha256(seed_digest_text(seed).encode()).hexdigest()
+ == SEED_DIGEST_SHA256,
+ "the audit seed is not release 20261013b's (see docs/argon/"
+ "seed_digest.csv): its cases, prompts or verdicts differ",
+ )
+
+
+def load_seed(stage: Path) -> dict[str, dict[str, str]]:
+ """The seed stage.json binds, checked against the committed digest.
+
+ It also re-derives which cases are kept, changed and added from the
+ stage's prompts and that seed, and refuses unless prompt-changes.json
+ says the same: a kept case's prompt that drifts, a case moved between
+ the lists, or a manifest whose wrong models the staged predictions do not
+ bear out, stops every step that relies on them.
+ """
+ receipt = json.loads((stage / "stage.json").read_text())
+ require(
+ "seed" in receipt,
+ "stage.json does not bind the audit seed; run --step bind-seed "
+ "--audit-seed ",
+ )
+ verify_seed(receipt["seed"])
+ verify_prompt_changes(stage, receipt["seed"])
+ return receipt["seed"]
+
+
+def verify_prompt_changes(stage: Path, seed: dict[str, dict[str, str]]) -> None:
+ """prompt-changes.json must be what the stage's prompts say against the seed.
+
+ A case whose prompt is the seed's is kept, one whose prompt differs is
+ changed and one the seed lacks is added; a new model must be among the
+ wrong models of every changed or added case, and no seed case may vanish
+ (check_prompt_changes, as prepare applies it). With an engine upgrade
+ installed, a case whose reference value or explanation the installed
+ revision changed may change or appear without it (upgraded_cases, derived
+ from the staged files against release 20261013b's in git). The staged
+ predictions must agree (verify_reopened_by_predictions).
+ """
+ derived = check_prompt_changes(
+ stage / "audit",
+ {case: item["prompt_sha256"] for case, item in seed.items()},
+ upgraded=frozenset(),
+ )
+ recorded = json.loads((stage / PROMPT_CHANGES).read_text())
+ differ = sorted(
+ {
+ case
+ for key in ("kept", "changed", "added")
+ for case in set(derived[key]) ^ set(recorded.get(key, []))
+ }
+ )
+ require(
+ not differ,
+ f"{PROMPT_CHANGES} disagrees with the stage's prompts and the bound "
+ f"seed on {len(differ)} cases: {differ[:8]}",
+ )
+ verify_reopened_by_predictions(stage, derived)
+
+
+def verify_reopened_by_predictions(stage: Path, derived: dict[str, list]) -> None:
+ """The manifest's claim that a new model re-opened a case must hold.
+
+ cases.jsonl is editable, so re-score the staged predictions against the
+ staged references with wrong_prediction_rows, the rule prepare_audit
+ used to list each case's wrong models. A changed or added case must list
+ the new model exactly when its prediction is wrong; any other case it
+ gets wrong must be parse-failure-only as the manifest records it, so a
+ kept case needs the new model's prediction right. The staged references
+ are the installed engine upgrade's when one is installed, so a case the
+ upgrade re-opened without the new model (its prediction right on the new
+ reference) passes, and one the upgrade made it miss must list it.
+ """
+ from policybench.audit import _case_id, _load_manifest
+ from policybench.case_annotations import wrong_prediction_rows
+
+ us = stage / "publish" / RUN_NAME / "us"
+ wrong = wrong_prediction_rows(us)
+ manifest = _load_manifest(stage / "audit")
+ reopened = {*derived["changed"], *derived["added"]}
+ parse_only = {case for case, row in manifest.items() if row["parse_failure_only"]}
+ differ = set()
+ for model in MODELS.values():
+ rows = wrong[wrong.model == model]
+ missed = {
+ _case_id(us.name, str(scenario), str(variable))
+ for scenario, variable in zip(rows.scenario_id, rows.variable)
+ }
+ differ |= {
+ case
+ for case in reopened
+ if (model in manifest[case]["wrong_models"]) != (case in missed)
+ }
+ differ |= missed - reopened - parse_only
+ require(
+ not differ,
+ f"the audit manifest's wrong models disagree with the staged "
+ f"predictions of {sorted(MODELS.values())} on {len(differ)} cases: "
+ f"{sorted(differ)[:8]}",
+ )
+
+
+def bind_seed(args) -> None:
+ """Bind the seed in the stage.json of a stage prepared before prepare did.
+
+ The seed must match the committed digest, and the stage must agree with it
+ case by case: every kept case keeps the seed's prompt and verdict bytes,
+ every changed case's prompt differs, and no added case is a seed case.
+ """
+ receipt_path = args.stage_dir / "stage.json"
+ receipt = json.loads(receipt_path.read_text())
+ require("seed" not in receipt, "stage.json already binds its audit seed")
+ require(args.audit_seed is not None, "bind-seed needs --audit-seed")
+ seed = seed_digest(args.audit_seed)
+ verify_seed(seed)
+ changes = json.loads((args.stage_dir / PROMPT_CHANGES).read_text())
+ cases = args.stage_dir / "audit" / "cases"
+ differ = [
+ case
+ for case in changes["kept"]
+ if case not in seed
+ or not (cases / case / "verdict.json").is_file()
+ or digest(cases / case / "prompt.md") != seed[case]["prompt_sha256"]
+ or digest(cases / case / "verdict.json") != seed[case]["verdict_sha256"]
+ ]
+ differ += [
+ case
+ for case in changes["changed"]
+ if case not in seed
+ or digest(cases / case / "prompt.md") == seed[case]["prompt_sha256"]
+ ]
+ differ += [case for case in changes["added"] if case in seed]
+ differ += sorted(set(seed) - {*changes["kept"], *changes["changed"]})
+ require(
+ not differ,
+ f"the stage disagrees with the seed on {len(differ)} cases: {differ[:8]}",
+ )
+ receipt["seed"] = seed
+ write_json(receipt_path, receipt)
+ print(f"Bound the audit seed: {len(seed)} judged cases")
+
+
+def reworded_since_seed() -> frozenset[str]:
+ """The cases whose committed reference explanation differs between the
+ seed's release (SEED_RELEASE_COMMIT) and the base (BASE_COMMIT).
+
+ Refuses unless they are exactly REWORDED_SINCE_SEED, so a change to any
+ other explanation since the seed stops prepare instead of re-opening a
+ case nobody reviewed.
+ """
+ import io
+
+ import pandas as pd
+
+ def explanations(commit: str) -> dict[tuple[str, str], tuple]:
+ result = subprocess.run(
+ ["git", "-C", str(ROOT), "show", f"{commit}:{REFERENCE_EXPLANATIONS}"],
+ capture_output=True,
+ )
+ require(
+ result.returncode == 0,
+ f"cannot read {REFERENCE_EXPLANATIONS} at {commit[:12]}: "
+ f"{result.stderr.decode().strip()}",
+ )
+ frame = pd.read_csv(io.BytesIO(result.stdout), dtype=str, keep_default_na=False)
+ return {
+ (row.scenario_id, row.variable): tuple(row)
+ for row in frame.itertuples(index=False)
+ }
+
+ before = explanations(SEED_RELEASE_COMMIT)
+ after = explanations(BASE_COMMIT)
+ require(set(before) == set(after), "explanation keys changed since the seed")
+ derived = frozenset(
+ f"us__{scenario}__{variable}"
+ for (scenario, variable), row in after.items()
+ if before[(scenario, variable)] != row
+ )
+ require(
+ derived == REWORDED_SINCE_SEED,
+ "reference explanations changed since the seed outside the pinned "
+ f"set: {sorted(derived ^ REWORDED_SINCE_SEED)}",
+ )
+ return derived
+
+
+def check_prompt_changes(
+ audit: Path, seeded: dict[str, str], upgraded: frozenset[str] = frozenset()
+) -> dict[str, list]:
+ """Only a case a new model joins, or one release 20261013b reworded,
+ may change or appear.
+
+ The seed's prompts re-render byte-identically from release 20261013b's
+ committed snapshot (SEED_RELEASE_COMMIT) and the pinned grounding, so an
+ incumbent-only case whose prompt differs (or that is new) means an input
+ changed under the
+ carried-over verdicts, unless its reference explanation is one release
+ 20261013b reworded (reworded_since_seed), or its reference value or
+ explanation is one an installed engine upgrade changed (``upgraded``,
+ upgraded_cases); that case is re-judged.
+ """
+ manifest = [
+ json.loads(line) for line in (audit / "cases.jsonl").read_text().splitlines()
+ ]
+ prompts = {
+ item["case_id"]: digest(audit / "cases" / item["case_id"] / "prompt.md")
+ for item in manifest
+ if not item["parse_failure_only"]
+ }
+ return classify_prompt_changes(
+ manifest, prompts, seeded, reworded_since_seed(), upgraded
+ )
+
+
+def classify_prompt_changes(
+ manifest: list[dict],
+ prompts: dict[str, str],
+ seeded: dict[str, str],
+ reworded: frozenset[str],
+ upgraded: frozenset[str] = frozenset(),
+) -> dict[str, list]:
+ """check_prompt_changes' rule on a manifest and its prompts' sha256.
+
+ install-references applies it to the audit it is about to write, so it
+ refuses before it writes anything.
+ """
+ new_models = set(MODELS.values())
+ changed, added, kept, offending = [], [], [], []
+ for item in manifest:
+ if item["parse_failure_only"]:
+ continue
+ case_id = item["case_id"]
+ prompt = prompts[case_id]
+ if seeded.get(case_id) == prompt:
+ kept.append(case_id)
+ continue
+ (changed if case_id in seeded else added).append(case_id)
+ if (
+ not new_models & set(item["wrong_models"])
+ and case_id not in reworded
+ and case_id not in upgraded
+ ):
+ offending.append(case_id)
+ require(
+ not offending,
+ "incumbent-only case prompts changed against the seed (grounding, "
+ f"references or annotations differ): {offending[:8]}",
+ )
+ # Adding a model cannot remove a wrong answer, so every judged seed case
+ # must still be a case.
+ vanished = sorted(set(seeded) - {*kept, *changed})
+ require(not vanished, f"seed cases vanished from the audit: {vanished[:8]}")
+ unrendered = sorted(reworded - set(changed))
+ require(
+ not unrendered,
+ f"reworded cases whose prompts did not change: {unrendered[:8]}",
+ )
+ return {"kept": kept, "changed": changed, "added": added}
+
+
+def prepare_cases(args, bundle) -> dict[str, dict[str, str]]:
+ """Seed a private audit; changed prompts invalidate copied verdicts.
+
+ Returns the seed digest, which main binds in stage.json.
+ """
+ from policybench.audit import prepare_audit
+
+ require(
+ args.audit_seed is not None and args.grounding is not None,
+ "prepare needs --audit-seed and --grounding (read-only sources)",
+ )
+ require(
+ digest(args.grounding) == GROUNDING_SHA256,
+ "grounding differs from the one the 20260929 audit was rendered with",
+ )
+ audit = args.stage_dir / "audit"
+ # Compare against the read-only seed, not the stage copy, so a retried
+ # prepare cannot mistake its own earlier rendering for the seed.
+ seed = seed_digest(args.audit_seed)
+ verify_seed(seed)
+ seeded = {case: item["prompt_sha256"] for case, item in seed.items()}
+ if not audit.exists():
+ for source in sorted((args.audit_seed / "cases").glob("*")):
+ if not (source / "prompt.md").is_file():
+ continue
+ target = audit / "cases" / source.name
+ target.mkdir(parents=True)
+ for name in ("prompt.md", "verdict.json", "verdict.meta.json", "codex.log"):
+ if (source / name).is_file():
+ shutil.copyfile(source / name, target / name)
+ lookup = grounding_lookup(args.grounding)
+ prepare_audit(
+ bundle / "us",
+ audit,
+ grounding_lookup=lookup,
+ template_version=JUDGE_TEMPLATE_VERSION,
+ )
+ changes = check_prompt_changes(audit, seeded)
+ write_json(
+ args.stage_dir / "prompt-changes.json",
+ {key: sorted(value) for key, value in changes.items()},
+ )
+ pending = validate_verdicts(audit, remove_invalid=True, seed=seed)
+ write_json(args.stage_dir / "pending.json", pending)
+ print(
+ f"Prepared audit: {len(changes['kept'])} prompts unchanged, "
+ f"{len(changes['changed'])} changed and {len(changes['added'])} new; "
+ f"{len(pending)} cases need Opus 5.5"
+ )
+ return seed
+
+
+def set_aside(audit: Path, case_id: str, reason: str) -> None:
+ """Move a case's verdict, sidecar and judge evidence out of the audit.
+
+ They go to /rejected-verdicts/// with the judge's
+ envelope, log and transcript, so a re-judge never destroys the verdict it
+ replaces or the record of how it was made.
+ """
+ from datetime import datetime, timezone
+
+ case = audit / "cases" / case_id
+ names = (
+ "verdict.json",
+ "verdict.meta.json",
+ "claude.json",
+ "claude.log",
+ "claude.transcript.jsonl",
+ )
+ files = [case / name for name in names]
+ if not any(path.exists() for path in files[:2]):
+ return
+ stamp = datetime.now(timezone.utc).strftime("%Y%m%dT%H%M%S%fZ")
+ target = audit.parent / "rejected-verdicts" / case_id / stamp
+ target.mkdir(parents=True)
+ (target / "reason.txt").write_text(reason + "\n")
+ for path in files:
+ if path.exists():
+ os.replace(path, target / path.name)
+
+
+def validate_verdicts(
+ audit: Path,
+ remove_invalid: bool = False,
+ seed: dict[str, dict[str, str]] | None = None,
+) -> list[str]:
+ """Validate schema, model coverage and each verdict's binding to its bytes.
+
+ Every judged verdict's sidecar must carry the verdict's own sha256. A case
+ whose prompt is the seed's (``seed``, as stage.json binds it) carries its
+ seed verdict over: the verdict must be the seed's, byte for byte, and any
+ prompt_sha256 its sidecar records must match. Every other verdict is new
+ and must record the sha256 of the prompt it judged and template
+ JUDGE_TEMPLATE_VERSION. Every judged case's prompt must begin with the
+ header of the version its sidecar records
+ (policybench.audit.template_version_problems), so a new verdict's sidecar
+ cannot claim v2 for a prompt rendered on another version. A verdict naming
+ a new model also needs bound Opus 5.5 provenance. Returns the pending
+ cases; ``remove_invalid`` sets their verdicts aside. A carried-over verdict
+ that fails is refused outright: a re-judge cannot restore it.
+ """
+ import jsonschema
+
+ from policybench.audit import template_version_problems
+ from policybench.judge_template import recorded_template_version
+
+ schema = json.loads((audit / "schema.json").read_text())
+ manifest = {
+ item["case_id"]: item
+ for item in map(json.loads, (audit / "cases.jsonl").read_text().splitlines())
+ }
+ seed = seed or {}
+ templates = dict(template_version_problems(audit))
+ pending, refused = [], []
+ for case_id, item in manifest.items():
+ if item["parse_failure_only"]:
+ continue
+ path = audit / "cases" / case_id / "verdict.json"
+ meta_path = path.with_name("verdict.meta.json")
+ prompt = path.with_name("prompt.md")
+ carried = (
+ case_id in seed
+ and prompt.is_file()
+ and digest(prompt) == seed[case_id]["prompt_sha256"]
+ )
+ try:
+ blob = path.read_bytes()
+ verdict = json.loads(blob)
+ jsonschema.validate(verdict, schema)
+ names = [m["model"] for m in verdict["models"]]
+ if len(names) != len(set(names)) or set(names) != set(item["wrong_models"]):
+ raise ValueError("wrong model coverage")
+ meta = json.loads(meta_path.read_text()) if meta_path.is_file() else {}
+ if not isinstance(meta, dict):
+ raise ValueError("verdict provenance is not an object")
+ if meta.get("verdict_sha256") != hashlib.sha256(blob).hexdigest():
+ raise ValueError("the sidecar is not bound to this verdict")
+ if case_id in templates:
+ raise ValueError(f"judge template: {templates[case_id]}")
+ bound = meta.get("prompt_sha256")
+ if carried:
+ if hashlib.sha256(blob).hexdigest() != seed[case_id]["verdict_sha256"]:
+ raise ValueError("a carried-over verdict is not the seed's")
+ if bound is not None and bound != digest(prompt):
+ raise ValueError("verdict is bound to a different prompt")
+ elif bound != digest(prompt):
+ raise ValueError("a new verdict is not bound to this prompt")
+ elif recorded_template_version(meta) != JUDGE_TEMPLATE_VERSION:
+ # A new or re-opened case is rendered on this release's
+ # template, and its judge must have read that version: the
+ # sidecar records it, and the prompt's header (checked above)
+ # is that version's.
+ raise ValueError(
+ f"a new verdict is not on judge template v{JUDGE_TEMPLATE_VERSION}"
+ )
+ if set(names) & set(MODELS.values()):
+ if (
+ meta.get("judge_model_requested") != JUDGE_MODEL
+ or meta.get("judge_model_reported") != [JUDGE_MODEL]
+ or not meta.get("judge_runner")
+ or not meta.get("judged_at_utc")
+ ):
+ raise ValueError("missing or mismatched Opus 5.5 provenance")
+ except (OSError, ValueError, jsonschema.ValidationError) as error:
+ if carried:
+ refused.append(f"{case_id} ({error})")
+ continue
+ pending.append(case_id)
+ if remove_invalid:
+ set_aside(audit, case_id, f"invalid: {error}")
+ require(
+ not refused,
+ f"{len(refused)} carried-over verdicts differ from the seed's; a stage "
+ f"input changed after prepare: {refused[:4]}",
+ )
+ return sorted(pending)
+
+
+def account_data(value, at: str, keys: bool = True) -> list[str]:
+ """Where ``value`` carries an e-mail address or a key naming an account.
+
+ Any key that matches ACCOUNT_KEY (unless ``keys`` is false), and any key
+ or string that holds an e-mail address (EMAIL_ADDRESS), at any depth;
+ ``at`` names ``value``.
+ """
+ hits = []
+ if isinstance(value, dict):
+ for key, item in value.items():
+ where = f"{at}.{key}"
+ if keys and ACCOUNT_KEY.search(str(key)):
+ hits.append(f"key {where}")
+ if EMAIL_ADDRESS.search(str(key)):
+ hits.append(f"an e-mail address in key {where}")
+ hits += account_data(item, where, keys)
+ elif isinstance(value, list):
+ for index, item in enumerate(value):
+ hits += account_data(item, f"{at}[{index}]", keys)
+ elif isinstance(value, str) and EMAIL_ADDRESS.search(value):
+ hits.append(f"an e-mail address at {at}")
+ return hits
+
+
+def outside_the_judge(event: dict, prompt: str | None) -> dict:
+ """``event`` without the judged prompt's own user message or the judge's
+ words: the text of a user event that is exactly ``prompt``, and the content
+ of an assistant turn. The account-data rule reads everything else."""
+ message = event.get("message")
+ if isinstance(message, dict) and (
+ event.get("type") == "assistant"
+ or (
+ event.get("type") == "user"
+ and prompt is not None
+ and message.get("content") == prompt
+ )
+ ):
+ rest = {key: value for key, value in message.items() if key != "content"}
+ return {**event, "message": rest}
+ return event
+
+
+def transcript_problems(
+ path: Path, effort: str | None, prompt: bytes, verdict: object
+) -> list[str]:
+ """Why a judge's transcript does not show an isolated judge; [] if it does.
+
+ A Python port of the transcript checks in scripts/run_audit_claude.sh
+ (extract_verdict): no tool call but StructuredOutput, no event of a type
+ outside its EVENT_TYPES (JUDGE_EVENT_TYPES), no context attachment outside
+ its ATTACHMENTS (JUDGE_ATTACHMENTS; so no skill listing and no
+ credential_org record), a session context that is empty (no account e-mail
+ or git status), no account data anywhere outside the prompt's own user
+ message and the judge's own turns (account_data, outside_the_judge), no
+ working directory inside a git repository, every assistant turn at the
+ effort the sidecar records, when it records one (the sidecars of the
+ stage's first 17 isolated verdicts record none), no advisor model, and
+ user events that are exactly one text message, the case's ``prompt``
+ (prompt.md's bytes, decoded as UTF-8), besides Claude Code's own nudge
+ (JUDGE_PROMPT_NUDGE) and the results of the judge's StructuredOutput calls.
+ It also requires exactly one accepted StructuredOutput call, whose input
+ is the published ``verdict`` (verdict.json, parsed): any other call must
+ be one the schema refused, which the judge then answered again.
+ """
+ try:
+ lines = path.read_text().splitlines()
+ except OSError:
+ return ["no transcript"]
+ try:
+ text = prompt.decode("utf-8")
+ except UnicodeDecodeError:
+ text = None
+ problems, calls, refused = [], [], set()
+ # The user events: text messages (the prompt) and everything else (which
+ # may only answer the judge's own StructuredOutput calls, by id).
+ texts, others, answers = [], [], set()
+
+ def answer(part: dict) -> bool:
+ return part.get("type") == "tool_use" and part.get("name") == "StructuredOutput"
+
+ for number, line in enumerate(lines, 1):
+ try:
+ event = json.loads(line)
+ except ValueError:
+ problems.append(f"transcript line {number} is not JSON")
+ continue
+ if not isinstance(event, dict):
+ problems.append(f"transcript line {number} is not an event")
+ continue
+ if event.get("type") not in JUDGE_EVENT_TYPES:
+ problems.append(f"an event of type {event.get('type')!r}")
+ problems += account_data(outside_the_judge(event, text), f"line {number}")
+ if event.get("type") == "attachment":
+ attachment = event.get("attachment") or {}
+ kind = attachment.get("type")
+ if kind not in JUDGE_ATTACHMENTS:
+ problems.append(f"a {kind!r} attachment")
+ if kind == "environment" and (attachment.get("snapshot") or {}).get(
+ "isGitRepo"
+ ):
+ problems.append("a working directory inside a git repository")
+ context = attachment.get("context")
+ if kind == "session_context" and context != {}:
+ carried = sorted(context) if isinstance(context, dict) else context
+ problems.append(f"a session context carrying {carried!r}")
+ if event.get("type") == "assistant":
+ if effort is not None and event.get("effort") != effort:
+ problems.append(f"a turn at effort {event.get('effort')!r}")
+ if event.get("advisorModel"):
+ problems.append(f"advisor model {event.get('advisorModel')!r}")
+ message = event.get("message")
+ content = message.get("content") if isinstance(message, dict) else None
+ if event.get("type") == "user":
+ if not isinstance(content, str):
+ others.append(content)
+ elif not (event.get("isMeta") is True and content == JUDGE_PROMPT_NUDGE):
+ texts.append(content)
+ for part in content if isinstance(content, list) else []:
+ if not isinstance(part, dict):
+ continue
+ if str(part.get("type", "")).endswith("tool_use"):
+ calls.append(part)
+ if event.get("type") == "assistant" and answer(part):
+ answers.add(part.get("id"))
+ elif part.get("type") == "tool_result" and part.get("is_error"):
+ refused.add(part.get("tool_use_id"))
+
+ structured = [part for part in calls if answer(part)]
+ other = [part.get("name") or part.get("type") for part in calls if not answer(part)]
+ if other:
+ problems.append(f"tool calls {other}")
+ accepted = [part for part in structured if part.get("id") not in refused]
+ if len(accepted) != 1:
+ problems.append(f"{len(accepted)} accepted StructuredOutput calls, not 1")
+ elif json.dumps(accepted[0].get("input"), sort_keys=True) != json.dumps(
+ verdict, sort_keys=True
+ ):
+ problems.append("its accepted StructuredOutput answer is not verdict.json")
+ if len(texts) != 1:
+ problems.append(f"{len(texts)} user text messages, not the prompt alone")
+ elif text is None or texts[0] != text:
+ problems.append("its user message is not prompt.md")
+ if not all(
+ isinstance(content, list)
+ and content
+ and all(
+ isinstance(part, dict)
+ and part.get("type") == "tool_result"
+ and part.get("tool_use_id") in answers
+ for part in content
+ )
+ for content in others
+ ):
+ problems.append("a user event that is not a StructuredOutput call's result")
+ return problems
+
+
+def withhold_addresses(value):
+ """``value`` with every e-mail address in it replaced by WITHHELD_ADDRESS."""
+ if not isinstance(value, str):
+ return value
+ return EMAIL_ADDRESS.sub(WITHHELD_ADDRESS, value)
+
+
+def verify_judge_provenance(
+ cases_dir: Path, rejudged: frozenset[str], record_path: Path
+) -> None:
+ """The published judge provenance must describe the staged new verdicts.
+
+ The record (JUDGE_PROVENANCE) lists every case a new model re-opened, each
+ once, with its verdict's and prompt's sha256, its group and whether its
+ judge ran isolated, and its sidecar's judge_effort, judge_model_reported,
+ judged_at_utc and judge_account_declared (JUDGE_SIDECAR_FIELDS), an
+ e-mail address in any of them withheld as WITHHELD_ADDRESS. The record and
+ each entry carry exactly their listed keys (JUDGE_PROVENANCE_KEYS,
+ JUDGE_PROVENANCE_ENTRY_KEYS), its counts are the tally of the entries'
+ groups, and it names no e-mail address anywhere, for it is public. Each
+ entry's hashes must be the staged verdict's and prompt's, and its other
+ fields its sidecar's. Its isolation must be its sidecar's: a sidecar
+ records judge_isolation only when scripts/run_audit_claude.sh's hardened
+ runner wrote it, and only an isolated entry's group says "isolated: ".
+ An isolated verdict's sidecar must record a token login
+ (judge_auth.method oauth_token), and its transcript,
+ claude.transcript.jsonl, must pass the runner's transcript checks
+ (transcript_problems), its prompt and verdict included: the one user
+ text message must be the staged prompt.md, and the one accepted
+ StructuredOutput answer the staged verdict.json.
+ """
+ record = json.loads(record_path.read_text())
+ entries = record.get("verdicts") if isinstance(record, dict) else None
+ require(
+ isinstance(entries, list) and all(isinstance(e, dict) for e in entries),
+ f"{JUDGE_PROVENANCE_PATH} lists no verdicts",
+ )
+ require(
+ set(record) == JUDGE_PROVENANCE_KEYS,
+ f"{JUDGE_PROVENANCE_PATH} has keys {sorted(record)}, not "
+ f"{sorted(JUDGE_PROVENANCE_KEYS)}",
+ )
+ addresses = account_data(record, "record", keys=False)
+ require(
+ not addresses,
+ f"{JUDGE_PROVENANCE_PATH} is public and names {addresses[:4]}; withhold "
+ f"each e-mail address as {WITHHELD_ADDRESS!r}",
+ )
+ named = [entry.get("case_id") for entry in entries]
+ require(
+ len(named) == len(set(named)) and set(named) == set(rejudged),
+ f"{JUDGE_PROVENANCE_PATH} does not list each re-opened case once: "
+ f"{sorted(set(named) ^ set(rejudged))[:4]}",
+ )
+ tally: dict = {}
+ for entry in entries:
+ group = entry.get("group")
+ tally[group] = tally.get(group, 0) + 1
+ require(
+ record["counts"] == tally,
+ f"{JUDGE_PROVENANCE_PATH} counts {record['counts']!r} are not the tally "
+ f"of its entries' groups {tally!r}",
+ )
+ wrong = []
+ for entry in entries:
+ case = cases_dir / entry["case_id"]
+ try:
+ meta = json.loads((case / "verdict.meta.json").read_text())
+ verdict = json.loads((case / "verdict.json").read_text())
+ prompt = (case / "prompt.md").read_bytes()
+ problems = []
+ if entry.get("verdict_sha256") != digest(case / "verdict.json"):
+ problems.append("the record names another verdict")
+ if entry.get("prompt_sha256") != hashlib.sha256(prompt).hexdigest():
+ problems.append("the record names another prompt")
+ except (OSError, ValueError) as error:
+ wrong.append(f"{entry['case_id']}: {error}")
+ continue
+ if set(entry) != JUDGE_PROVENANCE_ENTRY_KEYS:
+ problems.append(f"the entry has keys {sorted(entry)}")
+ meta = meta if isinstance(meta, dict) else {}
+ for field in JUDGE_SIDECAR_FIELDS:
+ expected = withhold_addresses(meta.get(field))
+ if entry.get(field) != expected:
+ problems.append(
+ f"its {field} {entry.get(field)!r} is not the sidecar's "
+ f"{expected!r}"
+ )
+ isolated = "judge_isolation" in meta
+ group = entry.get("group")
+ if not isinstance(group, str) or group.startswith("isolated: ") != isolated:
+ problems.append(f"its group {group!r} disagrees with its isolation")
+ if entry.get("isolated") is not isolated:
+ problems.append(
+ f"the record says isolated={entry.get('isolated')!r} but the "
+ f"sidecar {'records' if isolated else 'lacks'} judge_isolation"
+ )
+ elif isolated:
+ auth = meta.get("judge_auth")
+ if not isinstance(auth, dict) or auth.get("method") != "oauth_token":
+ problems.append(
+ "the sidecar does not record a token login (judge_auth "
+ f"method oauth_token): {auth!r}"
+ )
+ problems += transcript_problems(
+ case / "claude.transcript.jsonl",
+ meta.get("judge_effort"),
+ prompt,
+ verdict,
+ )
+ if problems:
+ wrong.append(f"{entry['case_id']}: {'; '.join(problems)}")
+ require(
+ not wrong,
+ f"{len(wrong)} new verdicts disagree with {JUDGE_PROVENANCE_PATH}: {wrong[:4]}",
+ )
+
+
+# The provenance groups of this release's new verdicts, by the account their
+# sidecar declares. Every one ran on the pb-judge setup-token login of Max's
+# 2026-09-30 opt-in (the GPT-6.1 Sol stage's "setup-token 2"). The two Subfleet
+# lanes earlier releases borrowed stay listed so a record naming either is
+# grouped, not refused; this release used neither.
+PROVENANCE_GROUPS = {
+ "claude setup-token login (token sha256 6a6daf56361b), Max 2026-09-30": (
+ "isolated: setup-token 2"
+ ),
+ "claude:max@axiom.org (subfleet lane claude-18)": (
+ "isolated: subfleet lane claude-18"
+ ),
+ "claude:max@farness.ai (subfleet lane claude-10)": (
+ "isolated: subfleet lane claude-10"
+ ),
+}
+PROVENANCE_NOTE = (
+ "Provenance of the new Opus 5.5 judge verdicts in the Gemini 4 Argon and "
+ "Muse Spark 1.3 stage: every case either new model re-opened. Every "
+ "verdict ran through scripts/run_audit_claude.sh from an empty directory "
+ "outside the repo, with no tools, an allowlisted environment, no user "
+ "settings and a token login, at effort xhigh, on judge template v2; each "
+ "transcript passes the runner's checks. All ran on Max's second "
+ "setup-token login (2026-09-30 opt-in), two at a time and then one at a "
+ "time. A call whose transcript failed the runner's checks (a dropped "
+ "network connection leaves retry events in it), or whose verdict missed a "
+ "model, was judged again. "
+ "Counts are by group. Scores do not depend on judge verdicts."
+)
+
+
+def judge_provenance_record(cases_dir: Path, rejudged: frozenset[str]) -> dict:
+ """The record verify_judge_provenance checks, built from the sidecars."""
+ entries = []
+ for case_id in sorted(rejudged):
+ case = cases_dir / case_id
+ meta = json.loads((case / "verdict.meta.json").read_text())
+ declared = meta.get("judge_account_declared")
+ require(
+ declared in PROVENANCE_GROUPS,
+ f"{case_id}: no provenance group for the declared account",
+ )
+ require("judge_isolation" in meta, f"{case_id}: the verdict is not isolated")
+ entry = {
+ "case_id": case_id,
+ "group": PROVENANCE_GROUPS[declared],
+ "isolated": True,
+ **{
+ field: withhold_addresses(meta.get(field))
+ for field in JUDGE_SIDECAR_FIELDS
+ },
+ "verdict_sha256": digest(case / "verdict.json"),
+ "prompt_sha256": digest(case / "prompt.md"),
+ }
+ entries.append(entry)
+ counts: dict[str, int] = {}
+ for entry in entries:
+ counts[entry["group"]] = counts.get(entry["group"], 0) + 1
+ return {"note": PROVENANCE_NOTE, "counts": counts, "verdicts": entries}
+
+
+def write_judge_provenance(args) -> None:
+ """Write JUDGE_PROVENANCE from the stage's sidecars, then check it."""
+ cases = args.stage_dir / "audit" / "cases"
+ rejudged = rejudged_cases(args.stage_dir)
+ require(
+ not validate_verdicts(args.stage_dir / "audit", seed=load_seed(args.stage_dir)),
+ "missing or invalid verdicts; run judge",
+ )
+ # json.dumps(indent=1), as release 20260930's docs/gpt61sol record is.
+ record = json.loads(
+ json.dumps(judge_provenance_record(cases, rejudged), sort_keys=True)
+ )
+ JUDGE_PROVENANCE.write_text(json.dumps(record, indent=1, allow_nan=False) + "\n")
+ verify_judge_provenance(cases, rejudged, JUDGE_PROVENANCE)
+ print(f"Wrote {JUDGE_PROVENANCE_PATH}: {len(rejudged)} verdicts")
+
+
+def judge(args, bundle) -> None:
+ """Run one Claude CLI judge at a time and retry missing/hedged cases."""
+ from policybench.audit import collect_audit
+
+ audit = args.stage_dir / "audit"
+ seed = load_seed(args.stage_dir)
+ for _ in range(3):
+ validate_verdicts(audit, remove_invalid=True, seed=seed)
+ subprocess.run(
+ ["bash", str(ROOT / "scripts/run_audit_claude.sh"), str(audit)],
+ cwd=ROOT,
+ env={
+ **os.environ,
+ "AUDIT_MODEL": JUDGE_MODEL,
+ "AUDIT_PARALLEL": "1",
+ "AUDIT_PYTHON": sys.executable,
+ },
+ check=True,
+ )
+ pending = validate_verdicts(audit, remove_invalid=True, seed=seed)
+ out = collect_audit(bundle / "us", audit)
+ for case_id in out["hedged"].case_id:
+ set_aside(audit, case_id, "hedged")
+ if not pending and out["missing"].empty and out["hedged"].empty:
+ return
+ raise SystemExit(
+ "audit missing/hedged after three passes; resume judge after investigation"
+ )
+
+
+def triage(args, bundle) -> None:
+ """Collect, apply recorded decisions, and stop for unresolved flags."""
+ from policybench.adjudications import (
+ apply_adjudications,
+ excluded_case_keys,
+ verify_adjudications_applied,
+ )
+ from policybench.audit import collect_audit
+ from policybench.reference_exclusions import (
+ exclusion_keys,
+ load_reference_exclusions,
+ )
+
+ audit = args.stage_dir / "audit"
+ require(
+ not validate_verdicts(audit, seed=load_seed(args.stage_dir)),
+ "missing or invalid verdicts; run judge",
+ )
+ out = collect_audit(bundle / "us", audit)
+ require(
+ out["missing"].empty and out["hedged"].empty, "missing/hedged audit; run judge"
+ )
+ rows = out["row"]
+ cases = out["case"].rename(
+ columns={
+ "case_failure_source": "case_failure_sources",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "case_failure_subtypes",
+ }
+ )
+ counts = rows.groupby(KEY).size()
+ require(
+ all(
+ int(r.wrong_model_count) == counts[(r.scenario_id, r.variable)]
+ for r in cases.itertuples()
+ ),
+ "case wrong_model_count disagrees with collected rows",
+ )
+ annotations = bundle / "annotations"
+ rejudged = rejudged_cases(args.stage_dir)
+ amendments = load_amendments(args.stage_dir, rejudged)
+ upgrade = stage_upgrade(args.stage_dir)
+ decisions = stage_adjudications(
+ annotations / ADJUDICATIONS,
+ rejudged,
+ amendments,
+ audit / "cases",
+ regenerated=frozenset() if upgrade is None else upgrade.regenerated_ruled,
+ dropped=frozenset() if upgrade is None else upgrade.dropped_cases,
+ added=upgrade_decisions(upgrade),
+ triage=triage_items(upgrade),
+ )
+ rows, cases, _ = apply_adjudications(rows, cases, decisions)
+ amend_annotations(rows, cases, amendments)
+ # An amendment may not touch the adjudication sentence a case note carries.
+ verify_adjudications_applied(rows, cases, decisions)
+ excluded = exclusion_keys(load_reference_exclusions(bundle / "us"))
+ require(
+ excluded == excluded_case_keys(decisions),
+ "adjudication exclusions differ from frozen scoring exclusions",
+ )
+ flags = cases[cases.reference_suspect.astype(bool)]
+ scored = ~rows[KEY].apply(tuple, axis=1).isin(excluded)
+ unresolved = rows[
+ scored
+ & ~rows.failure_source.isin(
+ [
+ "llm_error",
+ "parse_contract_failure",
+ "budget_exhausted_at_ceiling",
+ ]
+ )
+ ]
+ flags.to_csv(args.stage_dir / "reference-flags.csv", index=False)
+ unresolved.to_csv(args.stage_dir / "unresolved-rows.csv", index=False)
+ for name, frame in (
+ ("us_audit_row_annotations.csv", rows),
+ ("us_case_notes.csv", cases),
+ ):
+ (annotations / name).write_text(annotation_csv_text(frame), encoding="utf-8")
+ require(
+ flags.empty and unresolved.empty,
+ "triage required: inspect reference-flags.csv/unresolved-rows.csv; "
+ "record evidence in staged us_adjudications.json and rerun triage",
+ )
+ print(f"Triage complete: {len(rows)} rows / {len(cases)} cases")
+
+
+def incumbent_drift(stats: list[dict], previous: dict[str, dict]) -> list[str]:
+ """Incumbents whose modelStats entry is not byte-identical to the base's.
+
+ Serialized as the payload serializes it, so key order counts as well as
+ values. A missing incumbent counts as drift.
+ """
+ exported = {row["model"]: row for row in stats}
+ return sorted(
+ model
+ for model, row in previous.items()
+ if model not in exported
+ or json.dumps(exported[model], allow_nan=False)
+ != json.dumps(row, allow_nan=False)
+ )
+
+
+def payload_text(payload: dict) -> str:
+ """The bytes export writes for a payload, and the freeze rebuilds.
+
+ freeze_snapshot reassembles these exact default-json bytes from the
+ compact country payload. Pretty-printing here breaks its release hash.
+ """
+ return json.dumps(payload, allow_nan=False)
+
+
+def build_payload(
+ bundle: Path,
+ live: dict,
+ *,
+ partial: bool = False,
+ early: bool = False,
+) -> dict:
+ """The payload export writes, built from ``bundle``; the one definition.
+
+ export_full_run's US payload must hold all BOARD_MODELS (50) models. For a
+ release, its roster must be the base's 48 incumbents plus the two
+ additions, Fable 5's usage is carried from ``live`` (CARRIED_USAGE), every
+ model is scored on RELEASE_SCORED outputs, and no incumbent may drift;
+ then the dashboard schema. The freeze rebuilds the staged payload with
+ this. export_full_run writes data.json, us/data.json and us/analysis/ into
+ ``bundle``.
+
+ The scope check: this release changes no reference and no exclusion, so
+ with release 20261013b's exclusion record put back every incumbent's
+ modelStats must be release 20261013b's byte for byte.
+ """
+ from policybench.dashboard_schema import validate_dashboard_payload
+ from policybench.full_run_export import export_full_run
+
+ payload = export_full_run(bundle, countries=["us"], skip_app_data=True)
+ stats = payload["countries"]["us"]["modelStats"]
+ require(
+ len(stats) == BOARD_MODELS,
+ f"export did not contain all {BOARD_MODELS} models",
+ )
+ previous = {m["model"]: m for m in live["countries"]["us"]["modelStats"]}
+ if not partial:
+ require(
+ len(previous) == BASE_MODELS and not set(previous) & set(MODELS.values()),
+ f"base must hold the {BASE_MODELS} incumbents only",
+ )
+ require(
+ {s["model"] for s in stats} == set(previous) | set(MODELS.values()),
+ "export roster is not the incumbents plus the addition",
+ )
+ for model, keys in CARRIED_USAGE.items():
+ row = next(s for s in stats if s["model"] == model)
+ for key in keys:
+ row[key] = previous[model][key]
+ scored = {row["model"]: row["n"] for row in stats}
+ expected = RELEASE_SCORED
+ require(
+ set(scored.values()) == {expected},
+ f"every model must be scored on {expected} outputs: {scored}",
+ )
+ # The scope check: with release 20261013b's exclusion record put back,
+ # every incumbent's modelStats is release 20261013b's byte for byte.
+ # The release's record is that record, so no incumbent may change.
+ import tempfile
+
+ from release_20261006 import export_payload
+
+ with tempfile.TemporaryDirectory() as scratch:
+ record = Path(scratch) / "reference_exclusions.json"
+ record.write_text(exclusions_text(base_exclusion_record()))
+ scoped = export_payload(bundle, live, record)
+ scoped_stats = scoped["countries"]["us"]["modelStats"]
+ require(len(scoped_stats) == BOARD_MODELS, "scope export lost a model")
+ drift = incumbent_drift(scoped_stats, previous)
+ require(
+ not drift,
+ "with release 20261013b's exclusion record, incumbent modelStats "
+ f"drift: {drift}",
+ )
+ errors = validate_dashboard_payload(payload, require_failure_annotations=not early)
+ require(not errors, f"payload validation failed: {errors[:8]}")
+ if partial:
+ payload["stage2Status"] = (
+ "PARTIAL — incomplete household cohorts, not a release"
+ )
+ return payload
+
+
+def export(args, bundle, live) -> dict:
+ """Export into scratch, preserve incumbent statistics, and gate release."""
+ if not args.partial:
+ stage_upgrade(args.stage_dir)
+ # After the freeze the pointer and committed record are this release's.
+ release = release_exclusions_sha256()
+ frozen = live_pointer()["tag"] == RELEASE_TAG
+ verify_reference_pins(
+ SNAPSHOT, "committed reference", release if frozen else None
+ )
+ verify_reference_pins(bundle / "us", "staged reference", release)
+ if not args.early:
+ verify_new_model_inputs(args.stage_dir)
+ verify_judge_provenance(
+ args.stage_dir / "audit" / "cases",
+ rejudged_cases(args.stage_dir),
+ JUDGE_PROVENANCE,
+ )
+ payload = build_payload(bundle, live, partial=args.partial, early=args.early)
+ stats = payload["countries"]["us"]["modelStats"]
+ path = args.stage_dir / (
+ f"PARTIAL-data-board{BOARD_MODELS}.json"
+ if args.partial
+ else f"data-board{BOARD_MODELS}.json"
+ )
+ path.write_text(payload_text(payload))
+ # Keep the freeze input identical to the gated payload, including Fable usage.
+ shutil.copyfile(path, bundle / "data.json")
+ ranked = sorted(stats, key=lambda s: (-s["exact"], -s["score"], s["model"]))
+ for index, row in enumerate(ranked, 1):
+ if row["model"] in MODELS.values():
+ print(
+ f"{'PARTIAL common cohort' if args.partial else 'STAGED'} "
+ f"{row['model']}: exact={row['exact']:.6f}% "
+ f"rank={index}/{BOARD_MODELS} n={row['n']}"
+ )
+ if not args.early:
+ pinned = [p for p in (bundle / "annotations").iterdir() if p.is_file()]
+ pinned += [
+ bundle / "us" / name for name in (*REFERENCE_FILES, "predictions.csv")
+ ]
+ pinned += [p for p in (args.stage_dir / "inputs").rglob("*") if p.is_file()]
+ # The cases a new model re-opened, the listed wording amendments and the
+ # seed binding decide what the adjudication and verdict gates allow;
+ # stage.json and model-provenance.json hold the prepare-time hashes.
+ pinned += [
+ path
+ for path in (
+ args.stage_dir / PROMPT_CHANGES,
+ args.stage_dir / AMENDMENTS,
+ args.stage_dir / "stage.json",
+ args.stage_dir / "model-provenance.json",
+ )
+ if path.is_file()
+ ]
+ pinned += [
+ p
+ for p in (args.stage_dir / "audit").rglob("*")
+ if p.is_file()
+ and p.name
+ in {
+ "verdict.json",
+ "verdict.meta.json",
+ "prompt.md",
+ "claude.transcript.jsonl",
+ "cases.jsonl",
+ "schema.json",
+ }
+ ]
+ write_json(
+ args.stage_dir / "release-ready.json",
+ {
+ "release_tag": RELEASE_TAG,
+ "base_tag": BASE_TAG,
+ "base_sha256": BASE_SHA256,
+ "payload_sha256": digest(path),
+ "models": BOARD_MODELS,
+ "partial": False,
+ "files": {
+ str(p.relative_to(args.stage_dir)): digest(p) for p in pinned
+ },
+ # A repository file, so outside "files", which binds stage files.
+ "judge_provenance": {
+ "path": JUDGE_PROVENANCE_PATH,
+ "sha256": digest(JUDGE_PROVENANCE),
+ },
+ },
+ )
+ return payload
+
+
+# --- No engine upgrade of the references --------------------------------------
+#
+# finish_musewonder.py could install an engine upgrade of the references
+# (--step install-references): a build gated against the base release, with
+# the decisions of the records it regenerated dropped. This release has no
+# such step. Its references are release 20261013b's, computed on
+# policyengine-us 2.41.0, and the publication check
+# (reference_audit/2026-10-12-engine-upgrade/scripts/sweep_timing.py check)
+# found that the newest release gives the same value for every output. If a
+# later release moves a scored output before publication, that check exits non-zero
+# and the release stops: moving the references then needs an engine-upgrade
+# audit with its own builder, as release 20261013 had, and a driver that
+# installs its build. The helpers that took an installed upgrade keep their
+# parameters and are called with none, so they stay comparable, line for
+# line, with finish_musewonder.py's.
+
+# The engine release 20261013b's references were computed on: its sidecar's
+# last revision, the 2026-10-13 engine_upgrade.
+BASE_ENGINE = "policyengine-us 2.41.0"
+
+
+def stage_upgrade(stage: Path) -> None:
+ """This release installs no reference build, so a stage has none: refuse
+ a stage whose receipt claims one (it was not prepared by this driver)."""
+ path = stage / "stage.json"
+ if path.is_file():
+ require(
+ not json.loads(path.read_text()).get("references_installed"),
+ "stage.json records an installed reference build, which this "
+ "release's driver cannot install or gate; prepare a new stage",
+ )
+ return None
+
+
+def grounding_lookup(path: Path) -> dict[tuple[str, str], str]:
+ """The audit grounding by output, as prepare_audit takes it."""
+ import pandas as pd
+
+ grounding = pd.read_csv(path)
+ return {
+ (str(r.scenario_id), str(r.variable)): str(r.grounding)
+ for r in grounding.itertuples()
+ }
+
+
+def parse_args(argv=None):
+ parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(description=__doc__.splitlines()[0])
+ parser.add_argument("--runs-root", type=Path)
+ parser.add_argument("--stage-dir", type=Path)
+ parser.add_argument(
+ "--base-predictions", type=Path, default=SNAPSHOT / "predictions.csv.gz"
+ )
+ parser.add_argument("--base-payload", type=Path, default=SNAPSHOT / "data.json.gz")
+ parser.add_argument("--audit-seed", type=Path)
+ parser.add_argument("--grounding", type=Path)
+ parser.add_argument(
+ "--early", action="store_true", help="fold and export without paid judging"
+ )
+ parser.add_argument(
+ "--partial",
+ action="store_true",
+ help="scratch-only cohort rehearsal; requires --early",
+ )
+ parser.add_argument(
+ "--step",
+ choices=(
+ "pin-inputs",
+ "prepare",
+ "bind-seed",
+ "install-exclusions",
+ "judge",
+ "adjudicate-exclusions",
+ "provenance",
+ "triage",
+ "export",
+ ),
+ default="prepare",
+ help="pin-inputs writes the finished run's file hashes to "
+ f"{INPUT_PINS_PATH} (no stage); bind-seed binds the audit seed in the "
+ "stage.json of a stage prepared before prepare bound it",
+ )
+ args = parser.parse_args(argv)
+ if args.partial and not args.early:
+ parser.error("--partial requires --early")
+ if args.early and args.step != "prepare":
+ parser.error("--early only applies to prepare")
+ if args.step in ("prepare", "pin-inputs") and not args.runs_root:
+ parser.error(f"{args.step} requires --runs-root")
+ if args.step == "install-references":
+ missing = [
+ f"--{name}"
+ for name in ("built", "explanations", "actions", "grounding")
+ if getattr(args, name) is None
+ ]
+ if missing:
+ parser.error(f"install-references requires {' '.join(missing)}")
+ for name in ("built", "explanations", "actions", "grounding"):
+ setattr(args, name, getattr(args, name).resolve())
+ if args.step != "pin-inputs":
+ if args.stage_dir is None:
+ parser.error(f"{args.step} requires --stage-dir")
+ args.stage_dir = args.stage_dir.resolve()
+ return args
+
+
+def main(argv=None) -> None:
+ args = parse_args(argv)
+ if args.step == "pin-inputs":
+ pin_inputs(args)
+ return
+ sources = [SNAPSHOT, ANNOTATIONS, args.base_predictions, args.base_payload]
+ sources += [
+ p for p in (args.runs_root, args.audit_seed, args.grounding) if p is not None
+ ]
+ validate_stage_path(args.stage_dir, sources)
+ stage = args.stage_dir
+ bundle = stage / "publish" / RUN_NAME
+ receipt_path = stage / "stage.json"
+ if args.step == "prepare":
+ runs = discover_new_models(args.runs_root)
+ print("All copied run states qualify; resolving 20261013b base", flush=True)
+ base, reference, live = resolve_base(args)
+ print("Base verified; folding copied additions", flush=True)
+ stage.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
+ require(
+ not receipt_path.exists(),
+ "stage already prepared; use a fresh stage-dir "
+ "or resume judge/triage/export",
+ )
+ bundle, frames = prepare_inputs(args, runs, base, reference)
+ if args.partial:
+ partial_scores(args, base, reference, frames)
+ seed = None
+ if args.early:
+ export(args, bundle, live)
+ else:
+ seed = prepare_cases(args, bundle)
+ inputs = [p for p in (stage / "inputs").rglob("*") if p.is_file()]
+ inputs += [
+ bundle / "us" / name for name in (*REFERENCE_FILES, "predictions.csv")
+ ]
+ receipt = {
+ "partial": args.partial,
+ "early": args.early,
+ "base_tag": BASE_TAG,
+ "base_commit": BASE_COMMIT,
+ "files": {str(p.relative_to(stage)): digest(p) for p in inputs},
+ }
+ if seed is not None:
+ receipt["seed"] = seed
+ write_json(receipt_path, receipt)
+ else:
+ receipt = json.loads(receipt_path.read_text())
+ require(
+ not receipt["partial"] and not receipt["early"],
+ "early/partial stage cannot become a release; prepare fresh full inputs",
+ )
+ for name, expected in receipt["files"].items():
+ require(
+ digest(stage / name) == expected,
+ f"staged input changed: {name}; prepare a new stage",
+ )
+ (stage / "release-ready.json").unlink(missing_ok=True)
+ if args.step in ("triage", "export", "adjudicate-exclusions"):
+ installed = receipt.get("exclusions_installed") or {}
+ stage_upgrade(stage)
+ require(
+ installed.get("sha256") == release_exclusions_sha256(),
+ "the stage's exclusions are not the release's; run "
+ "--step install-exclusions",
+ )
+ if args.step == "bind-seed":
+ bind_seed(args)
+ elif args.step == "install-exclusions":
+ install_exclusions(args)
+ elif args.step == "adjudicate-exclusions":
+ adjudicate_exclusions(args)
+ elif args.step == "provenance":
+ write_judge_provenance(args)
+ elif args.step == "judge":
+ judge(args, bundle)
+ elif args.step == "triage":
+ triage(args, bundle)
+ else:
+ triage(args, bundle)
+ export(args, bundle, resolve_live_base(args))
+
+
+if __name__ == "__main__":
+ main()
diff --git a/scripts/freeze_argon.py b/scripts/freeze_argon.py
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..ea659923
--- /dev/null
+++ b/scripts/freeze_argon.py
@@ -0,0 +1,1313 @@
+"""Build the Gemini 4 Argon and Muse Spark 1.3 release from a strictly gated stage.
+
+Adapted from freeze_musewonder.py. It configures the existing freezer in
+process and never calls a release upload. Run only after finish_argon.py
+--step export has written release-ready.json. The optional --dry-run validates
+inputs without changing repository files. Both rebuild the payload from the
+bound bundle, as export builds it, and refuse a staged payload that differs.
+
+The release folds two models onto release 20261013b and rules no exclusion
+(docs/argon/spec.json). It installs no engine upgrade of the references (the
+driver has no install step, and a stage that records one is refused), so the
+references, their explanations, the scenarios and the exclusion record all
+stay release 20261013b's. The adjudications may change only through a staged
+record that triage applied and export bound: a re-opened case's judge fields.
+The committed wording amendments record stays release 20261013b's, with any
+stage list appended.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+import argparse
+import copy
+import datetime
+import functools
+import hashlib
+import json
+import os
+import re
+import shutil
+import sys
+import tempfile
+from pathlib import Path, PurePosixPath
+
+ROOT = Path(__file__).resolve().parents[1]
+os.environ["OPENBLAS_NUM_THREADS"] = "1"
+sys.path.insert(0, str(ROOT))
+sys.path.insert(0, str(ROOT / "scripts"))
+
+import finish_argon as driver # noqa: E402
+
+# The treatment check is release-independent; reuse it unchanged.
+from freeze_adds0928 import validate_treatment # noqa: E402
+
+# Reuse release 20261013b's manifest comparison and baseline version counts.
+from release_20261006 import leaf_paths # noqa: E402
+
+RUN = driver.RUN_NAME
+NEW_MODELS = dict(driver.MODELS)
+BOARD_MODELS = driver.BOARD_MODELS
+ADJUDICATIONS = "us_adjudications.json"
+# The published annotations the adjudications and amendments are applied to.
+ANNOTATION_CSVS = ("us_audit_row_annotations.csv", "us_case_notes.csv")
+# The reference narratives a judge's prompt carries: release 20261013b's.
+EXPLANATIONS = "us_case_reference_explanations.csv"
+# The wording amendments record, as it is committed beside the adjudications.
+COMMITTED_AMENDMENTS = f"us_{driver.AMENDMENTS}"
+EXCLUSIONS = "reference_exclusions.json"
+# The references the release keeps at release 20261013b's pins.
+PINNED_REFERENCES = tuple(
+ name for name in driver.BASE_REFERENCE_SHA256 if name != EXCLUSIONS
+)
+SNAPSHOT = Path("paper/snapshot/20260501")
+ANNOTATIONS = Path("annotations") / RUN
+POINTER = Path("app/src/data.artifact.json")
+VERSIONS = Path("app/src/data.versions.json")
+# The engines release 20261013b's exclusion records were decided on, in the
+# order the live version's description counts them by name.
+BASE_EXCLUSION_ENGINES = (
+ "policyengine-us 1.755.4",
+ "policyengine-us 2.15.17",
+ "policyengine-us 2.38.6",
+)
+EXCLUSION_ENGINES = frozenset(BASE_EXCLUSION_ENGINES)
+# Manifest paths the freeze may change from release 20261013b's; every other
+# leaf must equal that release's manifest, read from git at BASE_COMMIT.
+MANIFEST_CHANGES = (
+ ("audit_annotation_artifacts", "files"),
+ ("audit_annotation_artifacts", "developer_adjudications"),
+ ("audit_annotation_artifacts", "judge_provenance"),
+ # The note counts the audited prediction rows, which the addition extends.
+ ("audit_annotation_artifacts", "note"),
+ ("committed_snapshot_artifacts", "model_serving_config.json"),
+ ("committed_snapshot_artifacts", "us_impact_summary_by_model.csv"),
+ ("description",),
+ ("files",),
+ ("live_dashboard_artifact",),
+ ("model_response_date",),
+ ("published_dashboard_artifact",),
+ ("reference_exclusions",),
+ ("reference_output_refresh", "snapshot_date"),
+ ("rendered_paper_artifacts",),
+ ("reproducibility_notes",),
+ ("scope", "models"),
+ ("snapshot_date",),
+ ("source_run_artifacts", RUN, "files"),
+)
+# Pins under those paths that must stay release 20261013b's all the same.
+MANIFEST_PINNED = frozenset(
+ {
+ *(("source_run_artifacts", RUN, "files", name) for name in PINNED_REFERENCES),
+ ("audit_annotation_artifacts", "files", EXPLANATIONS),
+ }
+)
+
+
+def read_json(path: Path) -> dict:
+ """Read an object, with the filename retained in parse failures."""
+ return json.loads(path.read_text())
+
+
+def write_json(path: Path, value: dict) -> None:
+ """Write reviewable deterministic JSON."""
+ path.write_text(json.dumps(value, indent=2, sort_keys=True) + "\n")
+
+
+def digest(path: Path) -> str:
+ """Hash a file without holding its bytes in memory."""
+ value = hashlib.sha256()
+ with path.open("rb") as stream:
+ for block in iter(lambda: stream.read(1024 * 1024), b""):
+ value.update(block)
+ return value.hexdigest()
+
+
+def judged_cases(audit: Path) -> list[str]:
+ """The cases validate_verdicts requires a verdict for, from the manifest.
+
+ A stage without a manifest has none; the receipt then fails to bind
+ audit/cases.jsonl.
+ """
+ manifest = audit / "cases.jsonl"
+ if not manifest.is_file():
+ return []
+ items = map(json.loads, manifest.read_text().splitlines())
+ return [item["case_id"] for item in items if not item["parse_failure_only"]]
+
+
+def verify_freezer_destinations(freezer) -> None:
+ """freeze_snapshot must write into this checkout, and only there.
+
+ Both modules find the checkout from their own file, so they agree unless
+ another checkout's freeze_snapshot.py comes first on the import path; that
+ freezer would overwrite the other checkout's tracked snapshot.
+ """
+ expected = {
+ "ROOT": ROOT,
+ "SNAPSHOT_DIR": ROOT / SNAPSHOT,
+ "RUN_DEST": ROOT / SNAPSHOT / "runs" / RUN,
+ "ANNOTATIONS_DEST": ROOT / ANNOTATIONS,
+ }
+ elsewhere = {
+ name: str(getattr(freezer, name))
+ for name, path in expected.items()
+ if Path(getattr(freezer, name)).resolve() != path.resolve()
+ }
+ if elsewhere or freezer.RUN_LABEL != RUN:
+ raise SystemExit(
+ f"freeze_snapshot would write outside this checkout ({ROOT}): "
+ f"{elsewhere or freezer.RUN_LABEL}"
+ )
+
+
+def release_spec(tag: str) -> dict:
+ """docs/argon/spec.json, with what the freeze reads from it checked.
+
+ The snapshot date comes from the spec alone, and so does the day a ruled
+ wave's decisions were written when the spec rules any, so a spec that
+ lacks either stops the freeze here, before any gate reads it. The spec
+ must also name the release this freeze builds and the base the driver
+ pins.
+ """
+ spec = driver.load_spec()
+ try:
+ datetime.date.fromisoformat(spec.get("snapshot_date"))
+ except (TypeError, ValueError):
+ raise SystemExit(
+ f"{driver.SPEC_PATH} names no snapshot_date (YYYY-MM-DD): "
+ f"{spec.get('snapshot_date')!r}"
+ ) from None
+ written = spec.get("adjudications_written_on")
+ if driver.spec_records(spec) and (
+ not isinstance(written, str) or not written.strip()
+ ):
+ raise SystemExit(
+ f"{driver.SPEC_PATH} names no adjudications_written_on, the UTC day "
+ "the ruled wave's decisions were written; the record's date "
+ "conventions state it"
+ )
+ named = {
+ "release_tag": tag,
+ "base_tag": driver.BASE_TAG,
+ "base_sha256": driver.BASE_SHA256,
+ }
+ differ = {
+ field: spec.get(field)
+ for field, value in named.items()
+ if spec.get(field) != value
+ }
+ if differ:
+ raise SystemExit(
+ f"{driver.SPEC_PATH} names another release or base than this freeze "
+ f"builds ({named}): {differ}"
+ )
+ return spec
+
+
+def verify_no_upgrade(stage: Path) -> None:
+ """This release installs no engine upgrade of the references (the driver
+ has no install step), so a stage that records one was not prepared by its
+ driver: refuse it."""
+ if read_json(stage / "stage.json").get("references_installed"):
+ raise SystemExit(
+ "stage.json records an installed reference build, which this "
+ "release cannot freeze; prepare a new stage"
+ )
+
+
+def verify_verdicts(stage: Path) -> None:
+ """Every judged verdict passes the driver's own gate against the bound seed.
+
+ Export validates verdicts before it writes the receipt, but the receipt
+ only binds hashes: a kept verdict edited afterwards, its sidecar and
+ receipt entry re-hashed, must still be the seed's byte for byte, and every
+ new one bound to its prompt and its Opus 5.5 judge. Without
+ ``remove_invalid`` validate_verdicts changes nothing.
+ """
+ pending = driver.validate_verdicts(stage / "audit", seed=driver.load_seed(stage))
+ if pending:
+ raise SystemExit(
+ f"{len(pending)} staged verdicts fail validation: {pending[:8]}; "
+ "run judge and export again"
+ )
+
+
+def verify_receipt(stage: Path, payload_path: Path, tag: str) -> dict:
+ """The strict export receipt must bind this payload and all staged evidence."""
+ receipt = read_json(stage / "release-ready.json")
+ if (
+ receipt.get("payload_sha256") != digest(payload_path)
+ or receipt.get("models") != BOARD_MODELS
+ or receipt.get("partial") is not False
+ or receipt.get("release_tag") != tag
+ ):
+ raise SystemExit(
+ f"Strict export receipt does not match {payload_path.name} "
+ f"(release tag {tag!r}; re-export after changing RELEASE_TAG)"
+ )
+ if (
+ receipt.get("base_tag") != driver.BASE_TAG
+ or receipt.get("base_sha256") != driver.BASE_SHA256
+ ):
+ raise SystemExit(
+ "Strict export receipt does not name release 20261013b as its base "
+ f"({receipt.get('base_tag')!r}, {receipt.get('base_sha256')!r})"
+ )
+ if not receipt.get("files"):
+ raise SystemExit("Strict export receipt is missing staged evidence hashes")
+ for name, expected in receipt["files"].items():
+ source = (stage / name).resolve()
+ if (
+ not source.is_relative_to(stage)
+ or not source.is_file()
+ or digest(source) != expected
+ ):
+ raise SystemExit(f"Staged evidence changed since strict export: {name}")
+ bundle = Path("publish") / RUN
+ required = [bundle / "us" / name for name in driver.REFERENCE_FILES]
+ required += [bundle / "us/predictions.csv", bundle / "annotations" / ADJUDICATIONS]
+ required += [bundle / "annotations" / name for name in ANNOTATION_CSVS]
+ required += [bundle / "annotations" / EXPLANATIONS]
+ # Each new model's pinned run files, and the prepare-time hashes.
+ required += [
+ Path("inputs") / slug / name
+ for slug in NEW_MODELS
+ for name in driver.PINNED_INPUTS
+ ]
+ required += [Path("model-provenance.json")]
+ # What the adjudication and verdict gates allow rests on these; stage.json
+ # also records the exclusions install-exclusions wrote.
+ required += [Path(driver.PROMPT_CHANGES), Path("stage.json")]
+ if (stage / driver.AMENDMENTS).exists():
+ required.append(Path(driver.AMENDMENTS))
+ # Every judged case's audit evidence, as validate_verdicts reads it: an
+ # unbound verdict or sidecar could be edited and re-hashed after export.
+ # So could the transcript the provenance gate reads for an isolated judge.
+ required += [Path("audit/cases.jsonl"), Path("audit/schema.json")]
+ for case in judged_cases(stage / "audit"):
+ directory = Path("audit/cases") / case
+ required += [
+ directory / name for name in ("verdict.json", "verdict.meta.json")
+ ] + [directory / "prompt.md"]
+ if (stage / directory / "claude.transcript.jsonl").is_file():
+ required.append(directory / "claude.transcript.jsonl")
+ unbound = [str(p) for p in required if str(p) not in receipt["files"]]
+ if unbound:
+ raise SystemExit(f"Strict export receipt does not bind: {unbound}")
+ return receipt
+
+
+def verify_installed_exclusions(stage: Path, receipt: dict, text: str) -> str:
+ """The stage scores on the release's exclusion record, as installed.
+
+ ``text`` is release 20261013b's record plus the spec's ruled records, none
+ here (finish_argon.build_release_exclusions, spelled by exclusions_text),
+ rebuilt now from git and the spec. The staged record must be those bytes,
+ the receipt must bind them, and stage.json, which the receipt binds, must
+ record them as --step install-exclusions wrote them: the installed and
+ base hashes, the record count, and the prepared file's hash. Returns the
+ record's sha256.
+ """
+ bound = str(Path("publish") / RUN / "us" / EXCLUSIONS)
+ expected = hashlib.sha256(text.encode()).hexdigest()
+ staged = stage / bound
+ if not staged.is_file() or staged.read_bytes() != text.encode():
+ ruled = (
+ f" plus the {driver.NEW_EXCLUSIONS} ruled records ({driver.SPEC_PATH})"
+ if driver.NEW_EXCLUSIONS
+ else ""
+ )
+ raise SystemExit(
+ f"Staged {EXCLUSIONS} is not release 20261013b's record{ruled}; run "
+ "--step install-exclusions, then triage and export again"
+ )
+ if receipt["files"].get(bound) != expected:
+ raise SystemExit(
+ f"Strict export receipt does not bind the installed {EXCLUSIONS}"
+ )
+ prepared = read_json(stage / "stage.json")
+ installed = prepared.get("exclusions_installed")
+ recorded = prepared.get("files")
+ records = driver.RELEASE_EXCLUSIONS
+ if (
+ not isinstance(installed, dict)
+ or not isinstance(recorded, dict)
+ or installed.get("sha256") != expected
+ or installed.get("base_sha256") != driver.BASE_REFERENCE_SHA256[EXCLUSIONS]
+ or installed.get("records") != records
+ or recorded.get(bound) != expected
+ ):
+ raise SystemExit(
+ f"stage.json does not record the release's {records} "
+ "exclusions as --step install-exclusions writes them "
+ f"(exclusions_installed {installed!r}); run it, then triage and "
+ "export again"
+ )
+ return expected
+
+
+def verify_scored_outputs(country: dict, exclusions: list[dict]) -> None:
+ """The payload publishes the release's exclusions and scores what remains.
+
+ Its referenceExclusions name the record's outputs, in the record's order,
+ and every model is scored on the outputs left. The rebuild checks the
+ whole payload; this names the two counts the release states.
+ """
+ published = [
+ (item.get("scenarioId"), item.get("variable"))
+ for item in country.get("referenceExclusions", [])
+ ]
+ expected = [driver.spec_key(record) for record in exclusions]
+ if published != expected:
+ differ = sorted(set(published) ^ set(expected)) or ["their order"]
+ raise SystemExit(
+ f"The payload's {len(published)} excluded outputs are not the "
+ f"release's {len(expected)}: {differ[:8]}"
+ )
+ scored = {row["model"]: row.get("n") for row in country["modelStats"]}
+ count = driver.RELEASE_SCORED
+ off = {model: n for model, n in scored.items() if n != count}
+ if off:
+ raise SystemExit(f"Every model must be scored on {count} outputs: {off}")
+
+
+def verify_judge_provenance(
+ stage: Path, receipt: dict, rejudged: frozenset[str]
+) -> None:
+ """The judge provenance record is the one export bound, and still true.
+
+ The record is a repository file (driver.JUDGE_PROVENANCE), so the receipt
+ binds it apart from the stage's files. Its bytes must be the ones export
+ hashed, and it must still describe the staged new verdicts and their
+ transcripts, as export checked.
+ """
+ bound = receipt.get("judge_provenance")
+ if (
+ not isinstance(bound, dict)
+ or bound.get("path") != driver.JUDGE_PROVENANCE_PATH
+ or not driver.JUDGE_PROVENANCE.is_file()
+ or bound.get("sha256") != digest(driver.JUDGE_PROVENANCE)
+ ):
+ raise SystemExit(
+ f"{driver.JUDGE_PROVENANCE_PATH} is not the judge provenance record "
+ "the strict export bound; export again"
+ )
+ driver.verify_judge_provenance(
+ stage / "audit" / "cases", rejudged, driver.JUDGE_PROVENANCE
+ )
+
+
+def verify_references(
+ source_us: Path,
+ frozen_run: Path,
+ manifest: dict,
+ exclusions_sha256: str,
+) -> None:
+ """References match the baseline: this release revises no reference.
+
+ The reference outputs, the scenarios and their sidecars must equal release
+ 20261013b's pins in the stage, in the committed snapshot and in the
+ manifest. The staged exclusion record must be the release's
+ (``exclusions_sha256``). Its committed copy and its manifest pin are
+ release 20261013b's before this freeze and the release's after it, so a
+ second freeze finds either.
+ """
+ pins = manifest["source_run_artifacts"][RUN]["files"]
+
+ def matches(path: Path, allowed: set[str]) -> bool:
+ return path.is_file() and digest(path) in allowed
+
+ for name, pin in driver.BASE_REFERENCE_SHA256.items():
+ staged, committed = {pin}, {pin}
+ reason = "this release revises no reference value"
+ whose = "not release 20261013b's"
+ if name == EXCLUSIONS:
+ staged, committed = {exclusions_sha256}, {pin, exclusions_sha256}
+ reason = "it is not the release's record"
+ whose = "neither release 20261013b's nor this release's"
+ if not matches(source_us / name, staged):
+ raise SystemExit(f"Staged {name} changed: {reason}")
+ if not matches(frozen_run / name, committed):
+ raise SystemExit(f"Committed {name} changed: it is {whose}")
+ if pins.get(name) not in committed:
+ raise SystemExit(f"Manifest pin for {name} is {whose}")
+
+
+def verify_explanations(staged_annotations: Path) -> None:
+ """Explanations are release 20261013b's bytes.
+
+ A judge's prompt carries them, and this release rewords none: prepare
+ copies the committed file, and no step writes it. The payload publishes
+ them, so an explanation edited after export, with the payload rebuilt to
+ match and every hash updated, would otherwise pass.
+ """
+ base = driver.base_commit_blob(ANNOTATIONS / EXPLANATIONS)
+ staged = staged_annotations / EXPLANATIONS
+ if not staged.is_file() or staged.read_bytes() != base:
+ raise SystemExit(
+ f"Staged {EXPLANATIONS} changed: this release rewords no reference "
+ "explanation"
+ )
+
+
+def verify_adjudication_record(
+ staged: Path,
+ source_us: Path,
+ rejudged: frozenset[str],
+ amendments: list[dict],
+ cases_dir: Path,
+) -> int:
+ """The staged record changes release 20261013b's only as the release says.
+
+ The baseline is release 20261013b's record in git (BASE_COMMIT), never the
+ working-tree copy this freeze overwrites. Any ruled output must carry
+ exactly the entry the driver builds for it from the spec and its case's
+ bound verdict (there are none here). A case a new model re-opened may rewrite its
+ judge fields, restated as the restate script does, and its reasoning
+ exactly as the listed wording amendments say. Nothing else in any
+ committed entry may change. The record excludes exactly the outputs the
+ staged exclusion record lists. The staged file's bytes must be exactly its
+ parsed content, with release 20261013b's note, and its date conventions
+ with any wave the release adds named (driver.release_date_conventions). A
+ new decision must be one the spec lists (driver.verify_adjudication_changes
+ refuses any other), so the count it returns, of new decisions beyond the
+ spec's, is always 0. The staged record, prompt-changes.json and the
+ amendments are bound by the receipt, which export writes only after triage
+ applied them.
+ """
+ from policybench.adjudications import excluded_case_keys, load_adjudications
+ from policybench.reference_exclusions import (
+ exclusion_keys,
+ load_reference_exclusions,
+ )
+
+ # No engine upgrade is installed; the only wave the release may name is
+ # its own triage decisions' (the spec's triage_adjudications).
+ triage = driver.triage_items(None)
+ driver.verify_record_form(
+ staged.read_text(),
+ driver.base_adjudication_record(),
+ driver.decision_wave((), triage),
+ )
+ after = load_adjudications(staged)
+ base = driver.base_adjudications()
+ added = driver.verify_adjudication_changes(
+ base, after, rejudged, amendments, cases_dir, triage=triage
+ )
+ driver.verify_restatements(base, after, rejudged, cases_dir)
+ decided = excluded_case_keys(after)
+ excluded = exclusion_keys(load_reference_exclusions(source_us))
+ if decided != excluded:
+ raise SystemExit(
+ "Staged adjudications and the staged exclusion record disagree on "
+ f"the excluded outputs: {sorted(decided ^ excluded)[:8]}; the release "
+ f"excludes the {driver.RELEASE_EXCLUSIONS} the spec lists"
+ )
+ return added
+
+
+def payload_differences(
+ rebuilt, staged, path: str = "payload", limit: int = 5
+) -> list[str]:
+ """The first ``limit`` paths at which two parsed JSON values differ.
+
+ Key order counts, as it does in the bytes: the paths are empty exactly
+ when the two values serialize to the same JSON. A list item that names a
+ model is labelled with it.
+ """
+ found: list[str] = []
+
+ def walk(a, b, at: str) -> None:
+ if len(found) >= limit:
+ return
+ if isinstance(a, dict) and isinstance(b, dict):
+ for key in a:
+ if key in b:
+ walk(a[key], b[key], f"{at}.{key}")
+ else:
+ found.append(f"{at}.{key} (only rebuilt)")
+ found.extend(f"{at}.{key} (only staged)" for key in b if key not in a)
+ if a.keys() == b.keys() and list(a) != list(b):
+ found.append(f"{at} (key order)")
+ elif isinstance(a, list) and isinstance(b, list):
+ for index, (x, y) in enumerate(zip(a, b)):
+ name = x.get("model") if isinstance(x, dict) else None
+ label = f"{index} {name}" if isinstance(name, str) else index
+ walk(x, y, f"{at}[{label}]")
+ if len(a) != len(b):
+ found.append(f"{at} (length {len(a)} rebuilt, {len(b)} staged)")
+ elif json.dumps(a) != json.dumps(b):
+ found.append(at)
+
+ walk(rebuilt, staged, path)
+ return found[:limit]
+
+
+def rebuild_payload(
+ stage: Path,
+ receipt: dict,
+ payload_path: Path,
+ live: dict,
+) -> None:
+ """The staged payload must be what export builds from the bound bundle.
+
+ The receipt binds the payload only by a hash that sits beside it, so a
+ payload edited after export (the addition's scores, an incumbent's cost, a
+ case's classes) with its receipt rehashed passes every other gate.
+ Export's own build (driver.build_payload, against release 20261013b as
+ ``live``) runs again on a scratch copy of the bundle files the receipt
+ binds, each checked against its receipt hash, and its bytes must equal the
+ staged payload's. That build scores every model on the release's outputs
+ and repeats export's scope check: with release 20261013b's exclusion
+ record put back, every incumbent's modelStats is that release's, byte for
+ byte. The copy is the bundle's: export_full_run writes data.json,
+ us/data.json and us/analysis/ into the bundle it reads, and its data.json
+ lacks the carried usage, so a rebuild in place would rewrite the stage.
+ """
+ bundle = Path("publish") / RUN
+ with tempfile.TemporaryDirectory(prefix="freeze-argon-") as scratch:
+ copy_root = Path(scratch) / RUN
+ for name, expected in receipt["files"].items():
+ if not Path(name).is_relative_to(bundle):
+ continue
+ target = copy_root / Path(name).relative_to(bundle)
+ target.parent.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
+ shutil.copyfile(stage / name, target)
+ if digest(target) != expected:
+ raise SystemExit(f"Staged evidence changed since strict export: {name}")
+ rebuilt = driver.payload_text(driver.build_payload(copy_root, live))
+ staged = payload_path.read_bytes()
+ if rebuilt.encode() != staged:
+ differ = payload_differences(json.loads(rebuilt), json.loads(staged))
+ raise SystemExit(
+ f"Staged {payload_path.name} is not what export builds from the "
+ f"bound bundle; it differs at {differ or ['its serialization']}; "
+ "export again"
+ )
+
+
+def base_prediction_rows():
+ """Release 20261013b's predictions, read from git at BASE_COMMIT.
+
+ Never the working-tree copy, which the freezer rewrites from the stage: a
+ freeze that stopped partway would compare the staged rows with themselves.
+ """
+ import io
+
+ import pandas as pd
+
+ path = SNAPSHOT / "runs" / RUN / "predictions.csv.gz"
+ return pd.read_csv(
+ io.BytesIO(driver.base_commit_blob(path)), compression="gzip", low_memory=False
+ )
+
+
+def base_serving_config() -> dict:
+ """Release 20261013b's serving configuration, read from git at BASE_COMMIT."""
+ return json.loads(driver.base_commit_blob(SNAPSHOT / "model_serving_config.json"))
+
+
+def annotation_differences(
+ rebuilt_text: str, staged: Path, key: list[str], limit: int = 4
+) -> list[str]:
+ """The first ``limit`` places where a staged annotation CSV is not the
+ rebuilt one: a column set or order, a row only one side has, or a cell
+ (named by its case, model and column). Empty when the two parse to the
+ same cells, so only the row order or the serialization differs."""
+ import io
+
+ import pandas as pd
+
+ def read(source) -> pd.DataFrame:
+ return pd.read_csv(source, dtype=str, keep_default_na=False)
+
+ try:
+ rebuilt, published = read(io.StringIO(rebuilt_text)), read(staged)
+ except ValueError:
+ return ["its serialization"]
+ if list(rebuilt.columns) != list(published.columns):
+ return [f"its columns {list(published.columns)}, not {list(rebuilt.columns)}"]
+
+ def by_key(frame: pd.DataFrame) -> dict[tuple, dict]:
+ return {tuple(row[k] for k in key): row for row in frame.to_dict("records")}
+
+ found = []
+ if published.duplicated(key).any():
+ found.append(f"duplicate {key} rows")
+ built, staged_rows = by_key(rebuilt), by_key(published)
+ for item in sorted(set(built) | set(staged_rows)):
+ name = "__".join(item)
+ if item not in staged_rows or item not in built:
+ side = "rebuilt" if item in built else "staged"
+ found.append(f"{name} (only {side})")
+ continue
+ found += [
+ f"{name} {column}"
+ for column in rebuilt.columns
+ if built[item][column] != staged_rows[item][column]
+ ]
+ return found[:limit]
+
+
+def verify_annotation_amendments(
+ annotations: Path, amendments: list[dict], audit: Path
+) -> None:
+ """The staged row annotations and case notes are what triage builds from
+ the verdicts, the staged adjudications and the listed amendments, in every
+ column.
+
+ Both frames are rebuilt as triage builds them: collect_audit folds each
+ verdict into its rows (the model's failure class and diagnosis) and its
+ case note (the case's classes, flag, hypothesis and rationale); the staged
+ adjudication record, whose reasoning verify_adjudication_record has
+ already replayed, sets each decided case's classes and appends its
+ sentence to the case note; then the listed amendments are replayed in
+ order, each old wording found exactly once when it is applied. Each staged
+ file must be the rebuilt frame's bytes as triage writes them
+ (driver.annotation_csv_text), so a failure class, flag or count edited on
+ a case no adjudication decides is refused as surely as unlisted wording,
+ even beside a listed fragment.
+ """
+ from policybench.adjudications import apply_adjudications, load_adjudications
+ from policybench.audit import collect_audit
+
+ collected = collect_audit(annotations.parent / "us", audit)
+ rows, cases, _ = apply_adjudications(
+ collected["row"],
+ collected["case"].rename(
+ columns={
+ "case_failure_source": "case_failure_sources",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "case_failure_subtypes",
+ }
+ ),
+ load_adjudications(annotations / ADJUDICATIONS),
+ )
+ driver.amend_annotations(rows, cases, amendments)
+ for name, rebuilt, key in (
+ ("us_case_notes.csv", cases, driver.KEY),
+ ("us_audit_row_annotations.csv", rows, [*driver.KEY, "model"]),
+ ):
+ text = driver.annotation_csv_text(rebuilt)
+ if text.encode() != (annotations / name).read_bytes():
+ differ = annotation_differences(text, annotations / name, ["country", *key])
+ raise SystemExit(
+ f"Staged {name} is not what triage builds from the verdicts, the "
+ "staged adjudications and the listed wording amendments; it "
+ f"differs at {differ or ['its row order or serialization']}; run "
+ "triage and export again"
+ )
+
+
+def amendments_text(record: dict) -> str:
+ """The wording amendments record as the committed file spells it."""
+ return json.dumps(record, indent=1, ensure_ascii=False)
+
+
+def committed_amendments(stage: Path) -> bytes:
+ """The wording amendments record this freeze commits.
+
+ Release 20261013b's committed record (from git at BASE_COMMIT) lists the
+ amendments GPT-6.1 Sol's re-opened cases needed, and that wording is still
+ published, so the record is never replaced. With no stage list, or an
+ empty one, it is committed unchanged. A stage list (driver.load_amendments
+ checks each item names a case a new model re-opened) is appended
+ after the earlier amendments, in its own order, and the note says which
+ items are this release's; a note the stage list carries follows it.
+ """
+ base = driver.base_commit_blob(ANNOTATIONS / COMMITTED_AMENDMENTS)
+ source = stage / driver.AMENDMENTS
+ listed = json.loads(source.read_text()) if source.exists() else {}
+ added = listed.get("amendments") or []
+ if not added:
+ return base
+ record = json.loads(base)
+ if amendments_text(record).encode() != base or list(record) != [
+ "note",
+ "amendments",
+ ]:
+ raise SystemExit(
+ f"Release 20261013b's {COMMITTED_AMENDMENTS} is not in its committed "
+ "form; cannot append this release's wording amendments"
+ )
+ earlier = len(record["amendments"])
+ note = (
+ f"{record['note']} The last {len(added)} (after the first {earlier}) "
+ "are for cases a new model re-opened (finish_argon.py "
+ "load_amendments)."
+ )
+ if isinstance(listed.get("note"), str) and listed["note"].strip():
+ note += " " + listed["note"].strip()
+ merged = {"note": note, "amendments": record["amendments"] + added}
+ return amendments_text(merged).encode()
+
+
+def freeze_amendments(stage: Path, destination: Path) -> None:
+ """Commit the wording amendments record beside the adjudication record.
+
+ freeze_snapshot rebuilds the annotations directory from the stage and so
+ removes the committed record; this writes it back (committed_amendments).
+ """
+ (destination / COMMITTED_AMENDMENTS).write_bytes(committed_amendments(stage))
+
+
+def evidence_runs() -> dict[str, str]:
+ """The supervised run each new model's frozen serving evidence names.
+
+ Its runs root and slug, read from the input pins as committed at HEAD
+ (``run`` there is ``//run``): the same record the staged
+ run files are checked against.
+ """
+ record = json.loads(driver.head_blob(driver.INPUT_PINS_PATH))
+ runs = {}
+ for slug in NEW_MODELS:
+ named = (record.get("inputs") or {}).get(slug, {}).get("run")
+ run = PurePosixPath(named or "")
+ if len(run.parts) != 3 or run.parts[1:] != (slug, "run"):
+ raise SystemExit(
+ f"{driver.INPUT_PINS_PATH} does not name the supervised run of "
+ f"{slug} as /{slug}/run: {named!r}"
+ )
+ runs[slug] = run.parent.as_posix()
+ return runs
+
+
+def serving_problems(
+ serving: dict, previous: dict, incumbents: set[str], runs: dict[str, str]
+) -> list[str]:
+ """Where a serving configuration is not the release's.
+
+ Its models are the incumbents and the addition. Every incumbent's row is
+ release 20261013b's (``previous``), every field. Each new model's evidence
+ is its run state and names its supervised run. The evidence summary is the
+ tally of the rows' evidence kinds.
+ """
+ models = serving.get("models")
+ if not isinstance(models, dict):
+ return ["no models"]
+ problems = []
+ expected = set(incumbents) | set(NEW_MODELS.values())
+ if set(models) != expected:
+ problems.append(f"roster differs on {sorted(set(models) ^ expected)[:8]}")
+ problems += [
+ f"{model} is not release 20261013b's row"
+ for model in sorted(set(incumbents) & set(models))
+ if json.dumps(models[model], sort_keys=True)
+ != json.dumps(previous["models"][model], sort_keys=True)
+ ]
+ for slug, model in NEW_MODELS.items():
+ evidence = (models.get(model) or {}).get("evidence") or {}
+ if evidence.get("kind") != "run_state":
+ problems.append(f"{model} has no run-state evidence")
+ elif evidence.get("run") != runs[slug]:
+ problems.append(
+ f"{model}'s evidence names run {evidence.get('run')!r}, not "
+ f"{runs[slug]!r}"
+ )
+ counts = {"run_state": 0, "registry": 0}
+ for treatment in models.values():
+ kind = (treatment.get("evidence") or {}).get("kind")
+ counts[kind] = counts.get(kind, 0) + 1
+ if serving.get("evidence_summary") != counts:
+ problems.append(
+ f"evidence_summary {serving.get('evidence_summary')!r} is not the "
+ f"rows' tally {counts!r}"
+ )
+ return problems
+
+
+def merge_serving(
+ serving: dict, previous: dict, incumbents: set[str], runs: dict[str, str]
+) -> dict:
+ """The release's serving configuration, from the freezer's (``serving``).
+
+ The old rows already have frozen evidence. They are release 20261013b's,
+ kept field for field after the incumbents' predictions were checked
+ identical, instead of being silently downgraded when this checkout lacks
+ the historical run directories. Each new model keeps the freezer's row,
+ whose evidence must be its run state and is made to name its supervised
+ run. The evidence summary is recounted.
+ """
+ merged = copy.deepcopy(serving)
+ models = merged["models"]
+ for model in incumbents:
+ models[model] = copy.deepcopy(previous["models"][model])
+ for slug, model in NEW_MODELS.items():
+ evidence = models[model]["evidence"]
+ if evidence["kind"] != "run_state":
+ raise SystemExit(f"Missing frozen run-state evidence for {model}")
+ evidence["run"] = runs[slug]
+ counts = {"run_state": 0, "registry": 0}
+ for treatment in models.values():
+ counts[treatment["evidence"]["kind"]] += 1
+ merged["evidence_summary"] = counts
+ problems = serving_problems(merged, previous, incumbents, runs)
+ if problems:
+ raise SystemExit(f"Frozen serving configuration: {problems[:8]}")
+ return merged
+
+
+def release_pointer(tag: str, payload_path: Path, payload_hash: str) -> dict:
+ """The dashboard pointer the freeze commits: the staged payload as the
+ release asset dashboard-data.json under ``tag``."""
+ return {
+ "version": 1,
+ "repo": "PolicyEngine/policybench",
+ "tag": tag,
+ "asset": "dashboard-data.json",
+ "url": (
+ "https://github.com/PolicyEngine/policybench/releases/download/"
+ f"{tag}/dashboard-data.json"
+ ),
+ "sha256": payload_hash,
+ "bytes": payload_path.stat().st_size,
+ }
+
+
+def count_exclusions(text: str, exclusions: list[dict]) -> str:
+ """The live version's description with the exclusions counted by engine.
+
+ Release 20261013b's description counts its records on 1.755.4, 2.15.17 and
+ 2.38.6, names 2.41.0 as the reference engine and says how many excluded
+ outputs moved on it and were re-reviewed. This release moves no reference
+ and changes no record, so only the counts are restated, and they come out
+ the same. Applying this to its own result changes nothing.
+ """
+ engines = list(BASE_EXCLUSION_ENGINES)
+ numbers = [engine.removeprefix("policyengine-us ") for engine in engines]
+ counts = {
+ engine: sum(r["engine_version"] == engine for r in exclusions)
+ for engine in engines
+ }
+ if sum(counts.values()) != len(exclusions):
+ raise SystemExit("an exclusion record names an engine the description omits")
+ fixed = len(BASE_EXCLUSION_ENGINES)
+ pattern = (
+ r"the \d+ excluded outputs keep the values they were decided on: "
+ + ", ".join(
+ (r"\d+ from policyengine-us " if i == 0 else r"\d+ from ")
+ + re.escape(number)
+ for i, number in enumerate(numbers[:fixed])
+ )
+ + "".join(rf"(?:, \d+ from {re.escape(number)})?" for number in numbers[fixed:])
+ )
+ if len(re.findall(pattern, text)) != 1:
+ raise SystemExit("the version description changed form")
+ described = [
+ f"{counts[engine]} from "
+ + (engine if i == 0 else engine.removeprefix("policyengine-us "))
+ for i, engine in enumerate(engines)
+ if i < fixed or counts[engine]
+ ]
+ counted = (
+ f"the {len(exclusions)} excluded outputs keep the values they were decided on: "
+ + ", ".join(described)
+ )
+ return re.sub(pattern, lambda _: counted, text)
+
+
+def release_versions(
+ versions: dict,
+ exclusions: list[dict],
+ snapshot_date: str,
+) -> dict:
+ """The version list with the live version describing this release.
+
+ The live version is the default one, and its artifact is the live
+ pointer. Its description counts the excluded outputs by the engine each
+ record was decided on and ends with the board's model count; its snapshot
+ label carries the spec's snapshot date. Nothing else changes, and applying
+ this to its own result changes nothing.
+ """
+ out = copy.deepcopy(versions)
+ live = [item for item in out["versions"] if item["id"] == out["default"]]
+ if len(live) != 1 or live[0].get("artifact") != {"pointer": "live"}:
+ raise SystemExit("The default version is not the one live-pointer version")
+ engines = {record["engine_version"] for record in exclusions}
+ allowed = EXCLUSION_ENGINES
+ if engines != allowed:
+ raise SystemExit(
+ "The live version description counts exclusions decided on "
+ f"{sorted(allowed)}; the record's are {sorted(engines)}"
+ )
+ description, changed = re.subn(
+ r" - \d+ models$",
+ f" - {BOARD_MODELS} models",
+ count_exclusions(live[0]["description"], exclusions),
+ )
+ if changed != 1:
+ raise SystemExit("Live version description has an unexpected model-count shape")
+ live[0].update(description=description, snapshotLabel=f"Snapshot {snapshot_date}")
+ return out
+
+
+def manifest_problems(before: dict, after: dict) -> list[tuple]:
+ """The manifest leaves that differ outside what the release may change.
+
+ A leaf may differ only under a MANIFEST_CHANGES path, and never at a
+ MANIFEST_PINNED one: the pinned references and the reference explanations
+ keep release 20261013b's hashes.
+ """
+ pinned = MANIFEST_PINNED
+ changes = MANIFEST_CHANGES
+ return [
+ path
+ for path in leaf_paths(before, after)
+ if path in pinned
+ or not any(path[: len(prefix)] == prefix for prefix in changes)
+ ]
+
+
+def verify_frozen(
+ *,
+ stage: Path,
+ snapshot: Path,
+ annotations: Path,
+ exclusions_sha256: str,
+ pointer: dict,
+ window: str,
+ snapshot_date: str,
+ previous_serving: dict,
+ incumbents: set[str],
+ runs: dict[str, str],
+) -> None:
+ """What the freezer wrote is the release, checked file by file.
+
+ The frozen references are release 20261013b's and the frozen exclusion
+ record is the release's. The annotations directory holds the staged
+ adjudications and annotation CSVs, byte for byte, and the wording
+ amendments record; the frozen adjudication record is in the committed
+ form with any wave the release adds named. The serving configuration keeps
+ release 20261013b's rows and adds the new model's. The manifest differs
+ from release 20261013b's only where the release may change it, and states
+ the release's snapshot date, model count, response window, exclusion
+ counts, artifact and exclusion pin.
+ """
+ staged_annotations = stage / "publish" / RUN / "annotations"
+ frozen_run = snapshot / "runs" / RUN
+ driver.verify_reference_pins(frozen_run, "frozen reference", exclusions_sha256)
+ copied = (ADJUDICATIONS, *ANNOTATION_CSVS, EXPLANATIONS)
+ frozen = sorted(path.name for path in annotations.iterdir() if path.is_file())
+ if frozen != sorted((*copied, COMMITTED_AMENDMENTS)):
+ raise SystemExit(f"Frozen annotation files are not the release's: {frozen}")
+ for name in copied:
+ if (annotations / name).read_bytes() != (
+ staged_annotations / name
+ ).read_bytes():
+ raise SystemExit(f"The frozen {name} is not the staged one")
+ driver.verify_record_form(
+ (annotations / ADJUDICATIONS).read_text(),
+ driver.base_adjudication_record(),
+ driver.decision_wave((), driver.triage_items(None)),
+ )
+ if (annotations / COMMITTED_AMENDMENTS).read_bytes() != committed_amendments(stage):
+ raise SystemExit(
+ f"The frozen {COMMITTED_AMENDMENTS} is not release 20261013b's "
+ "record with the stage's list appended"
+ )
+ serving = serving_problems(
+ read_json(snapshot / "model_serving_config.json"),
+ previous_serving,
+ incumbents,
+ runs,
+ )
+ if serving:
+ raise SystemExit(f"Frozen serving configuration: {serving[:8]}")
+ manifest = read_json(snapshot / "manifest.json")
+ base = json.loads(driver.base_commit_blob(SNAPSHOT / "manifest.json"))
+ outside = manifest_problems(base, manifest)
+ if outside:
+ named = [".".join(map(str, path)) for path in outside[:8]]
+ raise SystemExit(f"The frozen manifest changes outside the release: {named}")
+ artifact = {key: pointer[key] for key in ("tag", "asset", "url", "sha256", "bytes")}
+ live = manifest["live_dashboard_artifact"]
+ excluded = manifest["reference_exclusions"]
+ stated = {
+ "snapshot_date": (manifest["snapshot_date"], snapshot_date),
+ "scope.models": (manifest["scope"]["models"], BOARD_MODELS),
+ "model_response_date": (manifest["model_response_date"], window),
+ "reference_exclusions.outputs": (
+ excluded["outputs"],
+ driver.RELEASE_EXCLUSIONS,
+ ),
+ "reference_exclusions.scored_outputs_per_model": (
+ excluded["scored_outputs_per_model"],
+ driver.RELEASE_SCORED,
+ ),
+ "published_dashboard_artifact": (
+ manifest["published_dashboard_artifact"],
+ artifact,
+ ),
+ "live_dashboard_artifact": ({key: live.get(key) for key in artifact}, artifact),
+ f"source_run_artifacts {EXCLUSIONS}": (
+ manifest["source_run_artifacts"][RUN]["files"].get(EXCLUSIONS),
+ exclusions_sha256,
+ ),
+ }
+ wrong = {name: got for name, (got, want) in stated.items() if got != want}
+ if wrong:
+ raise SystemExit(f"The frozen manifest does not state the release: {wrong}")
+
+
+def configure_freezer(
+ freezer,
+ *,
+ snapshot_date: str,
+ source_run: Path,
+ payload_path: Path,
+ pointer: dict,
+ evidence_paths: dict[str, str],
+ cases_dir: Path,
+ previous_serving: dict,
+ incumbents: set[str],
+ runs: dict[str, str],
+) -> None:
+ """Point freeze_snapshot at the stage and this release.
+
+ Read-only input paths are all in this checkout. They override defaults
+ that captured the old audit directory when freeze_snapshot was imported.
+ """
+ freezer.SNAPSHOT_DATE = snapshot_date
+ freezer.SOURCE_RUN = source_run
+ freezer.SOURCE_US = source_run / "us"
+ freezer.SOURCE_ANNOTATIONS = source_run / "annotations"
+ freezer.REFERENCE_META_SOURCE = source_run / "us/reference_outputs.csv.meta.json"
+ # No installed build: the freezer checks the references against its own pins.
+ freezer.REFERENCE_PINS = None
+ freezer.PUBLISHED_DASHBOARD_SOURCE = payload_path
+ freezer.PUBLISHED_DASHBOARD_ARTIFACT = {
+ key: pointer[key] for key in ("tag", "asset", "url", "sha256", "bytes")
+ }
+ freezer.RUN_STATE_EVIDENCE = evidence_paths
+ freezer.AUDIT_CASES_DIR = cases_dir
+ freezer.audit_judge_provenance = functools.partial(
+ freezer.audit_judge_provenance, cases_dir=cases_dir
+ )
+ freezer.developer_adjudications_block = functools.partial(
+ freezer.developer_adjudications_block, cases_dir=cases_dir
+ )
+ original_freeze_serving = freezer.freeze_serving_configuration
+
+ def freeze_serving(destination: Path) -> None:
+ original_freeze_serving(destination)
+ serving = merge_serving(
+ read_json(destination), previous_serving, incumbents, runs
+ )
+ serving["registry_commit"] = freezer._serving_registry_commit(serving)
+ write_json(destination, serving)
+
+ freezer.freeze_serving_configuration = freeze_serving
+
+
+def main(argv: list[str] | None = None) -> None:
+ parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(description=__doc__.splitlines()[0])
+ parser.add_argument("--stage-dir", type=Path, required=True)
+ parser.add_argument("--tag", default=driver.RELEASE_TAG)
+ parser.add_argument("--dry-run", action="store_true")
+ args = parser.parse_args(argv)
+ if not re.fullmatch(r"dashboard-data-\d{8}[a-z]?", args.tag):
+ parser.error("--tag must be dashboard-data-YYYYMMDD[a-z]")
+ stage = args.stage_dir.resolve()
+ if not stage.is_relative_to(ROOT):
+ parser.error("--stage-dir must be inside this checkout")
+ import freeze_snapshot as freezer
+ import pandas as pd
+
+ if hasattr(pd.options, "future") and hasattr(pd.options.future, "infer_string"):
+ pd.options.future.infer_string = False
+
+ from policybench.dashboard_schema import validate_dashboard_payload
+
+ verify_freezer_destinations(freezer)
+ payload_path = stage / f"data-board{BOARD_MODELS}.json"
+ receipt = verify_receipt(stage, payload_path, args.tag)
+ spec = release_spec(args.tag)
+ verify_no_upgrade(stage)
+ snapshot_date = spec["snapshot_date"]
+ # The release's exclusion record, rebuilt from git and the spec: what the
+ # stage must score on and the freeze must commit.
+ exclusions = driver.build_release_exclusions(driver.base_exclusion_record(), spec)
+ exclusions_text = driver.exclusions_text(exclusions)
+ exclusions_sha256 = verify_installed_exclusions(stage, receipt, exclusions_text)
+ # Each new model's run files are the committed pins' and its bundle rows
+ # are its run file's, every column: its cost, tokens and latency included.
+ driver.verify_new_model_inputs(stage)
+ runs = evidence_runs()
+ payload_hash = digest(payload_path)
+ payload = read_json(payload_path)
+ recombined = json.dumps({"countries": {"us": payload["countries"]["us"]}})
+ if recombined.encode() != payload_path.read_bytes():
+ raise SystemExit("Payload does not recombine to the freeze format")
+ errors = validate_dashboard_payload(payload, require_failure_annotations=True)
+ if errors:
+ raise SystemExit(f"Strict dashboard gate failed: {errors[:5]}")
+ stats = payload["countries"]["us"]["modelStats"]
+ model_names = {row["model"] for row in stats}
+ if len(stats) != BOARD_MODELS or any(
+ row["condition"] != "no_tools" for row in stats
+ ):
+ raise SystemExit(
+ f"Release must contain exactly {BOARD_MODELS} no-tools model rows"
+ )
+
+ snapshot = ROOT / SNAPSHOT
+ frozen_run = snapshot / "runs" / RUN
+ # The incumbents' frozen serving evidence is release 20261013b's, from git.
+ previous_serving = base_serving_config()
+ incumbents = set(previous_serving["models"]) - set(NEW_MODELS.values())
+ if len(incumbents) != driver.BASE_MODELS or model_names != incumbents | set(
+ NEW_MODELS.values()
+ ):
+ raise SystemExit(
+ f"Frozen incumbent roster and staged {BOARD_MODELS}-model roster disagree"
+ )
+ verify_scored_outputs(payload["countries"]["us"], exclusions["exclusions"])
+ source_run = stage / "publish" / RUN
+ source_us = source_run / "us"
+ staged_annotations = source_run / "annotations"
+ verify_references(
+ source_us,
+ frozen_run,
+ read_json(snapshot / "manifest.json"),
+ exclusions_sha256,
+ )
+ verify_explanations(staged_annotations)
+ del payload, stats
+ # Export's own build, the incumbents' scope check included.
+ base = driver.base_payload_from_commit()
+ rebuild_payload(stage, receipt, payload_path, base)
+ del base
+ verify_verdicts(stage)
+ rejudged = driver.rejudged_cases(stage)
+ verify_judge_provenance(stage, receipt, rejudged)
+ amendments = driver.load_amendments(stage, rejudged)
+ cases_dir = stage / "audit" / "cases"
+ added = verify_adjudication_record(
+ staged_annotations / ADJUDICATIONS,
+ source_us,
+ rejudged,
+ amendments,
+ cases_dir,
+ )
+ if added:
+ raise SystemExit(
+ f"Staged adjudications add {added} decisions the spec does not list"
+ )
+ verify_annotation_amendments(staged_annotations, amendments, stage / "audit")
+ previous_rows = base_prediction_rows()
+ staged_rows = pd.read_csv(source_us / "predictions.csv", low_memory=False)
+ for model in sorted(incumbents):
+ if freezer._model_prediction_rows_sha256(previous_rows, model) != (
+ freezer._model_prediction_rows_sha256(staged_rows, model)
+ ):
+ raise SystemExit(f"Incumbent prediction evidence changed: {model}")
+ del previous_rows
+
+ evidence_paths = {}
+ for slug, model in NEW_MODELS.items():
+ state_path = stage / "inputs" / slug / "run_state.json"
+ state = read_json(state_path)
+ if (
+ state.get("model") != model
+ or state.get("completed") != 100
+ or state.get("total") != 100
+ or state.get("stopped_reason") is not None
+ or not isinstance(state.get("treatment_fingerprint"), dict)
+ ):
+ raise SystemExit(
+ f"Missing completed run or treatment evidence: {state_path}"
+ )
+ validate_treatment(freezer, state, state_path, source_us / "scenarios.csv")
+ evidence = freezer._run_state_prediction_evidence(
+ state_path, staged_rows, model
+ )
+ if evidence["kind"] != "run_state":
+ raise SystemExit(
+ f"Run-state prediction evidence failed for {model}: {evidence}"
+ )
+ evidence_paths[model] = str(state_path)
+ del staged_rows
+ # The freezer dates the response window from these rows: from the run
+ # label's start to the last answer, not to the release date. Refuse here,
+ # before the pointer is written, rather than partway through the freeze.
+ window = freezer.model_response_window(
+ source_us / "predictions.csv",
+ freezer.MODEL_RESPONSE_START,
+ freezer.MODEL_RESPONSE_DATE,
+ )
+
+ adjudications = freezer.load_adjudications(staged_annotations / ADJUDICATIONS)
+ from policybench.adjudications import verify_adjudications_applied
+
+ verify_adjudications_applied(
+ pd.read_csv(staged_annotations / "us_audit_row_annotations.csv"),
+ pd.read_csv(staged_annotations / "us_case_notes.csv"),
+ adjudications,
+ )
+ freezer.verify_adjudications_keep_judge_verdicts(adjudications, cases_dir)
+ pointer = release_pointer(args.tag, payload_path, payload_hash)
+ versions_path = ROOT / VERSIONS
+ versions = release_versions(
+ read_json(versions_path), exclusions["exclusions"], snapshot_date
+ )
+ if args.dry_run:
+ print(
+ f"Validated local release inputs: {args.tag}, {BOARD_MODELS} models, "
+ f"{payload_hash}; references unchanged; {driver.RELEASE_EXCLUSIONS} "
+ f"exclusions ({driver.NEW_EXCLUSIONS} new); "
+ f"{len(driver.triage_items(None))} triage decisions and no other "
+ f"new adjudication; {len(amendments)} wording "
+ f"amendments; model responses {window}; snapshot {snapshot_date}; "
+ "nothing written"
+ )
+ return
+
+ configure_freezer(
+ freezer,
+ snapshot_date=snapshot_date,
+ source_run=source_run,
+ payload_path=payload_path,
+ pointer=pointer,
+ evidence_paths=evidence_paths,
+ cases_dir=cases_dir,
+ previous_serving=previous_serving,
+ incumbents=incumbents,
+ runs=runs,
+ )
+ write_json(ROOT / POINTER, pointer)
+ write_json(versions_path, versions)
+ freezer.ANNOTATIONS_DEST.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
+ shutil.copyfile(
+ staged_annotations / ADJUDICATIONS,
+ freezer.ANNOTATIONS_DEST / ADJUDICATIONS,
+ )
+ freezer.main()
+ freeze_amendments(stage, freezer.ANNOTATIONS_DEST)
+ # The freezer copies the staged references, exclusions and annotations
+ # byte for byte and builds the manifest and the serving rows; confirm it.
+ verify_frozen(
+ stage=stage,
+ snapshot=snapshot,
+ annotations=freezer.ANNOTATIONS_DEST,
+ exclusions_sha256=exclusions_sha256,
+ pointer=pointer,
+ window=window,
+ snapshot_date=snapshot_date,
+ previous_serving=previous_serving,
+ incumbents=incumbents,
+ runs=runs,
+ )
+ cache = ROOT / "app/.cache" / f"dashboard-data-{payload_hash[:16]}.json"
+ cache.parent.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
+ shutil.copyfile(payload_path, cache)
+ asset = stage / "predictions.csv.gz"
+ freezer.gzip_deterministic(
+ source_us / "predictions.csv", asset, stored_name="predictions.csv"
+ )
+ if asset.read_bytes() != (frozen_run / "predictions.csv.gz").read_bytes():
+ raise SystemExit("The predictions asset is not the frozen predictions")
+ print(f"Built {args.tag} locally; payload and predictions remain in {stage}")
+ print("Next: update note and paper prose, render the paper, re-pin, run tests.")
+
+
+if __name__ == "__main__":
+ main()
diff --git a/scripts/freeze_snapshot.py b/scripts/freeze_snapshot.py
index 3faa8ef4..329caefa 100644
--- a/scripts/freeze_snapshot.py
+++ b/scripts/freeze_snapshot.py
@@ -56,6 +56,7 @@
from policybench.adjudications import (
excluded_case_keys,
+ judge_ever_flagged,
load_adjudications,
unresolved_suspect_cases,
verify_adjudications_applied,
@@ -434,10 +435,13 @@ def developer_adjudications_block(cases_dir: Path = AUDIT_CASES_DIR) -> dict:
"by_reference_verdict": _count(
e["reference_verdict"] for e in entries if e.get("reference_verdict")
),
+ # A case any recorded judge verdict flagged: the current one, a verdict
+ # a re-judge replaced (judge_previous), or an earlier run a
+ # judge_reference_suspect_source names.
"judge_flagged_by_reference_verdict": _count(
e["reference_verdict"]
for e in entries
- if e.get("judge_reference_suspect") and e.get("reference_verdict")
+ if judge_ever_flagged(e) and e.get("reference_verdict")
),
"note": (
"Judge verdicts outside the final classes (llm_error, "
@@ -447,8 +451,11 @@ def developer_adjudications_block(cases_dir: Path = AUDIT_CASES_DIR) -> dict:
"published payload and the frozen annotations agree. Every case the "
"judge flagged reference-suspect carries a reference verdict "
"(affirmed, regenerated, engine_defect, unlisted_input, later_law) "
- "that clears the flag; judge_reference_suspect records which "
- "entries the judge flagged."
+ "that clears the flag; judge_reference_suspect records whether the "
+ "case's current verdict flagged it, and "
+ "judge_flagged_by_reference_verdict counts a case any recorded "
+ "judge verdict flagged (the current one, a judge_previous item, or "
+ "an earlier run its judge_reference_suspect_source names)."
),
}
diff --git a/sensitivity/claude-thinking-2026-08.md b/sensitivity/claude-thinking-2026-08.md
index b54b4bc1..e03eed22 100644
--- a/sensitivity/claude-thinking-2026-08.md
+++ b/sensitivity/claude-thinking-2026-08.md
@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ runs also use the canonical whole-scenario request
(`POLICYBENCH_CHUNK_OVERRIDE=none`); their deltas therefore combine two
shape changes, while Claude Opus 5's isolates thinking alone.
-All ranks are on the 48-model board (2026-10-13). Scores are on the
+All ranks are on the 50-model board (2026-10-14). Scores are on the
1,935 outputs the board scores; the 49 outputs `reference_exclusions.json`
lists (engine defects, references that depend on an input the prompt never
states, and references that rest on an amount a state published after the
@@ -56,9 +56,9 @@ all 1,984 outputs the thinking runs scored 87.2, 86.2 and 80.3.
| | board exact | thinking exact | delta | would rank | cost/hh | median s/hh | parsed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
-| Claude Fable 5 | 83.3 (#22) | **91.5** | +8.1 | **#7** | $0.541 → $0.323 | 54 | 1,984/1,984 |
-| Claude Opus 5 | 83.7 (#21) | **90.1** | +6.4 | #11 | $0.067 → $0.152 | 51 | 1,984/1,984 |
-| Claude Sonnet 5 | 72.4 (#46) | **84.6** | +12.1 | #21 | $0.086 | 64 | 1,928/1,984 |
+| Claude Fable 5 | 83.3 (#24) | **91.5** | +8.1 | **#7** | $0.541 → $0.323 | 54 | 1,984/1,984 |
+| Claude Opus 5 | 83.7 (#23) | **90.1** | +6.4 | #11 | $0.067 → $0.152 | 51 | 1,984/1,984 |
+| Claude Sonnet 5 | 72.4 (#48) | **84.6** | +12.1 | #23 | $0.086 | 64 | 1,928/1,984 |
In this table and the tables below, deltas are differences of the
unrounded scores, so a delta can differ by 0.1 from the difference of the
@@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ The sensitivity run for this model isolates request shape under thinking
rather than thinking itself: the answer tool declared with `tool_choice:
"auto"` (`POLICYBENCH_CONTRACT_OVERRIDE=tool` together with
`POLICYBENCH_TOOL_CHOICE=auto`), against the JSON board row. Both rows
-reason. The ranks are on the 48-model board (2026-10-13).
+reason. The ranks are on the 50-model board (2026-10-14).
| | board exact | auto exact | delta | would rank | cost/hh | median s/hh | parsed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
@@ -200,11 +200,11 @@ thinking block: the row answers without extended thinking, as Claude Opus
5's does (its model card's notes). Its sensitivity run is the August
condition: the answer tool declared with `tool_choice: "auto"`, over the
whole scenario, as the board row also requests it. The ranks are on the
-48-model board (2026-10-13).
+50-model board (2026-10-14).
| | board exact | auto exact | delta | would rank | cost/hh | median s/hh | parsed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
-| Claude Haiku 5.5 | 79.3 (#38) | **88.8** | +9.6 | #11 | $0.0013 → $0.0027 | 5.1 → 17.4 | 1,984/1,984 |
+| Claude Haiku 5.5 | 79.3 (#40) | **88.8** | +9.6 | #11 | $0.0013 → $0.0027 | 5.1 → 17.4 | 1,984/1,984 |
The model called the answer tool on every one of its 1,984 answers under
`auto`. Its median household used 3,743 completion tokens against the board
diff --git a/sensitivity/data/claude-fable-5-1-thinking.json b/sensitivity/data/claude-fable-5-1-thinking.json
index a295ab7a..afe63013 100644
--- a/sensitivity/data/claude-fable-5-1-thinking.json
+++ b/sensitivity/data/claude-fable-5-1-thinking.json
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
"sensitivity_model_id": "claude-fable-5.1-thinking",
"condition": "answer tool declared, tool_choice auto (POLICYBENCH_CONTRACT_OVERRIDE=tool POLICYBENCH_TOOL_CHOICE=auto), whole scenario",
"run_date": "2026-09-01",
- "release": "dashboard-data-20261013",
+ "release": "dashboard-data-20261014",
"assets": {
"sensitivity-claude-fable-5-1-thinking-predictions.csv.gz": {
"sha256": "452bf5165540462561748ea75dcfa71f5a023ef0281f303aeac7c7ea39c1f1bd",
@@ -35,5 +35,5 @@
"n": 1984
},
"delta_exact": 0.838,
- "scored_against": "the frozen 48-model board's reference outputs and household output-group weights (paper/snapshot/20260501), with the 49 outputs listed in the run's reference_exclusions.json removed from scoring as they are for every board row (1,935 scored outputs); exact, within-1% and the bounded score all on that universe. The fold used results/local/fable51/predictions32.csv as the incumbent base"
+ "scored_against": "the frozen 50-model board's reference outputs and household output-group weights (paper/snapshot/20260501), with the 49 outputs listed in the run's reference_exclusions.json removed from scoring as they are for every board row (1,935 scored outputs); exact, within-1% and the bounded score all on that universe. The fold used results/local/fable51/predictions32.csv as the incumbent base"
}
diff --git a/sensitivity/data/claude-haiku-5-5-thinking.json b/sensitivity/data/claude-haiku-5-5-thinking.json
index 5dbd9b9d..9566916f 100644
--- a/sensitivity/data/claude-haiku-5-5-thinking.json
+++ b/sensitivity/data/claude-haiku-5-5-thinking.json
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
"sensitivity_model_id": "claude-haiku-5.5-thinking",
"condition": "answer tool declared, tool_choice auto (POLICYBENCH_TOOL_CHOICE=auto), whole scenario; the board row forces the tool, which leaves Claude's extended thinking off",
"run_date": "2026-10-08",
- "release": "dashboard-data-20261013",
+ "release": "dashboard-data-20261014",
"source": "results/local/haiku55-stage/auto-run (run_state treatment_fingerprint: answer_contract tool, tool_choice_mode auto, thinking provider_default); the model column renamed claude-haiku-5.5-thinking",
"assets": {
"sensitivity-claude-haiku-5-5-thinking-predictions.csv.gz": {
@@ -33,5 +33,5 @@
"cost_per_household": 0.002702
},
"delta_exact": 9.556,
- "scored_against": "the frozen 48-model board's reference outputs and household output-group weights (paper/snapshot/20260501), with the 49 outputs listed in the run's reference_exclusions.json removed from scoring as they are for every board row (1,935 scored outputs); exact, within-1% and the bounded score all on that universe"
+ "scored_against": "the frozen 50-model board's reference outputs and household output-group weights (paper/snapshot/20260501), with the 49 outputs listed in the run's reference_exclusions.json removed from scoring as they are for every board row (1,935 scored outputs); exact, within-1% and the bounded score all on that universe"
}
diff --git a/sensitivity/data/claude-thinking-2026-08.json b/sensitivity/data/claude-thinking-2026-08.json
index 859720c9..bc1219e1 100644
--- a/sensitivity/data/claude-thinking-2026-08.json
+++ b/sensitivity/data/claude-thinking-2026-08.json
@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
{
- "release": "dashboard-data-20261013",
+ "release": "dashboard-data-20261014",
"run_dates": "2026-08",
"condition": "tool_choice auto (POLICYBENCH_TOOL_CHOICE=auto); Fable 5 and Sonnet 5 also whole-scenario (POLICYBENCH_CHUNK_OVERRIDE=none)",
- "scored_against": "the frozen 48-model board's reference outputs and household output-group weights (paper/snapshot/20260501), with the 49 outputs listed in the run's reference_exclusions.json removed from scoring as they are for every board row (1,935 scored outputs); per-variable rates likewise on the scored outputs",
+ "scored_against": "the frozen 50-model board's reference outputs and household output-group weights (paper/snapshot/20260501), with the 49 outputs listed in the run's reference_exclusions.json removed from scoring as they are for every board row (1,935 scored outputs); per-variable rates likewise on the scored outputs",
"runs": {
"claude-fable-5-thinking": {
"model": "claude-fable-5",
@@ -88,7 +88,7 @@
"exact": 84.574,
"within1pct": 87.99,
"score": 94.328,
- "would_rank": 21,
+ "would_rank": 23,
"n": 1984,
"n_parsed": 1928
},
diff --git a/tests/test_adjudications.py b/tests/test_adjudications.py
index 40bbda42..7c6c78d6 100644
--- a/tests/test_adjudications.py
+++ b/tests/test_adjudications.py
@@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
from policybench.adjudications import (
AdjudicationError,
apply_adjudications,
+ judge_ever_flagged,
load_adjudications,
unresolved_suspect_cases,
verify_adjudications_applied,
@@ -43,6 +44,22 @@
# decisions on the records its engine upgrade regenerated; it adds no wave.
RELEASE_20261010_COMMIT = "5a8164a001efb27fa55f47fe7ea26666a0de31f8"
(EVIDENCE_20261013,) = sorted((ROOT / "docs/musewonder").glob("judge_verdicts_*.json"))
+# The squash merge of #217, which froze release dashboard-data-20261013.
+RELEASE_20261013_COMMIT = "bc305793c527531e7b3573dc789a436a7bc883d5"
+# The commit whose tree holds release dashboard-data-20261013b (PR #218):
+# release 20261013 with five verdicts re-judged. Release 20261014 (Gemini 4
+# Argon and Muse Spark 1.3) builds on it: it restates the decisions on the
+# cases its new models re-opened (docs/argon/judge_verdicts_20261014.json)
+# and adds the 2026-10-14 wave's two triage decisions, which keep their
+# outputs scored. The squash merge of #218.
+RELEASE_20261013B_COMMIT = "2cb77a17739abeace3ff32391f902a39127843c0"
+(EVIDENCE_20261014,) = sorted((ROOT / "docs/argon").glob("judge_verdicts_*.json"))
+# This release's own wave: its triage decisions, not yet committed.
+TRIAGE_WAVE = "2026-10-14"
+TRIAGE_CASES = {
+ "us__scenario_009__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "us__scenario_064__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+}
# The wave of the decisions on the outputs the 2026-10-10 move to
# policyengine-us 2.38.6 newly excluded (the Indiana county outputs).
UPGRADE_WAVE = "2026-10-10"
@@ -265,16 +282,36 @@ def test_committed_record_is_applied_to_the_frozen_annotations():
# place from a regenerated-reference decision) and the two Indiana county
# outputs the upgrade newly excludes (2026-10-10): 70. Release 20261013
# drops the decisions on the nine 2026-09-22 engine-defect records its
- # engine upgrade regenerated, and adds none: 61.
- assert len(entries) == 61
+ # engine upgrade regenerated, and adds none: 61. Release 20261014 adds
+ # the 2026-10-14 wave's two triage decisions, both llm_error and scored:
+ # 63.
+ assert len(entries) == 63
assert Counter(e["adjudicated_failure_source"] for e in entries) == Counter(
{
"reference_engine_defect": 5,
"prompt_ambiguity": 42,
- "llm_error": 12,
+ "llm_error": 14,
"reference_later_law": 2,
}
)
+ triage = [e for e in entries if e["adjudicated_on"] == TRIAGE_WAVE]
+ assert {_case(e) for e in triage} == TRIAGE_CASES
+ assert {
+ (_case(e), e.get("reference_verdict"), e["judge_reference_suspect"])
+ for e in triage
+ } == {
+ (
+ "us__scenario_009__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ None,
+ False,
+ ),
+ (
+ "us__scenario_064__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits",
+ "affirmed",
+ True,
+ ),
+ }
+ assert not any(e.get("excluded_from_scoring") for e in triage)
assert Counter(
(e["adjudicated_on"], e["adjudicated_failure_source"], e["reference_verdict"])
for e in entries
@@ -296,19 +333,20 @@ def test_committed_record_is_applied_to_the_frozen_annotations():
)
for e in new_wave
} == {("prompt_ambiguity", "unlisted_input", True)}
- # Every excluded output has its adjudication. Ten llm_error entries are
- # the references a flag questioned and the adjudication affirmed (five) or
- # replaced with a regenerated reference (five; scenario_051's became a
- # later-law exclusion on 2026-10-06); the other two resolve rows the
- # September 29 judge called later law (scenario_007 federal income tax
- # and scenario_008 New Jersey refundable credits), whose law predates the
- # reference freeze.
+ # Every excluded output has its adjudication. Eleven llm_error entries
+ # are the references a flag questioned and the adjudication affirmed (six,
+ # scenario_064 Wisconsin's on 2026-10-14) or replaced with a regenerated
+ # reference (five; scenario_051's became a later-law exclusion on
+ # 2026-10-06); the other three resolve rows a judge called later law
+ # (scenario_007 federal income tax and scenario_008 New Jersey refundable
+ # credits on 2026-09-29, scenario_009 federal income tax on 2026-10-14),
+ # whose law predates the reference freeze.
assert sum(bool(e.get("excluded_from_scoring")) for e in entries) == 49
assert Counter(
e.get("reference_verdict")
for e in entries
if e["adjudicated_failure_source"] == "llm_error"
- ) == Counter({"affirmed": 5, "regenerated": 5, None: 2})
+ ) == Counter({"affirmed": 6, "regenerated": 5, None: 3})
assert {
(e["scenario_id"], e["variable"])
for e in entries
@@ -317,6 +355,7 @@ def test_committed_record_is_applied_to_the_frozen_annotations():
} == {
("scenario_007", "federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits"),
("scenario_008", "state_refundable_credits"),
+ ("scenario_009", "federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits"),
}
keys = {(e["scenario_id"], e["variable"]) for e in entries}
assert ("scenario_064", "ssi") in keys and (
@@ -348,7 +387,7 @@ def test_committed_record_is_applied_to_the_frozen_annotations():
assert set(zip(ambiguous["scenario_id"], ambiguous["variable"])) <= keys
manifest = json.loads((ROOT / "paper/snapshot/20260501/manifest.json").read_text())
block = manifest["audit_annotation_artifacts"]["developer_adjudications"]
- assert block["cases"] == 61
+ assert block["cases"] == 63
# The judge's own class for each case (its verdict.json), not the
# adjudicated one; the freezer refuses a record that differs from it.
# After the 2026-09-30 restatements (release 20260929 had llm_error 50,
@@ -361,20 +400,25 @@ def test_committed_record_is_applied_to_the_frozen_annotations():
# the nine decisions on the records its engine upgrade regenerated (seven
# the judge had called an LLM error, two reference_model_issue_fixed), and
# its Opus 5.5 verdicts on the cases Muse Wonder re-opened keep each
- # remaining decision's judge class.
+ # remaining decision's judge class (llm_error 52, prompt_ambiguity 6, and
+ # one each of reference_data_issue_fixed, reference_engine_defect and
+ # reference_later_law). Release 20261014's Opus 5.5 verdicts on the cases
+ # its new models re-opened move three decisions' judge classes, and its
+ # two triage decisions are on cases the judge called LLM errors.
assert block["by_judge_verdict"] == {
- "llm_error": 52,
+ "llm_error": 51,
"prompt_ambiguity": 6,
"reference_data_issue_fixed": 1,
- "reference_engine_defect": 1,
+ "reference_engine_defect": 2,
"reference_later_law": 1,
+ "reference_model_issue_fixed": 2,
}
assert block["by_judge_verdict"] == dict(
Counter(e["judge_failure_source"] for e in entries)
)
# unlisted_input was 20 in release 20260930 and 28 in release 20261006.
assert block["by_reference_verdict"] == {
- "affirmed": 5,
+ "affirmed": 6,
"engine_defect": 5,
"later_law": 2,
"regenerated": 5,
@@ -383,15 +427,51 @@ def test_committed_record_is_applied_to_the_frozen_annotations():
assert block["by_reference_verdict"] == dict(
Counter(e["reference_verdict"] for e in entries if e.get("reference_verdict"))
)
- # The judge flagged none of the 2026-10-05 wave's references.
+ # A case counts as judge-flagged when any verdict the record keeps flagged
+ # it (judge_ever_flagged). Release 20261014's re-judge flags one more
+ # unlisted-input case (scenario_114's federal income tax); its re-judge of
+ # scenario_005's federal income tax, an engine defect, no longer flags it,
+ # but the verdict it replaced did (judge_previous), so the case still
+ # counts; and its affirmed triage decision answers a flag.
assert block["judge_flagged_by_reference_verdict"] == {
- "affirmed": 5,
+ "affirmed": 6,
"engine_defect": 3,
"later_law": 1,
"regenerated": 5,
- "unlisted_input": 8,
+ "unlisted_input": 9,
}
- assert not any(e["judge_reference_suspect"] for e in new_wave)
+ assert block["judge_flagged_by_reference_verdict"] == dict(
+ Counter(
+ e["reference_verdict"]
+ for e in entries
+ if e.get("reference_verdict") and judge_ever_flagged(e)
+ )
+ )
+ defect = next(
+ e
+ for e in entries
+ if (e["scenario_id"], e["variable"])
+ == ("scenario_005", "federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits")
+ )
+ assert defect["reference_verdict"] == "engine_defect"
+ assert defect["judge_reference_suspect"] is False
+ assert defect["judge_previous"][-1]["judge_reference_suspect"] is True
+ # When the 2026-10-05 wave decided them, the judge had flagged none of its
+ # references: every verdict a decision kept from before release 20261014
+ # is unflagged. Release 20261014's re-judge of scenario_114's federal
+ # income tax flags its reference, on the inputs the decision's
+ # unlisted-input exclusion already names.
+ flagged = [e for e in new_wave if e["judge_reference_suspect"]]
+ assert [_case(e) for e in flagged] == [
+ "us__scenario_114__federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits"
+ ]
+ assert flagged[0]["judge_rejudged_on"] == "2026-10-14"
+ assert flagged[0]["reference_verdict"] == "unlisted_input"
+ assert not any(
+ item["judge_reference_suspect"]
+ for e in new_wave
+ for item in e.get("judge_previous", [])
+ )
assert manifest["audit_annotation_artifacts"]["files"]["us_adjudications.json"]
assert manifest["reference_exclusions"]["outputs"] == 49
@@ -871,11 +951,11 @@ def test_each_decision_records_the_verdict_it_reviewed_by_its_wave_release():
assert wave <= released[wave], wave
waves = list(released)
assert waves == sorted(waves)
- # Release 20261010 committed its two waves (#208); release 20261013 adds
- # none, so no wave lacks a commit.
- assert uncommitted == []
- assert waves[-2:] == ["2026-10-06", UPGRADE_WAVE]
- committed = waves
+ # Release 20261010 committed its two waves (#208); releases 20261013 and
+ # 20261013b add none; release 20261014's triage wave has no commit yet.
+ assert uncommitted == [TRIAGE_WAVE]
+ assert waves[-3:] == ["2026-10-06", UPGRADE_WAVE, TRIAGE_WAVE]
+ committed = [wave for wave in waves if wave not in uncommitted]
assert len(committed) == 6
# The record's decisions come from exactly these waves.
assert {e["adjudicated_on"] for e in record["adjudications"]} == set(waves)
@@ -1011,10 +1091,14 @@ def test_published_verdicts_in_the_evidence_match_each_wave_release():
for case in published
if case in record and record[case]["adjudicated_on"] in uncommitted
}
- # Release 20261013 adds no wave, so none is uncommitted and nothing awaits
- # publication: scenario_051's decision, which release 20261010's 2026-10-06
- # wave restated in place, is compared with that release's publication.
- assert restated == set()
+ # Release 20261014's triage wave is uncommitted. scenario_064 Wisconsin
+ # income tax had a 2026-09-22 engine-defect decision, published in release
+ # 20260922, which release 20261013 dropped when its engine upgrade
+ # regenerated the reference; the triage wave decides the case anew, so its
+ # evidence names the verdict the new decision reviewed. scenario_051's
+ # decision, which release 20261010's 2026-10-06 wave restated in place, is
+ # compared with that release's publication.
+ assert restated == {"us__scenario_064__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits"}
louisiana = "us__scenario_051__state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits"
assert published[louisiana][0] == "dashboard-data-20261010"
compared = 0
@@ -1491,9 +1575,9 @@ def test_release_20261013_restates_only_the_cases_muse_wonder_reopened(tmp_path)
assert evidence["base_commit"] == RELEASE_20261010_COMMIT
verdicts = evidence["cases"]
base = {_case(e): e for e in _entries_at(RELEASE_20261010_COMMIT, tmp_path)}
- entries = {
- _case(e): e for e in load_adjudications(ANNOTATIONS / "us_adjudications.json")
- }
+ # Release 20261013's record as its commit holds it (later releases change
+ # the working tree's).
+ entries = {_case(e): e for e in _entries_at(RELEASE_20261013_COMMIT, tmp_path)}
sidecar = json.loads(
(
ROOT
@@ -1545,3 +1629,98 @@ def test_release_20261013_restates_only_the_cases_muse_wonder_reopened(tmp_path)
if history[:-1] == before.get("judge_previous", []) and history:
replaced += 1
assert replaced == len(verdicts) == 50
+
+
+def test_release_20261014_restates_only_the_reopened_cases_and_adds_its_wave(
+ tmp_path,
+):
+ """Release 20261014 changes release 20261013b's record in two ways. Each
+ decision on a case Gemini 4 Argon or Muse Spark 1.3 re-opened names that
+ case's new verdict (docs/argon/judge_verdicts_20261014.json), with
+ release 20261013b's verdict appended to judge_previous when the new one
+ replaces it; and the 2026-10-14 wave adds two triage decisions, each
+ naming its case's verdict. Everything else, every decision included, is
+ release 20261013b's."""
+ evidence = json.loads(EVIDENCE_20261014.read_text())
+ assert evidence["base_commit"] == RELEASE_20261013B_COMMIT
+ verdicts = evidence["cases"]
+ base = {_case(e): e for e in _entries_at(RELEASE_20261013B_COMMIT, tmp_path)}
+ entries = {
+ _case(e): e for e in load_adjudications(ANNOTATIONS / "us_adjudications.json")
+ }
+ assert set(entries) - set(base) == TRIAGE_CASES
+ assert set(base) <= set(entries)
+ assert TRIAGE_CASES <= set(verdicts) <= set(entries)
+ replaced = 0
+ for case, entry in entries.items():
+ current = verdicts.get(case)
+ if current is not None:
+ assert (
+ entry["judge_model"],
+ entry["judge_failure_source"],
+ entry["judge_failure_subtype"],
+ entry.get("judge_rejudged_on") or entry.get("judged_on_utc"),
+ ) == (
+ current["judge_model"],
+ current["case_failure_source"],
+ current["case_failure_subtype"],
+ current["judged_at_utc"][:10],
+ ), case
+ assert current["judged_at_utc"][:10] in ("2026-10-13", "2026-10-14"), case
+ assert _flag_agrees(entry, current["reference_suspect"]), case
+ if case in TRIAGE_CASES:
+ assert entry["adjudicated_on"] == TRIAGE_WAVE
+ assert entry["adjudicated_failure_source"] == "llm_error"
+ assert not entry.get("excluded_from_scoring")
+ assert "judge_previous" not in entry
+ continue
+ before = base[case]
+ decision = {
+ k: v
+ for k, v in entry.items()
+ if not k.startswith("judge") and k != "reasoning"
+ }
+ assert decision == {
+ k: v
+ for k, v in before.items()
+ if not k.startswith("judge") and k != "reasoning"
+ }, case
+ assert entry["reasoning"] == before["reasoning"], case
+ if current is None:
+ assert entry == before, case
+ continue
+ history = entry.get("judge_previous", [])
+ if history[:-1] == before.get("judge_previous", []) and history:
+ replaced += 1
+ # 51 restated decisions, each replacing release 20261013b's verdict.
+ assert replaced == len(verdicts) - len(TRIAGE_CASES) == 51
+
+
+FLAG = st.fixed_dictionaries(
+ {},
+ optional={
+ "judge_reference_suspect": st.booleans(),
+ "judge_reference_suspect_source": st.sampled_from(["", "MOCK earlier run"]),
+ },
+)
+
+
+@settings(max_examples=200, deadline=None)
+@given(top=FLAG, previous=st.lists(FLAG, max_size=4), extra=FLAG)
+def test_judge_ever_flagged_properties(top, previous, extra):
+ """A case is judge-flagged exactly when the top-level verdict or any
+ judge_previous item carries a flag or names the run that raised one; a
+ re-judge appending to judge_previous never un-flags a case; and with no
+ history the helper is the top-level flag."""
+ entry = {**top, "judge_previous": previous}
+ flagged = [
+ bool(item.get("judge_reference_suspect"))
+ or bool(item.get("judge_reference_suspect_source"))
+ for item in (top, *previous)
+ ]
+ assert judge_ever_flagged(entry) == any(flagged)
+ if judge_ever_flagged(entry):
+ later = {**extra, "judge_previous": [*previous, top]}
+ assert judge_ever_flagged(later)
+ if not previous and not top.get("judge_reference_suspect_source"):
+ assert judge_ever_flagged(entry) == bool(top.get("judge_reference_suspect"))
diff --git a/tests/test_date_argon_judge_verdicts.py b/tests/test_date_argon_judge_verdicts.py
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..73837483
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/test_date_argon_judge_verdicts.py
@@ -0,0 +1,216 @@
+"""scripts/date_argon_judge_verdicts.py: the wave evidence of release
+dashboard-data-20261014 (Gemini 4 Argon and Muse Spark 1.3).
+
+The release's one wave is its own triage decisions (docs/argon/spec.json's
+triage_adjudications). It joins the evidence uncommitted, each of its
+decisions gains the stage verdict it names, and a second pass writes the same
+evidence. Every earlier wave stays release 20261013b's.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+import copy
+import hashlib
+import json
+import sys
+from pathlib import Path
+
+import pytest
+from hypothesis import given, settings
+from hypothesis import strategies as st
+
+ROOT = Path(__file__).resolve().parents[1]
+sys.path.insert(0, str(ROOT / "scripts"))
+
+import date_argon_judge_verdicts as dating # noqa: E402
+import finish_argon as driver # noqa: E402
+
+DAY = "2026-10-14"
+# The committed spec, read once: the tests patch driver.load_spec.
+REAL_SPEC = driver.load_spec()
+
+
+def _evidence() -> dict:
+ return json.loads(dating.EVIDENCE.read_text())
+
+
+def _spec(**changes) -> dict:
+ spec = {
+ **copy.deepcopy(REAL_SPEC),
+ "triage_decided_on": DAY,
+ "triage_adjudications_written_on": DAY,
+ }
+ spec.setdefault("triage_adjudications", [{"scenario_id": "MOCK"}])
+ return {**spec, **changes}
+
+
+def _entry(scenario: str, *, suspect: bool, day: str = DAY) -> dict:
+ return {
+ "country": "us",
+ "scenario_id": scenario,
+ "variable": "snap",
+ "judge_model": driver.JUDGE_MODEL,
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
+ "adjudicated_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "adjudicated_failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
+ "adjudicated_on": day,
+ "adjudicator": "developer",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": suspect,
+ "reasoning": "MOCK",
+ "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-13",
+ }
+
+
+def _bind(stage: Path, entry: dict, *, suspect: bool | None = None) -> None:
+ folder = stage / "audit" / "cases" / dating.case_id(entry)
+ folder.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
+ verdict = {
+ "case_failure_source": entry["judge_failure_source"],
+ "case_failure_subtype": entry["judge_failure_subtype"],
+ "models": [],
+ "reference_suspect": entry["judge_reference_suspect"]
+ if suspect is None
+ else suspect,
+ }
+ raw = json.dumps(verdict).encode()
+ (folder / "verdict.json").write_bytes(raw)
+ (folder / "verdict.meta.json").write_text(
+ json.dumps(
+ {
+ "verdict_sha256": hashlib.sha256(raw).hexdigest(),
+ "judge_model_requested": driver.JUDGE_MODEL,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T19:00:00+00:00",
+ }
+ )
+ )
+
+
+def _record(*extra) -> dict:
+ base = driver.base_adjudication_record()
+ return {**base, "adjudications": base["adjudications"] + list(extra)}
+
+
+def test_the_committed_evidence_holds_release_20261013bs_waves_or_this_releases():
+ """Before the freeze the evidence is release 20261013b's; after the dating
+ script it adds this release's triage wave, uncommitted. Either way the
+ base waves come back, each published."""
+ evidence = _evidence()
+ waves = dating.base_wave_releases(evidence["wave_releases"])
+ assert list(waves) == dating.BASE_WAVES
+ assert all(release["commit"] for release in waves.values())
+ extra = list(evidence["wave_releases"])[len(dating.BASE_WAVES) :]
+ assert extra in ([], [REAL_SPEC["triage_decided_on"]])
+
+
+def test_new_waves_allows_only_the_spec_triage_wave():
+ spec = _spec()
+ assert dating.new_waves(_record(), spec) == {}
+ triaged = _record(_entry("scenario_009", suspect=False))
+ assert dating.new_waves(triaged, spec) == {DAY: DAY}
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="decides only its triage wave"):
+ dating.new_waves(
+ _record(_entry("scenario_009", suspect=False, day="2026-10-15")), spec
+ )
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="decides only its triage wave"):
+ dating.new_waves(triaged, _spec(triage_adjudications=[]))
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="written before it"):
+ dating.new_waves(triaged, _spec(triage_adjudications_written_on="2026-10-13"))
+
+
+def test_base_wave_releases_refuses_a_wave_that_is_not_this_releases():
+ waves = _evidence()["wave_releases"]
+ base = {wave: waves[wave] for wave in dating.BASE_WAVES}
+ ours = {
+ **base,
+ DAY: {"commit": None, "release": driver.RELEASE_TAG, "pull_request": None},
+ }
+ assert dating.base_wave_releases(ours) == base
+ for foreign in (
+ {"commit": None, "release": "MOCK", "pull_request": None},
+ {"commit": "f" * 40, "release": driver.RELEASE_TAG, "pull_request": 1},
+ ):
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="not this release's"):
+ dating.base_wave_releases({**base, DAY: foreign})
+ unfilled = copy.deepcopy(base)
+ unfilled[dating.BASE_WAVES[-1]]["commit"] = None
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="unfilled"):
+ dating.base_wave_releases(unfilled)
+ reordered = dict(reversed(list(base.items())))
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="not release 20261013b's"):
+ dating.base_wave_releases(reordered)
+
+
+def test_the_triage_wave_joins_uncommitted_with_its_stage_verdicts(
+ tmp_path, monkeypatch
+):
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "load_spec", lambda: _spec())
+ entries = [
+ _entry("scenario_009", suspect=False),
+ _entry("scenario_064", suspect=True),
+ ]
+ for entry in entries:
+ _bind(tmp_path, entry)
+ record = _record(*entries)
+ evidence = _evidence()
+ out = dating.updated_evidence(evidence, tmp_path, record)
+ assert list(out["wave_releases"]) == [*dating.BASE_WAVES, DAY]
+ assert out["wave_releases"][DAY] == {
+ "commit": None,
+ "release": driver.RELEASE_TAG,
+ "pull_request": None,
+ "adjudications_written_on": DAY,
+ }
+ for entry in entries:
+ found = out["cases"][dating.case_id(entry)]
+ assert found["current"]["tree"] == "stage"
+ assert found["current"]["reference_suspect"] is entry["judge_reference_suspect"]
+ assert "published" not in found
+ # The earlier waves and every other case are untouched.
+ base = {
+ k: v for k, v in out["cases"].items() if k not in map(dating.case_id, entries)
+ }
+ assert base == {
+ k: v
+ for k, v in evidence["cases"].items()
+ if k not in map(dating.case_id, entries)
+ }
+ # A second pass on its own output writes the same evidence.
+ assert dating.updated_evidence(out, tmp_path, record) == out
+
+
+def test_the_evidence_refuses_a_triage_decision_that_does_not_name_its_verdict(
+ tmp_path, monkeypatch
+):
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "load_spec", lambda: _spec())
+ entry = _entry("scenario_064", suspect=True)
+ _bind(tmp_path, entry, suspect=False)
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="does not name its verdict"):
+ dating.updated_evidence(_evidence(), tmp_path, _record(entry))
+
+
+@settings(max_examples=40, deadline=None)
+@given(flags=st.lists(st.booleans(), min_size=1, max_size=5))
+def test_the_wave_evidence_is_idempotent_for_any_triage_decisions(flags):
+ """For any number of triage decisions, flagged or not, the evidence
+ names the wave once and a second pass changes nothing."""
+ import tempfile
+
+ with tempfile.TemporaryDirectory() as tmp:
+ stage = Path(tmp)
+ entries = [
+ _entry(f"scenario_9{i:02d}", suspect=flag) for i, flag in enumerate(flags)
+ ]
+ for entry in entries:
+ _bind(stage, entry)
+ record = _record(*entries)
+ saved = driver.load_spec
+ driver.load_spec = lambda: _spec()
+ try:
+ once = dating.updated_evidence(_evidence(), stage, record)
+ twice = dating.updated_evidence(once, stage, record)
+ finally:
+ driver.load_spec = saved
+ assert once == twice
+ assert list(once["wave_releases"]).count(DAY) == 1
+ assert all(dating.case_id(e) in once["cases"] for e in entries)
diff --git a/tests/test_disclosures.py b/tests/test_disclosures.py
index d17b386a..37fe51e9 100644
--- a/tests/test_disclosures.py
+++ b/tests/test_disclosures.py
@@ -272,15 +272,17 @@ def test_audit_disclosures_use_the_frozen_legacy_threshold_universe():
# exact misses, 2,107 unannotated) less the 368 scored rows on the eight
# outputs it excludes: 333 annotated exact misses and 35 unannotated rows
# below full bounded score (7,527, 7,523 and 2,072). Release 20261010
- # adds Claude Haiku 5.5's rows and moves the scored outputs. The app's
- # summarizeAuditUniverse recomputes the same counts from the payload
- # (app/tests/auditUniverse.test.ts).
+ # adds Claude Haiku 5.5's rows and moves the scored outputs. Release
+ # 20261014 adds Gemini 4 Argon's and Muse Spark 1.3's rows (262 annotated
+ # misses, 111 unannotated rows below full bounded score) on unchanged
+ # references and exclusions. The app's summarizeAuditUniverse recomputes
+ # the same counts from the payload (app/tests/auditUniverse.test.ts).
assert counts == {
- "annotated": 8_503,
- "exact_misses": 8_499,
- "annotated_exact_misses": 8_499,
+ "annotated": 8_765,
+ "exact_misses": 8_761,
+ "annotated_exact_misses": 8_761,
"annotated_exact_hits": 4,
- "unannotated_below_full_bounded_score": 2_218,
+ "unannotated_below_full_bounded_score": 2_329,
}
for path in (
@@ -1161,3 +1163,67 @@ def names(model: str, sentence: str) -> bool:
assert names(model, note_choice), model
assert "older Gemini rows" in note_choice
assert sorted(m for m in serving if names(m, note_choice)) == sorted(card_choice)
+
+
+# The benchmark card's cache-replay examples ("Cost basis"): household
+# latency is the sum of its rows' elapsed_seconds, since each row records its
+# call's latency divided among the call's outputs.
+REPLAYED_SMOKE_HOUSEHOLDS = {
+ ("muse-spark-1.3", "scenario_000"),
+ ("muse-spark-1.3", "scenario_001"),
+ ("muse-spark-1.3", "scenario_099"),
+ ("muse-spark-1.3", "scenario_119"),
+}
+NEAR_ZERO_EXAMPLES = {
+ ("muse-wonder", "scenario_000"),
+ ("muse-wonder", "scenario_001"),
+ ("claude-opus-5.5", "scenario_000"),
+ ("claude-opus-5.5", "scenario_001"),
+ ("claude-haiku-5.5", "scenario_000"),
+}
+
+
+def _household_latency() -> dict[tuple[str, str], tuple[float, int]]:
+ """(model, scenario_id) -> (summed row latency in seconds, row count),
+ from the frozen predictions."""
+ import pandas as pd
+
+ manifest = json.loads(SNAPSHOT_MANIFEST.read_text())
+ run_dir = (
+ ROOT
+ / manifest["source_run_artifacts"][manifest["source_run_labels"]["us"]]["path"]
+ )
+ predictions = pd.read_csv(
+ run_dir / "predictions.csv.gz",
+ usecols=["model", "scenario_id", "elapsed_seconds"],
+ )
+ grouped = predictions.groupby(["model", "scenario_id"])["elapsed_seconds"]
+ sums, counts = grouped.sum(min_count=1), grouped.size()
+ return {key: (float(sums[key]), int(counts[key])) for key in sums.index}
+
+
+def test_cache_replay_examples_match_the_frozen_household_latencies():
+ """The card's replayed smoke households take 0.03 seconds or less, and
+ each other example it names sums to under 0.05 seconds; every example is
+ a household the card names, with recorded (not missing) latency."""
+ text = re.sub(r"\s+", " ", BENCHMARK_CARD.read_text())
+ assert "a household's latency is the sum over its rows" in text
+ assert (
+ "The Muse Spark 1.3 row replays its four smoke households (scenario_000, "
+ "scenario_001, scenario_099 and scenario_119)"
+ ) in text
+ assert "a household latency of 0.03 seconds or less" in text
+ assert (
+ "among them scenario_000 and scenario_001 for Muse Wonder and Claude "
+ "Opus 5.5 and scenario_000 for Claude Haiku 5.5."
+ ) in text
+ latency = _household_latency()
+ for key in REPLAYED_SMOKE_HOUSEHOLDS:
+ seconds, rows = latency[key]
+ assert rows > 1 and 0 < seconds <= 0.03, (key, seconds)
+ for key in NEAR_ZERO_EXAMPLES:
+ seconds, rows = latency[key]
+ assert rows > 1 and 0 < seconds < 0.05, (key, seconds)
+ # Round 1's wrong example: the household is slower once its rows are
+ # summed, so the card must not name it.
+ assert latency[("claude-haiku-5.5", "scenario_001")][0] >= 0.05
diff --git a/tests/test_finish_argon.py b/tests/test_finish_argon.py
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..3cff93f9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/test_finish_argon.py
@@ -0,0 +1,4517 @@
+"""The Gemini 4 Argon and Muse Spark 1.3 additions move no incumbent.
+
+Adapted from test_finish_musewonder.py, without its engine-upgrade tests: this
+release's driver installs no reference build. Synthetic data stands in for runs,
+audits and payloads. Release 20261013b is read from git at BASE_COMMIT, never
+from the working tree (the freeze rewrites it). Tests that read the seed
+copy, the main clone's grounding or the live stage read them only, and skip
+where they are absent.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+import contextlib
+import copy
+import csv
+import functools
+import gzip
+import hashlib
+import inspect
+import io
+import json
+import re
+import shutil
+import subprocess
+import sys
+import tempfile
+from pathlib import Path
+from types import SimpleNamespace
+from unittest import mock
+
+import pandas as pd
+import pytest
+from hypothesis import HealthCheck, assume, given, settings
+from hypothesis import strategies as st
+
+sys.path.insert(0, str(Path(__file__).resolve().parents[1] / "scripts"))
+
+import finish_argon as driver # noqa: E402
+import finish_gpt61sol as gpt61sol # noqa: E402
+import release_20261006 # noqa: E402
+
+from policybench.audit import AUDIT_OUTPUT_SCHEMA # noqa: E402
+
+# The two additions. Most synthetic cases use the first; a gate that names
+# every registered model gets both.
+NEW = "gemini-4-argon"
+SLUG = "argon"
+OTHER = "muse-spark-1.3"
+OTHER_SLUG = "musespark"
+ADDITIONS = {SLUG: NEW, OTHER_SLUG: OTHER}
+REPO = Path(__file__).resolve().parents[1]
+BASE_COMMIT = driver.BASE_COMMIT
+COMMITTED_SEED_DIGEST_SHA256 = driver.SEED_DIGEST_SHA256
+SNAPSHOT_PATH = Path("paper/snapshot/20260501/runs") / driver.RUN_NAME
+ADJUDICATIONS_PATH = Path("annotations") / driver.RUN_NAME / driver.ADJUDICATIONS
+EXCLUSIONS_NAME = "reference_exclusions.json"
+BOUND_EXCLUSIONS = f"publish/{driver.RUN_NAME}/us/{EXCLUSIONS_NAME}"
+# Release 20261013b's audit (the seed, a read-only copy), the grounding it was
+# rendered with, the supervised runs root and the live stage. All local only;
+# nothing here writes to them.
+SEED = REPO / "results/local/argon/seed-20261013b/audit"
+# The release's stage, prepared on #218's frozen head 6c44858f, whose data
+# trees BASE_COMMIT keeps, with the first stage's audit carried in (local
+# only).
+STAGE = REPO / "results/local/argon/stage2"
+# The working stage: STAGE itself. The committed judge provenance record
+# describes it.
+WORKING_STAGE = STAGE
+GROUNDING = Path(
+ "/Users/maxghenis/PolicyEngine/policybench/results/local/unified_audit/"
+ "grounding.csv"
+)
+RUNS = Path("/Users/maxghenis/PolicyEngine/policybench/results/local/argon-runs")
+# The UTC day a test's adjudicate step says its decisions were written on.
+WRITTEN_ON = "2026-10-09"
+# The seven fields the ruling decides on an entry.
+DECISION_FIELDS = (
+ "adjudicated_failure_source",
+ "adjudicated_failure_subtype",
+ "adjudicated_on",
+ "adjudicator",
+ "excluded_from_scoring",
+ "reference_verdict",
+ "reference_basis",
+)
+
+
+@functools.cache
+def base_blob(path: Path) -> bytes:
+ """A repository file as committed at BASE_COMMIT (release 20261013b)."""
+ result = subprocess.run(
+ ["git", "-C", str(REPO), "show", f"{BASE_COMMIT}:{path.as_posix()}"],
+ capture_output=True,
+ )
+ if result.returncode:
+ pytest.fail(
+ f"cannot read {path} at base commit {BASE_COMMIT[:12]}; fetch full "
+ f"history (git fetch --unshallow): {result.stderr.decode().strip()}"
+ )
+ return result.stdout
+
+
+def base_references(directory: Path) -> Path:
+ """Write release 20261013b's five reference files into ``directory``."""
+ directory.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
+ for name in driver.REFERENCE_FILES:
+ (directory / name).write_bytes(base_blob(SNAPSHOT_PATH / name))
+ return directory
+
+
+def base_record() -> dict:
+ """Release 20261013b's exclusion record, a fresh copy each call."""
+ return json.loads(base_blob(SNAPSHOT_PATH / EXCLUSIONS_NAME))
+
+
+def base_adjudication_record() -> dict:
+ """Release 20261013b's adjudication record file, a fresh copy each call."""
+ return json.loads(base_blob(ADJUDICATIONS_PATH))
+
+
+def real_spec() -> dict:
+ """docs/argon/spec.json as the working tree holds it."""
+ return json.loads((REPO / driver.SPEC_PATH).read_text())
+
+
+@functools.cache
+def _release_text() -> str:
+ with mock.patch.object(driver, "ROOT", REPO):
+ record = driver.build_release_exclusions(base_record(), real_spec())
+ return driver.exclusions_text(record)
+
+
+def release_text() -> str:
+ """The release's exclusion record as install-exclusions writes it,
+ computed against the real repository whatever a test patched."""
+ return _release_text()
+
+
+def release_sha() -> str:
+ return hashlib.sha256(release_text().encode()).hexdigest()
+
+
+def ruled_case(item: dict) -> str:
+ return f"us__{item['scenario_id']}__{item['variable']}"
+
+
+@pytest.fixture
+def unruled_spec(monkeypatch):
+ """A spec whose rulings decide no adjudication and that lists no triage
+ decision, so the gates ported from the GPT-6.1 Sol release see their own
+ synthetic records only."""
+ spec = {
+ **real_spec(),
+ "adjudications_written_on": WRITTEN_ON,
+ "adjudications": [],
+ "restated_adjudications": [],
+ "triage_adjudications": [],
+ }
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "load_spec", lambda: copy.deepcopy(spec))
+ return spec
+
+
+def test_the_additions_are_argon_and_muse_spark_on_a_50_model_board():
+ assert driver.MODELS == ADDITIONS
+ assert driver.BASE_MODELS == 48 and driver.BOARD_MODELS == 50
+ assert driver.BASE_OUTPUTS == 1984
+ assert driver.BASE_EXCLUSIONS == 49 and driver.BASE_SCORED == 1935
+ assert driver.NEW_EXCLUSIONS == 0 and driver.RELEASE_EXCLUSIONS == 49
+ assert driver.RELEASE_SCORED == 1935
+ assert driver.BASE_TAG == "dashboard-data-20261013b"
+ # PR #218's squash merge on main.
+ assert driver.BASE_COMMIT == "2cb77a17739abeace3ff32391f902a39127843c0"
+ assert driver.SEED_RELEASE_COMMIT == driver.BASE_COMMIT
+ assert set(driver.BASE_REFERENCE_SHA256) == set(driver.REFERENCE_FILES)
+ assert driver.JUDGE_MODEL == "claude-opus-5-5"
+ assert driver.JUDGE_TEMPLATE_VERSION == 2
+ assert driver.REWORDED_SINCE_SEED == frozenset()
+ assert driver.BASE_ENGINE == "policyengine-us 2.41.0"
+
+
+def test_the_spec_names_this_drivers_release_and_base():
+ """The freeze compares the spec's tag and base with the driver's."""
+ spec = real_spec()
+ assert spec["release_tag"] == driver.RELEASE_TAG
+ assert spec["base_tag"] == driver.BASE_TAG
+ assert spec["base_sha256"] == driver.BASE_SHA256
+
+
+def test_the_base_pointer_at_the_base_commit_is_release_20261013b():
+ """BASE_TAG and BASE_SHA256 are what the base release's merge commits as
+ the live dashboard pointer."""
+ pointer = json.loads(base_blob(Path("app/src/data.artifact.json")))
+ assert pointer["tag"] == driver.BASE_TAG
+ assert pointer["sha256"] == driver.BASE_SHA256
+
+
+# --- Run discovery -------------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+@pytest.fixture
+def runs(tmp_path):
+ root = tmp_path / "runs"
+ for slug, model in ADDITIONS.items():
+ directory = root / slug / "run"
+ directory.mkdir(parents=True)
+ (directory / "run_state.json").write_text(
+ json.dumps(
+ {
+ "model": model,
+ "completed": 100,
+ "total": 100,
+ "stopped_reason": None,
+ }
+ )
+ )
+ (directory / "predictions.csv").write_text("model,scenario_id,variable\n")
+ return root
+
+
+def change_state(root, **changes):
+ path = root / SLUG / "run/run_state.json"
+ state = json.loads(path.read_text())
+ state.update(changes)
+ path.write_text(json.dumps(state))
+
+
+def test_discovers_only_the_registered_models(runs):
+ extra = runs / "sonnet55/run"
+ extra.mkdir(parents=True)
+ (extra / "run_state.json").write_text(json.dumps({"model": "claude-sonnet-5.5"}))
+ found = driver.discover_new_models(runs)
+ assert [(run.slug, run.model) for run in found] == list(ADDITIONS.items())
+ assert all(run.predictions.parent == run.run_dir for run in found)
+
+
+def test_a_missing_run_of_either_addition_is_refused(runs):
+ """Both additions must have finished: one alone is not the release."""
+ shutil.rmtree(runs / OTHER_SLUG)
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=f"{OTHER_SLUG}: no run_state.json"):
+ driver.discover_new_models(runs)
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+ "changes",
+ [
+ {"completed": 99},
+ {"completed": 38},
+ {"stopped_reason": "budget exhausted"},
+ {"stopped_reason": ""},
+ {"stopped_reason": False},
+ {"completed": 0, "total": 0},
+ {"completed": -1, "total": -1},
+ {"completed": True, "total": True},
+ {"completed": 100.0, "total": 100.0},
+ {"completed": "100", "total": "100"},
+ ],
+)
+def test_an_incomplete_or_stopped_run_is_refused(runs, changes):
+ change_state(runs, **changes)
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="refusing incomplete additions"):
+ driver.discover_new_models(runs)
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+ "model", ["claude-haiku-5", "claude-haiku-5-5", "claude-sonnet-5.5", "", None]
+)
+def test_the_wrong_model_in_a_run_state_is_refused(runs, model):
+ change_state(runs, model=model)
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="unexpected model"):
+ driver.discover_new_models(runs)
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("name", ["run_state.json", "predictions.csv"])
+def test_a_missing_run_artifact_is_refused(runs, name):
+ (runs / SLUG / "run" / name).unlink()
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=SLUG):
+ driver.discover_new_models(runs)
+
+
+def test_scratch_completion_still_requires_completed_equal_total(runs):
+ change_state(runs, completed=4, total=5, synthetic_partial=True)
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="4/5"):
+ driver.discover_new_models(runs)
+ change_state(runs, completed=5)
+ assert len(driver.discover_new_models(runs)) == len(ADDITIONS)
+
+
+# --- Input pins ----------------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+def test_pin_inputs_writes_the_finished_runs_file_hashes(runs, tmp_path, monkeypatch):
+ """--step pin-inputs needs no stage: it hashes the finished run's
+ predictions.csv and run_state.json and refuses an unfinished run."""
+ pins = tmp_path / "input_pins.json"
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "INPUT_PINS", pins)
+ driver.main(["--step", "pin-inputs", "--runs-root", str(runs)])
+ record = json.loads(pins.read_text())
+ assert record == driver.input_pins_record(runs)
+ assert record["inputs"] == {
+ slug: {
+ "run": f"runs/{slug}/run",
+ "sha256": {
+ name: hashlib.sha256(
+ (runs / slug / "run" / name).read_bytes()
+ ).hexdigest()
+ for name in ("predictions.csv", "run_state.json")
+ },
+ }
+ for slug in ADDITIONS
+ }
+ change_state(runs, completed=99)
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="refusing incomplete additions"):
+ driver.main(["--step", "pin-inputs", "--runs-root", str(runs)])
+
+
+# The first and last hex digits of each addition's pinned run files, as the
+# design note gives them.
+COMMITTED_PINS = {
+ SLUG: {
+ "predictions.csv": ("76724f96", "6462"),
+ "run_state.json": ("b2af6808", "f80d"),
+ },
+ OTHER_SLUG: {
+ "predictions.csv": ("1e4c81a1", "87d3"),
+ "run_state.json": ("923d8c2b", "292c"),
+ },
+}
+
+
+def test_the_committed_input_pins_name_both_run_files_of_each_addition():
+ """Runs anywhere: the committed pins name each addition's two run files,
+ as the design note gives them."""
+ record = json.loads(driver.INPUT_PINS.read_text())
+ assert set(record["inputs"]) == set(ADDITIONS)
+ for slug, expected in COMMITTED_PINS.items():
+ assert record["inputs"][slug]["run"] == f"argon-runs/{slug}/run"
+ pins = record["inputs"][slug]["sha256"]
+ assert set(pins) == {"predictions.csv", "run_state.json"}
+ assert all(re.fullmatch("[0-9a-f]{64}", value) for value in pins.values())
+ for name, (start, end) in expected.items():
+ assert pins[name].startswith(start) and pins[name].endswith(end)
+ assert driver.INPUT_PINS.read_text() == (
+ json.dumps(record, indent=2, sort_keys=True) + "\n"
+ )
+
+
+def test_the_committed_input_pins_are_the_finished_runs():
+ """Local only: recomputed from the run directory, the pins are the same."""
+ if not all((RUNS / slug / "run").is_dir() for slug in ADDITIONS):
+ pytest.skip("the additions' run directories are not on this machine")
+ assert driver.input_pins_record(RUNS) == json.loads(driver.INPUT_PINS.read_text())
+
+
+@pytest.mark.slow
+def test_the_stages_inputs_are_the_pinned_run():
+ """Local only, read-only: the stage's copies are the pinned bytes, its
+ prepare-time hashes hold, and its bundle rows are the run file's in every
+ column (this reads the stage's 700 MB bundle predictions)."""
+ if not all((STAGE / "inputs" / slug).is_dir() for slug in ADDITIONS):
+ pytest.skip("needs the release's stage")
+ inputs = json.loads(driver.INPUT_PINS.read_text())["inputs"]
+ for slug in ADDITIONS:
+ for name, pin in inputs[slug]["sha256"].items():
+ assert driver.digest(STAGE / "inputs" / slug / name) == pin
+ driver.verify_prepared_inputs(STAGE)
+ assert driver.new_model_row_differences(STAGE) == []
+
+
+def commit(root: Path, message: str) -> str:
+ """Commit everything in a scratch repository, with no user hooks or keys;
+ return the new commit's sha."""
+ git = ["git", "-C", str(root), "-c", "core.hooksPath=/dev/null"]
+ git += ["-c", "commit.gpgsign=false", "-c", "user.name=t", "-c", "user.email=t@t"]
+ subprocess.run([*git, "add", "."], check=True)
+ subprocess.run([*git, "commit", "--allow-empty", "-qm", message], check=True)
+ return subprocess.run(
+ ["git", "-C", str(root), "rev-parse", "HEAD"],
+ capture_output=True,
+ check=True,
+ text=True,
+ ).stdout.strip()
+
+
+@pytest.fixture
+def pinned_repo(tmp_path, monkeypatch):
+ """A git repository whose HEAD commits an input-pins file."""
+ root = tmp_path / "repo"
+ pins = root / driver.INPUT_PINS_PATH
+ pins.parent.mkdir(parents=True)
+ record = {
+ "inputs": {
+ slug: {"sha256": {"predictions.csv": "a" * 64, "run_state.json": "b" * 64}}
+ for slug in ADDITIONS
+ }
+ }
+ pins.write_text(json.dumps(record))
+ subprocess.run(["git", "-C", str(root), "init", "-q"], check=True)
+ commit(root, "pins")
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "ROOT", root)
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "INPUT_PINS", pins)
+ return pins, record
+
+
+def test_the_input_pins_are_read_as_committed_at_head(pinned_repo):
+ pins, record = pinned_repo
+ assert driver.committed_input_pins() == {
+ slug: {"predictions.csv": "a" * 64, "run_state.json": "b" * 64}
+ for slug in ADDITIONS
+ }
+ # Pins rewritten and not committed are refused, not silently ignored.
+ record["inputs"][SLUG]["sha256"]["predictions.csv"] = "c" * 64
+ pins.write_text(json.dumps(record))
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="differs from its HEAD commit; commit it"):
+ driver.committed_input_pins()
+
+
+def test_input_pins_never_committed_are_refused(pinned_repo, monkeypatch):
+ pins, _ = pinned_repo
+ elsewhere = pins.with_name("other_pins.json")
+ elsewhere.write_text(pins.read_text())
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "INPUT_PINS_PATH", "docs/argon/other_pins.json")
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "INPUT_PINS", elsewhere)
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="is not committed at HEAD"):
+ driver.committed_input_pins()
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+ "inputs",
+ [
+ {},
+ {SLUG: {"sha256": {"predictions.csv": "a" * 64}}},
+ {SLUG: {"sha256": {"predictions.csv": "a", "run_state.json": "b"}}, "x": {}},
+ # One addition pinned in full, the other not at all.
+ {SLUG: {"sha256": {"predictions.csv": "a" * 64, "run_state.json": "b" * 64}}},
+ ],
+)
+def test_input_pins_that_miss_a_run_file_are_refused(pinned_repo, inputs):
+ pins, _ = pinned_repo
+ pins.write_text(json.dumps({"inputs": inputs}))
+ commit(driver.ROOT, "other pins")
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="does not pin"):
+ driver.committed_input_pins()
+
+
+# --- Stage isolation -----------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+@pytest.fixture
+def workspace(tmp_path, monkeypatch):
+ root = tmp_path / "workspace"
+ root.mkdir()
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "ROOT", root)
+ return root
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("relation", ["same", "parent", "child"])
+def test_stage_must_not_overlap_any_input(workspace, relation):
+ stage = workspace / "results/local/stage"
+ source = {"same": stage, "parent": stage.parent, "child": stage / "source"}[
+ relation
+ ]
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="overlaps input"):
+ driver.validate_stage_path(stage, [source])
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("relative", ["app/src", "paper/snapshot", "results/local"])
+def test_stage_must_be_a_scratch_subdirectory(workspace, relative):
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="stage-dir must be below"):
+ driver.validate_stage_path(workspace / relative, [])
+
+
+def test_stage_cannot_contain_symlink_to_a_live_file(workspace):
+ stage = workspace / "results/local/stage"
+ stage.mkdir(parents=True)
+ (stage / "predictions.csv").symlink_to(workspace / "live.csv")
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="symlink in stage-dir"):
+ driver.validate_stage_path(stage, [])
+
+
+def test_disjoint_scratch_stage_is_allowed(workspace):
+ driver.validate_stage_path(
+ workspace / "results/local/stage", [workspace / "results/local/inputs"]
+ )
+
+
+# --- Prediction keys -----------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+@pytest.fixture
+def predictions():
+ return pd.DataFrame(
+ {
+ "model": [NEW, NEW],
+ "scenario_id": ["scenario_000", "scenario_000"],
+ "variable": ["snap", "ssi"],
+ "prediction": [0, 1],
+ }
+ )
+
+
+def test_equal_row_counts_do_not_hide_substituted_output_keys(predictions):
+ wrong = predictions.copy()
+ wrong.loc[1, "variable"] = "medicaid"
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="keys differ"):
+ driver.validate_keys(wrong, predictions, NEW)
+
+
+def test_duplicate_output_keys_are_rejected(predictions):
+ repeated = pd.concat([predictions, predictions.iloc[:1]], ignore_index=True)
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="duplicate prediction keys"):
+ driver.validate_keys(repeated, predictions, NEW)
+
+
+def test_predictions_cannot_be_labeled_as_another_model(predictions):
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="unexpected model"):
+ driver.validate_keys(predictions, predictions, "claude-sonnet-5.5")
+
+
+# --- CLI -----------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+ "options, message",
+ [
+ (["--partial"], "--partial requires --early"),
+ (["--early", "--step", "judge"], "--early only applies to prepare"),
+ (["--early", "--step", "triage"], "--early only applies to prepare"),
+ (["--early", "--step", "export"], "--early only applies to prepare"),
+ (
+ ["--early", "--step", "install-exclusions"],
+ "--early only applies to prepare",
+ ),
+ (
+ ["--early", "--step", "adjudicate-exclusions"],
+ "--early only applies to prepare",
+ ),
+ ([], "prepare requires --runs-root"),
+ ],
+)
+def test_cli_rejects_unsafe_mode_combinations(tmp_path, options, message, capsys):
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit):
+ driver.parse_args(["--stage-dir", str(tmp_path), *options])
+ assert message in capsys.readouterr().err
+
+
+def test_partial_mode_is_explicitly_early(tmp_path):
+ args = driver.parse_args(
+ [
+ "--stage-dir",
+ str(tmp_path / "stage"),
+ "--runs-root",
+ str(tmp_path / "runs"),
+ "--early",
+ "--partial",
+ ]
+ )
+ assert args.partial and args.early and args.step == "prepare"
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("step", ["install-exclusions", "adjudicate-exclusions"])
+def test_the_new_steps_need_a_stage(step, capsys):
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit):
+ driver.parse_args(["--step", step])
+ assert f"{step} requires --stage-dir" in capsys.readouterr().err
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+ "step", ["export", "triage", "install-exclusions", "adjudicate-exclusions"]
+)
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("field", ["partial", "early"])
+def test_an_early_or_partial_stage_cannot_resume_into_release(workspace, field, step):
+ stage = workspace / "results/local/stage"
+ stage.mkdir(parents=True)
+ receipt = {"partial": False, "early": False, "files": {}}
+ receipt[field] = True
+ (stage / "stage.json").write_text(json.dumps(receipt))
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="cannot become a release"):
+ driver.main(["--stage-dir", str(stage), "--step", step])
+
+
+def test_resume_refuses_changed_staged_inputs(workspace):
+ stage = workspace / "results/local/stage"
+ stage.mkdir(parents=True)
+ (stage / "predictions.csv").write_text("changed data")
+ (stage / "stage.json").write_text(
+ json.dumps(
+ {
+ "partial": False,
+ "early": False,
+ "files": {
+ "predictions.csv": hashlib.sha256(b"original data").hexdigest()
+ },
+ }
+ )
+ )
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="staged input changed"):
+ driver.main(["--stage-dir", str(stage), "--step", "export"])
+
+
+def _resumable(stage: Path, installed: dict | None) -> None:
+ stage.mkdir(parents=True)
+ receipt = {"partial": False, "early": False, "files": {}}
+ if installed is not None:
+ receipt["exclusions_installed"] = installed
+ (stage / "stage.json").write_text(json.dumps(receipt))
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("step", ["triage", "export", "adjudicate-exclusions"])
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("installed", [None, {}, {"sha256": "0" * 64}])
+def test_later_steps_refuse_a_stage_without_the_installed_exclusions(
+ workspace, monkeypatch, step, installed
+):
+ sha = release_sha()
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "release_exclusions_sha256", lambda: sha)
+ for name in ("triage", "export", "adjudicate_exclusions", "resolve_live_base"):
+ monkeypatch.setattr(
+ driver, name, lambda *a, n=name: pytest.fail(f"{n} ran"), raising=True
+ )
+ stage = workspace / "results/local/stage"
+ _resumable(stage, installed)
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="run --step install-exclusions"):
+ driver.main(["--stage-dir", str(stage), "--step", step])
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+ "step, called",
+ [
+ ("triage", "triage"),
+ ("adjudicate-exclusions", "adjudicate_exclusions"),
+ ("judge", "judge"),
+ ("install-exclusions", "install_exclusions"),
+ ],
+)
+def test_a_stage_with_the_release_exclusions_reaches_its_step(
+ workspace, monkeypatch, step, called
+):
+ """The installed record lets triage and adjudicate-exclusions run; judge
+ and install-exclusions do not need it (no prompt renders an exclusion)."""
+ sha = release_sha()
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "release_exclusions_sha256", lambda: sha)
+ calls = []
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, called, lambda *a: calls.append(called))
+ stage = workspace / "results/local/stage"
+ installed = {"sha256": sha} if step in ("triage", "adjudicate-exclusions") else None
+ _resumable(stage, installed)
+ driver.main(["--stage-dir", str(stage), "--step", step])
+ assert calls == [called]
+
+
+# --- Reference pins ------------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+def test_the_committed_references_match_their_pins(tmp_path):
+ """Release 20261013b's references, read from BASE_COMMIT, are the pinned
+ bytes: 49 exclusions (42 unlisted inputs, five engine defects and two
+ later-published law), and 1,935 scored outputs."""
+ snapshot = base_references(tmp_path / "snapshot")
+ driver.verify_reference_pins(snapshot, "committed reference")
+ for name, pin in driver.BASE_REFERENCE_SHA256.items():
+ raw = (snapshot / name).read_bytes()
+ assert hashlib.sha256(raw).hexdigest() == pin
+ from policybench.reference_exclusions import (
+ load_reference_exclusions,
+ split_reference,
+ )
+
+ exclusions = load_reference_exclusions(snapshot)
+ assert len(exclusions) == driver.BASE_EXCLUSIONS
+ reasons = [e["reason_code"] for e in exclusions]
+ assert reasons.count("reference_engine_defect") == 5
+ assert reasons.count("reference_depends_on_unlisted_input") == 42
+ assert reasons.count("reference_law_published_after_freeze") == 2
+ reference = pd.read_csv(snapshot / "reference_outputs.csv")
+ assert len(reference) == driver.BASE_OUTPUTS
+ assert reference.scenario_id.nunique() == 100
+ assert len(split_reference(reference, exclusions)[0]) == driver.BASE_SCORED
+
+
+def test_the_committed_adjudications_exclude_exactly_the_scoring_exclusions(
+ tmp_path,
+):
+ """Release 20261013b's record (61 decisions, 49 of them exclusions) excludes
+ exactly its exclusion record's outputs, scenario_023 Medicaid included."""
+ from policybench.adjudications import excluded_case_keys
+ from policybench.reference_exclusions import (
+ exclusion_keys,
+ load_reference_exclusions,
+ )
+
+ excluded = exclusion_keys(
+ load_reference_exclusions(base_references(tmp_path / "snapshot"))
+ )
+ decisions = driver.base_adjudications()
+ assert len(decisions) == 61
+ assert excluded_case_keys(decisions) == excluded
+ assert ("scenario_023", "head_medicaid_eligible") in excluded
+
+
+@pytest.fixture
+def pinned_copy(tmp_path):
+ """A copy of release 20261013b's five reference files."""
+ return base_references(tmp_path / "references")
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("name", driver.REFERENCE_FILES)
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("defect", ["appended", "missing"])
+def test_a_reference_file_that_misses_its_pin_is_refused(pinned_copy, name, defect):
+ driver.verify_reference_pins(pinned_copy, "staged reference")
+ if defect == "missing":
+ (pinned_copy / name).unlink()
+ else:
+ with (pinned_copy / name).open("a") as stream:
+ stream.write("\n")
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=f"staged reference {name} does not match"):
+ driver.verify_reference_pins(pinned_copy, "staged reference")
+
+
+def test_the_release_exclusion_pin_replaces_only_the_exclusion_records(pinned_copy):
+ """The release rules nothing, so its exclusion pin is release 20261013b's
+ own: the committed copy passes under it, and an edited record does not."""
+ assert release_sha() == driver.BASE_REFERENCE_SHA256[EXCLUSIONS_NAME]
+ driver.verify_reference_pins(pinned_copy, "staged reference", release_sha())
+ with (pinned_copy / EXCLUSIONS_NAME).open("a") as stream:
+ stream.write(" ")
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="reference_exclusions.json does not match"):
+ driver.verify_reference_pins(pinned_copy, "staged reference", release_sha())
+
+
+def test_resolve_base_checks_the_committed_pins_before_anything_else(
+ pinned_copy, monkeypatch
+):
+ (pinned_copy / EXCLUSIONS_NAME).write_text('{"exclusions": []}\n')
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "SNAPSHOT", pinned_copy)
+ monkeypatch.setattr(
+ driver,
+ "live_pointer",
+ lambda: pytest.fail("resolve_base read the pointer before the pins"),
+ )
+ with pytest.raises(
+ SystemExit, match="committed reference reference_exclusions.json"
+ ):
+ driver.resolve_base(SimpleNamespace(partial=False))
+
+
+# --- Base payload in git -------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+def test_the_base_commit_holds_release_20261013b():
+ pointer = json.loads(driver.base_commit_blob(Path("app/src/data.artifact.json")))
+ assert pointer["tag"] == driver.BASE_TAG
+ assert pointer["sha256"] == driver.BASE_SHA256
+ for name, pin in driver.BASE_REFERENCE_SHA256.items():
+ raw = driver.base_commit_blob(driver.SNAPSHOT.relative_to(driver.ROOT) / name)
+ assert hashlib.sha256(raw).hexdigest() == pin
+
+
+def test_the_base_exclusion_record_is_read_from_git_and_pinned(monkeypatch):
+ assert driver.base_exclusion_record() == base_record()
+ # The scope check writes the record back with exclusions_text, so that
+ # spelling must reproduce the pinned bytes exactly.
+ assert (
+ hashlib.sha256(driver.exclusions_text(base_record()).encode()).hexdigest()
+ == driver.BASE_REFERENCE_SHA256[EXCLUSIONS_NAME]
+ )
+ monkeypatch.setattr(
+ driver, "base_commit_blob", lambda path: base_blob(path) + b"\n"
+ )
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="does not match its pin"):
+ driver.base_exclusion_record()
+
+
+def test_the_base_predictions_pin_is_the_release_commits_not_the_working_trees(
+ tmp_path, monkeypatch
+):
+ """A working tree whose predictions and manifest pin are both replaced.
+
+ The pin comes from the manifest at BASE_COMMIT, so editing the working
+ tree's manifest to match substituted predictions does not pass.
+ """
+ committed = Path("paper/snapshot/20260501/manifest.json")
+ snapshot = tmp_path / "paper/snapshot/20260501/runs" / driver.RUN_NAME
+ snapshot.mkdir(parents=True)
+ substitute = snapshot / "predictions.csv.gz"
+ with gzip.open(substitute, "wt") as stream:
+ stream.write("model,scenario_id,variable,prediction\n")
+ manifest = json.loads(base_blob(committed))
+ files = manifest["source_run_artifacts"][driver.RUN_NAME]["files"]
+ files["predictions.csv.gz"] = driver.digest(substitute)
+ (tmp_path / committed).write_text(json.dumps(manifest))
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "ROOT", tmp_path)
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "base_commit_blob", base_blob)
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="fail release 20261013b's manifest hash"):
+ driver.verify_base_predictions(snapshot)
+
+
+def test_release_20261013bs_manifest_pins_its_predictions():
+ manifest = json.loads(
+ driver.base_commit_blob(Path("paper/snapshot/20260501/manifest.json"))
+ )
+ pin = manifest["source_run_artifacts"][driver.RUN_NAME]["files"]
+ raw = driver.base_commit_blob(
+ driver.SNAPSHOT.relative_to(driver.ROOT) / "predictions.csv.gz"
+ )
+ assert hashlib.sha256(raw).hexdigest() == pin["predictions.csv.gz"]
+
+
+def test_base_commit_blob_names_the_missing_history():
+ with pytest.raises(
+ SystemExit, match=f"cannot read .* at base commit {BASE_COMMIT[:12]}"
+ ):
+ driver.base_commit_blob(Path("no/such/file.csv"))
+
+
+def test_base_commit_blob_names_a_missing_commit(monkeypatch):
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "BASE_COMMIT", "0" * 40)
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="at base commit 000000000000.*unshallow"):
+ driver.base_commit_blob(Path("app/src/data.artifact.json"))
+
+
+def test_a_re_export_after_the_freeze_reads_20261013b_from_git(monkeypatch):
+ """After the freeze the pointer names RELEASE_TAG; the base comes from git."""
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "live_pointer", lambda: {"tag": driver.RELEASE_TAG})
+ monkeypatch.setattr(
+ driver, "resolve_base", lambda args: pytest.fail("read the working tree")
+ )
+ live = driver.resolve_live_base(SimpleNamespace())
+ names = {row["model"] for row in live["countries"]["us"]["modelStats"]}
+ assert len(names) == driver.BASE_MODELS and NEW not in names
+
+
+def _gz_payload(models: int) -> bytes:
+ stats = [{"model": f"m{i}"} for i in range(models)]
+ return gzip.compress(json.dumps({"modelStats": stats}).encode())
+
+
+def test_the_git_base_must_rewrap_to_the_20261013b_asset(monkeypatch):
+ raw = _gz_payload(48)
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "base_commit_blob", lambda path: raw)
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "live_pointer", lambda: {"tag": driver.RELEASE_TAG})
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="base payload SHA256 mismatch"):
+ driver.resolve_live_base(SimpleNamespace())
+ wrapped = json.dumps({"countries": {"us": json.loads(gzip.decompress(raw))}})
+ monkeypatch.setattr(
+ driver, "BASE_SHA256", hashlib.sha256(wrapped.encode()).hexdigest()
+ )
+ live = driver.resolve_live_base(SimpleNamespace())
+ assert len(live["countries"]["us"]["modelStats"]) == 48
+ short = _gz_payload(47)
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "base_commit_blob", lambda path: short)
+ wrapped = json.dumps({"countries": {"us": json.loads(gzip.decompress(short))}})
+ monkeypatch.setattr(
+ driver, "BASE_SHA256", hashlib.sha256(wrapped.encode()).hexdigest()
+ )
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="base must have 48 models"):
+ driver.resolve_live_base(SimpleNamespace())
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("tag", ["dashboard-data-20260930", "dashboard-data-20991231"])
+def test_any_other_pointer_is_refused(monkeypatch, tag):
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "live_pointer", lambda: {"tag": tag})
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="base pointer changed"):
+ driver.resolve_live_base(SimpleNamespace())
+
+
+def sha(data) -> str:
+ raw = data.read_bytes() if isinstance(data, Path) else data
+ return hashlib.sha256(raw).hexdigest()
+
+
+# --- Audit ---------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+def _verdict(models, source="llm_error"):
+ return {
+ "reference_suspect": False,
+ "reference_bug_hypothesis": "",
+ "case_failure_source": source,
+ "case_failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
+ "rationale": "The models applied an outdated threshold.",
+ "models": [
+ {
+ "model": model,
+ "failure_source": source,
+ "failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
+ "diagnosis": "The model used the prior year's threshold.",
+ }
+ for model in models
+ ],
+ }
+
+
+def judged_prompt(body: str, version: int = driver.JUDGE_TEMPLATE_VERSION) -> str:
+ """A synthetic prompt that begins with the header of ``version``, as
+ every rendered prompt does: validate_verdicts holds a prompt's header to
+ the version its verdict's sidecar records."""
+ from policybench.judge_template import template_header
+
+ return template_header(version) + "\n" + body
+
+
+def write_verdict(case, verdict, **meta):
+ """A verdict and its sidecar, bound to the verdict and the case's prompt;
+ a meta value of None leaves that key out."""
+ path = case / "verdict.json"
+ path.write_text(json.dumps(verdict))
+ prompt = case / "prompt.md"
+ sidecar = {
+ "verdict_sha256": hashlib.sha256(path.read_bytes()).hexdigest(),
+ "prompt_sha256": (
+ hashlib.sha256(prompt.read_bytes()).hexdigest()
+ if prompt.is_file()
+ else None
+ ),
+ "judge_runner": "scripts/run_audit_claude.sh",
+ "judge_model_requested": driver.JUDGE_MODEL,
+ "judge_model_reported": [driver.JUDGE_MODEL],
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-09T01:00:00+00:00",
+ # A new verdict is on this release's template; a seed's sidecar
+ # records none (v1) and passes judge_template_version=None.
+ "judge_template_version": driver.JUDGE_TEMPLATE_VERSION,
+ **meta,
+ }
+ (case / "verdict.meta.json").write_text(
+ json.dumps({k: v for k, v in sidecar.items() if v is not None})
+ )
+
+
+def _audit(root, wrong_models):
+ case = root / "cases/us__scenario_000__snap"
+ case.mkdir(parents=True)
+ (case / "prompt.md").write_text(judged_prompt("Classify these wrong answers.\n"))
+ (root / "schema.json").write_text(json.dumps(AUDIT_OUTPUT_SCHEMA))
+ (root / "cases.jsonl").write_text(
+ json.dumps(
+ {
+ "case_id": case.name,
+ "wrong_models": wrong_models,
+ "parse_failure_only": False,
+ }
+ )
+ + "\n"
+ )
+ return case
+
+
+@pytest.fixture
+def audit(tmp_path):
+ root = tmp_path / "audit"
+ case = _audit(root, [NEW])
+ verdict = _verdict([NEW])
+ write_verdict(case, verdict)
+ return root, case, verdict
+
+
+def test_verdict_requires_full_schema_and_exact_wrong_model_coverage(audit):
+ root, _, _ = audit
+ assert driver.validate_verdicts(root) == []
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("defect", ["missing", "extra", "duplicate", "schema", "json"])
+def test_invalid_verdict_is_pending_and_removal_clears_provenance(audit, defect):
+ root, case, original = audit
+ verdict = copy.deepcopy(original)
+ if defect == "missing":
+ verdict["models"] = []
+ elif defect == "extra":
+ verdict["models"].append({**verdict["models"][0], "model": "other"})
+ elif defect == "duplicate":
+ verdict["models"].append(verdict["models"][0])
+ elif defect == "schema":
+ del verdict["reference_suspect"]
+ write_verdict(case, verdict)
+ if defect == "json":
+ (case / "verdict.json").write_text("not JSON")
+ assert driver.validate_verdicts(root) == [case.name]
+ assert (case / "verdict.json").exists()
+ assert driver.validate_verdicts(root, remove_invalid=True) == [case.name]
+ assert not (case / "verdict.json").exists()
+ assert not (case / "verdict.meta.json").exists()
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+ "defect",
+ [
+ "missing",
+ "stale",
+ "wrong_judge",
+ "not_an_object",
+ "no_timestamp",
+ "no_prompt_sha256",
+ "other_prompt",
+ "no_runner",
+ "requested_other",
+ ],
+)
+def test_new_model_verdict_requires_bound_opus55_provenance(audit, defect):
+ root, case, _ = audit
+ path = case / "verdict.meta.json"
+ meta = json.loads(path.read_text())
+ if defect == "missing":
+ path.unlink()
+ else:
+ if defect == "stale":
+ meta["verdict_sha256"] = "0" * 64
+ elif defect == "wrong_judge":
+ meta["judge_model_reported"] = ["claude-opus-5"]
+ elif defect == "no_timestamp":
+ del meta["judged_at_utc"]
+ elif defect == "no_prompt_sha256":
+ del meta["prompt_sha256"]
+ elif defect == "other_prompt":
+ meta["prompt_sha256"] = hashlib.sha256(b"another prompt").hexdigest()
+ elif defect == "no_runner":
+ del meta["judge_runner"]
+ elif defect == "requested_other":
+ meta["judge_model_requested"] = "claude-sonnet-5-5"
+ else:
+ meta = [meta]
+ path.write_text(json.dumps(meta))
+ assert driver.validate_verdicts(root) == [case.name]
+
+
+def test_a_new_verdict_must_stand_on_a_v2_prompt_whatever_its_sidecar_says(audit):
+ """The review's case: a new verdict whose prompt.md is rendered on v1,
+ with its verdict and prompt hashes bound and a sidecar that claims v2, is
+ refused: the prompt's header must be the version the sidecar records."""
+ root, case, verdict = audit
+ assert driver.validate_verdicts(root) == []
+ (case / "prompt.md").write_text(
+ judged_prompt("Classify these wrong answers.\n", version=1)
+ )
+ write_verdict(case, verdict)
+ meta = json.loads((case / "verdict.meta.json").read_text())
+ assert meta["judge_template_version"] == 2
+ assert meta["prompt_sha256"] == sha(case / "prompt.md")
+ assert driver.validate_verdicts(root) == [case.name]
+ # Recording v1 for it agrees with its header but is not this release's.
+ write_verdict(case, verdict, judge_template_version=1)
+ assert driver.validate_verdicts(root) == [case.name]
+
+
+def test_a_carried_verdict_whose_sidecar_disagrees_with_its_prompt_is_refused(audit):
+ """A seed case keeps its seed bytes, and its sidecar must still record the
+ version its prompt was rendered on."""
+ root, case, _ = audit
+ seed = {
+ case.name: {
+ "prompt_sha256": sha(case / "prompt.md"),
+ "verdict_sha256": sha(case / "verdict.json"),
+ }
+ }
+ assert driver.validate_verdicts(root, seed=seed) == []
+ meta = json.loads((case / "verdict.meta.json").read_text())
+ meta["judge_template_version"] = 1
+ (case / "verdict.meta.json").write_text(json.dumps(meta))
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="carried-over verdicts.*judge template"):
+ driver.validate_verdicts(root, seed=seed)
+
+
+def test_every_verdict_is_bound_to_its_own_bytes(tmp_path):
+ """An incumbent verdict's sidecar must match its bytes too, not only a
+ verdict that names Gemini 4 Argon."""
+ root = tmp_path / "audit"
+ case = _audit(root, ["incumbent"])
+ write_verdict(
+ case,
+ _verdict(["incumbent"]),
+ judge_model_requested="default",
+ judge_model_reported=["gpt-6.1-sol"],
+ )
+ assert driver.validate_verdicts(root) == []
+ edited = _verdict(["incumbent"])
+ edited["case_failure_subtype"] = "other"
+ (case / "verdict.json").write_text(json.dumps(edited))
+ assert driver.validate_verdicts(root) == [case.name]
+
+
+def test_a_verdict_stays_bound_to_its_prompt_sha256(tmp_path):
+ root = tmp_path / "audit"
+ case = _audit(root, ["incumbent"])
+ prompt = hashlib.sha256((case / "prompt.md").read_bytes()).hexdigest()
+ write_verdict(
+ case,
+ _verdict(["incumbent"]),
+ prompt_sha256=prompt,
+ judge_model_requested="default",
+ judge_model_reported=["gpt-6.1-sol"],
+ )
+ assert driver.validate_verdicts(root) == []
+ (case / "prompt.md").write_text("Classify these wrong answers, and one more.\n")
+ assert driver.validate_verdicts(root, remove_invalid=True) == [case.name]
+ assert not (case / "verdict.json").exists()
+ # Set aside, not destroyed.
+ (kept,) = (tmp_path / "rejected-verdicts" / case.name).iterdir()
+ assert sorted(p.name for p in kept.iterdir()) == [
+ "reason.txt",
+ "verdict.json",
+ "verdict.meta.json",
+ ]
+
+
+def test_the_judge_must_cover_all_47_models_in_a_case(tmp_path):
+ incumbents = [f"incumbent-{i:02d}" for i in range(46)]
+ root = tmp_path / "audit"
+ case = _audit(root, [*incumbents, NEW])
+ write_verdict(case, _verdict(incumbents))
+ assert driver.validate_verdicts(root) == [case.name]
+ write_verdict(case, _verdict([*incumbents, NEW]))
+ assert driver.validate_verdicts(root) == []
+ # A carried-over incumbent verdict cannot name the new model, and a
+ # re-judge from another judge does not qualify.
+ write_verdict(
+ case,
+ _verdict([*incumbents, NEW]),
+ judge_model_requested="default",
+ judge_model_reported=["gpt-6.1-sol"],
+ )
+ assert driver.validate_verdicts(root) == [case.name]
+
+
+def test_parse_only_cases_do_not_require_paid_judging(audit):
+ root, case, _ = audit
+ manifest = json.loads((root / "cases.jsonl").read_text())
+ manifest["parse_failure_only"] = True
+ (root / "cases.jsonl").write_text(json.dumps(manifest) + "\n")
+ (case / "verdict.json").unlink()
+ (case / "verdict.meta.json").unlink()
+ assert driver.validate_verdicts(root) == []
+
+
+def test_unchanged_incumbent_case_keeps_its_existing_judge(tmp_path):
+ """A seed verdict whose sidecar never recorded its prompt carries over
+ through the seed binding."""
+ root = tmp_path / "audit"
+ case = _audit(root, ["incumbent"])
+ write_verdict(
+ case,
+ _verdict(["incumbent"]),
+ judge_model_requested="default",
+ judge_model_reported=["gpt-5.6-sol"],
+ judge_runner="scripts/run_audit_codex.sh",
+ prompt_sha256=None,
+ )
+ seed = driver.seed_digest(root)
+ assert driver.validate_verdicts(root, seed=seed) == []
+ # Without the binding nothing ties the verdict to its prompt.
+ assert driver.validate_verdicts(root) == [case.name]
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("mutation", ["edited", "rebound", "missing"])
+def test_a_carried_over_verdict_must_keep_the_seeds_bytes(tmp_path, mutation):
+ """Editing a carried-over verdict, even with its sidecar re-hashed to
+ match, or removing it, is refused: a re-judge cannot restore it."""
+ root = tmp_path / "audit"
+ case = _audit(root, ["incumbent"])
+ write_verdict(
+ case,
+ _verdict(["incumbent"]),
+ judge_model_requested="default",
+ judge_model_reported=["gpt-5.6-sol"],
+ prompt_sha256=None,
+ )
+ seed = driver.seed_digest(root)
+ edited = _verdict(["incumbent"])
+ edited["case_failure_subtype"] = "other"
+ if mutation == "edited":
+ (case / "verdict.json").write_text(json.dumps(edited))
+ elif mutation == "rebound":
+ write_verdict(
+ case,
+ edited,
+ judge_model_requested="default",
+ judge_model_reported=["gpt-5.6-sol"],
+ )
+ else:
+ (case / "verdict.json").unlink()
+ before = sorted(p.name for p in case.iterdir())
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="carried-over verdicts differ"):
+ driver.validate_verdicts(root, remove_invalid=True, seed=seed)
+ assert sorted(p.name for p in case.iterdir()) == before
+
+
+# A two-household board whose audit prompts render for real (policybench.audit).
+REFERENCE_ROWS = [
+ {"scenario_id": "s0", "variable": "snap", "value": 0.0},
+ {"scenario_id": "s1", "variable": "snap", "value": 300.0},
+ {"scenario_id": "s2", "variable": "snap", "value": 100.0},
+]
+INCUMBENT_ROWS = [
+ ("m1", "s0", 250.0, "Estimated benefit from income."),
+ ("m2", "s0", 400.0, "Used gross income test."),
+ ("m1", "s1", 300.0, "Matched the allotment."),
+ ("m2", "s1", 0.0, "Assumed ineligible."),
+ ("m1", "s2", 100.0, "Matched the allotment."),
+ ("m2", "s2", 100.0, "Matched the allotment."),
+]
+
+
+def _board(directory: Path, rows) -> Path:
+ us = directory / "us"
+ us.mkdir(parents=True)
+ pd.DataFrame(REFERENCE_ROWS).to_csv(us / "reference_outputs.csv", index=False)
+ pd.DataFrame(
+ [
+ {
+ "model": model,
+ "scenario_id": scenario,
+ "variable": "snap",
+ "prediction": value,
+ "explanation": text,
+ "error": None,
+ }
+ for model, scenario, value, text in rows
+ ]
+ ).to_csv(us / "predictions.csv", index=False)
+ return directory
+
+
+@pytest.fixture
+def seeded_stage(tmp_path, monkeypatch):
+ """A judged 2-model seed audit and a stage whose board adds the new model.
+
+ No reference explanation is reworded unless a test says so: the real
+ reworded_since_seed() names cases of the real board, which this one lacks.
+ """
+ from policybench.audit import prepare_audit
+
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "reworded_since_seed", lambda: frozenset())
+ grounding = tmp_path / "grounding.csv"
+ pd.DataFrame(
+ [{"scenario_id": "s1", "variable": "snap", "grounding": "Gross test: pass."}]
+ ).to_csv(grounding, index=False)
+ monkeypatch.setattr(
+ driver, "GROUNDING_SHA256", hashlib.sha256(grounding.read_bytes()).hexdigest()
+ )
+ lookup = {("s1", "snap"): "Gross test: pass."}
+ seed = tmp_path / "seed"
+ seed_board = _board(tmp_path / "seed-board", INCUMBENT_ROWS)
+ # MOCK: a synthetic seed judged on judge template v1 before versions
+ # existed, so its sidecars record none (release 20261013b's real seed mixes
+ # v1 and v2 verdicts; test_every_seed_prompt_rerenders_from_the_base_on_its_
+ # recorded_version covers it).
+ prepare_audit(seed_board / "us", seed, grounding_lookup=lookup, template_version=1)
+ for item in map(json.loads, (seed / "cases.jsonl").read_text().splitlines()):
+ write_verdict(
+ seed / "cases" / item["case_id"],
+ _verdict(item["wrong_models"]),
+ judge_model_requested="default",
+ judge_model_reported=["gpt-6.1-sol"],
+ prompt_sha256=None,
+ judge_template_version=None,
+ )
+ digest_text = driver.seed_digest_text(driver.seed_digest(seed))
+ monkeypatch.setattr(
+ driver, "SEED_DIGEST_SHA256", hashlib.sha256(digest_text.encode()).hexdigest()
+ )
+ stage = tmp_path / "stage"
+
+ def prepare(new_rows, *, grounding_path=grounding, explanations=None):
+ bundle = _board(stage / "publish" / driver.RUN_NAME, INCUMBENT_ROWS + new_rows)
+ if explanations:
+ # The one annotation a judge's prompt carries: rewording it
+ # re-renders the case's prompt, as release 20261013b's rewording did.
+ (bundle / "annotations").mkdir()
+ pd.DataFrame(
+ [
+ {"scenario_id": scenario, "variable": "snap", "explanation": text}
+ for scenario, text in explanations.items()
+ ]
+ ).to_csv(
+ bundle / "annotations/us_case_reference_explanations.csv", index=False
+ )
+ args = SimpleNamespace(
+ stage_dir=stage, audit_seed=seed, grounding=grounding_path
+ )
+ binding = driver.prepare_cases(args, bundle)
+ # main binds the seed in stage.json beside the input hashes.
+ (stage / "stage.json").write_text(
+ json.dumps({"partial": False, "early": False, "files": {}, "seed": binding})
+ )
+ return stage / "audit"
+
+ return seed, stage, prepare
+
+
+def test_a_case_the_new_model_joins_is_rejudged_and_the_rest_carry_over(
+ seeded_stage,
+):
+ seed, stage, prepare = seeded_stage
+ audit = prepare(
+ [
+ (NEW, "s0", 99.0, "Guessed."),
+ (NEW, "s1", 300.0, "Right."),
+ (NEW, "s2", 100.0, "Right."),
+ ]
+ )
+ joined, untouched = "us__s0__snap", "us__s1__snap"
+ assert json.loads((stage / "pending.json").read_text()) == [joined]
+ assert not (audit / "cases" / joined / "verdict.json").exists()
+ assert not (audit / "cases" / joined / "verdict.meta.json").exists()
+ for name in ("prompt.md", "verdict.json", "verdict.meta.json"):
+ assert (audit / "cases" / untouched / name).read_bytes() == (
+ seed / "cases" / untouched / name
+ ).read_bytes()
+ assert json.loads((stage / "prompt-changes.json").read_text()) == {
+ "added": [],
+ "changed": [joined],
+ "kept": [untouched],
+ }
+ wrong = ["m1", "m2", NEW]
+ write_verdict(audit / "cases" / joined, _verdict(wrong))
+ seed_binding = driver.load_seed(stage)
+ assert seed_binding == driver.seed_digest(seed)
+ assert driver.validate_verdicts(audit, seed=seed_binding) == []
+
+
+# Gemini 4 Argon misses s0 alone: s0 is re-opened, s1 carries over.
+JOINS_S0 = [
+ (NEW, "s0", 99.0, "Guessed."),
+ (NEW, "s1", 300.0, "Right."),
+ (NEW, "s2", 100.0, "Right."),
+]
+# Gemini 4 Argon answers every output right: no case is joined.
+JOINS_NONE = [
+ (NEW, "s0", 0.0, "Ineligible."),
+ (NEW, "s1", 300.0, "Right."),
+ (NEW, "s2", 100.0, "Right."),
+]
+
+
+def test_an_edited_carried_over_verdict_is_refused_after_prepare(seeded_stage):
+ """Edit a kept incumbent verdict in a prepared stage (sidecar re-hashed to
+ match) and validation refuses it."""
+ _, stage, prepare = seeded_stage
+ audit = prepare(JOINS_S0)
+ write_verdict(audit / "cases/us__s0__snap", _verdict(["m1", "m2", NEW]))
+ seed = driver.load_seed(stage)
+ assert driver.validate_verdicts(audit, seed=seed) == []
+ kept = audit / "cases/us__s1__snap"
+ verdict = json.loads((kept / "verdict.json").read_text())
+ verdict["case_failure_source"] = "prompt_ambiguity"
+ write_verdict(
+ kept,
+ verdict,
+ judge_model_requested="default",
+ judge_model_reported=["gpt-6.1-sol"],
+ )
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="carried-over verdicts differ.*us__s1__snap"):
+ driver.validate_verdicts(audit, seed=seed)
+
+
+def test_prepare_refuses_a_seed_the_committed_digest_does_not_record(
+ seeded_stage, monkeypatch
+):
+ _, stage, prepare = seeded_stage
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "SEED_DIGEST_SHA256", COMMITTED_SEED_DIGEST_SHA256)
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="not release 20261013b's"):
+ prepare(JOINS_S0)
+ assert not (stage / "audit").exists()
+
+
+def test_load_seed_refuses_a_stage_without_a_binding_or_with_another(seeded_stage):
+ _, stage, prepare = seeded_stage
+ prepare(JOINS_S0)
+ receipt = json.loads((stage / "stage.json").read_text())
+ edited = copy.deepcopy(receipt)
+ edited["seed"]["us__s1__snap"]["verdict_sha256"] = "0" * 64
+ (stage / "stage.json").write_text(json.dumps(edited))
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="not release 20261013b's"):
+ driver.load_seed(stage)
+ del receipt["seed"]
+ (stage / "stage.json").write_text(json.dumps(receipt))
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="bind-seed"):
+ driver.load_seed(stage)
+
+
+def test_bind_seed_binds_a_stage_prepared_before_prepare_did(seeded_stage):
+ seed, stage, prepare = seeded_stage
+ prepare(JOINS_S0)
+ assert json.loads((stage / driver.PROMPT_CHANGES).read_text())["kept"] == [
+ "us__s1__snap"
+ ]
+ receipt = json.loads((stage / "stage.json").read_text())
+ binding = receipt.pop("seed")
+ (stage / "stage.json").write_text(json.dumps(receipt))
+ args = SimpleNamespace(stage_dir=stage, audit_seed=seed)
+ driver.bind_seed(args)
+ assert driver.load_seed(stage) == binding
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="already binds"):
+ driver.bind_seed(args)
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("move", ["kept_to_changed", "changed_to_kept", "dropped"])
+def test_prompt_changes_that_disagree_with_the_stage_stop_every_step(
+ seeded_stage, move
+):
+ """prompt-changes.json is re-derived from the stage's prompts and the
+ bound seed on every read: moving a case between the lists, or dropping
+ one, is refused."""
+ _, stage, prepare = seeded_stage
+ prepare(JOINS_S0)
+ path = stage / driver.PROMPT_CHANGES
+ changes = json.loads(path.read_text())
+ if move == "kept_to_changed":
+ changes["kept"].remove("us__s1__snap")
+ changes["changed"].append("us__s1__snap")
+ elif move == "changed_to_kept":
+ changes["changed"].remove("us__s0__snap")
+ changes["kept"].append("us__s0__snap")
+ else:
+ changes["changed"].remove("us__s0__snap")
+ path.write_text(json.dumps(changes))
+ for step in (driver.load_seed, driver.rejudged_cases):
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="disagrees with the stage's prompts"):
+ step(stage)
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("edit", ["prompt_only", "verdict_sidecar_and_prompt"])
+def test_a_kept_case_cannot_pass_as_a_new_verdict(seeded_stage, edit):
+ """A kept case whose prompt is edited (with or without a re-bound
+ verdict) is refused, not re-judged."""
+ _, stage, prepare = seeded_stage
+ audit = prepare(JOINS_S0)
+ write_verdict(audit / "cases/us__s0__snap", _verdict(["m1", "m2", NEW]))
+ kept = audit / "cases/us__s1__snap"
+ (kept / "prompt.md").write_text((kept / "prompt.md").read_text() + "\n")
+ if edit == "verdict_sidecar_and_prompt":
+ verdict = json.loads((kept / "verdict.json").read_text())
+ verdict["case_failure_subtype"] = "other"
+ write_verdict(kept, verdict)
+ before = sorted(p.name for p in kept.iterdir())
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="incumbent-only case prompts changed"):
+ driver.load_seed(stage)
+ assert sorted(p.name for p in kept.iterdir()) == before
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("claim", ["reopens_a_right_answer", "keeps_a_wrong_answer"])
+def test_the_manifest_cannot_reopen_a_case_the_predictions_do_not(seeded_stage, claim):
+ """Gemini 4 Argon answers s1 right and s0 wrong. Listing it as wrong on
+ s1 (prompt edited, case moved to changed), or dropping it from s0 (seed
+ prompt restored, case moved to kept), leaves the re-derived lists
+ agreeing, so only the predictions can refuse it."""
+ seed, stage, prepare = seeded_stage
+ audit = prepare(JOINS_S0)
+ driver.load_seed(stage)
+ manifest = [
+ json.loads(line) for line in (audit / "cases.jsonl").read_text().splitlines()
+ ]
+ changes = json.loads((stage / driver.PROMPT_CHANGES).read_text())
+ case = "us__s1__snap" if claim == "reopens_a_right_answer" else "us__s0__snap"
+ row = next(item for item in manifest if item["case_id"] == case)
+ if claim == "reopens_a_right_answer":
+ row["wrong_models"].append(NEW)
+ prompt = audit / "cases" / case / "prompt.md"
+ prompt.write_text(prompt.read_text() + f"{NEW}: Wrong.\n")
+ changes["kept"].remove(case)
+ changes["changed"].append(case)
+ else:
+ row["wrong_models"].remove(NEW)
+ shutil.copyfile(
+ seed / "cases" / case / "prompt.md", audit / "cases" / case / "prompt.md"
+ )
+ changes["changed"].remove(case)
+ changes["kept"].append(case)
+ (audit / "cases.jsonl").write_text("".join(json.dumps(r) + "\n" for r in manifest))
+ (stage / driver.PROMPT_CHANGES).write_text(json.dumps(changes))
+ for step in (driver.load_seed, driver.rejudged_cases):
+ with pytest.raises(
+ SystemExit, match=f"disagree with the staged predictions.*{case}"
+ ):
+ step(stage)
+
+
+def test_set_aside_keeps_the_judge_evidence_with_the_verdict(tmp_path):
+ root = tmp_path / "audit"
+ case = _audit(root, [NEW])
+ write_verdict(case, _verdict(["someone-else"]))
+ for name in ("claude.json", "claude.log", "claude.transcript.jsonl"):
+ (case / name).write_text(name)
+ assert driver.validate_verdicts(root, remove_invalid=True) == [case.name]
+ (kept,) = (tmp_path / "rejected-verdicts" / case.name).iterdir()
+ assert sorted(p.name for p in kept.iterdir()) == [
+ "claude.json",
+ "claude.log",
+ "claude.transcript.jsonl",
+ "reason.txt",
+ "verdict.json",
+ "verdict.meta.json",
+ ]
+ assert sorted(p.name for p in case.iterdir()) == ["prompt.md"]
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("payload", [[], "text", {"amendments": {}}])
+def test_a_malformed_amendment_file_is_refused(tmp_path, payload):
+ (tmp_path / driver.AMENDMENTS).write_text(json.dumps(payload))
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="'amendments' is not a list"):
+ driver.load_amendments(tmp_path, frozenset())
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("defect", ["kept_verdict", "kept_prompt", "changed_prompt"])
+def test_bind_seed_refuses_a_stage_that_disagrees_with_the_seed(seeded_stage, defect):
+ seed, stage, prepare = seeded_stage
+ audit = prepare(JOINS_S0)
+ receipt = json.loads((stage / "stage.json").read_text())
+ del receipt["seed"]
+ (stage / "stage.json").write_text(json.dumps(receipt))
+ if defect == "kept_verdict":
+ (audit / "cases/us__s1__snap/verdict.json").write_text("{}")
+ elif defect == "kept_prompt":
+ (audit / "cases/us__s1__snap/prompt.md").write_text("Another prompt.\n")
+ else:
+ shutil.copyfile(
+ seed / "cases/us__s0__snap/prompt.md",
+ audit / "cases/us__s0__snap/prompt.md",
+ )
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="disagrees with the seed"):
+ driver.bind_seed(SimpleNamespace(stage_dir=stage, audit_seed=seed))
+ assert "seed" not in json.loads((stage / "stage.json").read_text())
+
+
+def test_a_household_only_the_new_model_misses_becomes_a_new_case(seeded_stage):
+ _, stage, prepare = seeded_stage
+ audit = prepare(
+ [
+ (NEW, "s0", 0.0, "Ineligible."),
+ (NEW, "s1", 300.0, "Right."),
+ (NEW, "s2", 55.0, "Halved."),
+ ]
+ )
+ assert json.loads((stage / "prompt-changes.json").read_text()) == {
+ "added": ["us__s2__snap"],
+ "changed": [],
+ "kept": ["us__s0__snap", "us__s1__snap"],
+ }
+ assert json.loads((stage / "pending.json").read_text()) == ["us__s2__snap"]
+ assert not (audit / "cases/us__s2__snap/verdict.json").exists()
+
+
+def test_an_incumbent_prompt_that_changes_is_refused(
+ seeded_stage, tmp_path, monkeypatch
+):
+ _, _, prepare = seeded_stage
+ other = tmp_path / "other-grounding.csv"
+ pd.DataFrame(
+ [{"scenario_id": "s1", "variable": "snap", "grounding": "Gross test: fail."}]
+ ).to_csv(other, index=False)
+ monkeypatch.setattr(
+ driver, "GROUNDING_SHA256", hashlib.sha256(other.read_bytes()).hexdigest()
+ )
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=r"incumbent-only case prompts changed.*s1"):
+ prepare(JOINS_S0, grounding_path=other)
+
+
+def test_prepare_refuses_a_grounding_other_than_the_pinned_one(seeded_stage, tmp_path):
+ _, stage, prepare = seeded_stage
+ other = tmp_path / "other-grounding.csv"
+ other.write_text("scenario_id,variable,grounding\n")
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="grounding differs"):
+ prepare([], grounding_path=other)
+ assert not (stage / "audit").exists()
+
+
+def test_the_pinned_grounding_is_the_one_the_seed_was_rendered_with():
+ if not GROUNDING.is_file():
+ pytest.skip("the main clone's audit grounding is not on this machine")
+ assert driver.digest(GROUNDING) == driver.GROUNDING_SHA256
+
+
+# --- The nine reworded cases ---------------------------------------------------
+
+REWORDED_S1 = {"s1": "The allotment is the maximum less 30% of net income."}
+
+
+def test_a_reworded_case_may_change_without_the_new_model(seeded_stage, monkeypatch):
+ """s1's reference explanation is reworded and Gemini 4 Argon answers it
+ right: its prompt changes, it is re-opened and re-judged, and every gate
+ that re-derives the lists agrees."""
+ _, stage, prepare = seeded_stage
+ monkeypatch.setattr(
+ driver, "reworded_since_seed", lambda: frozenset({"us__s1__snap"})
+ )
+ audit = prepare(JOINS_S0, explanations=REWORDED_S1)
+ assert json.loads((stage / driver.PROMPT_CHANGES).read_text()) == {
+ "added": [],
+ "changed": ["us__s0__snap", "us__s1__snap"],
+ "kept": [],
+ }
+ assert json.loads((stage / "pending.json").read_text()) == [
+ "us__s0__snap",
+ "us__s1__snap",
+ ]
+ assert (
+ "HOW POLICYENGINE DERIVED"
+ in (audit / "cases/us__s1__snap/prompt.md").read_text()
+ )
+ manifest = {
+ item["case_id"]: item
+ for item in map(json.loads, (audit / "cases.jsonl").read_text().splitlines())
+ }
+ assert NEW not in manifest["us__s1__snap"]["wrong_models"]
+ assert driver.rejudged_cases(stage) == {"us__s0__snap", "us__s1__snap"}
+ write_verdict(audit / "cases/us__s0__snap", _verdict(["m1", "m2", NEW]))
+ write_verdict(audit / "cases/us__s1__snap", _verdict(["m2"]))
+ assert driver.validate_verdicts(audit, seed=driver.load_seed(stage)) == []
+
+
+def test_a_reworded_case_the_new_model_joins_is_rejudged(seeded_stage, monkeypatch):
+ """The real stage's case: Gemini 4 Argon answers all nine wrong."""
+ _, stage, prepare = seeded_stage
+ monkeypatch.setattr(
+ driver, "reworded_since_seed", lambda: frozenset({"us__s0__snap"})
+ )
+ prepare(JOINS_S0, explanations={"s0": "The household fails the net test."})
+ assert json.loads((stage / driver.PROMPT_CHANGES).read_text()) == {
+ "added": [],
+ "changed": ["us__s0__snap"],
+ "kept": ["us__s1__snap"],
+ }
+
+
+def test_a_reworded_explanation_outside_the_pinned_set_is_refused(seeded_stage):
+ _, stage, prepare = seeded_stage
+ with pytest.raises(
+ SystemExit, match=r"incumbent-only case prompts changed.*\['us__s1__snap'\]"
+ ):
+ prepare(JOINS_S0, explanations=REWORDED_S1)
+
+
+def test_the_reworded_allowance_admits_no_other_incumbent_only_change(
+ seeded_stage, monkeypatch
+):
+ """s0 and s1 both change without the new model; only s1 is reworded, so
+ the refusal names s0 alone."""
+ _, _, prepare = seeded_stage
+ monkeypatch.setattr(
+ driver, "reworded_since_seed", lambda: frozenset({"us__s1__snap"})
+ )
+ explanations = {**REWORDED_S1, "s0": "The household fails the net test."}
+ with pytest.raises(
+ SystemExit, match=r"incumbent-only case prompts changed.*: \['us__s0__snap'\]$"
+ ):
+ prepare(JOINS_NONE, explanations=explanations)
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("reworded", ["us__s1__snap", "us__s9__snap"])
+def test_a_reworded_case_whose_prompt_did_not_change_is_refused(
+ seeded_stage, monkeypatch, reworded
+):
+ """A reworded case kept byte for byte (or absent from the audit) means
+ the rewording did not reach its prompt: prepare stops."""
+ _, _, prepare = seeded_stage
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "reworded_since_seed", lambda: frozenset({reworded}))
+ with pytest.raises(
+ SystemExit,
+ match=re.escape(f"reworded cases whose prompts did not change: {[reworded]}"),
+ ):
+ prepare(JOINS_S0)
+
+
+def test_check_prompt_changes_names_new_incumbent_only_cases(tmp_path, monkeypatch):
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "reworded_since_seed", lambda: frozenset())
+ root = tmp_path / "audit"
+ case = _audit(root, ["incumbent"])
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=case.name):
+ driver.check_prompt_changes(root, {})
+ manifest = json.loads((root / "cases.jsonl").read_text())
+ manifest["wrong_models"] = ["incumbent", NEW]
+ (root / "cases.jsonl").write_text(json.dumps(manifest) + "\n")
+ assert driver.check_prompt_changes(root, {})["added"] == [case.name]
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="seed cases vanished.*us__s9__snap"):
+ driver.check_prompt_changes(root, {"us__s9__snap": "0" * 64})
+
+
+CASE_FLAGS = st.fixed_dictionaries(
+ {
+ "seeded": st.booleans(),
+ "same_prompt": st.booleans(),
+ "new_wrong": st.booleans(),
+ "reworded": st.booleans(),
+ "parse_only": st.booleans(),
+ }
+)
+
+
+@settings(max_examples=150, deadline=None)
+@given(
+ flags=st.lists(CASE_FLAGS, max_size=7),
+ vanished=st.integers(min_value=0, max_value=2),
+ stray_reworded=st.booleans(),
+)
+def test_check_prompt_changes_follows_its_rule_for_any_audit(
+ flags, vanished, stray_reworded
+):
+ """For any manifest, seed and reworded set: a judged case is kept when its
+ prompt is the seed's, changed when the seed has another, added when the
+ seed lacks it. It refuses, in this order, a changed or added case neither
+ the new model joins nor a rewording explains, a seed case that is not
+ kept or changed, and a reworded case that is not changed."""
+ with tempfile.TemporaryDirectory() as scratch:
+ audit = Path(scratch) / "audit"
+ manifest, seeded, reworded = [], {}, set()
+ for index, case_flags in enumerate(flags):
+ case = f"us__s{index}__snap"
+ (audit / "cases" / case).mkdir(parents=True)
+ prompt = audit / "cases" / case / "prompt.md"
+ prompt.write_text(f"Prompt {index}.\n")
+ wrong = ["m1", *([NEW] if case_flags["new_wrong"] else [])]
+ manifest.append(
+ {
+ "case_id": case,
+ "wrong_models": wrong,
+ "parse_failure_only": case_flags["parse_only"],
+ }
+ )
+ if case_flags["seeded"]:
+ seeded[case] = (
+ driver.digest(prompt)
+ if case_flags["same_prompt"]
+ else hashlib.sha256(f"Seed prompt {index}.\n".encode()).hexdigest()
+ )
+ if case_flags["reworded"]:
+ reworded.add(case)
+ for index in range(vanished):
+ seeded[f"us__gone{index}__snap"] = "0" * 64
+ if stray_reworded:
+ reworded.add("us__elsewhere__snap")
+ audit.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
+ (audit / "cases.jsonl").write_text(
+ "".join(json.dumps(item) + "\n" for item in manifest)
+ )
+ judged = [
+ (item, flags[i])
+ for i, item in enumerate(manifest)
+ if not item["parse_failure_only"]
+ ]
+ kept = [
+ item["case_id"] for item, f in judged if f["seeded"] and f["same_prompt"]
+ ]
+ changed = [
+ item["case_id"]
+ for item, f in judged
+ if f["seeded"] and not f["same_prompt"]
+ ]
+ added = [item["case_id"] for item, f in judged if not f["seeded"]]
+ offending = [
+ item["case_id"]
+ for item, f in judged
+ if item["case_id"] not in kept
+ and not f["new_wrong"]
+ and item["case_id"] not in reworded
+ ]
+ gone = sorted(set(seeded) - {*kept, *changed})
+ unrendered = sorted(reworded - set(changed))
+ with mock.patch.object(
+ driver, "reworded_since_seed", lambda: frozenset(reworded)
+ ):
+ if offending or gone or unrendered:
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit) as refusal:
+ driver.check_prompt_changes(audit, seeded)
+ message = str(refusal.value)
+ if offending:
+ assert "incumbent-only case prompts changed" in message
+ assert message.endswith(repr(offending[:8]))
+ elif gone:
+ assert message == f"seed cases vanished from the audit: {gone[:8]}"
+ else:
+ assert message == (
+ f"reworded cases whose prompts did not change: {unrendered[:8]}"
+ )
+ else:
+ assert driver.check_prompt_changes(audit, seeded) == {
+ "kept": kept,
+ "changed": changed,
+ "added": added,
+ }
+
+
+def test_the_reworded_cases_are_exactly_those_git_shows():
+ """Runs anywhere with full history: the explanations committed at
+ SEED_RELEASE_COMMIT and BASE_COMMIT differ on exactly the nine pinned
+ cases. Read again here with the csv module, the files say the same."""
+
+ assert driver.reworded_since_seed() == driver.REWORDED_SINCE_SEED
+
+ def rows(commit: str) -> dict:
+ blob = subprocess.run(
+ [
+ "git",
+ "-C",
+ str(REPO),
+ "show",
+ f"{commit}:{driver.REFERENCE_EXPLANATIONS.as_posix()}",
+ ],
+ capture_output=True,
+ check=True,
+ ).stdout
+ reader = csv.DictReader(io.StringIO(blob.decode("utf-8")))
+ return {(row["scenario_id"], row["variable"]): row for row in reader}
+
+ before, after = rows(driver.SEED_RELEASE_COMMIT), rows(BASE_COMMIT)
+ assert set(before) == set(after)
+ reworded = {
+ f"us__{scenario}__{variable}"
+ for (scenario, variable), row in after.items()
+ if before[(scenario, variable)] != row
+ }
+ assert reworded == driver.REWORDED_SINCE_SEED
+ # The rewording touches the explanation, the column a prompt renders.
+ for case in reworded:
+ _, scenario, variable = case.split("__", 2)
+ old, new = before[(scenario, variable)], after[(scenario, variable)]
+ assert old["explanation"] != new["explanation"]
+
+
+def _explanations_csv(rows: list[dict]) -> bytes:
+ return (
+ pd.DataFrame(rows, columns=["scenario_id", "variable", "explanation"])
+ .to_csv(index=False)
+ .encode()
+ )
+
+
+EXPLANATION_ROWS = [
+ {"scenario_id": f"scenario_00{i}", "variable": "snap", "explanation": text}
+ for i, text in enumerate(
+ ["Gross test passes.", 'Net income is $1,200, "after deductions".', "Zero."]
+ )
+]
+
+
+@pytest.fixture
+def explanation_repo(tmp_path, monkeypatch):
+ """A git repository that commits the explanations file twice, the seed's
+ and the base's, with the driver pointed at both commits."""
+ root = tmp_path / "repo"
+ path = root / driver.REFERENCE_EXPLANATIONS
+ path.parent.mkdir(parents=True)
+ subprocess.run(["git", "-C", str(root), "init", "-q"], check=True)
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "ROOT", root)
+
+ def commits(before: list[dict], after: list[dict], pinned: set[str]):
+ path.write_bytes(_explanations_csv(before))
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "SEED_RELEASE_COMMIT", commit(root, "seed"))
+ path.write_bytes(_explanations_csv(after))
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "BASE_COMMIT", commit(root, "base"))
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "REWORDED_SINCE_SEED", frozenset(pinned))
+
+ return commits
+
+
+def _reword(rows: list[dict], *indices: int) -> list[dict]:
+ return [
+ {**row, "explanation": row["explanation"] + " Reworded."}
+ if index in indices
+ else dict(row)
+ for index, row in enumerate(rows)
+ ]
+
+
+def test_reworded_since_seed_reads_both_commits_from_git(explanation_repo):
+ explanation_repo(
+ EXPLANATION_ROWS, _reword(EXPLANATION_ROWS, 1), {"us__scenario_001__snap"}
+ )
+ assert driver.reworded_since_seed() == {"us__scenario_001__snap"}
+
+
+def test_reworded_since_seed_refuses_another_reworded_explanation(explanation_repo):
+ explanation_repo(
+ EXPLANATION_ROWS, _reword(EXPLANATION_ROWS, 1, 2), {"us__scenario_001__snap"}
+ )
+ with pytest.raises(
+ SystemExit, match=re.escape("pinned set: ['us__scenario_002__snap']")
+ ):
+ driver.reworded_since_seed()
+
+
+def test_reworded_since_seed_refuses_a_pinned_case_left_as_it_was(explanation_repo):
+ explanation_repo(
+ EXPLANATION_ROWS,
+ _reword(EXPLANATION_ROWS, 1),
+ {"us__scenario_000__snap", "us__scenario_001__snap"},
+ )
+ with pytest.raises(
+ SystemExit, match=re.escape("pinned set: ['us__scenario_000__snap']")
+ ):
+ driver.reworded_since_seed()
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("change", ["added", "removed"])
+def test_reworded_since_seed_refuses_a_changed_set_of_cases(explanation_repo, change):
+ extra = {"scenario_id": "scenario_009", "variable": "snap", "explanation": "New."}
+ after = EXPLANATION_ROWS + [extra] if change == "added" else EXPLANATION_ROWS[:-1]
+ explanation_repo(EXPLANATION_ROWS, after, set())
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="explanation keys changed since the seed"):
+ driver.reworded_since_seed()
+
+
+def test_reworded_since_seed_names_a_commit_it_cannot_read(
+ explanation_repo, monkeypatch
+):
+ explanation_repo(EXPLANATION_ROWS, EXPLANATION_ROWS, set())
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "SEED_RELEASE_COMMIT", "0" * 40)
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="cannot read .* at 000000000000"):
+ driver.reworded_since_seed()
+
+
+def test_a_reordered_explanation_file_rewords_nothing(explanation_repo):
+ explanation_repo(EXPLANATION_ROWS, EXPLANATION_ROWS[::-1], set())
+ assert driver.reworded_since_seed() == frozenset()
+
+
+EXPLANATION_TEXT = st.text(
+ alphabet=st.characters(
+ blacklist_categories=("Cs", "Cc"), whitelist_characters="\n,\"' "
+ ),
+ max_size=30,
+)
+
+
+@settings(max_examples=100, deadline=None)
+@given(texts=st.lists(EXPLANATION_TEXT, min_size=1, max_size=8), data=st.data())
+def test_reworded_since_seed_is_exactly_the_rows_that_differ(texts, data):
+ """With git stubbed: for any explanations and any reworded rows, the
+ derived set is those rows; it is returned when it is the pinned set and
+ refused, naming the difference, when it is not."""
+ count = len(texts)
+ changed = data.draw(st.sets(st.integers(min_value=0, max_value=count - 1)))
+ pinned_rows = data.draw(
+ st.one_of(
+ st.just(changed), st.sets(st.integers(min_value=0, max_value=count - 1))
+ )
+ )
+ before = [
+ {"scenario_id": f"scenario_{i:03d}", "variable": "snap", "explanation": text}
+ for i, text in enumerate(texts)
+ ]
+ blobs = {
+ "seed-commit": _explanations_csv(before),
+ "base-commit": _explanations_csv(_reword(before, *changed)),
+ }
+ asked = []
+
+ def run(command, capture_output):
+ commit_id, path = command[-1].split(":", 1)
+ asked.append(path)
+ return SimpleNamespace(returncode=0, stdout=blobs[commit_id], stderr=b"")
+
+ def cases(rows):
+ return frozenset(f"us__scenario_{i:03d}__snap" for i in rows)
+
+ with contextlib.ExitStack() as stack:
+ stack.enter_context(
+ mock.patch.object(driver, "subprocess", SimpleNamespace(run=run))
+ )
+ stack.enter_context(
+ mock.patch.object(driver, "SEED_RELEASE_COMMIT", "seed-commit")
+ )
+ stack.enter_context(mock.patch.object(driver, "BASE_COMMIT", "base-commit"))
+ stack.enter_context(
+ mock.patch.object(driver, "REWORDED_SINCE_SEED", cases(pinned_rows))
+ )
+ if changed == pinned_rows:
+ assert driver.reworded_since_seed() == cases(changed)
+ else:
+ difference = sorted(cases(changed) ^ cases(pinned_rows))
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=re.escape(str(difference))):
+ driver.reworded_since_seed()
+ assert asked == [str(driver.REFERENCE_EXPLANATIONS)] * 2
+
+
+# --- The committed seed --------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+def _committed_seed_digest() -> dict[str, dict[str, str]]:
+ lines = driver.SEED_DIGEST.read_text().splitlines()
+ assert lines[0] == "case_id,prompt_sha256,verdict_sha256"
+ rows = [line.split(",") for line in lines[1:]]
+ return {
+ case: {"prompt_sha256": prompt, "verdict_sha256": verdict}
+ for case, prompt, verdict in rows
+ }
+
+
+def test_the_committed_seed_digest_is_the_pinned_one():
+ """Runs anywhere: the committed digest hashes to the pin and spells each
+ of release 20261013b's 677 judged cases once."""
+ raw = driver.SEED_DIGEST.read_bytes()
+ assert hashlib.sha256(raw).hexdigest() == driver.SEED_DIGEST_SHA256
+ seed = _committed_seed_digest()
+ assert driver.seed_digest_text(seed).encode() == raw
+ assert len(seed) == 677
+ hexes = [value for item in seed.values() for value in item.values()]
+ assert all(len(h) == 64 and set(h) <= set("0123456789abcdef") for h in hexes)
+
+
+def test_the_seed_is_release_20261013bs_audit():
+ """Runs anywhere: the committed digest is release 20261013b's seed digest
+ (docs/release_20261013b/seed_digest.csv), which is release 20261013's
+ (docs/musewonder/seed_digest.csv with the 151 cases that release judged,
+ docs/musewonder/judge_provenance.json, written over it) with the five
+ cases release 20261013b re-judged (docs/release_20261013b/
+ judge_provenance.json) written over those, and nothing else."""
+
+ def read(path: Path) -> dict:
+ lines = path.read_text().splitlines()
+ return {
+ case: {"prompt_sha256": prompt, "verdict_sha256": verdict}
+ for case, prompt, verdict in (line.split(",") for line in lines[1:])
+ }
+
+ expected = read(REPO / "docs/musewonder/seed_digest.csv")
+ judged = json.loads((REPO / "docs/musewonder/judge_provenance.json").read_text())
+ rejudged = json.loads(
+ (REPO / "docs/release_20261013b/judge_provenance.json").read_text()
+ )
+ assert len(expected) == 677 and len(judged["verdicts"]) == 151
+ assert len(rejudged["verdicts"]) == 5
+ for entry in [*judged["verdicts"], *rejudged["verdicts"]]:
+ expected[entry["case_id"]] = {
+ "prompt_sha256": entry["prompt_sha256"],
+ "verdict_sha256": entry["verdict_sha256"],
+ }
+ assert _committed_seed_digest() == expected
+ assert (
+ driver.SEED_DIGEST.read_bytes()
+ == (REPO / "docs/release_20261013b/seed_digest.csv").read_bytes()
+ )
+
+
+def test_every_committed_adjudication_decides_a_case_the_seed_judged():
+ """Runs anywhere: a recorded decision of release 20261013b rules on a judge
+ verdict, so its case is one of the seed's judged cases."""
+ seed = _committed_seed_digest()
+ assert {driver.case_id(entry) for entry in driver.base_adjudications()} <= set(seed)
+
+
+def test_the_committed_seed_digest_matches_the_real_seed():
+ """Local only: the digest equals the rebuilt seed on this machine."""
+ if not SEED.is_dir():
+ pytest.skip("release 20261013b's audit is not on this machine")
+ assert driver.seed_digest_text(driver.seed_digest(SEED)) == (
+ driver.SEED_DIGEST.read_text()
+ )
+
+
+def test_the_committed_adjudications_keep_the_seed_judge_verdicts():
+ """Local only: every decision release 20261013b recorded keeps its seed
+ verdict's class."""
+ if not SEED.is_dir():
+ pytest.skip("release 20261013b's audit is not on this machine")
+ from freeze_snapshot import verify_adjudications_keep_judge_verdicts
+
+ verify_adjudications_keep_judge_verdicts(
+ driver.base_adjudications(), SEED / "cases"
+ )
+
+
+def test_each_20261013b_entry_names_its_seed_verdict_as_its_sidecar_records_it():
+ """Local only: the restate script requires a re-opened entry to name its
+ seed verdict, which it builds from the seed's sha256-bound sidecar: judge,
+ classes, flag, flag source and UTC day. It holds for all 61 entries."""
+ if not SEED.is_dir():
+ pytest.skip("release 20261013b's audit is not on this machine")
+ from date_adds0928_judge_verdicts import WAVE_FLAGS, _bound_verdict
+ from restate_gpt61sol_adjudications import named_item, replaced_item
+
+ waved = frozenset(json.loads(WAVE_FLAGS.read_text()))
+ base = driver.base_adjudications()
+ assert len(base) == 61
+ for entry in base:
+ found = _bound_verdict(SEED / "cases" / driver.case_id(entry))
+ assert found is not None, driver.case_id(entry)
+ key = f"{entry['scenario_id']}:{entry['variable']}"
+ assert named_item(entry) == replaced_item(found, key in waved), entry
+
+
+@pytest.mark.slow
+def test_every_seed_prompt_rerenders_from_the_base_on_its_recorded_version(tmp_path):
+ """Local only: release 20261013b's 48-model board, as BASE_COMMIT holds it,
+ renders exactly the seed's cases, and each on the judge template version
+ its verdict's sidecar records (v1 where none is recorded) is the seed's
+ prompt byte for byte, so prepare_audit keeps every seed verdict (this
+ reads the predictions from git into scratch). So check_prompt_changes may
+ attribute every changed or new prompt to a new model joining its case."""
+ if not (SEED.is_dir() and GROUNDING.is_file()):
+ pytest.skip("release 20261013b's audit or grounding is not on this machine")
+ from policybench.audit import prepare_audit
+
+ bundle = tmp_path / "publish" / driver.RUN_NAME
+ (bundle / "us").mkdir(parents=True)
+ for name in (*driver.REFERENCE_FILES, "predictions.csv.gz"):
+ (bundle / "us" / name).write_bytes(base_blob(SNAPSHOT_PATH / name))
+ (bundle / "annotations").mkdir()
+ for name in driver.ANNOTATION_FILES:
+ (bundle / "annotations" / name).write_bytes(
+ base_blob(Path("annotations") / driver.RUN_NAME / name)
+ )
+ grounding = pd.read_csv(GROUNDING)
+ lookup = {
+ (str(r.scenario_id), str(r.variable)): str(r.grounding)
+ for r in grounding.itertuples()
+ }
+ audit = tmp_path / "audit"
+ # The seed's judged cases, as prepare copies them into a stage.
+ for source in sorted((SEED / "cases").glob("*")):
+ if (source / "prompt.md").is_file():
+ (audit / "cases" / source.name).mkdir(parents=True)
+ for name in ("prompt.md", "verdict.json", "verdict.meta.json"):
+ if (source / name).is_file():
+ shutil.copyfile(source / name, audit / "cases" / source.name / name)
+ arrow = hasattr(pd.options, "future") and hasattr(pd.options.future, "infer_string")
+ with (
+ pd.option_context("future.infer_string", False)
+ if arrow
+ else contextlib.nullcontext()
+ ):
+ prepare_audit(
+ bundle / "us",
+ audit,
+ grounding_lookup=lookup,
+ template_version=driver.JUDGE_TEMPLATE_VERSION,
+ )
+ seed = driver.seed_digest(SEED)
+ assert driver.seed_digest(audit) == seed and len(seed) == 677
+
+
+def test_the_stage_reopens_only_what_a_new_model_explains():
+ """Local only, read-only: the live stage's prompt-changes.json is what
+ check_prompt_changes derives from its prompts and the bound seed, and
+ every re-opened case names Gemini 4 Argon or Muse Spark 1.3 among its
+ wrong models."""
+ if not (STAGE / driver.PROMPT_CHANGES).is_file():
+ pytest.skip("needs the release's stage")
+ recorded = json.loads((STAGE / driver.PROMPT_CHANGES).read_text())
+ seed = json.loads((STAGE / "stage.json").read_text())["seed"]
+ derived = driver.check_prompt_changes(
+ STAGE / "audit",
+ {case: item["prompt_sha256"] for case, item in seed.items()},
+ frozenset(),
+ )
+ assert {key: sorted(value) for key, value in derived.items()} == recorded
+ reopened = {*recorded["changed"], *recorded["added"]}
+ manifest = {
+ item["case_id"]: item
+ for item in map(
+ json.loads, (STAGE / "audit/cases.jsonl").read_text().splitlines()
+ )
+ }
+ assert all(
+ set(manifest[case]["wrong_models"]) & set(ADDITIONS.values())
+ for case in reopened
+ )
+
+
+def test_the_stage_holds_the_installed_release_exclusions():
+ """Local only, read-only: install-exclusions ran on the live stage and
+ bound the release's record in both copies."""
+ receipt_path = STAGE / "stage.json"
+ if not receipt_path.is_file():
+ pytest.skip("needs the Gemini 4 Argon stage")
+ receipt = json.loads(receipt_path.read_text())
+ installed = receipt.get("exclusions_installed")
+ if installed is None or receipt.get("references_installed"):
+ pytest.skip("install-exclusions has not run, or a build's record replaced it")
+ assert installed["sha256"] == release_sha() == driver.release_exclusions_sha256()
+ assert installed["base_sha256"] == driver.BASE_REFERENCE_SHA256[EXCLUSIONS_NAME]
+ assert installed["records"] == driver.RELEASE_EXCLUSIONS
+ assert receipt["files"][BOUND_EXCLUSIONS] == release_sha()
+ for target in (STAGE / "scoring", STAGE / "publish" / driver.RUN_NAME / "us"):
+ assert driver.digest(target / EXCLUSIONS_NAME) == release_sha()
+
+
+# --- The release's exclusion record --------------------------------------------
+
+
+def test_the_spec_rules_no_exclusion():
+ """Max ruled d1252 and d1263 on 2026-10-13, both to keep: the spec names
+ no proposal, no ruled adjudication and no restatement, so spec_records
+ finds none and the release record is release 20261013b's."""
+ spec = real_spec()
+ assert spec["proposals"] == [] and spec["adjudications"] == []
+ assert spec["restated_adjudications"] == []
+ assert driver.NEW_EXCLUSIONS == 0
+ with mock.patch.object(driver, "ROOT", REPO):
+ assert driver.spec_records(spec) == []
+
+
+def test_the_release_exclusions_are_release_20261013bs_unchanged():
+ """With nothing ruled, build_release_exclusions returns release
+ 20261013b's record, and its text is the committed file's bytes."""
+ with mock.patch.object(driver, "ROOT", REPO):
+ record = driver.build_release_exclusions(base_record(), real_spec())
+ assert record == base_record()
+ assert release_text().encode() == base_blob(SNAPSHOT_PATH / EXCLUSIONS_NAME)
+ assert release_sha() == driver.BASE_REFERENCE_SHA256[EXCLUSIONS_NAME]
+ assert len(record["exclusions"]) == driver.RELEASE_EXCLUSIONS == 49
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+ "extra",
+ [
+ {"record_edits": [{"scenario_id": "scenario_000", "variable": "snap"}]},
+ {"derivation_insert": {"before": " On", "text": " Extra."}},
+ ],
+)
+def test_a_spec_that_edits_records_it_does_not_rule_is_refused(extra):
+ spec = {**real_spec(), **extra}
+ with mock.patch.object(driver, "ROOT", REPO):
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="rules no record"):
+ driver.build_release_exclusions(base_record(), spec)
+
+
+# --- install-exclusions --------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+@pytest.fixture
+def installable(tmp_path):
+ """A stage as prepare leaves it: release 20261013b's record in the scoring
+ source and the bundle, bound in stage.json beside another input."""
+ stage = tmp_path / "stage"
+ copies = [stage / "scoring", stage / "publish" / driver.RUN_NAME / "us"]
+ for target in copies:
+ target.mkdir(parents=True)
+ (target / EXCLUSIONS_NAME).write_bytes(
+ base_blob(SNAPSHOT_PATH / EXCLUSIONS_NAME)
+ )
+ other = stage / "inputs" / SLUG / "predictions.csv"
+ other.parent.mkdir(parents=True)
+ other.write_text("model,scenario_id,variable\n")
+ receipt = {
+ "partial": False,
+ "early": False,
+ "files": {
+ BOUND_EXCLUSIONS: driver.BASE_REFERENCE_SHA256[EXCLUSIONS_NAME],
+ f"inputs/{SLUG}/predictions.csv": driver.digest(other),
+ },
+ "seed": {"us__s0__snap": {"prompt_sha256": "a" * 64}},
+ }
+ (stage / "stage.json").write_text(json.dumps(receipt))
+ return stage, copies, receipt
+
+
+def test_install_exclusions_rebinds_the_stage_and_is_idempotent(installable):
+ stage, copies, receipt = installable
+ driver.install_exclusions(SimpleNamespace(stage_dir=stage))
+ for target in copies:
+ assert (target / EXCLUSIONS_NAME).read_text() == release_text()
+ after = json.loads((stage / "stage.json").read_text())
+ assert after["files"] == {**receipt["files"], BOUND_EXCLUSIONS: release_sha()}
+ assert after["exclusions_installed"] == {
+ "base_sha256": driver.BASE_REFERENCE_SHA256[EXCLUSIONS_NAME],
+ "sha256": release_sha(),
+ "spec_sha256": driver.digest(REPO / driver.SPEC_PATH),
+ "records": 49,
+ }
+ assert {
+ k: v for k, v in after.items() if k not in ("files", "exclusions_installed")
+ } == {k: v for k, v in receipt.items() if k != "files"}
+ # Every binding the resume check reads holds after the rebind.
+ for name, pin in after["files"].items():
+ assert driver.digest(stage / name) == pin
+ written = {p: p.read_bytes() for p in stage.rglob("*") if p.is_file()}
+ driver.install_exclusions(SimpleNamespace(stage_dir=stage))
+ assert {p: p.read_bytes() for p in stage.rglob("*") if p.is_file()} == written
+
+
+def test_install_exclusions_requires_the_bound_base_record_the_first_time(
+ installable,
+):
+ stage, copies, receipt = installable
+ receipt["files"][BOUND_EXCLUSIONS] = "0" * 64
+ (stage / "stage.json").write_text(json.dumps(receipt))
+ before = {p: p.read_bytes() for p in stage.rglob("*") if p.is_file()}
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="is not release 20261013b's"):
+ driver.install_exclusions(SimpleNamespace(stage_dir=stage))
+ assert {p: p.read_bytes() for p in stage.rglob("*") if p.is_file()} == before
+
+
+def test_install_exclusions_requires_a_bound_record(installable):
+ stage, _, receipt = installable
+ del receipt["files"][BOUND_EXCLUSIONS]
+ (stage / "stage.json").write_text(json.dumps(receipt))
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="does not bind the exclusions"):
+ driver.install_exclusions(SimpleNamespace(stage_dir=stage))
+
+
+# --- Helpers the upgrade's adjudication tests share --------------------------
+
+
+def _all_verdicts(cases: Path, entries: list[dict]) -> Path:
+ """Verdicts that agree with each recorded decision's judge fields, as the
+ seed's do, for every case the base record decides."""
+ for entry in entries:
+ case = cases / driver.case_id(entry)
+ if (case / "verdict.json").is_file():
+ continue
+ case.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
+ (case / "prompt.md").write_text(f"Classify {case.name}.\n")
+ verdict = {
+ **_verdict(["m1"], entry["judge_failure_source"]),
+ "case_failure_subtype": entry["judge_failure_subtype"],
+ "reference_suspect": bool(entry.get("judge_reference_suspect")),
+ }
+ write_verdict(case, verdict, judged_at_utc="2026-09-30T02:00:00+00:00")
+ return cases
+
+
+def _write_stage_record(tmp_path: Path, record: dict) -> Path:
+ path = tmp_path / "publish" / driver.RUN_NAME / "annotations" / driver.ADJUDICATIONS
+ path.parent.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
+ path.write_text(driver.record_text(record))
+ return path
+
+
+JSON_VALUES = st.recursive(
+ st.none() | st.booleans() | st.integers() | st.text(max_size=8),
+ lambda children: (
+ st.lists(children, max_size=3)
+ | st.dictionaries(st.text(max_size=5), children, max_size=3)
+ ),
+ max_leaves=6,
+)
+
+
+# --- The date conventions ------------------------------------------------------
+
+UPGRADE_WAVE = driver.DecisionWave("2026-10-13", excludes=True, affirms=False)
+UPGRADE_WRITTEN = "2026-10-13"
+
+
+def test_without_a_new_wave_the_date_conventions_are_release_20261013bs():
+ """The release rules nothing, so with no upgrade wave the record's date
+ conventions are release 20261013b's, byte for byte."""
+ conventions = base_adjudication_record()["date_conventions"]
+ assert driver.release_date_conventions(conventions) == conventions
+
+
+def test_the_upgrade_wave_is_named_once_after_the_2026_10_10_wave(monkeypatch):
+ spec = {**real_spec(), "upgrade_adjudications_written_on": UPGRADE_WRITTEN}
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "load_spec", lambda: copy.deepcopy(spec))
+ conventions = base_adjudication_record()["date_conventions"]
+ out = driver.release_date_conventions(conventions, UPGRADE_WAVE)
+ day = UPGRADE_WAVE.day
+ named = driver.DATE_CONVENTIONS_BASE.replace(
+ " or 2026-10-10)", f", 2026-10-10 or {day})"
+ )
+ sentence = (
+ f" The {day} wave's decisions exclude the outputs the {day} engine "
+ "upgrade of the references moved onto an input the prompt does not "
+ f"state, and were written on {UPGRADE_WRITTEN} UTC."
+ )
+ assert out == conventions.replace(driver.DATE_CONVENTIONS_BASE, named).replace(
+ driver.DATE_CONVENTIONS_ANCHOR, driver.DATE_CONVENTIONS_ANCHOR + sentence
+ )
+ assert out.count(f"The {day} wave's decisions") == 1
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="are not release 20261013b's"):
+ driver.release_date_conventions(out, UPGRADE_WAVE)
+
+
+def test_the_upgrade_wave_needs_its_written_day():
+ spec = {
+ k: v for k, v in real_spec().items() if k != "upgrade_adjudications_written_on"
+ }
+ with mock.patch.object(driver, "load_spec", lambda: spec):
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="upgrade_adjudications_written_on"):
+ driver.release_date_conventions(
+ base_adjudication_record()["date_conventions"], UPGRADE_WAVE
+ )
+
+
+FILLER = st.text(alphabet="abc ().,0123456789-", max_size=20)
+
+
+@settings(max_examples=150, deadline=None)
+@given(
+ parts=st.lists(FILLER, min_size=5, max_size=5),
+ bases=st.integers(min_value=0, max_value=2),
+ anchors=st.integers(min_value=0, max_value=2),
+ wave=st.one_of(
+ st.none(),
+ st.builds(
+ driver.DecisionWave,
+ st.dates().map(lambda day: day.isoformat()),
+ st.booleans(),
+ st.just(True),
+ ),
+ ),
+)
+def test_release_date_conventions_requires_the_base_text_exactly_once(
+ parts, bases, anchors, wave
+):
+ """For any text: it refuses unless the base wave list and the anchor each
+ occur exactly once; then it changes nothing without a wave, and with one
+ names it after 2026-10-10 and adds its sentence after the anchor."""
+ a, b, c, d, e = parts
+ base, anchor = driver.DATE_CONVENTIONS_BASE, driver.DATE_CONVENTIONS_ANCHOR
+ text = a + (base + b) * bases + c + (anchor + d) * anchors + e
+ assume(text.count(base) == bases and text.count(anchor) == anchors)
+ spec = {**real_spec(), "upgrade_adjudications_written_on": UPGRADE_WRITTEN}
+ with mock.patch.object(driver, "load_spec", lambda: spec):
+ if (bases, anchors) != (1, 1):
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="are not release 20261013b's"):
+ driver.release_date_conventions(text, wave)
+ return
+ out = driver.release_date_conventions(text, wave)
+ if wave is None:
+ assert out == text
+ return
+ named = base.replace(" or 2026-10-10)", f", 2026-10-10 or {wave.day})")
+ assert out.startswith(a + named + b + c + anchor + f" The {wave.day} wave's")
+ assert out.endswith(d + e)
+
+
+# --- Triage --------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+CONVENTIONS = (
+ "Dates are UTC days. "
+ + driver.DATE_CONVENTIONS_BASE
+ + " The 2026-10-05 wave's decisions follow Max's rulings "
+ + driver.DATE_CONVENTIONS_ANCHOR
+ + " The rest is as before."
+)
+
+
+def _base_record(*entries) -> dict:
+ return {"date_conventions": CONVENTIONS, "adjudications": list(entries)}
+
+
+def _record(*entries) -> str:
+ """A staged record: the date conventions name the wave, as the adjudicate
+ step writes them (load_spec must be patched with a written day)."""
+ return driver.record_text(
+ {
+ "date_conventions": driver.release_date_conventions(CONVENTIONS),
+ "adjudications": list(entries),
+ }
+ )
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+ "suspect, failure_source, report",
+ [
+ (True, "llm_error", "reference-flags.csv"),
+ (False, "reference_engine_defect", "unresolved-rows.csv"),
+ (False, "prompt_ambiguity", "unresolved-rows.csv"),
+ ],
+)
+def test_triage_stops_and_records_flags_for_evidence_review(
+ tmp_path, monkeypatch, unruled_spec, suspect, failure_source, report
+):
+ import policybench.audit
+
+ stage = tmp_path / "stage"
+ bundle = stage / "publish" / driver.RUN_NAME
+ (bundle / "annotations").mkdir(parents=True)
+ rows = pd.DataFrame(
+ [
+ {
+ "country": "us",
+ "scenario_id": "scenario_000",
+ "variable": "snap",
+ "model": NEW,
+ "failure_source": failure_source,
+ "failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
+ "annotation": "Evidence needed.",
+ "reference_suspect": suspect,
+ }
+ ]
+ )
+ cases = pd.DataFrame(
+ [
+ {
+ "country": "us",
+ "scenario_id": "scenario_000",
+ "variable": "snap",
+ "wrong_model_count": 1,
+ "reference_suspect": suspect,
+ "case_failure_source": failure_source,
+ "case_failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
+ "case_annotation": "Evidence needed.",
+ "reference_bug_hypothesis": "Check the threshold.",
+ }
+ ]
+ )
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "validate_verdicts", lambda *a, **kw: [])
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "load_seed", lambda stage: {})
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "base_adjudication_record", lambda: _base_record())
+ (stage / driver.PROMPT_CHANGES).write_text(
+ json.dumps({"added": [], "changed": [], "kept": []})
+ )
+ (bundle / "annotations" / driver.ADJUDICATIONS).write_text(_record())
+ monkeypatch.setattr(
+ policybench.audit,
+ "collect_audit",
+ lambda *a, **kw: {
+ "missing": pd.DataFrame(),
+ "hedged": pd.DataFrame(),
+ "row": rows,
+ "case": cases,
+ },
+ )
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="triage required"):
+ driver.triage(SimpleNamespace(stage_dir=stage), bundle)
+ assert len(pd.read_csv(stage / report)) == 1
+ assert not (stage / "release-ready.json").exists()
+
+
+CASE = "us__scenario_000__snap"
+DECISION = {
+ "country": "us",
+ "scenario_id": "scenario_000",
+ "variable": "snap",
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judged_on_utc": "2026-09-30",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
+ "adjudicated_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "adjudicated_failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
+ "adjudicated_on": "2026-09-22",
+ "adjudicator": "developer",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": True,
+ "reference_verdict": "affirmed",
+ "reference_basis": "7 CFR 273.10",
+ "reasoning": "The judge counted one model's row. The allotment follows the rule.",
+}
+
+
+@pytest.fixture
+def triage_stage(tmp_path, monkeypatch, unruled_spec):
+ """A one-case stage Gemini 4 Argon re-opened, with a recorded decision."""
+ import policybench.audit
+
+ stage = tmp_path / "stage"
+ bundle = stage / "publish" / driver.RUN_NAME
+ (bundle / "annotations").mkdir(parents=True)
+ (stage / driver.PROMPT_CHANGES).write_text(
+ json.dumps({"added": [], "changed": [CASE], "kept": []})
+ )
+ case = stage / "audit/cases" / CASE
+ case.mkdir(parents=True)
+ write_verdict(case, {**_verdict([NEW]), "reference_suspect": True})
+ record = bundle / "annotations" / driver.ADJUDICATIONS
+ record.write_text(_record(DECISION))
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "validate_verdicts", lambda *a, **kw: [])
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "load_seed", lambda stage: {})
+ monkeypatch.setattr(
+ driver, "base_adjudication_record", lambda: _base_record(DECISION)
+ )
+ row = {
+ "country": "us",
+ "scenario_id": "scenario_000",
+ "variable": "snap",
+ "failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
+ "reference_suspect": True,
+ }
+ rows = pd.DataFrame(
+ [
+ {**row, "model": NEW, "annotation": "It used the 2025 threshold."},
+ {**row, "model": "m1", "annotation": "It used the 2025 threshold."},
+ ]
+ )
+ cases = pd.DataFrame(
+ [
+ {
+ **{k: v for k, v in row.items() if not k.startswith("failure")},
+ "wrong_model_count": 2,
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
+ "reference_bug_hypothesis": "",
+ "case_annotation": "Both models used the 2025 threshold.",
+ }
+ ]
+ )
+ monkeypatch.setattr(
+ policybench.audit,
+ "collect_audit",
+ lambda *a, **kw: {
+ "missing": pd.DataFrame(),
+ "hedged": pd.DataFrame(),
+ "row": rows.copy(),
+ "case": cases.copy(),
+ },
+ )
+
+ def run():
+ driver.triage(SimpleNamespace(stage_dir=stage), bundle)
+ annotations = bundle / "annotations"
+ return (
+ json.loads(record.read_text())["adjudications"][0],
+ pd.read_csv(annotations / "us_case_notes.csv").iloc[0],
+ pd.read_csv(annotations / "us_audit_row_annotations.csv"),
+ )
+
+ return stage, record, run
+
+
+SEED_ITEM = {
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": True,
+ "judged_on": "2026-09-30",
+}
+RESTATED = {
+ **DECISION,
+ "judged_on_utc": "2026-10-09",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": "2026-10-09",
+ "judge_previous": [SEED_ITEM],
+}
+
+
+def test_triage_accepts_its_own_record_unchanged(triage_stage):
+ stage, record, run = triage_stage
+ text = record.read_text()
+ entry, _, _ = run()
+ assert entry == DECISION and record.read_text() == text
+
+
+def test_triage_lets_a_rejudged_case_restate_its_judge_fields(triage_stage):
+ stage, record, run = triage_stage
+ record.write_text(_record(RESTATED))
+ entry, _, _ = run()
+ assert entry == RESTATED
+
+
+def test_triage_refuses_a_decision_the_spec_does_not_list(triage_stage, monkeypatch):
+ """On a case the stage re-opened but release 20261013b never decided, a
+ hand-written decision is refused: only the spec's triage decisions may
+ be new, so none can bypass the triage gates."""
+ stage, record, run = triage_stage
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "base_adjudication_record", lambda: _base_record())
+ record.write_text(_record(RESTATED))
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="decisions the spec does not list"):
+ run()
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+ "tamper",
+ [
+ {"judge_model": "a-human-typed-this"},
+ {"judge_previous": []},
+ {"judge_rejudged_on": "1999-01-01"},
+ # The appended item must be the verdict 20261013b's entry names.
+ {"judge_previous": [{**SEED_ITEM, "judged_on": "2026-09-28"}]},
+ {"judge_previous": [{**SEED_ITEM, "judge_failure_source": "reference_error"}]},
+ {"judge_previous": [{**SEED_ITEM, "judge_failure_subtype": "other"}]},
+ {"judge_previous": [{**SEED_ITEM, "judge_reference_suspect": False}]},
+ ],
+)
+def test_triage_refuses_judge_fields_written_by_hand(triage_stage, tamper):
+ stage, record, run = triage_stage
+ record.write_text(_record({**RESTATED, **tamper}))
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="not restated by the restate script"):
+ run()
+
+
+def test_triage_refuses_a_record_whose_bytes_hide_text(triage_stage):
+ stage, record, run = triage_stage
+ text = _record(DECISION).replace(
+ '"adjudicator": "developer"',
+ '"adjudicator": "SMUGGLED", "adjudicator": "developer"',
+ )
+ record.write_text(text)
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="committed form"):
+ run()
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+ "conventions",
+ [
+ CONVENTIONS + " Edited.",
+ CONVENTIONS.replace(
+ driver.DATE_CONVENTIONS_LAST_WAVE, ", 2026-10-10 or 2026-10-13)"
+ ),
+ ],
+)
+def test_triage_refuses_date_conventions_other_than_the_waves(
+ triage_stage, conventions
+):
+ """Without an upgrade wave, the staged record's date conventions are the
+ base's own text: neither an edit nor a wave the release does not add
+ passes."""
+ stage, record, run = triage_stage
+ record.write_text(
+ driver.record_text(
+ {"date_conventions": conventions, "adjudications": [DECISION]}
+ )
+ )
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="beyond naming this release's waves"):
+ run()
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+ "field, value",
+ [("adjudicated_failure_subtype", "other"), ("reasoning", "Rewritten.")],
+)
+def test_triage_refuses_any_other_change_to_a_recorded_decision(
+ triage_stage, field, value
+):
+ stage, record, run = triage_stage
+ record.write_text(_record({**DECISION, field: value}))
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="change recorded decisions"):
+ run()
+
+
+def test_triage_refuses_a_judge_rewrite_of_an_incumbent_only_case(triage_stage):
+ stage, record, run = triage_stage
+ (stage / driver.PROMPT_CHANGES).write_text(
+ json.dumps({"added": [], "changed": [], "kept": [CASE]})
+ )
+ record.write_text(_record(RESTATED))
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="change recorded decisions"):
+ run()
+
+
+def _amendments(stage, *items):
+ (stage / driver.AMENDMENTS).write_text(json.dumps({"amendments": list(items)}))
+
+
+def _amend(field, old, new, **extra):
+ return {
+ "case_id": CASE,
+ "field": field,
+ "old": old,
+ "new": new,
+ "reason": "The re-judge's verdict no longer says this.",
+ **extra,
+ }
+
+
+def test_triage_applies_exactly_the_listed_wording_amendments(triage_stage):
+ stage, record, run = triage_stage
+ _amendments(
+ stage,
+ _amend("reasoning", "one model's row", "two models' rows"),
+ _amend("case_annotation", "the 2025 threshold", "the 2025 threshold, held"),
+ _amend("annotation", "2025 threshold", "held 2025 threshold", model=NEW),
+ )
+ entry, note, rows = run()
+ assert entry["reasoning"] == DECISION["reasoning"].replace(
+ "one model's row", "two models' rows"
+ )
+ assert list(entry) == list(DECISION)
+ assert note.case_annotation.startswith("Both models used the 2025 threshold, held.")
+ assert "two models' rows" in note.case_annotation
+ annotations = dict(zip(rows.model, rows.annotation))
+ assert annotations == {
+ NEW: "It used the held 2025 threshold.",
+ "m1": "It used the 2025 threshold.",
+ }
+ # Idempotent: a second triage applies nothing twice.
+ text = record.read_text()
+ assert run()[0] == entry and record.read_text() == text
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+ "item",
+ [
+ _amend("case_annotation", "no such text", "x"),
+ _amend("annotation", "2025 threshold", "x", model="not-a-model"),
+ # The adjudication sentence comes from the record; only a reasoning
+ # amendment may change it.
+ _amend("case_annotation", "The allotment follows the rule.", "It does."),
+ ],
+)
+def test_triage_refuses_an_amendment_it_cannot_apply_exactly(triage_stage, item):
+ from policybench.adjudications import AdjudicationError
+
+ stage, _, run = triage_stage
+ _amendments(stage, item)
+ with pytest.raises(
+ (SystemExit, AdjudicationError), match="occurs|matches|adjudication sentence"
+ ):
+ run()
+
+
+# --- Export, the scored count and the scope check ------------------------------
+
+FABLE_USAGE = {
+ "costUsd": 54.109099999999955,
+ "costPerHousehold": 0.5410909999999995,
+ "totalTokens": 3850174,
+ "latencySeconds": 97.6780539804895,
+}
+
+
+def _stat(model, exact, n=driver.RELEASE_SCORED, **usage):
+ return {
+ "model": model,
+ "condition": "no_tools",
+ "score": exact / 100,
+ "exact": exact,
+ "n": n,
+ **usage,
+ }
+
+
+def _incumbents():
+ """48 rows as release 20261013b published them (1,935 scored outputs),
+ including Fable 5's batch usage and Ox Alpha's $0."""
+ rows = [
+ _stat(f"incumbent-{i:02d}", 50.0 + i / 7, n=driver.BASE_SCORED, costUsd=1.25)
+ for i in range(46)
+ ]
+ rows.append(
+ _stat("ox-alpha", 70.0, n=driver.BASE_SCORED, costUsd=0.0, costPerHousehold=0.0)
+ )
+ rows.append(
+ _stat(
+ "claude-fable-5",
+ 60.0,
+ n=driver.BASE_SCORED,
+ costUsd=0.0,
+ costPerHousehold=0.0,
+ )
+ )
+ rows[-1].update(FABLE_USAGE)
+ return rows
+
+
+def _exported(incumbents):
+ """What export_full_run returns on the release's record: every model on
+ 1,935 outputs and (MOCK) every incumbent's score moved, which the scope
+ check must not mistake for drift; Fable's usage is gone, and the two
+ additions are new."""
+ stats = copy.deepcopy(incumbents)
+ for row in stats:
+ row.update(n=driver.RELEASE_SCORED, exact=row["exact"] + 0.25)
+ row["score"] = row["exact"] / 100
+ fable = stats[-1]
+ fable.update(costUsd=0.0, costPerHousehold=0.0)
+ del fable["totalTokens"], fable["latencySeconds"]
+ return stats + [
+ _stat(NEW, 65.0, costUsd=0.13),
+ _stat(OTHER, 61.0, costUsd=0.11),
+ ]
+
+
+def _scoped(incumbents):
+ """What release_20261006.export_payload returns with release 20261013b's
+ record put back: every incumbent's published row, Fable's usage carried
+ (it does that itself), and the two additions on 1,935 outputs."""
+ return copy.deepcopy(incumbents) + [
+ _stat(NEW, 65.5, n=driver.BASE_SCORED, costUsd=0.13),
+ _stat(OTHER, 61.5, n=driver.BASE_SCORED, costUsd=0.11),
+ ]
+
+
+@pytest.fixture
+def scope(monkeypatch):
+ """export_full_run, release_20261006.export_payload and the dashboard
+ schema replaced by fakes that hand back the given model stats and record
+ what they were called with."""
+ import policybench.dashboard_schema
+ import policybench.full_run_export
+
+ state = SimpleNamespace(
+ stats=None, scoped=None, calls=[], gates=[], references=[], scope_gates=[]
+ )
+
+ def export_full_run(run_dir, **kwargs):
+ state.calls.append(("export_full_run", Path(run_dir), kwargs))
+ return {"countries": {"us": {"modelStats": copy.deepcopy(state.stats)}}}
+
+ def export_payload(
+ bundle, base, exclusions=None, *, require_failure_annotations=True
+ ):
+ state.calls.append(
+ ("export_payload", Path(bundle), base, Path(exclusions).read_bytes())
+ )
+ state.scope_gates.append(require_failure_annotations)
+ # The reference files the scope export reads, where the bundle has them.
+ state.references.append(
+ {
+ name: (Path(bundle) / "us" / name).read_bytes()
+ for name in driver.REFERENCE_FILES
+ if (Path(bundle) / "us" / name).is_file()
+ }
+ )
+ return {"countries": {"us": {"modelStats": copy.deepcopy(state.scoped)}}}
+
+ def validate(payload, *, require_failure_annotations):
+ state.gates.append(require_failure_annotations)
+ return []
+
+ monkeypatch.setattr(policybench.full_run_export, "export_full_run", export_full_run)
+ monkeypatch.setattr(release_20261006, "export_payload", export_payload)
+ monkeypatch.setattr(
+ policybench.dashboard_schema, "validate_dashboard_payload", validate
+ )
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "base_exclusion_record", base_record)
+
+ def build(
+ stats,
+ scoped,
+ live_stats,
+ *,
+ partial=False,
+ early=False,
+ bundle=None,
+ ):
+ state.stats, state.scoped = stats, scoped
+ live = {"countries": {"us": {"modelStats": live_stats}}}
+ return driver.build_payload(
+ bundle or Path("bundle"),
+ live,
+ partial=partial,
+ early=early,
+ )
+
+ state.build = build
+ return state
+
+
+def test_the_scope_check_allows_every_incumbent_change_the_base_record_explains(scope):
+ """Every incumbent's score moves on the release's record, and its
+ modelStats on release 20261013b's record are the published ones: the
+ payload carries the release's rows, Fable 5's usage carried."""
+ incumbents = _incumbents()
+ stats = _exported(incumbents)
+ payload = scope.build(stats, _scoped(incumbents), incumbents, bundle=Path("b"))
+ rows = payload["countries"]["us"]["modelStats"]
+ assert {row["n"] for row in rows} == {1935}
+ fable = next(row for row in rows if row["model"] == "claude-fable-5")
+ assert {key: fable[key] for key in FABLE_USAGE} == FABLE_USAGE
+ assert fable["exact"] == incumbents[-1]["exact"] + 0.25
+ (_, run_dir, kwargs), (_, bundle, live, record) = scope.calls
+ assert run_dir == bundle == Path("b")
+ assert kwargs == {"countries": ["us"], "skip_app_data": True}
+ assert live == {"countries": {"us": {"modelStats": incumbents}}}
+ # The scope export scores on release 20261013b's exclusion record, its
+ # pinned bytes.
+ assert (
+ hashlib.sha256(record).hexdigest()
+ == driver.BASE_REFERENCE_SHA256[EXCLUSIONS_NAME]
+ )
+ assert scope.gates == [True]
+
+
+SCOPE_MUTATIONS = {
+ "value": lambda row: row.update(exact=row["exact"] + 1e-12),
+ "added_key": lambda row: row.update(extra=None),
+ "removed_key": lambda row: row.pop("score"),
+ "key_order": lambda row: row.update(model=row.pop("model")),
+ "int_to_float": lambda row: row.update(n=float(row["n"])),
+ "zero_cost_to_missing": lambda row: row.pop("costUsd"),
+ "cost_sign": lambda row: row.update(costUsd=-row["costUsd"]),
+ "renamed": lambda row: row.update(model=row["model"] + "-x"),
+}
+
+
+@settings(
+ max_examples=100,
+ deadline=None,
+ suppress_health_check=[HealthCheck.function_scoped_fixture],
+)
+@given(
+ target=st.integers(min_value=0, max_value=47),
+ mutation=st.sampled_from(sorted(SCOPE_MUTATIONS)),
+)
+def test_the_scope_check_refuses_any_incumbent_change_on_the_base_record(
+ scope, target, mutation
+):
+ """For every incumbent and every kind of change to its modelStats on
+ release 20261013b's record, the build refuses and names it."""
+ incumbents = _incumbents()
+ scoped = _scoped(incumbents)
+ SCOPE_MUTATIONS[mutation](scoped[target])
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="incumbent modelStats drift") as refusal:
+ scope.build(_exported(incumbents), scoped, incumbents)
+ assert str(refusal.value).endswith(f"drift: {[incumbents[target]['model']]}")
+
+
+def test_the_scope_check_refuses_a_scope_export_that_loses_a_model(scope):
+ incumbents = _incumbents()
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="scope export lost a model"):
+ scope.build(_exported(incumbents), _scoped(incumbents)[:-1], incumbents)
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=r"drift: \['incumbent-03'\]"):
+ scope.build(
+ _exported(incumbents),
+ [r for r in _scoped(incumbents) if r["model"] != "incumbent-03"]
+ + [_stat("stray", 1.0)],
+ incumbents,
+ )
+
+
+def test_every_model_is_scored_on_1935_outputs(scope):
+ incumbents = _incumbents()
+ for index in (0, 47, 48, 49):
+ stats = _exported(incumbents)
+ stats[index]["n"] = 1920
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="must be scored on 1935 outputs"):
+ scope.build(stats, _scoped(incumbents), incumbents)
+ assert [call[0] for call in scope.calls] == ["export_full_run"] * 4
+
+
+@settings(
+ max_examples=100,
+ deadline=None,
+ suppress_health_check=[HealthCheck.function_scoped_fixture],
+)
+@given(
+ counts=st.lists(
+ st.sampled_from([1935, 1935, 1935, 1920, 1934, 1984, 0]),
+ min_size=50,
+ max_size=50,
+ )
+)
+def test_the_scored_count_gate_passes_exactly_when_every_model_has_1935(scope, counts):
+ incumbents = _incumbents()
+ stats = _exported(incumbents)
+ for row, n in zip(stats, counts):
+ row["n"] = n
+ if set(counts) == {1935}:
+ scope.build(stats, _scoped(incumbents), incumbents)
+ else:
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="must be scored on 1935 outputs"):
+ scope.build(stats, _scoped(incumbents), incumbents)
+
+
+def test_a_partial_build_skips_the_release_gates(scope):
+ stats = [_stat(f"incumbent-{i:02d}", 40.0, n=7) for i in range(48)]
+ additions = [_stat(NEW, 45.0, n=7), _stat(OTHER, 44.0, n=7)]
+ payload = scope.build(stats + additions, None, [], partial=True)
+ assert "PARTIAL" in payload["stage2Status"]
+ assert [call[0] for call in scope.calls] == ["export_full_run"]
+
+
+@settings(max_examples=60, deadline=None)
+@given(
+ rows=st.lists(
+ st.fixed_dictionaries(
+ {
+ "exact": st.floats(allow_nan=False, allow_infinity=False),
+ "n": st.integers(min_value=0, max_value=1984),
+ }
+ ),
+ min_size=46,
+ max_size=46,
+ ),
+ target=st.integers(min_value=0, max_value=45),
+)
+def test_incumbent_drift_is_exactly_the_changed_rows(rows, target):
+ """Identical rows pass; a changed, dropped or reordered row is named."""
+ previous = {
+ f"m{i:02d}": {"model": f"m{i:02d}", **row} for i, row in enumerate(rows)
+ }
+ stats = [copy.deepcopy(row) for row in previous.values()]
+ assert driver.incumbent_drift(stats, previous) == []
+ name = f"m{target:02d}"
+ reordered = copy.deepcopy(stats)
+ reordered[target] = dict(reversed(list(reordered[target].items())))
+ assert driver.incumbent_drift(reordered, previous) == [name]
+ dropped = [row for row in stats if row["model"] != name]
+ assert driver.incumbent_drift(dropped, previous) == [name]
+
+
+@pytest.fixture
+def exporting(tmp_path, monkeypatch, scope):
+ """A stage export can run on: release 20261013b's references committed,
+ the release's exclusion record staged, each addition's pinned run and an
+ empty judge provenance record."""
+ stage = tmp_path / "stage"
+ bundle = stage / "publish" / driver.RUN_NAME
+ monkeypatch.setattr(
+ driver, "SNAPSHOT", base_references(tmp_path / "committed-snapshot")
+ )
+ base_references(bundle / "us")
+ (bundle / "us" / EXCLUSIONS_NAME).write_text(release_text())
+ # No case is re-opened here, so the judge provenance record lists none.
+ record = tmp_path / "judge_provenance.json"
+ record.write_text(json.dumps(_provenance_record([])))
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "JUDGE_PROVENANCE", record)
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "rejudged_cases", lambda stage: frozenset())
+ pins = _write_run(stage, bundle)
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "committed_input_pins", lambda: pins)
+ # Before the freeze: the pointer names release 20261013b, whatever the
+ # working tree holds when the tests run.
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "live_pointer", lambda: {"tag": driver.BASE_TAG})
+
+ def run(stats, live_stats, *, scoped=None, partial=False, early=False):
+ scope.stats = stats
+ scope.scoped = _scoped(live_stats) if scoped is None else scoped
+ args = SimpleNamespace(stage_dir=stage, partial=partial, early=early)
+ live = {"countries": {"us": {"modelStats": live_stats}}}
+ return driver.export(args, bundle, live)
+
+ return stage, bundle, run, scope.gates
+
+
+# Each addition's synthetic run file: the header and its one row.
+RUN_HEADER = (
+ "model,scenario_id,variable,prediction,estimated_cost_usd,elapsed_seconds\n"
+)
+RUN_ROWS = {
+ NEW: f"{NEW},scenario_000,snap,1200.0,0.0001,2.75\n",
+ OTHER: f"{OTHER},scenario_000,snap,1100.0,0.0002,3.25\n",
+}
+PINNED = ("predictions.csv", "run_state.json")
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+ "route, reported",
+ [
+ ("openrouter/meta/muse-spark-1.3", "meta/muse-spark-1.3"),
+ ("openrouter/thinkingmachines/inkling", "thinkingmachines/inkling"),
+ ("claude-haiku-5-5", "claude-haiku-5-5"),
+ ("gemini/gemini-4-argon", "gemini-4-argon"),
+ ],
+)
+def test_the_resolved_model_is_the_id_the_provider_reports(route, reported):
+ """Muse Spark 1.3's run reports "meta/muse-spark-1.3" on every row,
+ OpenRouter's id (the registry route's last segment alone would refuse
+ it); Gemini 4 Argon's reports the bare first-party id."""
+ assert driver.resolved_model_id(route) == reported
+
+
+def test_each_additions_route_resolves_to_what_its_run_reported():
+ from policybench.config import MODELS
+
+ assert driver.resolved_model_id(MODELS[NEW]) == "gemini-4-argon"
+ assert driver.resolved_model_id(MODELS[OTHER]) == "meta/muse-spark-1.3"
+
+
+def _write_run(stage, bundle) -> dict:
+ """Each addition's run files as prepare stages them, the bundle's
+ predictions holding an incumbent's row and theirs, and the prepare-time
+ hashes in stage.json and model-provenance.json; returns the run files'
+ pins."""
+ provenance, staged = {}, []
+ for slug, model in ADDITIONS.items():
+ inputs = stage / "inputs" / slug
+ inputs.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
+ (inputs / "predictions.csv").write_text(RUN_HEADER + RUN_ROWS[model])
+ fingerprint = {"model_id": model}
+ state = {"model": model, "treatment_fingerprint": fingerprint}
+ (inputs / "run_state.json").write_text(json.dumps(state))
+ provenance[model] = {
+ "predictions_sha256": driver.digest(inputs / "predictions.csv"),
+ "treatment_fingerprint": fingerprint,
+ }
+ staged += [inputs / name for name in PINNED]
+ (bundle / "us/predictions.csv").write_text(
+ RUN_HEADER
+ + "incumbent,scenario_000,snap,900.0,0.002,3.5\n"
+ + "".join(RUN_ROWS[model] for model in ADDITIONS.values())
+ )
+ names = [bundle / "us" / name for name in driver.REFERENCE_FILES]
+ names += [bundle / "us/predictions.csv", *staged]
+ files = {str(path.relative_to(stage)): driver.digest(path) for path in names}
+ (stage / "stage.json").write_text(
+ json.dumps({"partial": False, "early": False, "files": files})
+ )
+ (stage / "model-provenance.json").write_text(json.dumps(provenance))
+ return {
+ slug: {name: driver.digest(stage / "inputs" / slug / name) for name in PINNED}
+ for slug in ADDITIONS
+ }
+
+
+def _evidence(stage, bundle):
+ paths = [bundle / "annotations/us_adjudications.json"]
+ paths += [stage / "audit/cases.jsonl", stage / "audit/schema.json"]
+ paths += [stage / driver.PROMPT_CHANGES, stage / driver.AMENDMENTS]
+ paths += [
+ stage / "audit/cases/example" / name
+ for name in (
+ "verdict.json",
+ "verdict.meta.json",
+ "prompt.md",
+ "claude.transcript.jsonl",
+ )
+ ]
+ for path in paths:
+ path.parent.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
+ path.write_text(f"Evidence: {path.name}\n")
+ # The run files and prepare-time hashes the exporting fixture wrote.
+ paths += [bundle / "us/predictions.csv", stage / "stage.json"]
+ paths += [stage / "model-provenance.json"]
+ paths += [stage / "inputs" / slug / name for slug in ADDITIONS for name in PINNED]
+ return paths + [bundle / "us" / name for name in driver.REFERENCE_FILES]
+
+
+def test_strict_export_carries_fable_usage_and_binds_the_evidence(exporting):
+ stage, bundle, run, gate_calls = exporting
+ evidence = _evidence(stage, bundle)
+ incumbents = _incumbents()
+ stats = _exported(incumbents)
+ payload = run(stats, incumbents)
+
+ output = stage / "data-board50.json"
+ assert (
+ output.read_bytes()
+ == json.dumps({"countries": {"us": payload["countries"]["us"]}}).encode()
+ )
+ assert (bundle / "data.json").read_bytes() == output.read_bytes()
+ fable = next(
+ s
+ for s in payload["countries"]["us"]["modelStats"]
+ if s["model"] == "claude-fable-5"
+ )
+ assert {key: fable[key] for key in FABLE_USAGE} == FABLE_USAGE
+ assert gate_calls == [True]
+ receipt = json.loads((stage / "release-ready.json").read_text())
+ assert receipt["release_tag"] == driver.RELEASE_TAG
+ assert receipt["base_tag"] == driver.BASE_TAG
+ assert receipt["models"] == 50 and receipt["partial"] is False
+ assert receipt["base_sha256"] == driver.BASE_SHA256
+ assert receipt["payload_sha256"] == hashlib.sha256(output.read_bytes()).hexdigest()
+ assert receipt["files"] == {
+ str(path.relative_to(stage)): hashlib.sha256(path.read_bytes()).hexdigest()
+ for path in evidence
+ }
+ assert receipt["files"][BOUND_EXCLUSIONS] == release_sha()
+ assert receipt["judge_provenance"] == {
+ "path": "docs/argon/judge_provenance.json",
+ "sha256": hashlib.sha256(driver.JUDGE_PROVENANCE.read_bytes()).hexdigest(),
+ }
+
+
+def test_export_accepts_only_the_release_exclusion_record(exporting, monkeypatch):
+ """The release rules nothing, so the staged and committed records are both
+ release 20261013b's; an edited copy of either is refused before a payload
+ or receipt is written."""
+ stage, bundle, run, _ = exporting
+ _evidence(stage, bundle)
+ incumbents = _incumbents()
+ staged = bundle / "us" / EXCLUSIONS_NAME
+ staged.write_text(release_text() + " ")
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="staged reference reference_exclusions.json"):
+ run(_exported(incumbents), incumbents)
+ staged.write_text(release_text())
+ (driver.SNAPSHOT / EXCLUSIONS_NAME).write_text(release_text() + " ")
+ with pytest.raises(
+ SystemExit, match="committed reference reference_exclusions.json"
+ ):
+ run(_exported(incumbents), incumbents)
+ assert not (stage / "release-ready.json").exists()
+ assert not (stage / "data-board50.json").exists()
+
+
+def test_a_re_export_after_the_freeze_accepts_the_frozen_exclusion_record(
+ exporting, monkeypatch
+):
+ stage, bundle, run, _ = exporting
+ _evidence(stage, bundle)
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "live_pointer", lambda: {"tag": driver.RELEASE_TAG})
+ (driver.SNAPSHOT / EXCLUSIONS_NAME).write_text(release_text())
+ incumbents = _incumbents()
+ run(_exported(incumbents), incumbents)
+ assert (stage / "release-ready.json").is_file()
+
+
+def test_export_writes_no_receipt_when_the_inputs_are_not_the_pinned_run(
+ exporting, monkeypatch
+):
+ """Export checks Gemini 4 Argon's staged run files against the committed
+ pins before it writes the payload or a receipt."""
+ stage, bundle, run, _ = exporting
+ _evidence(stage, bundle)
+ pins = {SLUG: {"predictions.csv": "0" * 64, "run_state.json": "0" * 64}}
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "committed_input_pins", lambda: pins)
+ incumbents = _incumbents()
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=f"staged inputs/{SLUG}/.* is not the run"):
+ run(_exported(incumbents), incumbents)
+ assert not (stage / "release-ready.json").exists()
+ assert not (stage / "data-board50.json").exists()
+
+
+def test_export_writes_nothing_when_the_scope_check_refuses(exporting):
+ stage, bundle, run, _ = exporting
+ _evidence(stage, bundle)
+ incumbents = _incumbents()
+ scoped = _scoped(incumbents)
+ scoped[7]["exact"] += 0.5
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=r"drift: \['incumbent-07'\]"):
+ run(_exported(incumbents), incumbents, scoped=scoped)
+ assert not (stage / "release-ready.json").exists()
+ assert not (stage / "data-board50.json").exists()
+ assert not (bundle / "data.json").exists()
+
+
+def test_partial_export_never_gets_a_release_receipt(exporting):
+ stage, bundle, run, _ = exporting
+ stats = [_stat(f"incumbent-{i:02d}", 40.0) for i in range(48)]
+ run(stats + [_stat(NEW, 45.0), _stat(OTHER, 44.0)], [], partial=True, early=True)
+ payload = stage / "PARTIAL-data-board50.json"
+ assert "PARTIAL" in json.loads(payload.read_text())["stage2Status"]
+ assert (bundle / "data.json").read_bytes() == payload.read_bytes()
+ assert not (stage / "release-ready.json").exists()
+
+
+def test_the_export_roster_must_be_the_incumbents_plus_the_additions(exporting):
+ _, _, run, _ = exporting
+ incumbents = _incumbents()
+ for position, impostor in ((-1, "muse-spark-impostor"), (-2, "argon-impostor")):
+ stats = _exported(incumbents)
+ stats[position] = _stat(impostor, 65.0)
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="roster"):
+ run(stats, incumbents)
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="48 incumbents"):
+ run(_exported(incumbents), incumbents[:-1] + [_stat(NEW, 1.0)])
+ # One addition alone is not the release's board.
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="all 50 models"):
+ run(_exported(incumbents)[:-1], incumbents)
+
+
+def test_export_refuses_a_staged_reference_off_its_pin(exporting):
+ _, bundle, run, _ = exporting
+ path = bundle / "us/reference_outputs.csv.meta.json"
+ path.write_bytes(path.read_bytes() + b"\n")
+ incumbents = _incumbents()
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="staged reference reference_outputs.csv.meta"):
+ run(_exported(incumbents), incumbents)
+
+
+def test_export_refuses_a_committed_reference_off_its_pin(
+ exporting, pinned_copy, monkeypatch
+):
+ _, _, run, _ = exporting
+ (pinned_copy / "scenarios.csv").write_text("scenario_id\n")
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "SNAPSHOT", pinned_copy)
+ incumbents = _incumbents()
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="committed reference scenarios.csv"):
+ run(_exported(incumbents), incumbents)
+
+
+# --- Judge provenance ----------------------------------------------------------
+
+ISOLATED = "us__scenario_001__snap"
+UNHARDENED = "us__scenario_002__snap"
+# The prompt an isolated judge's transcript shows, and its case's prompt.md.
+JUDGED = "Classify these wrong answers.\n"
+
+
+def _event(kind, **fields):
+ return {"type": kind, **fields}
+
+
+def _attachment(kind, **fields):
+ return _event("attachment", attachment={"type": kind, **fields})
+
+
+def _call(name, call_id, answer=None):
+ content = [{"type": "tool_use", "id": call_id, "name": name, "input": answer or {}}]
+ return _event("assistant", effort="xhigh", message={"content": content})
+
+
+def _result(call_id, error=False):
+ part = {"type": "tool_result", "tool_use_id": call_id, "content": "done"}
+ if error:
+ part["is_error"] = True
+ return _event("user", message={"content": [part]})
+
+
+def _clean_transcript():
+ """An isolated judge's transcript, shaped like the GPT-6.1 Sol stage's real
+ ones: its one accepted StructuredOutput call answers the verdict the
+ provenance fixture writes."""
+ return [
+ _event("user", message={"content": JUDGED}),
+ _attachment("environment", snapshot={"isGitRepo": False}),
+ _attachment("model"),
+ _attachment("session_context", context={}),
+ _attachment("date"),
+ _attachment("prompt_snapshot"),
+ _event("assistant", effort="xhigh", message={"content": [{"type": "text"}]}),
+ _call("StructuredOutput", "call-1", _verdict([NEW])),
+ _attachment("structured_output"),
+ _result("call-1"),
+ ]
+
+
+def _write_transcript(case, events):
+ (case / "claude.transcript.jsonl").write_text(
+ "".join(json.dumps(event) + "\n" for event in events)
+ )
+
+
+# An isolated judge's sidecar fields: a token login on a lane whose account
+# it declares, which the public record withholds.
+ISOLATED_SIDECAR = {
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_isolation": {"tools": "none (--tools '')"},
+ "judge_auth": {"method": "oauth_token", "account": None, "org": None},
+ "judge_account_declared": "claude:lane@example.org (pb-judge)",
+}
+WITHHELD = ""
+
+
+def _record_entry(case: Path, group: str) -> dict:
+ """The entry a true record gives a staged verdict: its hashes, its group
+ and isolation, and its sidecar's fields with addresses withheld."""
+ meta = json.loads((case / "verdict.meta.json").read_text())
+ return {
+ "case_id": case.name,
+ "group": group,
+ "isolated": "judge_isolation" in meta,
+ "judge_account_declared": (
+ meta["judge_account_declared"].replace("lane@example.org", WITHHELD)
+ if "judge_account_declared" in meta
+ else None
+ ),
+ "judge_effort": meta.get("judge_effort"),
+ "judge_model_reported": meta["judge_model_reported"],
+ "judged_at_utc": meta["judged_at_utc"],
+ "judge_template_version": meta.get("judge_template_version"),
+ "verdict_sha256": driver.digest(case / "verdict.json"),
+ "prompt_sha256": driver.digest(case / "prompt.md"),
+ }
+
+
+def _provenance_record(entries: list[dict], note: str = "How each was judged."):
+ counts: dict[str, int] = {}
+ for entry in entries:
+ counts[entry["group"]] = counts.get(entry["group"], 0) + 1
+ return {"note": note, "counts": counts, "verdicts": entries}
+
+
+GROUPS = {ISOLATED: "isolated: pb-judge", UNHARDENED: "unhardened: in-repo runner"}
+
+
+@pytest.fixture
+def provenance(tmp_path):
+ """Two new verdicts, one isolated and one not, and a true record of both."""
+ cases = tmp_path / "audit/cases"
+ entries = []
+ for name, isolated in ((ISOLATED, True), (UNHARDENED, False)):
+ case = cases / name
+ case.mkdir(parents=True)
+ (case / "prompt.md").write_text(JUDGED)
+ write_verdict(case, _verdict([NEW]), **(ISOLATED_SIDECAR if isolated else {}))
+ _write_transcript(case, _clean_transcript())
+ entries.append(_record_entry(case, GROUPS[name]))
+ record = tmp_path / "judge_provenance.json"
+
+ def verify(edit=lambda entries: None, edit_record=lambda record: None):
+ edited = copy.deepcopy(entries)
+ edit(edited)
+ written = _provenance_record(edited)
+ edit_record(written)
+ record.write_text(json.dumps(written))
+ driver.verify_judge_provenance(cases, frozenset({ISOLATED, UNHARDENED}), record)
+
+ return cases, verify
+
+
+def test_the_judge_provenance_record_describes_the_staged_verdicts(provenance):
+ _, verify = provenance
+ verify()
+
+
+def test_the_runners_attachment_allowlist_is_the_gates():
+ script = (driver.ROOT / "scripts/run_audit_claude.sh").read_text()
+ line = next(line for line in script.splitlines() if line.startswith("ATTACHMENTS="))
+ assert set(line.split('"')[1].split(",")) == driver.JUDGE_ATTACHMENTS
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("case", [ISOLATED, UNHARDENED])
+def test_a_verdict_whose_isolation_disagrees_with_the_record_is_refused(
+ provenance, case
+):
+ _, verify = provenance
+
+ def flip(entries):
+ entry = next(e for e in entries if e["case_id"] == case)
+ entry["isolated"] = not entry["isolated"]
+
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=f"{case}: the record says isolated"):
+ verify(flip)
+
+
+def test_a_sidecar_that_drops_its_isolation_disagrees_with_the_record(provenance):
+ cases, verify = provenance
+ case = cases / ISOLATED
+ meta = json.loads((case / "verdict.meta.json").read_text())
+ del meta["judge_isolation"]
+ (case / "verdict.meta.json").write_text(json.dumps(meta))
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="sidecar lacks judge_isolation"):
+ verify()
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+ "edit, problem",
+ [
+ (lambda e: e.pop(), "does not list each re-opened case once"),
+ (lambda e: e.append(dict(e[0])), "does not list each re-opened case once"),
+ (lambda e: e[0].update(verdict_sha256="0" * 64), "names another verdict"),
+ (lambda e: e[1].update(prompt_sha256="0" * 64), "names another prompt"),
+ ],
+)
+def test_the_record_must_list_each_staged_new_verdict_once(provenance, edit, problem):
+ _, verify = provenance
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=problem):
+ verify(edit)
+
+
+def _entry(case):
+ return lambda entries: next(e for e in entries if e["case_id"] == case)
+
+
+# Each sidecar field the record copies, rewritten in one entry.
+SIDECAR_FIELD_EDITS = {
+ "judge_effort": (ISOLATED, "max"),
+ "judge_model_reported": (UNHARDENED, ["claude-opus-5"]),
+ "judged_at_utc": (ISOLATED, "2026-10-09T08:00:00+00:00"),
+ "judge_account_declared": (ISOLATED, f"claude:{WITHHELD} (another lane)"),
+ "judge_account_declared_unhardened": (UNHARDENED, "a lane it never ran on"),
+ "judge_template_version": (ISOLATED, 1),
+}
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("edit", sorted(SIDECAR_FIELD_EDITS))
+def test_each_entrys_fields_must_be_its_sidecars(provenance, edit):
+ _, verify = provenance
+ case, value = SIDECAR_FIELD_EDITS[edit]
+ field = edit.removesuffix("_unhardened")
+
+ def rewrite(entries):
+ _entry(case)(entries)[field] = value
+
+ problem = f"{case}: its {field} .* is not the sidecar's"
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=problem):
+ verify(rewrite)
+
+
+def test_the_record_withholds_the_sidecars_address_and_names_none(provenance):
+ """The entry carries the sidecar's declaration with its address withheld;
+ the address itself, there or anywhere else in the record, is refused."""
+ _, verify = provenance
+
+ def declared(entries):
+ _entry(ISOLATED)(entries)["judge_account_declared"] = (
+ "claude:lane@example.org (pb-judge)"
+ )
+
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=r"is public and names .*e-mail address"):
+ verify(declared)
+
+ def in_note(record):
+ record["note"] += " The lane is lane@example.org."
+
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=r"is public and names .*record\.note"):
+ verify(edit_record=in_note)
+
+ def in_group(entries):
+ for entry in entries:
+ entry["group"] = entry["group"].replace("pb-judge", "judge@example.org")
+
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="is public and names"):
+ verify(in_group)
+
+
+# The fixture record's true counts: one entry in each group.
+GROUP_COUNTS = {group: 1 for group in GROUPS.values()}
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+ "counts", [{}, {"isolated: pb-judge": 2}, {**GROUP_COUNTS, "extra": 0}]
+)
+def test_the_counts_must_be_the_tally_of_the_entries_groups(provenance, counts):
+ _, verify = provenance
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="counts .* are not the tally"):
+ verify(edit_record=lambda record: record.update(counts=counts))
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+ "auth", [None, {"method": "claude.ai", "account": "8f0c"}, {"method": None}]
+)
+def test_an_isolated_verdict_needs_a_token_login(provenance, auth):
+ cases, verify = provenance
+ meta_path = cases / ISOLATED / "verdict.meta.json"
+ meta = json.loads(meta_path.read_text())
+ meta.pop("judge_auth")
+ if auth is not None:
+ meta["judge_auth"] = auth
+ meta_path.write_text(json.dumps(meta))
+ problem = f"{ISOLATED}: the sidecar does not record a token login"
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=problem):
+ verify()
+
+
+def test_the_record_and_its_entries_carry_only_checked_keys(provenance):
+ _, verify = provenance
+
+ def claim(entries):
+ _entry(ISOLATED)(entries)["environment"] = "allowlisted"
+
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=f"{ISOLATED}: the entry has keys"):
+ verify(claim)
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="has keys .*, not"):
+ verify(edit_record=lambda record: record.update(isolation="all allowlisted"))
+
+
+def test_only_an_isolated_entrys_group_says_isolated(provenance):
+ _, verify = provenance
+
+ def regroup(entries):
+ _entry(UNHARDENED)(entries)["group"] = "isolated: in-repo runner"
+
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=f"{UNHARDENED}: its group .* disagrees"):
+ verify(regroup)
+
+
+def _read_call(events):
+ events[-3:-3] = [_call("Read", "call-0"), _result("call-0")]
+
+
+def _second_answer(events):
+ events += [_call("StructuredOutput", "call-2"), _result("call-2")]
+
+
+def _no_answer(events):
+ del events[7:10]
+
+
+def _user(content, **fields):
+ return _event("user", message={"content": content}, **fields)
+
+
+def _forged_answer(events):
+ """A StructuredOutput call no assistant turn made, and its "result"."""
+ content = [{"type": "tool_use", "id": "call-9", "name": "StructuredOutput"}]
+ events += [
+ _event("system", message={"content": content}),
+ _user([{"type": "tool_result", "tool_use_id": "call-9", "content": "A hint."}]),
+ ]
+
+
+TRANSCRIPT_DEFECTS = {
+ "read_tool_call": (_read_call, r"tool calls \['Read'\]"),
+ "no_answer": (_no_answer, "0 accepted StructuredOutput"),
+ "two_answers": (_second_answer, "2 accepted StructuredOutput"),
+ "account_email": (
+ lambda e: e[3].update(_attachment("session_context", context={"userEmail": 1})),
+ r"session context carrying \['userEmail'\]",
+ ),
+ "credential_org": (
+ lambda e: e.append(_attachment("credential_org")),
+ "'credential_org' attachment",
+ ),
+ "skill_listing": (
+ lambda e: e.append(_attachment("skill_listing")),
+ "'skill_listing' attachment",
+ ),
+ "git_repository": (
+ lambda e: e[1].update(_attachment("environment", snapshot={"isGitRepo": True})),
+ "inside a git repository",
+ ),
+ "other_effort": (lambda e: e[6].update(effort="max"), "effort 'max'"),
+ "advisor": (lambda e: e[6].update(advisorModel="m"), "advisor model"),
+ "not_an_event": (lambda e: e.append("{"), "not an event"),
+ # The prompt binding: one user text message, prompt.md's, and otherwise
+ # only the results of the judge's own StructuredOutput calls.
+ "other_prompt": (
+ lambda e: e[0].update(_user("Classify another case.\n")),
+ "its user message is not prompt.md",
+ ),
+ "no_prompt": (lambda e: e.pop(0), "0 user text messages"),
+ "second_text": (
+ lambda e: e.insert(7, _user("Also weigh this hint.")),
+ "2 user text messages",
+ ),
+ "nudge_not_meta": (
+ lambda e: e.insert(7, _user(driver.JUDGE_PROMPT_NUDGE)),
+ "2 user text messages",
+ ),
+ "meta_text_part": (
+ lambda e: e.insert(
+ 7, _user([{"type": "text", "text": "A hint."}], isMeta=True)
+ ),
+ "not a StructuredOutput call's result",
+ ),
+ "stray_result": (
+ lambda e: e.append(_user([{"type": "tool_result", "tool_use_id": "call-8"}])),
+ "not a StructuredOutput call's result",
+ ),
+ "forged_answer": (_forged_answer, "not a StructuredOutput call's result"),
+ # The verdict: the one accepted answer must be verdict.json.
+ "other_answer": (
+ lambda e: e[7]["message"]["content"][0]["input"].update(rationale="Other."),
+ "its accepted StructuredOutput answer is not verdict.json",
+ ),
+ # Only the event types the isolated transcripts carry.
+ "unlisted_event": (
+ lambda e: e.append(_event("progress", data={"phase": "thinking"})),
+ "an event of type 'progress'",
+ ),
+ # No account data outside the prompt's own text and the judge's words.
+ "email_in_system_prompt": (
+ lambda e: e[5].update(
+ _attachment("prompt_snapshot", systemPrompt=["Mail max@example.org."])
+ ),
+ r"an e-mail address at line 6\.attachment\.systemPrompt\[0\]",
+ ),
+ "account_key_in_environment": (
+ lambda e: e[1].update(
+ _attachment(
+ "environment",
+ snapshot={"isGitRepo": False, "identity": {"accountUuid": "8f0c"}},
+ )
+ ),
+ r"key line 2\.attachment\.snapshot\.identity\.accountUuid",
+ ),
+ "email_beside_the_prompt": (
+ lambda e: e[0].update(userEmail="max@example.org"),
+ r"key line 1\.userEmail",
+ ),
+ "account_key_beside_the_judges_words": (
+ lambda e: e[6].update(organizationUuid="org-1"),
+ r"key line 7\.organizationUuid",
+ ),
+ "email_in_queue_operation": (
+ lambda e: e.insert(
+ 0, _event("queue-operation", operation="enqueue", content="max@x.org")
+ ),
+ r"an e-mail address at line 1\.content",
+ ),
+ "git_status_key": (
+ lambda e: e[4].update(_attachment("date", gitStatus="M a.py")),
+ r"key line 5\.attachment\.gitStatus",
+ ),
+}
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("defect", sorted(TRANSCRIPT_DEFECTS))
+def test_an_isolated_verdict_whose_transcript_fails_the_runners_checks_is_refused(
+ provenance, defect
+):
+ cases, verify = provenance
+ edit, problem = TRANSCRIPT_DEFECTS[defect]
+ events = _clean_transcript()
+ edit(events)
+ _write_transcript(cases / ISOLATED, events)
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=f"{ISOLATED}: .*{problem}"):
+ verify()
+
+
+def test_an_isolated_verdict_needs_its_transcript(provenance):
+ cases, verify = provenance
+ (cases / ISOLATED / "claude.transcript.jsonl").unlink()
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="no transcript"):
+ verify()
+
+
+def test_an_answer_the_schema_refused_and_the_judge_gave_again_passes(provenance):
+ cases, verify = provenance
+ events = _clean_transcript()
+ events[7:7] = [_call("StructuredOutput", "call-0"), _result("call-0", error=True)]
+ _write_transcript(cases / ISOLATED, events)
+ verify()
+
+
+def test_claude_codes_own_structured_output_nudge_passes(provenance):
+ """The judge answered in text, Claude Code nudged it (an isMeta user
+ message) and it called StructuredOutput."""
+ cases, verify = provenance
+ events = _clean_transcript()
+ events.insert(7, _user(driver.JUDGE_PROMPT_NUDGE, isMeta=True))
+ _write_transcript(cases / ISOLATED, events)
+ verify()
+
+
+def test_an_address_in_the_prompt_or_the_judges_own_words_passes(provenance):
+ """The account-data rule reads neither the judged prompt's own text nor
+ the judge's turns."""
+ cases, verify = provenance
+ case = cases / ISOLATED
+ prompt = "Classify these wrong answers; the filer wrote to irs@example.gov.\n"
+ (case / "prompt.md").write_text(prompt)
+ events = _clean_transcript()
+ events[0] = _user(prompt)
+ events[6]["message"]["content"] = [{"type": "text", "text": "irs@example.gov"}]
+ _write_transcript(case, events)
+
+ def follow(entries):
+ entry = next(e for e in entries if e["case_id"] == ISOLATED)
+ entry["prompt_sha256"] = driver.digest(case / "prompt.md")
+
+ verify(follow)
+
+
+def test_the_runners_event_types_are_the_gates():
+ script = (driver.ROOT / "scripts/run_audit_claude.sh").read_text()
+ line = next(line for line in script.splitlines() if line.startswith("EVENT_TYPES="))
+ assert set(line.split('"')[1].split(",")) == driver.JUDGE_EVENT_TYPES
+
+
+def test_the_runners_account_patterns_are_the_gates():
+ script = (driver.ROOT / "scripts/run_audit_claude.sh").read_text()
+ assert driver.ACCOUNT_KEY.flags & re.IGNORECASE
+ assert f'account_key = re.compile(r"{driver.ACCOUNT_KEY.pattern}", re.I)' in script
+ assert f'email_address = re.compile(r"{driver.EMAIL_ADDRESS.pattern}")' in script
+
+
+def test_the_runners_nudge_is_the_gates():
+ script = (driver.ROOT / "scripts/run_audit_claude.sh").read_text()
+ line = next(
+ line for line in script.splitlines() if line.startswith("PROMPT_NUDGE=")
+ )
+ assert line == f'PROMPT_NUDGE="{driver.JUDGE_PROMPT_NUDGE}"'
+
+
+TRANSCRIPT_GATE = (
+ "account_data",
+ "outside_the_judge",
+ "transcript_problems",
+ "withhold_addresses",
+)
+
+
+def _both_gates(path: Path, effort, prompt: bytes, verdict) -> tuple:
+ results = []
+ for module in (driver, gpt61sol):
+ try:
+ results.append(module.transcript_problems(path, effort, prompt, verdict))
+ except Exception as error: # noqa: BLE001 - compared, not swallowed
+ results.append((type(error).__name__, str(error)))
+ return tuple(results)
+
+
+def test_this_drivers_transcript_gate_is_the_gpt61sol_drivers():
+ """tests/test_run_audit_claude.py compares the runner with the GPT-6.1 Sol
+ driver's Python port of its transcript checks, so this driver's port must
+ be that one: the same source, the same constants and, on every defect the
+ tests name, the same problems."""
+ for name in TRANSCRIPT_GATE:
+ assert inspect.getsource(getattr(driver, name)) == inspect.getsource(
+ getattr(gpt61sol, name)
+ ), name
+ for name in (
+ "JUDGE_ATTACHMENTS",
+ "JUDGE_EVENT_TYPES",
+ "JUDGE_PROMPT_NUDGE",
+ "JUDGE_PROVENANCE_KEYS",
+ "WITHHELD_ADDRESS",
+ "JUDGE_MODEL",
+ ):
+ assert getattr(driver, name) == getattr(gpt61sol, name), name
+ # This release's record also states each new verdict's judge template.
+ assert driver.JUDGE_SIDECAR_FIELDS == (
+ *gpt61sol.JUDGE_SIDECAR_FIELDS,
+ "judge_template_version",
+ )
+ assert driver.JUDGE_PROVENANCE_ENTRY_KEYS == (
+ gpt61sol.JUDGE_PROVENANCE_ENTRY_KEYS | {"judge_template_version"}
+ )
+ for name in ("ACCOUNT_KEY", "EMAIL_ADDRESS"):
+ ours, theirs = getattr(driver, name), getattr(gpt61sol, name)
+ assert (ours.pattern, ours.flags) == (theirs.pattern, theirs.flags), name
+ with tempfile.TemporaryDirectory() as scratch:
+ path = Path(scratch) / "claude.transcript.jsonl"
+ for defect in [None, *sorted(TRANSCRIPT_DEFECTS)]:
+ events = _clean_transcript()
+ if defect is not None:
+ TRANSCRIPT_DEFECTS[defect][0](events)
+ _write_transcript(path.parent, events)
+ ours, theirs = _both_gates(path, "xhigh", JUDGED.encode(), _verdict([NEW]))
+ assert ours == theirs, defect
+ # The comparison is not vacuous: each named defect is a problem.
+ assert (ours == []) == (defect is None), defect
+
+
+JSON_EVENT = st.fixed_dictionaries(
+ {"type": st.sampled_from(sorted(driver.JUDGE_EVENT_TYPES | {"system", "other"}))},
+ optional={
+ "message": st.fixed_dictionaries(
+ {},
+ optional={
+ "content": st.text(max_size=12)
+ | st.lists(
+ st.fixed_dictionaries(
+ {
+ "type": st.sampled_from(
+ ["text", "tool_use", "tool_result", "server_tool_use"]
+ )
+ },
+ optional={
+ "id": st.sampled_from(["c1", "c2"]),
+ "tool_use_id": st.sampled_from(["c1", "c2"]),
+ "name": st.sampled_from(["StructuredOutput", "Read"]),
+ "input": JSON_VALUES,
+ "is_error": st.booleans(),
+ },
+ ),
+ max_size=3,
+ )
+ },
+ ),
+ "attachment": st.fixed_dictionaries(
+ {"type": st.sampled_from(sorted(driver.JUDGE_ATTACHMENTS | {"skill"}))},
+ optional={"context": JSON_VALUES, "snapshot": JSON_VALUES},
+ ),
+ "effort": st.sampled_from(["xhigh", "max"]),
+ "isMeta": st.booleans(),
+ "userEmail": st.just("a@b.org"),
+ },
+)
+
+
+@settings(max_examples=200, deadline=None)
+@given(
+ events=st.lists(JSON_EVENT | JSON_VALUES, max_size=6),
+ defects=st.lists(st.sampled_from(sorted(TRANSCRIPT_DEFECTS)), max_size=3),
+ effort=st.none() | st.just("xhigh"),
+)
+def test_the_transcript_gates_agree_on_any_transcript(events, defects, effort):
+ """Differential: on arbitrary event lists, and on any combination of the
+ named defects, both drivers' transcript checks give the same answer."""
+ clean = _clean_transcript()
+ for defect in defects:
+ try:
+ TRANSCRIPT_DEFECTS[defect][0](clean)
+ except (IndexError, KeyError, TypeError, AttributeError):
+ pass
+ with tempfile.TemporaryDirectory() as scratch:
+ for lines in (events, clean, clean + events):
+ path = Path(scratch) / "claude.transcript.jsonl"
+ path.write_text("".join(json.dumps(line) + "\n" for line in lines))
+ ours, theirs = _both_gates(path, effort, JUDGED.encode(), _verdict([NEW]))
+ assert ours == theirs
+
+
+def test_a_prompt_changed_after_its_judge_ran_is_refused(provenance):
+ """A prompt.md replaced after judging, with the record following it, still
+ disagrees with the prompt the judge's transcript shows."""
+ cases, verify = provenance
+ (cases / ISOLATED / "prompt.md").write_text("Classify these, and one more.\n")
+
+ def follow(entries):
+ entry = next(e for e in entries if e["case_id"] == ISOLATED)
+ entry["prompt_sha256"] = driver.digest(cases / ISOLATED / "prompt.md")
+
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=f"{ISOLATED}: its user message is not"):
+ verify(follow)
+
+
+def test_an_unhardened_verdicts_transcript_is_not_held_to_isolation(provenance):
+ cases, verify = provenance
+ events = _clean_transcript()
+ _read_call(events)
+ _write_transcript(cases / UNHARDENED, events)
+ verify()
+
+
+def test_export_writes_no_receipt_when_the_record_disagrees(exporting, monkeypatch):
+ stage, bundle, run, _ = exporting
+ _evidence(stage, bundle)
+ case = stage / "audit/cases" / ISOLATED
+ case.mkdir(parents=True)
+ (case / "prompt.md").write_text(JUDGED)
+ write_verdict(case, _verdict([NEW]), **ISOLATED_SIDECAR)
+ _write_transcript(case, _clean_transcript())
+ entry = _record_entry(case, GROUPS[ISOLATED])
+ driver.JUDGE_PROVENANCE.write_text(json.dumps(_provenance_record([entry])))
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "rejudged_cases", lambda stage: frozenset({ISOLATED}))
+ incumbents = _incumbents()
+ run(_exported(incumbents), incumbents)
+ receipt = json.loads((stage / "release-ready.json").read_text())
+ assert f"audit/cases/{ISOLATED}/claude.transcript.jsonl" in receipt["files"]
+
+ (stage / "release-ready.json").unlink()
+ (stage / "data-board50.json").unlink()
+ entry["isolated"] = False
+ driver.JUDGE_PROVENANCE.write_text(json.dumps(_provenance_record([entry])))
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="disagree with docs/argon"):
+ run(_exported(incumbents), incumbents)
+ assert not (stage / "release-ready.json").exists()
+ assert not (stage / "data-board50.json").exists()
+
+
+def test_the_committed_provenance_record_is_public_and_tallied():
+ """Once committed: the record is json.dumps(indent=1), ASCII-escaped, with
+ a trailing newline; it names no e-mail address, and its counts are the
+ tally of its entries' groups."""
+ if not driver.JUDGE_PROVENANCE.is_file():
+ pytest.skip("docs/argon/judge_provenance.json is not written yet")
+ text = driver.JUDGE_PROVENANCE.read_text()
+ record = json.loads(text)
+ assert text == json.dumps(record, indent=1) + "\n" and text.isascii()
+ assert not driver.EMAIL_ADDRESS.search(text)
+ groups = [entry["group"] for entry in record["verdicts"]]
+ assert record["counts"] == {group: groups.count(group) for group in groups}
+
+
+def test_the_committed_provenance_record_describes_the_stage():
+ """Local only, read-only, once written: the record passes the gate
+ against the live stage, every isolated transcript included."""
+ if not driver.JUDGE_PROVENANCE.is_file():
+ pytest.skip("docs/argon/judge_provenance.json is not written yet")
+ if not (WORKING_STAGE / "audit/cases").is_dir():
+ pytest.skip("needs the Gemini 4 Argon working stage")
+ driver.verify_judge_provenance(
+ WORKING_STAGE / "audit/cases",
+ driver.rejudged_cases(WORKING_STAGE),
+ driver.JUDGE_PROVENANCE,
+ )
+
+
+# --- Triage decisions: this release's wave ---------------------------------------
+
+TRIAGE_DAY = "2026-10-14"
+FLAGGED_CASE = ("scenario_064", "state_income_tax_before_refundable_credits")
+UNFLAGGED_CASE = ("scenario_009", "federal_income_tax_before_refundable_credits")
+
+
+def _triage_item(case, verdict, **changes) -> dict:
+ item = {
+ "scenario_id": case[0],
+ "variable": case[1],
+ "adjudicated_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "adjudicated_failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
+ "adjudicated_on": TRIAGE_DAY,
+ "reference_verdict": verdict,
+ "reference_basis": "Wis. Stat. 71.05(10)(c)2." if verdict else None,
+ "reasoning": "MOCK reasoning.",
+ }
+ return {**item, **changes}
+
+
+def _triage_spec(*items, **changes) -> dict:
+ return {
+ **real_spec(),
+ "triage_adjudications": list(items),
+ "triage_decided_on": TRIAGE_DAY,
+ "triage_adjudications_written_on": TRIAGE_DAY,
+ **changes,
+ }
+
+
+def _bind_verdict(cases: Path, case, *, suspect: bool, rows=("llm_error",)) -> Path:
+ """A case folder whose sidecar binds a verdict with the given flag and
+ per-model classes."""
+ folder = cases / f"us__{case[0]}__{case[1]}"
+ folder.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
+ verdict = {
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
+ "models": [
+ {"model": f"m{i}", "failure_source": source, "failure_subtype": "other"}
+ for i, source in enumerate(rows)
+ ],
+ "rationale": "MOCK",
+ "reference_bug_hypothesis": "MOCK" if suspect else "",
+ "reference_suspect": suspect,
+ }
+ (folder / "verdict.json").write_text(json.dumps(verdict))
+ (folder / "verdict.meta.json").write_text(
+ json.dumps(
+ {
+ "verdict_sha256": driver.digest(folder / "verdict.json"),
+ "judge_model_requested": driver.JUDGE_MODEL,
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T19:09:37+00:00",
+ }
+ )
+ )
+ return folder
+
+
+def test_the_spec_lists_this_releases_two_triage_decisions():
+ """Both keep the output scored with the judge's own class: scenario_064's
+ affirms the Wisconsin reference the verdict flagged, and scenario_009's,
+ on an unflagged case, resolves the rows the judge called later law."""
+ spec = real_spec()
+ items = driver.triage_items(None, spec)
+ assert [driver.spec_key(item) for item in items] == [UNFLAGGED_CASE, FLAGGED_CASE]
+ assert spec["triage_decided_on"] == TRIAGE_DAY
+ assert spec["triage_adjudications_written_on"] == TRIAGE_DAY
+ assert {item["adjudicated_on"] for item in items} == {TRIAGE_DAY}
+ assert {item["adjudicated_failure_source"] for item in items} == {"llm_error"}
+ by_case = {driver.spec_key(item): item for item in items}
+ assert by_case[FLAGGED_CASE]["reference_verdict"] == "affirmed"
+ assert "71.05(10)(c)2." in by_case[FLAGGED_CASE]["reference_basis"]
+ assert by_case[UNFLAGGED_CASE]["reference_verdict"] is None
+ assert by_case[UNFLAGGED_CASE]["reference_basis"] is None
+ # The design note and the spec's note say the release decides these two.
+ assert "two developer triage decisions" in spec["note"]
+
+
+def test_triage_items_refuses_an_upgrade_and_reads_none_from_an_empty_spec():
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="installs no engine upgrade"):
+ driver.triage_items(SimpleNamespace(revision={"date": TRIAGE_DAY}), {})
+ assert driver.triage_items(None, {**real_spec(), "triage_adjudications": []}) == []
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+ "item, spec_changes, message",
+ [
+ (
+ _triage_item(FLAGGED_CASE, "unlisted_input"),
+ {},
+ "may only affirm a reference",
+ ),
+ (
+ _triage_item(FLAGGED_CASE, "affirmed", reference_basis=None),
+ {},
+ "may only affirm a reference",
+ ),
+ (
+ _triage_item(FLAGGED_CASE, "affirmed", reference_basis=" "),
+ {},
+ "may only affirm a reference",
+ ),
+ (
+ _triage_item(UNFLAGGED_CASE, None, reference_basis="a law"),
+ {},
+ "may only affirm a reference",
+ ),
+ (
+ _triage_item(FLAGGED_CASE, "affirmed", adjudicated_on="2026-10-13"),
+ {},
+ "dated by this release's wave",
+ ),
+ (
+ _triage_item(FLAGGED_CASE, "affirmed"),
+ {"triage_decided_on": None},
+ "names no triage_decided_on",
+ ),
+ (
+ {**_triage_item(FLAGGED_CASE, "affirmed"), "excluded_from_scoring": True},
+ {},
+ "must be items with",
+ ),
+ ],
+)
+def test_triage_items_refuses_a_malformed_decision(item, spec_changes, message):
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=message):
+ driver.triage_items(None, _triage_spec(item, **spec_changes))
+
+
+def test_triage_items_refuses_a_case_listed_twice():
+ item = _triage_item(FLAGGED_CASE, "affirmed")
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="listed twice"):
+ driver.triage_items(None, _triage_spec(item, copy.deepcopy(item)))
+
+
+def test_triage_entry_affirms_a_flagged_reference(tmp_path):
+ from policybench.adjudications import parse_adjudications
+
+ folder = _bind_verdict(tmp_path, FLAGGED_CASE, suspect=True)
+ entry = driver.triage_entry(_triage_item(FLAGGED_CASE, "affirmed"), folder)
+ assert list(entry) == list(driver.TRIAGE_FIELDS)
+ assert entry["judge_reference_suspect"] is True
+ assert entry["reference_verdict"] == "affirmed"
+ assert entry["judge_model"] == driver.JUDGE_MODEL
+ assert entry["judged_on_utc"] == "2026-10-13"
+ assert "excluded_from_scoring" not in entry
+ parse_adjudications({"adjudications": [entry]}, "MOCK")
+
+
+def test_triage_entry_without_a_verdict_resolves_rows_outside_the_final_set(
+ tmp_path,
+):
+ from policybench.adjudications import parse_adjudications
+
+ folder = _bind_verdict(
+ tmp_path,
+ UNFLAGGED_CASE,
+ suspect=False,
+ rows=("llm_error", "reference_later_law"),
+ )
+ entry = driver.triage_entry(_triage_item(UNFLAGGED_CASE, None), folder)
+ # The form of release 20261013b's scenario_007 decision: no reference
+ # verdict or basis, the case unflagged.
+ assert list(entry) == [
+ f
+ for f in driver.TRIAGE_FIELDS
+ if f not in ("reference_verdict", "reference_basis")
+ ]
+ assert entry["judge_reference_suspect"] is False
+ parse_adjudications({"adjudications": [entry]}, "MOCK")
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+ "suspect, verdict, rows, message",
+ [
+ (True, None, ("reference_later_law",), "exactly when the case's verdict flags"),
+ (False, "affirmed", ("llm_error",), "exactly when the case's verdict flags"),
+ (False, None, ("llm_error", "parse_contract_failure"), "nothing to decide"),
+ ],
+)
+def test_triage_entry_must_answer_what_triage_stops_on(
+ tmp_path, suspect, verdict, rows, message
+):
+ folder = _bind_verdict(tmp_path, FLAGGED_CASE, suspect=suspect, rows=rows)
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=message):
+ driver.triage_entry(_triage_item(FLAGGED_CASE, verdict), folder)
+
+
+def test_triage_entry_needs_a_bound_verdict(tmp_path):
+ folder = _bind_verdict(tmp_path, FLAGGED_CASE, suspect=True)
+ (folder / "verdict.json").write_text("{}")
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="does not bind its verdict"):
+ driver.triage_entry(_triage_item(FLAGGED_CASE, "affirmed"), folder)
+
+
+def test_decision_wave_is_the_triage_wave_and_refuses_an_upgrades_records():
+ affirm = _triage_item(FLAGGED_CASE, "affirmed")
+ resolve = _triage_item(UNFLAGGED_CASE, None)
+ assert driver.decision_wave((), []) is None
+ assert driver.decision_wave((), [affirm, resolve]) == driver.DecisionWave(
+ TRIAGE_DAY, excludes=False, affirms=True, upgrade=False, resolves=True
+ )
+ assert driver.decision_wave((), [resolve]) == driver.DecisionWave(
+ TRIAGE_DAY, excludes=False, affirms=False, upgrade=False, resolves=True
+ )
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="installs no engine upgrade"):
+ driver.decision_wave([({}, {"decided_on": TRIAGE_DAY})], [affirm])
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="several days"):
+ driver.decision_wave((), [affirm, {**resolve, "adjudicated_on": "2026-10-15"}])
+
+
+def test_the_triage_wave_is_named_once_after_the_2026_10_10_wave():
+ spec = _triage_spec(
+ _triage_item(FLAGGED_CASE, "affirmed"), _triage_item(UNFLAGGED_CASE, None)
+ )
+ wave = driver.decision_wave((), driver.triage_items(None, spec))
+ conventions = base_adjudication_record()["date_conventions"]
+ with mock.patch.object(driver, "load_spec", lambda: copy.deepcopy(spec)):
+ out = driver.release_date_conventions(conventions, wave)
+ named = driver.DATE_CONVENTIONS_BASE.replace(
+ " or 2026-10-10)", f", 2026-10-10 or {TRIAGE_DAY})"
+ )
+ sentence = (
+ f" The {TRIAGE_DAY} wave's decisions keep scored outputs on cases this "
+ "release's new models re-opened, affirming a reference the case's "
+ "verdict flagged or resolving rows the judge gave a class outside the "
+ f"final set, and were written on {TRIAGE_DAY} UTC."
+ )
+ assert out == conventions.replace(driver.DATE_CONVENTIONS_BASE, named).replace(
+ driver.DATE_CONVENTIONS_ANCHOR, driver.DATE_CONVENTIONS_ANCHOR + sentence
+ )
+ # tests/test_adjudications.py splits the conventions at ". ": the
+ # sentence holds none before its end.
+ assert ". " not in sentence.strip().removesuffix(".")
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="are not release 20261013b's"):
+ driver.release_date_conventions(out, wave)
+ written = {k: v for k, v in spec.items() if k != "triage_adjudications_written_on"}
+ with mock.patch.object(driver, "load_spec", lambda: written):
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="triage_adjudications_written_on"):
+ driver.release_date_conventions(conventions, wave)
+ with mock.patch.object(driver, "load_spec", lambda: copy.deepcopy(spec)):
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="never excludes"):
+ driver.release_date_conventions(
+ conventions,
+ driver.DecisionWave(
+ TRIAGE_DAY, excludes=True, affirms=True, upgrade=False
+ ),
+ )
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="decides nothing"):
+ driver.release_date_conventions(
+ conventions,
+ driver.DecisionWave(
+ TRIAGE_DAY, excludes=False, affirms=False, upgrade=False
+ ),
+ )
+
+
+@settings(max_examples=60, deadline=None)
+@given(kinds=st.lists(st.sampled_from(["affirmed", None]), min_size=1, max_size=6))
+def test_the_triage_wave_sentence_names_exactly_the_kinds_decided(kinds):
+ """For any mix of affirmations and unflagged resolutions, the wave is
+ named once and its sentence names each kind present and no other."""
+ items = [
+ _triage_item((f"scenario_{i:03d}", "snap"), kind)
+ for i, kind in enumerate(kinds)
+ ]
+ spec = _triage_spec(*items)
+ wave = driver.decision_wave((), driver.triage_items(None, spec))
+ conventions = base_adjudication_record()["date_conventions"]
+ with mock.patch.object(driver, "load_spec", lambda: copy.deepcopy(spec)):
+ out = driver.release_date_conventions(conventions, wave)
+ assert out.count(f"The {TRIAGE_DAY} wave's decisions") == 1
+ assert out.count(f" or {TRIAGE_DAY})") == 1
+ assert ("affirming a reference" in out) == ("affirmed" in kinds)
+ assert ("resolving rows" in out) == (None in kinds)
+
+
+def test_the_staged_record_carries_the_spec_triage_decisions():
+ """Local only: the staged record ends with the two triage entries the
+ driver builds from the spec and the stage's bound verdicts, and triage's
+ reports list nothing."""
+ path = STAGE / "publish" / driver.RUN_NAME / "annotations" / driver.ADJUDICATIONS
+ if not path.is_file():
+ pytest.skip("needs the Gemini 4 Argon working stage")
+ record = json.loads(path.read_text())
+ items = driver.triage_items(None)
+ expected = [
+ driver.triage_entry(
+ item,
+ STAGE
+ / "audit"
+ / "cases"
+ / f"us__{item['scenario_id']}__{item['variable']}",
+ )
+ for item in items
+ ]
+ assert record["adjudications"][-len(items) :] == expected
+ assert len(record["adjudications"]) == 61 + len(items)
+ for name in ("reference-flags.csv", "unresolved-rows.csv"):
+ assert pd.read_csv(STAGE / name).empty, name
+
+
+# --- The fold ------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+REFERENCE = pd.read_csv(driver.SNAPSHOT / "reference_outputs.csv")[driver.KEY]
+TEXT = st.text(
+ alphabet=st.characters(blacklist_categories=("Cs",), blacklist_characters="\x00"),
+ max_size=12,
+)
+NUMBERS = st.one_of(
+ st.none(),
+ st.floats(min_value=-1e7, max_value=1e7, allow_nan=False).map(
+ lambda x: round(x, 2)
+ ),
+ st.integers(min_value=0, max_value=10**6).map(float),
+)
+
+
+def _frame(model: str, rng, pools: dict) -> pd.DataFrame:
+ count = len(REFERENCE)
+ frame = REFERENCE.copy()
+ frame.insert(0, "model", model)
+ for column, pool in pools.items():
+ frame[column] = [pool[i] for i in rng.integers(0, len(pool), count)]
+ frame["provider_resolved_model"] = model
+ return frame
+
+
+@settings(max_examples=12, deadline=None)
+@given(
+ incumbents=st.integers(min_value=1, max_value=3),
+ seed=st.integers(min_value=0, max_value=2**32 - 1),
+ numbers=st.lists(NUMBERS, min_size=1, max_size=6),
+ words=st.lists(TEXT, min_size=1, max_size=6),
+ extra_column=st.booleans(),
+)
+def test_the_fold_keeps_incumbent_rows_and_adds_1984_rows_for_the_addition(
+ tmp_path_factory, incumbents, seed, numbers, words, extra_column
+):
+ """Any board: incumbent rows survive byte for byte; the addition is exact.
+
+ Prediction columns keep their production types: numeric columns are
+ floats, and text columns carry prose (a letter before any digits).
+ """
+ import freeze_snapshot as freezer
+ import numpy as np
+
+ from policybench.fold_board import fold_board
+
+ rng = np.random.default_rng(seed)
+ prose = [f"x{word}" for word in words] + [None]
+ pools = {
+ "prediction": numbers,
+ "explanation": prose,
+ "raw_response": prose,
+ "error": [None, "Timeout, retried", 'said "no"'],
+ "prompt_tokens": numbers,
+ "completion_tokens": numbers,
+ }
+ root = tmp_path_factory.mktemp("fold")
+ base = pd.concat(
+ [_frame(f"incumbent-{i}", rng, pools) for i in range(incumbents)],
+ ignore_index=True,
+ )
+ base_path = root / "base-predictions.csv"
+ base.to_csv(base_path, index=False)
+ addition = _frame(NEW, rng, pools)
+ if extra_column:
+ addition["provider_system_fingerprint"] = "fp_1"
+ addition = addition.drop(columns=["raw_response"])
+ addition_path = root / "fold.csv"
+ addition.to_csv(addition_path, index=False)
+ scoring = root / "scoring"
+ scoring.mkdir()
+ for name in driver.REFERENCE_FILES:
+ shutil.copyfile(driver.SNAPSHOT / name, scoring / name)
+
+ result = fold_board(
+ base_path, [addition_path], scoring, root / "fold", export=False
+ )
+
+ assert result["excluded"] == {} and result["models"] == incumbents + 1
+ folded_path = root / "fold/us/predictions.csv"
+ folded = pd.read_csv(folded_path, low_memory=False)
+ new_rows = folded[folded.model == NEW]
+ assert len(new_rows) == len(REFERENCE) == 1984
+ assert set(new_rows[driver.KEY].itertuples(index=False, name=None)) == set(
+ REFERENCE.itertuples(index=False, name=None)
+ )
+ reread = pd.read_csv(base_path, low_memory=False)
+ text = {"dtype": str, "keep_default_na": False}
+ base_text = pd.read_csv(base_path, **text)
+ folded_text = pd.read_csv(folded_path, **text)[base_text.columns]
+ for i in range(incumbents):
+ model = f"incumbent-{i}"
+ assert freezer._model_prediction_rows_sha256(
+ folded, model
+ ) == freezer._model_prediction_rows_sha256(reread, model)
+ before = base_text[base_text.model == model].reset_index(drop=True)
+ after = folded_text[folded_text.model == model].reset_index(drop=True)
+ pd.testing.assert_frame_equal(before, after)
+ for name in driver.REFERENCE_FILES:
+ assert (root / "fold/us" / name).read_bytes() == (
+ driver.SNAPSHOT / name
+ ).read_bytes()
+
+
+# --- One tag constant ----------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+def test_the_release_tag_is_named_in_one_place():
+ """RELEASE_TAG is the only spelling of the new tag in the driver's scripts,
+ tests and design note; the spec, which the freeze checks against it, is
+ the one input that names it too."""
+ source = (REPO / "scripts/finish_argon.py").read_text().splitlines()
+ assert sum(driver.RELEASE_TAG in line for line in source) == 1
+ for relative in (
+ "scripts/freeze_argon.py",
+ "docs/argon/design.md",
+ "tests/test_finish_argon.py",
+ ):
+ path = REPO / relative
+ if path.is_file():
+ assert driver.RELEASE_TAG not in path.read_text(), relative
+ assert real_spec()["release_tag"] == driver.RELEASE_TAG
+
+
+def test_the_freeze_tests_do_not_spell_the_release_tag():
+ """The same rule for tests/test_freeze_argon.py, kept apart so a
+ failure names that file's lines."""
+ path = REPO / "tests/test_freeze_argon.py"
+ if not path.is_file():
+ pytest.skip("tests/test_freeze_argon.py does not exist yet")
+ lines = [
+ number
+ for number, line in enumerate(path.read_text().splitlines(), 1)
+ if driver.RELEASE_TAG in line
+ ]
+ assert lines == [], f"tests/test_freeze_argon.py spells the tag on {lines}"
+
+
+def _provenance_case(root: Path, case_id: str, meta: dict) -> None:
+ case = root / case_id
+ case.mkdir(parents=True)
+ (case / "prompt.md").write_text("prompt")
+ (case / "verdict.json").write_text("{}")
+ (case / "verdict.meta.json").write_text(json.dumps(meta))
+
+
+def test_the_provenance_record_groups_each_verdict_by_its_declared_account(tmp_path):
+ """Each entry copies its sidecar's fields (an address withheld), hashes its
+ verdict and prompt, and takes its group from the declared account; the
+ counts are the tally of the groups."""
+ lane = "claude:max@axiom.org (subfleet lane claude-18)"
+ token = next(k for k in driver.PROVENANCE_GROUPS if "setup-token" in k)
+ for case_id, declared in (("us__a__x", token), ("us__b__y", lane)):
+ _provenance_case(
+ tmp_path,
+ case_id,
+ {
+ "judge_account_declared": declared,
+ "judge_effort": "xhigh",
+ "judge_model_reported": ["claude-opus-5-5"],
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-09T11:00:00+00:00",
+ "judge_isolation": {"cwd": "empty"},
+ },
+ )
+ record = driver.judge_provenance_record(
+ tmp_path, frozenset({"us__a__x", "us__b__y"})
+ )
+ assert set(record) == driver.JUDGE_PROVENANCE_KEYS
+ assert record["counts"] == {
+ "isolated: setup-token 2": 1,
+ "isolated: subfleet lane claude-18": 1,
+ }
+ by_case = {entry["case_id"]: entry for entry in record["verdicts"]}
+ assert set(by_case["us__a__x"]) == driver.JUDGE_PROVENANCE_ENTRY_KEYS
+ assert by_case["us__b__y"]["judge_account_declared"] == (
+ f"claude:{driver.WITHHELD_ADDRESS} (subfleet lane claude-18)"
+ )
+ assert by_case["us__a__x"]["prompt_sha256"] == hashlib.sha256(b"prompt").hexdigest()
+ assert not driver.account_data(record, "record", keys=False)
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+ "meta",
+ [
+ {"judge_account_declared": "someone else", "judge_isolation": {}},
+ {"judge_account_declared": ("claude:max@axiom.org (subfleet lane claude-18)")},
+ ],
+)
+def test_the_provenance_record_refuses_an_unknown_account_or_an_unisolated_verdict(
+ tmp_path, meta
+):
+ _provenance_case(tmp_path, "us__a__x", meta)
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit):
+ driver.judge_provenance_record(tmp_path, frozenset({"us__a__x"}))
+
+
+def test_the_provenance_record_of_the_live_stage_passes_the_export_gate():
+ """Local: once every re-opened case has its verdict, the record built from
+ the working stage's sidecars passes verify_judge_provenance (transcripts
+ included), so export accepts it."""
+ stage = WORKING_STAGE
+ if not (stage / "prompt-changes.json").is_file():
+ pytest.skip("no live stage")
+ cases = stage / "audit" / "cases"
+ rejudged = driver.rejudged_cases(stage)
+ if not all((cases / case / "verdict.json").is_file() for case in rejudged):
+ pytest.skip("the live stage is still being judged")
+ record = driver.judge_provenance_record(cases, rejudged)
+ with tempfile.TemporaryDirectory() as scratch:
+ path = Path(scratch) / "judge_provenance.json"
+ path.write_text(json.dumps(record))
+ driver.verify_judge_provenance(cases, rejudged, path)
diff --git a/tests/test_freeze_argon.py b/tests/test_freeze_argon.py
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..54191b8a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/test_freeze_argon.py
@@ -0,0 +1,3471 @@
+"""The Gemini 4 Argon freeze builds nothing from an unbound or revised stage.
+
+Adapted from test_freeze_gpt61sol.py, with synthetic stages in tmp_path. Release
+20261013b's committed references, exclusions, adjudications, manifest and
+serving configuration are read from git at the driver's BASE_COMMIT, never
+written. No test runs the real freezer: freeze_snapshot.main is replaced in
+every test, its destinations point into the test's workspace, and a module
+fixture checks that the checkout's tracked snapshot files were not touched.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+import copy
+import datetime
+import functools
+import hashlib
+import json
+import re
+import shutil
+import sys
+import types
+from pathlib import Path
+
+import pytest
+from hypothesis import HealthCheck, given, settings
+from hypothesis import strategies as st
+
+sys.path.insert(0, str(Path(__file__).resolve().parents[1] / "scripts"))
+
+import finish_argon as driver # noqa: E402
+import freeze_argon as release # noqa: E402
+import freeze_snapshot as freezer # noqa: E402
+
+from policybench.audit import AUDIT_OUTPUT_SCHEMA # noqa: E402
+from policybench.judge_template import template_header # noqa: E402
+
+REPO = Path(__file__).resolve().parents[1]
+RUN = driver.RUN_NAME
+# The two additions. Most synthetic cases use the first; a gate that names
+# every registered model gets both.
+SLUG = "argon"
+NEW = "gemini-4-argon"
+OTHER_SLUG = "musespark"
+OTHER = "muse-spark-1.3"
+ADDITIONS = {SLUG: NEW, OTHER_SLUG: OTHER}
+PINNED = driver.PINNED_INPUTS
+BUNDLE = Path("publish") / RUN
+SNAPSHOT_DIR = Path("paper/snapshot/20260501")
+FROZEN_RUN = SNAPSHOT_DIR / "runs" / RUN
+ANNOTATIONS_DIR = Path("annotations") / RUN
+ADJUDICATIONS = "us_adjudications.json"
+ADJUDICATIONS_PATH = ANNOTATIONS_DIR / ADJUDICATIONS
+EXPLANATIONS = "us_case_reference_explanations.csv"
+EXCLUSIONS = "reference_exclusions.json"
+ROWS, NOTES = "us_audit_row_annotations.csv", "us_case_notes.csv"
+AMENDMENTS_RECORD = f"us_{driver.AMENDMENTS}"
+# A UTC day a synthetic ruled wave's decisions were written on: the committed
+# spec rules nothing, so it names none.
+WRITTEN_ON = "2026-10-12"
+# A real incumbent, so the freeze's incumbent prediction gate compares rows.
+INCUMBENT = "claude-fable-5"
+# Settings for Hypothesis tests: the autouse fixtures only patch modules, so
+# sharing them across examples is safe.
+PROPERTY = settings(
+ deadline=None, suppress_health_check=[HealthCheck.function_scoped_fixture]
+)
+
+
+def examples(count: int) -> settings:
+ return settings(PROPERTY, max_examples=count)
+
+
+# The synthetic stage's one judged case, an incumbent-only case kept from the
+# seed, and the audit evidence the receipt must bind for it.
+KEPT = "us__scenario_000__snap"
+AUDIT_EVIDENCE = [Path("audit/cases.jsonl"), Path("audit/schema.json")] + [
+ Path("audit/cases") / KEPT / name
+ for name in ("prompt.md", "verdict.json", "verdict.meta.json")
+]
+ANNOTATION_CSVS = [BUNDLE / "annotations" / name for name in (ROWS, NOTES)]
+
+# --- Git baselines ---------------------------------------------------------------
+
+# Captured at import: a test may replace driver.base_commit_blob, and the
+# caches below must hold release 20261013b's bytes whatever it does.
+_BASE_COMMIT_BLOB = driver.base_commit_blob
+_BASE_PAYLOAD = driver.base_payload_from_commit
+_HEAD_BLOB = driver.head_blob
+
+# The runs root each addition's supervised run is written under (its run is
+# //run); docs/argon/input_pins.json names it once the run
+# is pinned.
+RUNS = {slug: f"argon-runs/{slug}" for slug in ADDITIONS}
+
+
+@functools.cache
+def base_blob(path: Path) -> bytes:
+ """A repository file as committed at the driver's BASE_COMMIT."""
+ return _BASE_COMMIT_BLOB(Path(path))
+
+
+@functools.cache
+def head_blob(path: Path) -> bytes:
+ return _HEAD_BLOB(Path(path).as_posix())
+
+
+@functools.cache
+def _spec_text() -> str:
+ return (REPO / driver.SPEC_PATH).read_text()
+
+
+def release_spec(**changes) -> dict:
+ """docs/argon/spec.json, with any changes a test makes."""
+ spec = json.loads(_spec_text())
+ spec.update(changes)
+ return spec
+
+
+@functools.cache
+def release_exclusions_text() -> str:
+ """The release's exclusion record: release 20261013b's (nothing ruled)."""
+ base = json.loads(base_blob(FROZEN_RUN / EXCLUSIONS))
+ return driver.exclusions_text(driver.build_release_exclusions(base, release_spec()))
+
+
+def release_exclusions() -> list[dict]:
+ return json.loads(release_exclusions_text())["exclusions"]
+
+
+@functools.cache
+def _base_stats_text() -> str:
+ payload = _BASE_PAYLOAD()
+ return json.dumps(payload["countries"]["us"]["modelStats"])
+
+
+def base_stats() -> list[dict]:
+ """Release 20261013b's modelStats, as the base payload in git holds them."""
+ return json.loads(_base_stats_text())
+
+
+def base_live() -> dict:
+ """The part of release 20261013b's payload export reads: its modelStats."""
+ return {"countries": {"us": {"modelStats": base_stats()}}}
+
+
+# --- Guards ----------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+GUARDED = (
+ Path("app/src/data.artifact.json"),
+ Path("app/src/data.versions.json"),
+ Path("app/src/paperSnapshot.json"),
+ SNAPSHOT_DIR,
+ ANNOTATIONS_DIR,
+ Path("app/.cache"),
+)
+
+
+def _tree_state() -> dict[str, tuple[int, int]]:
+ state = {}
+ for name in GUARDED:
+ path = REPO / name
+ paths = [path] if path.is_file() else sorted(path.rglob("*"))
+ for item in paths:
+ if item.is_file():
+ stat = item.stat()
+ state[str(item)] = (stat.st_size, stat.st_mtime_ns)
+ return state
+
+
+@pytest.fixture(scope="module", autouse=True)
+def checkout_untouched():
+ """No test in this module writes the checkout's tracked freeze outputs."""
+ before = _tree_state()
+ yield
+ assert _tree_state() == before
+
+
+# configure_freezer assigns these on the freeze_snapshot module itself.
+CONFIGURED = (
+ "SNAPSHOT_DATE",
+ "SOURCE_RUN",
+ "SOURCE_US",
+ "SOURCE_ANNOTATIONS",
+ "REFERENCE_META_SOURCE",
+ "REFERENCE_PINS",
+ "PUBLISHED_DASHBOARD_SOURCE",
+ "PUBLISHED_DASHBOARD_ARTIFACT",
+ "RUN_STATE_EVIDENCE",
+ "AUDIT_CASES_DIR",
+ "audit_judge_provenance",
+ "developer_adjudications_block",
+ "freeze_serving_configuration",
+)
+
+
+@pytest.fixture(autouse=True)
+def no_real_freezer(monkeypatch):
+ """The real freezer never runs here, and what main configures is undone."""
+ import pandas as pd
+
+ def refuse():
+ raise AssertionError("a test reached the real freeze_snapshot.main")
+
+ monkeypatch.setattr(freezer, "main", refuse)
+ for name in CONFIGURED:
+ monkeypatch.setattr(freezer, name, getattr(freezer, name))
+ option = "future.infer_string"
+ try:
+ saved = pd.get_option(option)
+ except (KeyError, pd.errors.OptionError):
+ saved = None
+ yield
+ if saved is not None:
+ pd.set_option(option, saved)
+
+
+@pytest.fixture(autouse=True)
+def spec(monkeypatch):
+ """The spec every driver read sees: the committed one without its triage
+ decisions, whose cases the synthetic stage does not hold (the triage
+ tests below add them back). A test may edit the dict."""
+ value = {**release_spec(), "triage_adjudications": []}
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "load_spec", lambda: copy.deepcopy(value))
+ return value
+
+
+def point_freeze_at(workspace: Path, monkeypatch) -> None:
+ """The freeze and the freezer both write into ``workspace`` only."""
+ monkeypatch.setattr(release, "ROOT", workspace)
+ monkeypatch.setattr(freezer, "ROOT", workspace)
+ monkeypatch.setattr(freezer, "SNAPSHOT_DIR", workspace / SNAPSHOT_DIR)
+ monkeypatch.setattr(freezer, "RUN_DEST", workspace / FROZEN_RUN)
+ monkeypatch.setattr(freezer, "ANNOTATIONS_DEST", workspace / ANNOTATIONS_DIR)
+
+
+# --- Synthetic stage -------------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+def sha(path: Path) -> str:
+ return hashlib.sha256(path.read_bytes()).hexdigest()
+
+
+def pinned_references(directory: Path, exclusions: str | None = None) -> Path:
+ """Release 20261013b's four pinned reference files, from git, and the
+ release's exclusion record (or ``exclusions``), into ``directory``."""
+ directory.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
+ for name in driver.REFERENCE_FILES:
+ if name == EXCLUSIONS:
+ text = release_exclusions_text() if exclusions is None else exclusions
+ (directory / name).write_text(text)
+ else:
+ (directory / name).write_bytes(base_blob(FROZEN_RUN / name))
+ return directory
+
+
+def base_references(directory: Path) -> Path:
+ """The five reference files release 20261013b committed, from git."""
+ directory.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
+ for name in driver.REFERENCE_FILES:
+ (directory / name).write_bytes(base_blob(FROZEN_RUN / name))
+ return directory
+
+
+# The fingerprint an addition's supervised run records when it starts, as the
+# registry gives it (validate_treatment's expected treatment, which the freeze
+# checks the run state against), so it follows the model card.
+@functools.cache
+def _registry_fingerprint(model: str = NEW) -> str:
+ from policybench.config import MODELS, PROGRAMS
+ from policybench.eval_no_tools import (
+ _first_request_variables,
+ _initial_completion_budget_tokens,
+ _max_repair_rounds,
+ _request_timeout_seconds,
+ _thinking_configuration,
+ )
+ from policybench.model_cards import (
+ PROMPT_CONTRACT_VERSION,
+ answer_contract_for,
+ completion_budget_ceiling_for,
+ explanation_chunk_size_for,
+ )
+ from policybench.scenarios import load_scenarios_from_manifest
+ from policybench.spec import expand_programs_for_scenario
+
+ provider_id = MODELS[model]
+ contract = answer_contract_for(provider_id)
+ scenarios = REPO / FROZEN_RUN / "scenarios.csv"
+ first = load_scenarios_from_manifest(scenarios)[0]
+ variables = _first_request_variables(
+ provider_id, expand_programs_for_scenario(PROGRAMS, first), True
+ )
+ return json.dumps(
+ {
+ "fingerprint_version": 3,
+ "model_id": provider_id,
+ "answer_contract": contract,
+ "tool_choice_mode": "forced" if contract == "tool" else None,
+ "chunk_size": explanation_chunk_size_for(provider_id),
+ "prompt_contract_version": PROMPT_CONTRACT_VERSION,
+ "completion_budget_ceiling": completion_budget_ceiling_for(provider_id),
+ "initial_completion_budget_tokens": _initial_completion_budget_tokens(
+ provider_id, variables
+ ),
+ "thinking": _thinking_configuration(provider_id),
+ "request_timeout_seconds": _request_timeout_seconds(provider_id, env={}),
+ "max_repair_rounds": _max_repair_rounds(env={}),
+ }
+ )
+
+
+FINGERPRINTS = {
+ model: json.loads(_registry_fingerprint(model)) for model in ADDITIONS.values()
+}
+NEW_FINGERPRINT = FINGERPRINTS[NEW]
+COLUMNS = (
+ "model,scenario_id,variable,prediction,explanation,raw_response,"
+ "provider_resolved_model,prompt_tokens,completion_tokens,error,"
+ "estimated_cost_usd,total_cost_usd,total_tokens,elapsed_seconds,"
+ "request_started_at,request_completed_at\n"
+)
+# MOCK: each addition's run file as the synthetic stage pins it: the usage
+# columns its published cost, tokens and latency come from, and the request
+# times the response window is dated by (2026-10-13 UTC).
+NEW_RUNS = {
+ NEW: COLUMNS
+ + (
+ "gemini-4-argon,scenario_000,snap,1200.0,Used the 2026 allotment.,{},"
+ "gemini-4-argon,4000,96,,0.0125,0.0125,4096.5,12.75,1791850000.5,"
+ "1791850012.25\n"
+ "gemini-4-argon,scenario_001,snap,0.0,Not eligible.,{},gemini-4-argon,"
+ "3900,88,,0.011,0.011,3900.25,11.5,1791850010.0,1791850021.5\n"
+ ),
+ OTHER: COLUMNS
+ + (
+ "muse-spark-1.3,scenario_000,snap,1150.0,Used the 2026 allotment.,{},"
+ "meta/muse-spark-1.3,2100,6900,,0.032,0.032,9000.5,77.25,1791853000.5,"
+ "1791853077.75\n"
+ "muse-spark-1.3,scenario_001,snap,0.0,Not eligible.,{},"
+ "meta/muse-spark-1.3,1300,4300,,0.02,0.02,5600.25,51.5,1791853010.0,"
+ "1791853061.5\n"
+ ),
+}
+NEW_RUN = NEW_RUNS[NEW]
+WINDOW = "2026-06-12 to 2026-10-13"
+# An incumbent row the bundle's predictions hold beside the additions'.
+INCUMBENT_ROW = (
+ f"{INCUMBENT},scenario_000,snap,900.0,Used the 2025 allotment.,,"
+ f"{INCUMBENT},,,,,,,,,\n"
+)
+
+
+def restamp(stage: Path) -> None:
+ """Write stage.json and model-provenance.json for the stage as it stands,
+ as prepare and install-exclusions would have."""
+ names = [
+ BUNDLE / "us" / name for name in (*driver.REFERENCE_FILES, "predictions.csv")
+ ]
+ names += [Path("inputs") / slug / name for slug in ADDITIONS for name in PINNED]
+ files = {str(name): sha(stage / name) for name in names}
+ installed = {
+ "base_sha256": driver.BASE_REFERENCE_SHA256[EXCLUSIONS],
+ "sha256": files[str(BUNDLE / "us" / EXCLUSIONS)],
+ "spec_sha256": sha(REPO / driver.SPEC_PATH),
+ "records": driver.RELEASE_EXCLUSIONS,
+ }
+ record = {
+ "partial": False,
+ "early": False,
+ "base_tag": driver.BASE_TAG,
+ "base_commit": driver.BASE_COMMIT,
+ "files": files,
+ "exclusions_installed": installed,
+ }
+ (stage / "stage.json").write_text(json.dumps(record))
+ provenance = {}
+ for slug, model in ADDITIONS.items():
+ inputs = stage / "inputs" / slug
+ state = json.loads((inputs / "run_state.json").read_text())
+ provenance[model] = {
+ "predictions_sha256": sha(inputs / "predictions.csv"),
+ "treatment_fingerprint": state["treatment_fingerprint"],
+ }
+ (stage / "model-provenance.json").write_text(json.dumps(provenance))
+
+
+def write_inputs(stage: Path) -> dict:
+ """Each addition's run files, the bundle's predictions holding their rows
+ as prepare folds them, and the prepare-time hashes; returns the pins."""
+ folded = []
+ for slug, model in ADDITIONS.items():
+ inputs = stage / "inputs" / slug
+ inputs.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
+ (inputs / "predictions.csv").write_text(NEW_RUNS[model])
+ state = {
+ "model": model,
+ "total": 100,
+ "completed": 100,
+ "stopped_reason": None,
+ "treatment_fingerprint": FINGERPRINTS[model],
+ }
+ (inputs / "run_state.json").write_text(json.dumps(state))
+ folded += NEW_RUNS[model].splitlines(keepends=True)[1:]
+ (stage / BUNDLE / "us/predictions.csv").write_text(
+ COLUMNS + INCUMBENT_ROW + "".join(folded)
+ )
+ restamp(stage)
+ return {
+ slug: {name: sha(stage / "inputs" / slug / name) for name in PINNED}
+ for slug in ADDITIONS
+ }
+
+
+def write_audit(audit: Path) -> None:
+ """One judged, kept case with a bound seed verdict; one parse-only case,
+ which is never judged and so needs no verdict."""
+ case = audit / "cases" / KEPT
+ case.mkdir(parents=True)
+ (audit / "schema.json").write_text(json.dumps(AUDIT_OUTPUT_SCHEMA))
+ manifest = [
+ {
+ "case_id": KEPT,
+ "scenario_id": "scenario_000",
+ "variable": "snap",
+ "wrong_models": [INCUMBENT],
+ "parse_failure_only": False,
+ },
+ {
+ "case_id": "us__scenario_001__snap",
+ "scenario_id": "scenario_001",
+ "variable": "snap",
+ "wrong_models": [INCUMBENT],
+ "parse_failure_only": True,
+ },
+ ]
+ (audit / "cases.jsonl").write_text(
+ "".join(json.dumps(item) + "\n" for item in manifest)
+ )
+ # A seed case: its sidecar records no template version, so v1.
+ (case / "prompt.md").write_text(
+ template_header(1) + "\nClassify these wrong answers.\n"
+ )
+ verdict = {
+ "reference_suspect": False,
+ "reference_bug_hypothesis": "",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
+ "rationale": "The model applied an outdated threshold.",
+ "models": [
+ {
+ "model": INCUMBENT,
+ "failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
+ "diagnosis": "The model used the prior year's threshold.",
+ }
+ ],
+ }
+ (case / "verdict.json").write_text(json.dumps(verdict))
+ (case / "verdict.meta.json").write_text(
+ json.dumps(
+ {
+ "verdict_sha256": sha(case / "verdict.json"),
+ "judge_model_requested": "default",
+ }
+ )
+ )
+
+
+def case_dir_name(scenario_id: str, variable: str) -> str:
+ return f"us__{scenario_id}__{variable}"
+
+
+def ruled_new_outputs() -> list[tuple[str, str]]:
+ """The ruled outputs with no earlier decision: none, as the spec rules
+ nothing."""
+ spec = release_spec()
+ restated = {driver.spec_key(item) for item in spec["restated_adjudications"]}
+ return [
+ driver.spec_key(item)
+ for item in spec["adjudications"]
+ if driver.spec_key(item) not in restated
+ ]
+
+
+def write_ruled_verdicts(cases: Path) -> None:
+ """A bound Opus 5.5 verdict for each newly decided ruled output, as the
+ adjudicate-exclusions step reads it."""
+ for index, output in enumerate(ruled_new_outputs()):
+ case = cases / case_dir_name(*output)
+ case.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
+ verdict = {
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
+ "reference_suspect": index % 2 == 0,
+ }
+ (case / "verdict.json").write_text(json.dumps(verdict))
+ (case / "verdict.meta.json").write_text(
+ json.dumps(
+ {
+ "verdict_sha256": sha(case / "verdict.json"),
+ "judge_model_requested": driver.JUDGE_MODEL,
+ "judge_model_reported": [driver.JUDGE_MODEL],
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-08T12:00:00+00:00",
+ }
+ )
+ )
+
+
+def ruled_record(cases: Path) -> dict:
+ """The record --step adjudicate-exclusions writes on release 20261013b's:
+ the spec rules nothing, so it is that release's record."""
+ return driver.exclusion_adjudications(driver.base_adjudication_record(), cases)
+
+
+def write_judge_verdicts(cases: Path, record: dict) -> None:
+ """For every other decided case, a verdict whose classes and flag are the
+ ones its entry records the judge giving."""
+ for entry in record["adjudications"]:
+ case = cases / case_dir_name(entry["scenario_id"], entry["variable"])
+ if (case / "verdict.json").is_file():
+ continue
+ case.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
+ verdict = {
+ "case_failure_source": entry["judge_failure_source"],
+ "case_failure_subtype": entry["judge_failure_subtype"],
+ "reference_suspect": bool(entry.get("judge_reference_suspect")),
+ }
+ (case / "verdict.json").write_text(json.dumps(verdict))
+
+
+def test_the_freeze_adds_the_two_additions_under_the_driver_tag():
+ assert release.NEW_MODELS == ADDITIONS == driver.MODELS
+ assert release.BOARD_MODELS == 50
+ assert (driver.RELEASE_EXCLUSIONS, driver.RELEASE_SCORED) == (49, 1935)
+ assert release.RUN == RUN
+
+
+@pytest.fixture
+def freeze_preflight(tmp_path, monkeypatch):
+ workspace = tmp_path / "workspace"
+ point_freeze_at(workspace, monkeypatch)
+ stage = workspace / "results/local/stage"
+ stage.mkdir(parents=True)
+ payload = stage / "data-board50.json"
+ payload.write_text(json.dumps({"countries": {"us": {"modelStats": []}}}))
+ evidence = [
+ BUNDLE / "us" / name for name in (*driver.REFERENCE_FILES, "predictions.csv")
+ ]
+ evidence += [BUNDLE / "annotations" / name for name in driver.ANNOTATION_FILES]
+ evidence += [Path(driver.PROMPT_CHANGES)]
+ for name in evidence:
+ (stage / name).parent.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
+ (stage / name).write_text(f"Evidence: {name.name}\n")
+ # install-exclusions wrote the release's record into the bundle.
+ (stage / BUNDLE / "us" / EXCLUSIONS).write_text(release_exclusions_text())
+ # Each addition's run files are the committed pins' (stubbed here), and
+ # the bundle's predictions hold their rows as prepare folded them.
+ pins = write_inputs(stage)
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "committed_input_pins", lambda: pins)
+ # The input pins as HEAD commits them, which name the supervised run the
+ # frozen serving evidence must name (release.evidence_runs).
+ record = {
+ "inputs": {
+ slug: {"run": f"{RUNS[slug]}/run", "sha256": pins[slug]}
+ for slug in ADDITIONS
+ }
+ }
+ monkeypatch.setattr(
+ driver,
+ "head_blob",
+ lambda path: (
+ json.dumps(record).encode()
+ if str(path) == driver.INPUT_PINS_PATH
+ else _HEAD_BLOB(path)
+ ),
+ )
+ evidence += [Path("inputs") / slug / name for slug in ADDITIONS for name in PINNED]
+ evidence += [Path("model-provenance.json"), Path("stage.json")]
+ write_audit(stage / "audit")
+ evidence += AUDIT_EVIDENCE
+ (stage / driver.PROMPT_CHANGES).write_text(
+ json.dumps({"added": [], "changed": [], "kept": []})
+ )
+ receipt = {
+ "release_tag": driver.RELEASE_TAG,
+ "base_tag": driver.BASE_TAG,
+ "base_sha256": driver.BASE_SHA256,
+ "payload_sha256": sha(payload),
+ "models": 50,
+ "partial": False,
+ "files": {str(name): sha(stage / name) for name in evidence},
+ }
+ (stage / "release-ready.json").write_text(json.dumps(receipt))
+ app = workspace / "app/src"
+ app.mkdir(parents=True)
+ # The live pointer and version list as release 20261013b left them.
+ (app / "data.artifact.json").write_bytes(base_blob(Path(release.POINTER)))
+ (app / "data.versions.json").write_bytes(base_blob(Path(release.VERSIONS)))
+ return stage, payload, receipt
+
+
+def workspace_files():
+ return {
+ path.relative_to(release.ROOT): path.read_bytes()
+ for path in release.ROOT.rglob("*")
+ if path.is_file()
+ }
+
+
+def rewrite_receipt(stage: Path, receipt: dict) -> None:
+ receipt["files"] = {name: sha(stage / name) for name in receipt["files"]}
+ (stage / "release-ready.json").write_text(json.dumps(receipt))
+
+
+def test_freeze_rejects_pretty_json_before_any_workspace_mutation(freeze_preflight):
+ stage, payload, receipt = freeze_preflight
+ payload.write_text(json.dumps(json.loads(payload.read_text()), indent=2) + "\n")
+ receipt["payload_sha256"] = sha(payload)
+ (stage / "release-ready.json").write_text(json.dumps(receipt))
+ before = workspace_files()
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="does not recombine to the freeze format"):
+ release.main(["--stage-dir", str(stage)])
+ assert workspace_files() == before
+
+
+def test_the_default_tag_is_the_driver_release_tag(freeze_preflight, monkeypatch):
+ stage, _, receipt = freeze_preflight
+ # MOCK: another dated release, the day after the driver's, so the tag the
+ # freeze defaults to can only have come from the driver.
+ day = datetime.datetime.strptime(driver.RELEASE_TAG.rsplit("-", 1)[1], "%Y%m%d")
+ other = f"dashboard-data-{day + datetime.timedelta(days=1):%Y%m%d}"
+ assert other != driver.RELEASE_TAG
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "RELEASE_TAG", other)
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=f"release tag '{other}'"):
+ release.main(["--stage-dir", str(stage), "--dry-run"])
+ receipt["release_tag"] = other
+ (stage / "release-ready.json").write_text(json.dumps(receipt))
+ # Past the receipt, the spec still names the release it was written for.
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="names another release or base"):
+ release.main(["--stage-dir", str(stage), "--dry-run"])
+
+
+def test_a_tag_that_is_not_a_dated_release_is_refused(freeze_preflight):
+ stage, _, _ = freeze_preflight
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit):
+ release.main(["--stage-dir", str(stage), "--tag", "latest", "--dry-run"])
+
+
+def test_the_freeze_refuses_a_stage_that_records_an_installed_build(freeze_preflight):
+ """This release installs no engine upgrade, so a stage whose stage.json
+ records one (MOCK) was not prepared by its driver: both the freeze and
+ its dry run refuse it and write nothing."""
+ stage, _, receipt = freeze_preflight
+ release.verify_no_upgrade(stage)
+ prepared = json.loads((stage / "stage.json").read_text())
+ prepared["references_installed"] = {"engine_version": "MOCK 2.41.9"}
+ (stage / "stage.json").write_text(json.dumps(prepared))
+ rewrite_receipt(stage, receipt)
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="records an installed reference build"):
+ release.verify_no_upgrade(stage)
+ before = workspace_files()
+ for dry_run in ([], ["--dry-run"]):
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="records an installed reference build"):
+ release.main(["--stage-dir", str(stage), *dry_run])
+ assert workspace_files() == before
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+ "defect",
+ [
+ "changed",
+ "outside_stage",
+ "missing_hashes",
+ "board46",
+ "partial",
+ "tag",
+ "base_tag",
+ "base_sha256",
+ ],
+)
+def test_freeze_refuses_changed_or_unbound_evidence(freeze_preflight, defect):
+ stage, _, receipt = freeze_preflight
+ message = "Strict export receipt does not match"
+ if defect == "changed":
+ (stage / "audit/cases" / KEPT / "verdict.json").write_text("Altered\n")
+ message = "Staged evidence changed"
+ elif defect == "outside_stage":
+ path = release.ROOT / "app/src/data.artifact.json"
+ receipt["files"]["../../../app/src/data.artifact.json"] = sha(path)
+ message = "Staged evidence changed"
+ elif defect == "missing_hashes":
+ receipt["files"] = {}
+ message = "missing staged evidence hashes"
+ elif defect == "board46":
+ receipt["models"] = 49
+ elif defect == "partial":
+ receipt["partial"] = True
+ elif defect == "base_tag":
+ receipt["base_tag"] = "dashboard-data-20260930"
+ message = "does not name release 20261013b as its base"
+ elif defect == "base_sha256":
+ receipt["base_sha256"] = "0" * 64
+ message = "does not name release 20261013b as its base"
+ else:
+ receipt["release_tag"] = driver.BASE_TAG
+ (stage / "release-ready.json").write_text(json.dumps(receipt))
+ before = workspace_files()
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=message):
+ release.main(["--stage-dir", str(stage), "--dry-run"])
+ assert workspace_files() == before
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+ "unbound",
+ [
+ str(BUNDLE / "us" / EXCLUSIONS),
+ str(BUNDLE / "annotations" / ADJUDICATIONS),
+ str(BUNDLE / "annotations" / EXPLANATIONS),
+ *(f"inputs/{slug}/{name}" for slug in ADDITIONS for name in PINNED),
+ "model-provenance.json",
+ driver.PROMPT_CHANGES,
+ "stage.json",
+ ],
+)
+def test_the_receipt_must_bind_references_adjudications_and_run_state(
+ freeze_preflight, unbound
+):
+ stage, _, receipt = freeze_preflight
+ del receipt["files"][unbound]
+ (stage / "release-ready.json").write_text(json.dumps(receipt))
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="does not bind"):
+ release.main(["--stage-dir", str(stage), "--dry-run"])
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+ "unbound", [str(path) for path in (*AUDIT_EVIDENCE, *ANNOTATION_CSVS)]
+)
+def test_the_receipt_must_bind_every_judged_case_and_both_annotation_csvs(
+ freeze_preflight, unbound
+):
+ """Without its receipt entry, a kept verdict or sidecar could be edited
+ and re-hashed after export; the freeze refuses the missing entry."""
+ stage, _, receipt = freeze_preflight
+ del receipt["files"][unbound]
+ (stage / "release-ready.json").write_text(json.dumps(receipt))
+ before = workspace_files()
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=f"does not bind.*{re.escape(unbound)}"):
+ release.main(["--stage-dir", str(stage), "--dry-run"])
+ assert workspace_files() == before
+
+
+def test_a_judged_cases_transcript_must_be_bound(freeze_preflight):
+ """An isolated judge's transcript, which the provenance gate reads, could
+ otherwise be edited and re-hashed after export."""
+ stage, _, receipt = freeze_preflight
+ transcript = Path("audit/cases") / KEPT / "claude.transcript.jsonl"
+ (stage / transcript).write_text("{}\n")
+ with pytest.raises(
+ SystemExit, match=f"does not bind.*{re.escape(str(transcript))}"
+ ):
+ release.main(["--stage-dir", str(stage), "--dry-run"])
+ receipt["files"][str(transcript)] = sha(stage / transcript)
+ (stage / "release-ready.json").write_text(json.dumps(receipt))
+ # Bound, it passes the receipt; the synthetic payload fails the schema.
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="Strict dashboard gate failed"):
+ release.main(["--stage-dir", str(stage), "--dry-run"])
+
+
+def test_wording_amendments_present_in_the_stage_must_be_bound(freeze_preflight):
+ stage, _, _ = freeze_preflight
+ (stage / driver.AMENDMENTS).write_text(json.dumps({"amendments": []}))
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=f"does not bind.*{driver.AMENDMENTS}"):
+ release.main(["--stage-dir", str(stage), "--dry-run"])
+
+
+# --- The spec --------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+ "field, value",
+ [
+ ("release_tag", "dashboard-data-20261013b"),
+ ("base_tag", "dashboard-data-20260930"),
+ ("base_sha256", "0" * 64),
+ ],
+)
+def test_the_freeze_refuses_a_spec_for_another_release_or_base(spec, field, value):
+ spec[field] = value
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=f"names another release or base.*{field}"):
+ release.release_spec(driver.RELEASE_TAG)
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+ "field, value, message",
+ [
+ ("snapshot_date", None, "names no snapshot_date"),
+ ("snapshot_date", "2026-10-32", "names no snapshot_date"),
+ ("snapshot_date", 20261009, "names no snapshot_date"),
+ ],
+)
+def test_the_freeze_refuses_a_spec_without_its_dates(spec, field, value, message):
+ if value is None:
+ del spec[field]
+ else:
+ spec[field] = value
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=message):
+ release.release_spec(driver.RELEASE_TAG)
+
+
+def test_the_spec_names_this_release_and_its_snapshot_date():
+ value = release.release_spec(driver.RELEASE_TAG)
+ assert value["snapshot_date"] == "2026-10-14"
+ # It rules nothing, so it names no day a ruled wave's decisions were written.
+ assert driver.spec_records(value) == []
+ assert "adjudications_written_on" not in value
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("written", [None, " "])
+def test_a_spec_that_rules_records_must_name_their_written_day(
+ spec, monkeypatch, written
+):
+ """Were the spec to rule records, the record's date conventions would
+ state the day their decisions were written, so the freeze needs it."""
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "spec_records", lambda spec: [{"scenario_id": "x"}])
+ if written is not None:
+ spec["adjudications_written_on"] = written
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="names no adjudications_written_on"):
+ release.release_spec(driver.RELEASE_TAG)
+ spec["adjudications_written_on"] = WRITTEN_ON
+ assert release.release_spec(driver.RELEASE_TAG)["adjudications_written_on"] == (
+ WRITTEN_ON
+ )
+
+
+def test_a_spec_without_its_dates_stops_the_freeze_before_mutation(
+ freeze_preflight, spec
+):
+ stage, _, _ = freeze_preflight
+ del spec["snapshot_date"]
+ before = workspace_files()
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="names no snapshot_date"):
+ release.main(["--stage-dir", str(stage)])
+ assert workspace_files() == before
+
+
+# --- The installed exclusions ----------------------------------------------------
+
+
+def _record_installed(stage: Path, edit) -> None:
+ record = json.loads((stage / "stage.json").read_text())
+ edit(record)
+ (stage / "stage.json").write_text(json.dumps(record))
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+ "defect, message",
+ [
+ ("record_edited", "is not release 20261013b's record; run"),
+ ("receipt_hash", "Staged evidence changed since strict export.*exclusions"),
+ ("not_installed", "stage.json does not record the release's 49"),
+ ("wrong_count", "stage.json does not record the release's 49"),
+ ("wrong_base", "stage.json does not record the release's 49"),
+ ("stale_files", "stage.json does not record the release's 49"),
+ ],
+)
+def test_the_freeze_refuses_a_stage_without_the_installed_exclusions(
+ freeze_preflight, defect, message
+):
+ """The stage must score on the release's record, as install-exclusions
+ wrote it: its bytes, its receipt hash and its stage.json record."""
+ stage, _, receipt = freeze_preflight
+ staged = stage / BUNDLE / "us" / EXCLUSIONS
+ if defect == "record_edited":
+ doc = json.loads(staged.read_text())
+ doc["exclusions"][-2]["frozen_value"] += 1
+ staged.write_text(driver.exclusions_text(doc))
+ # Every hash follows the edit: stage.json's and the receipt's.
+ restamp(stage)
+ rewrite_receipt(stage, receipt)
+ elif defect == "receipt_hash":
+ receipt["files"][str(BUNDLE / "us" / EXCLUSIONS)] = "0" * 64
+ (stage / "release-ready.json").write_text(json.dumps(receipt))
+ else:
+ edits = {
+ "not_installed": lambda r: r.pop("exclusions_installed"),
+ "wrong_count": lambda r: r["exclusions_installed"].update(records=48),
+ "wrong_base": lambda r: r["exclusions_installed"].update(
+ base_sha256="0" * 64
+ ),
+ "stale_files": lambda r: r["files"].update(
+ {str(BUNDLE / "us" / EXCLUSIONS): "0" * 64}
+ ),
+ }
+ _record_installed(stage, edits[defect])
+ rewrite_receipt(stage, receipt)
+ before = workspace_files()
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=message):
+ release.main(["--stage-dir", str(stage), "--dry-run"])
+ assert workspace_files() == before
+
+
+def test_the_receipt_must_bind_the_installed_record(freeze_preflight):
+ """verify_receipt already refuses a receipt hash the staged file does not
+ have; the installed-exclusions gate checks the binding on its own too."""
+ stage, _, receipt = freeze_preflight
+ text = release_exclusions_text()
+ expected = hashlib.sha256(text.encode()).hexdigest()
+ assert release.verify_installed_exclusions(stage, receipt, text) == expected
+ receipt["files"][str(BUNDLE / "us" / EXCLUSIONS)] = "0" * 64
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="does not bind the installed"):
+ release.verify_installed_exclusions(stage, receipt, text)
+
+
+def test_the_installed_record_is_the_one_the_live_stage_holds():
+ """The live stage, read only, holds the record the freeze requires
+ (local: the stage is gitignored)."""
+ stage = REPO / "results/local/argon/stage"
+ staged = stage / BUNDLE / "us" / EXCLUSIONS
+ if not staged.is_file():
+ pytest.skip("no live stage in this checkout")
+ installed = (
+ json.loads((stage / "stage.json").read_text()).get("exclusions_installed") or {}
+ )
+ if installed.get("spec_sha256") != sha(driver.ROOT / driver.SPEC_PATH):
+ pytest.skip("the live stage was installed under an earlier spec")
+ receipt = {"files": {str(BUNDLE / "us" / EXCLUSIONS): sha(staged)}}
+ # No engine upgrade is installed, so the record is release 20261013b's.
+ text = release_exclusions_text()
+ assert (
+ release.verify_installed_exclusions(stage, receipt, text)
+ == hashlib.sha256(text.encode()).hexdigest()
+ )
+
+
+def _payload_country(exclusions: list[dict], n: int = 1935) -> dict:
+ return {
+ "referenceExclusions": [
+ {"scenarioId": r["scenario_id"], "variable": r["variable"]}
+ for r in exclusions
+ ],
+ "modelStats": [
+ {"model": "a", "n": n},
+ {"model": NEW, "n": n},
+ {"model": OTHER, "n": n},
+ ],
+ }
+
+
+def test_the_payload_must_list_the_releases_exclusions_in_order():
+ records = release_exclusions()
+ release.verify_scored_outputs(_payload_country(records), records)
+ swapped = records[:]
+ swapped[0], swapped[1] = swapped[1], swapped[0]
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="their order"):
+ release.verify_scored_outputs(_payload_country(swapped), records)
+ with pytest.raises(
+ SystemExit, match="48 excluded outputs are not the release's 49"
+ ):
+ release.verify_scored_outputs(_payload_country(records[:-1]), records)
+ extra = records + [{"scenario_id": "scenario_017", "variable": "snap"}]
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="50 excluded outputs.*scenario_017"):
+ release.verify_scored_outputs(_payload_country(extra), records)
+
+
+def test_every_model_must_be_scored_on_1935_outputs():
+ records = release_exclusions()
+ for index, model in ((1, NEW), (2, OTHER)):
+ country = _payload_country(records)
+ country["modelStats"][index]["n"] = 1920
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=f"scored on 1935 outputs.*{model}': 1920"):
+ release.verify_scored_outputs(country, records)
+
+
+# --- The staged board ------------------------------------------------------------
+
+# One unadjudicated case of the synthetic payload, as an incumbent and the
+# two additions answered it.
+CASE = ("scenario_017", "snap")
+
+
+def _case_row(prediction: float) -> dict:
+ return {
+ "prediction": prediction,
+ "groundTruth": 1200.0,
+ "scored": True,
+ "annotation": "Used the prior year's allotment.",
+ "failureSource": "llm_error",
+ "failureSubtype": "thresholds_rates",
+ "caseAnnotation": "Both models used the prior year's maximum allotment.",
+ "caseFailureSources": "llm_error",
+ "caseFailureSubtypes": "thresholds_rates",
+ }
+
+
+def _without_carried_usage(board: dict) -> dict:
+ """``board`` as export_full_run returns it: Fable 5's usage not carried."""
+ board = copy.deepcopy(board)
+ fable = next(
+ row
+ for row in board["countries"]["us"]["modelStats"]
+ if row["model"] == "claude-fable-5"
+ )
+ fable.update(costUsd=0.0, costPerHousehold=0.0)
+ del fable["totalTokens"], fable["latencySeconds"]
+ return board
+
+
+@pytest.fixture
+def rebuilds():
+ """Each bundle an export stub read: (which board, its directory, its files)."""
+ return []
+
+
+@pytest.fixture
+def exports():
+ """The boards the stubbed export_full_run returns: "release" for the
+ staged bundle, "scope" when export puts release 20261013b's exclusion
+ record back. A test that edits a bundle input edits them as export would
+ rebuild them."""
+ return {}
+
+
+@pytest.fixture
+def staged_board(freeze_preflight, monkeypatch, rebuilds, exports):
+ """A 50-row payload past the receipt, with release 20261013b's snapshot in
+ the workspace.
+
+ export_full_run is stubbed to return what it would for the bound bundle:
+ with the release's 49 exclusions (release 20261013b's, nothing ruled) every
+ model is scored on 1,935 outputs and the incumbents' rows are that
+ release's, as they are with its record put back. The freeze's rebuild runs
+ export's own build (scope check included) on it, so an unedited payload
+ rebuilds, and each test that stops at a later gate still reaches it.
+ Like the real exporter, the stub writes data.json into the bundle it reads.
+ """
+ import policybench.dashboard_schema
+ import policybench.full_run_export
+
+ stage, payload, receipt = freeze_preflight
+ # A synthetic stage binds no seed; the re-derived case list is tested in
+ # test_finish_argon.py.
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "rejudged_cases", lambda stage: frozenset())
+ # The seed stage.json binds is the synthetic audit as written: its one
+ # judged case is kept, so its verdict must stay the seed's.
+ seed = driver.seed_digest(stage / "audit")
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "load_seed", lambda stage: seed)
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "base_payload_from_commit", base_live)
+ snapshot = release.ROOT / SNAPSHOT_DIR
+ # The snapshot release 20261013b committed, from BASE_COMMIT.
+ snapshot.mkdir(parents=True)
+ for name in ("manifest.json", "model_serving_config.json"):
+ (snapshot / name).write_bytes(base_blob(SNAPSHOT_DIR / name))
+ base_references(release.ROOT / FROZEN_RUN)
+ (snapshot / "us_reference_outputs.csv").write_bytes(
+ base_blob(FROZEN_RUN / "reference_outputs.csv")
+ )
+ # prepare copies the committed reference explanations; no step writes them.
+ (stage / BUNDLE / "annotations" / EXPLANATIONS).write_bytes(
+ base_blob(ANNOTATIONS_DIR / EXPLANATIONS)
+ )
+ added = [
+ {
+ "model": model,
+ "condition": "no_tools",
+ "exact": exact,
+ "score": score,
+ "n": driver.RELEASE_SCORED,
+ }
+ for model, exact, score in ((NEW, 58.25, 71.5), (OTHER, 54.5, 69.25))
+ ]
+ scenario, variable = CASE
+ cases = {
+ scenario: {
+ variable: {
+ INCUMBENT: _case_row(900.0),
+ NEW: _case_row(950.0),
+ OTHER: _case_row(975.0),
+ }
+ }
+ }
+
+ def board(stats, exclusions):
+ country = {
+ "referenceExclusions": [
+ {"scenarioId": r["scenario_id"], "variable": r["variable"]}
+ for r in exclusions
+ ],
+ "modelStats": stats,
+ "scenarioPredictions": copy.deepcopy(cases),
+ }
+ return {"countries": {"us": country}}
+
+ released = base_stats()
+ assert {row["n"] for row in released} == {driver.RELEASE_SCORED}
+ staged = board([*released, *added], release_exclusions())
+ payload.write_text(json.dumps(staged))
+ base_exclusions = json.loads(base_blob(FROZEN_RUN / EXCLUSIONS))["exclusions"]
+ scoped = board([*base_stats(), *added], base_exclusions)
+ exports["release"] = _without_carried_usage(staged)
+ exports["scope"] = _without_carried_usage(scoped)
+ monkeypatch.setattr(
+ policybench.dashboard_schema, "validate_dashboard_payload", lambda *a, **k: []
+ )
+
+ def export_full_run(run_dir, *, countries, skip_app_data):
+ assert countries == ["us"] and skip_app_data
+ run_dir = Path(run_dir)
+ files = {
+ path.relative_to(run_dir): path.read_bytes()
+ for path in run_dir.rglob("*")
+ if path.is_file()
+ }
+ # The release's record is release 20261013b's, so the two exports read
+ # the same record; the scope export's copy is the one nested under the
+ # bundle's directory (release_20261006.export_payload).
+ which = "scope" if (run_dir.parent.parent / RUN).is_dir() else "release"
+ rebuilds.append((which, run_dir, files))
+ (run_dir / "data.json").write_text("Fable 5's usage is not carried here.\n")
+ return copy.deepcopy(exports[which])
+
+ monkeypatch.setattr(policybench.full_run_export, "export_full_run", export_full_run)
+
+ # The synthetic stage re-opens no case, so its provenance record lists none.
+ record = stage.parent / "judge_provenance.json"
+ record.write_text(json.dumps({"note": "None.", "counts": {}, "verdicts": []}))
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "JUDGE_PROVENANCE", record)
+
+ def rebind(restamp_stage=True, bind=()):
+ # Every hash in the stage follows the edit: the receipt's and, unless
+ # a test keeps them, stage.json's and model-provenance.json's.
+ if restamp_stage:
+ restamp(stage)
+ for path in bind:
+ receipt["files"][str(path)] = ""
+ receipt["payload_sha256"] = sha(payload)
+ receipt["judge_provenance"] = {
+ "path": driver.JUDGE_PROVENANCE_PATH,
+ "sha256": sha(record),
+ }
+ rewrite_receipt(stage, receipt)
+
+ rebind()
+ return stage, rebind
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("dry_run", [True, False])
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("defect", ["edited", "unbound", "other_path", "missing"])
+def test_the_freeze_refuses_a_provenance_record_export_did_not_bind(
+ staged_board, defect, dry_run
+):
+ """Export binds the judge provenance record's hash in the receipt. A
+ record edited afterwards, one the receipt does not bind or binds under
+ another path, or a missing one, is refused before any workspace mutation."""
+ stage, rebind = staged_board
+ pinned_references(stage / BUNDLE / "us")
+ rebind()
+ receipt = json.loads((stage / "release-ready.json").read_text())
+ if defect == "edited":
+ driver.JUDGE_PROVENANCE.write_text(
+ json.dumps({"note": "every judge ran isolated", "verdicts": []})
+ )
+ elif defect == "missing":
+ driver.JUDGE_PROVENANCE.unlink()
+ elif defect == "unbound":
+ del receipt["judge_provenance"]
+ else:
+ receipt["judge_provenance"]["path"] = "docs/elsewhere.json"
+ (stage / "release-ready.json").write_text(json.dumps(receipt))
+ before = workspace_files()
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="not the judge provenance record"):
+ release.main(["--stage-dir", str(stage)] + ["--dry-run"] * dry_run)
+ assert workspace_files() == before
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("dry_run", [True, False])
+def test_the_freeze_refuses_incumbent_stats_edited_after_export(staged_board, dry_run):
+ """An incumbent's cost edited in the staged payload after export, with the
+ receipt's payload hash updated to match, is refused before any workspace
+ mutation: export's rebuild from the bound bundle does not give it."""
+ stage, rebind = staged_board
+ pinned_references(stage / BUNDLE / "us")
+ payload = stage / "data-board50.json"
+ board = json.loads(payload.read_text())
+ index, row = next(
+ (index, row)
+ for index, row in enumerate(board["countries"]["us"]["modelStats"])
+ if row["model"] not in (NEW, "claude-fable-5")
+ )
+ row["costUsd"] *= 2
+ payload.write_text(json.dumps(board))
+ rebind()
+ before = workspace_files()
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="is not what export builds") as refused:
+ release.main(["--stage-dir", str(stage)] + ["--dry-run"] * dry_run)
+ at = f"payload.countries.us.modelStats[{index} {row['model']}].costUsd"
+ assert repr(at) in str(refused.value)
+ assert workspace_files() == before
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("dry_run", [True, False])
+def test_the_scope_check_refuses_an_incumbent_change_the_ten_records_do_not_explain(
+ staged_board, exports, dry_run
+):
+ """An incumbent's cost changed in the bundle itself, so that export
+ rebuilds the staged payload, still leaves the release: with release
+ 20261013b's exclusion record put back, that incumbent is not release
+ 20261013b's, byte for byte."""
+ stage, rebind = staged_board
+ pinned_references(stage / BUNDLE / "us")
+ payload = stage / "data-board50.json"
+ board = json.loads(payload.read_text())
+ index, model = next(
+ (index, row["model"])
+ for index, row in enumerate(board["countries"]["us"]["modelStats"])
+ if row["model"] not in (NEW, "claude-fable-5")
+ )
+ for target in (board, exports["release"], exports["scope"]):
+ row = target["countries"]["us"]["modelStats"][index]
+ assert row["model"] == model
+ row["costUsd"] *= 2
+ payload.write_text(json.dumps(board))
+ rebind()
+ before = workspace_files()
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=f"incumbent modelStats drift.*{model}"):
+ release.main(["--stage-dir", str(stage)] + ["--dry-run"] * dry_run)
+ assert workspace_files() == before
+
+
+def _edit_new_model_scores(board: dict) -> list[str]:
+ stats = board["countries"]["us"]["modelStats"]
+ row = next(r for r in stats if r["model"] == NEW)
+ row.update(exact=100.0, score=100.0)
+ at = f"payload.countries.us.modelStats[{stats.index(row)} {NEW}]"
+ return [f"{at}.exact", f"{at}.score"]
+
+
+def _edit_case_review(board: dict) -> list[str]:
+ scenario, variable = CASE
+ case = board["countries"]["us"]["scenarioPredictions"][scenario][variable]
+ for row in case.values():
+ row.update(
+ caseFailureSources="needs_review",
+ reference_suspect=True,
+ wrong_model_count=999,
+ )
+ at = f"payload.countries.us.scenarioPredictions.{scenario}.{variable}"
+ return [
+ f"{at}.{INCUMBENT}.caseFailureSources",
+ f"{at}.{INCUMBENT}.reference_suspect (only staged)",
+ f"{at}.{INCUMBENT}.wrong_model_count (only staged)",
+ ]
+
+
+def _edit_exclusion_text(board: dict) -> list[str]:
+ item = board["countries"]["us"]["referenceExclusions"][-2]
+ item["note"] = "A note no record carries."
+ return ["payload.countries.us.referenceExclusions[47].note (only staged)"]
+
+
+# Edits to the staged payload, each of which passes every other gate once the
+# receipt's payload hash is updated to match.
+PAYLOAD_EDITS = {
+ "new_model_scores": _edit_new_model_scores,
+ "case_review": _edit_case_review,
+ "exclusion_text": _edit_exclusion_text,
+}
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("dry_run", [True, False])
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("edit", PAYLOAD_EDITS)
+def test_the_freeze_refuses_a_payload_edited_after_export(staged_board, edit, dry_run):
+ """The receipt binds the payload only by a hash beside it. Gemini 4 Argon's
+ exact and score set to 100, a case marked needs_review, or an
+ exclusion given a note no record carries, with the receipt's payload hash
+ updated to match, is refused before any workspace mutation: the payload
+ export builds from the bound bundle is not the staged one."""
+ stage, rebind = staged_board
+ pinned_references(stage / BUNDLE / "us")
+ payload = stage / "data-board50.json"
+ board = json.loads(payload.read_text())
+ paths = PAYLOAD_EDITS[edit](board)
+ payload.write_text(json.dumps(board))
+ rebind()
+ before = workspace_files()
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="is not what export builds") as refused:
+ release.main(["--stage-dir", str(stage)] + ["--dry-run"] * dry_run)
+ for path in paths:
+ assert repr(path) in str(refused.value)
+ assert workspace_files() == before
+
+
+def test_the_rebuild_reads_a_scratch_copy_of_the_bound_bundle(
+ staged_board, rebuilds, monkeypatch
+):
+ """export_full_run writes into the bundle it reads. The rebuild hands it a
+ scratch copy outside the workspace holding exactly the bundle files the
+ receipt binds, with their bound bytes, and removes it; the scope check
+ exports a second copy with release 20261013b's exclusion record. An
+ unedited payload rebuilds, carrying Fable 5's usage as export does, and
+ the freeze goes on to its next gate."""
+ stage, rebind = staged_board
+ pinned_references(stage / BUNDLE / "us")
+ rebind()
+
+ def next_gate(stage):
+ raise SystemExit("Reached the verdict gate")
+
+ monkeypatch.setattr(release, "verify_verdicts", next_gate)
+ receipt = json.loads((stage / "release-ready.json").read_text())
+ before = workspace_files()
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="Reached the verdict gate"):
+ release.main(["--stage-dir", str(stage), "--dry-run"])
+ assert workspace_files() == before
+ [(first, run_dir, files), (second, scope_dir, scope_files)] = rebuilds
+ assert (first, second) == ("release", "scope")
+ for directory in (run_dir, scope_dir):
+ assert directory.name == RUN and not directory.exists()
+ assert not directory.is_relative_to(release.ROOT)
+ bound = [Path(name) for name in receipt["files"]]
+ assert files == {
+ name.relative_to(BUNDLE): (stage / name).read_bytes()
+ for name in bound
+ if name.is_relative_to(BUNDLE)
+ }
+ assert len(files) == 10
+ expected = {Path(name): files[Path(name)] for name in release_inputs_for_scope()}
+ expected[Path("us") / EXCLUSIONS] = driver.exclusions_text(
+ json.loads(base_blob(FROZEN_RUN / EXCLUSIONS))
+ ).encode()
+ assert scope_files == expected
+
+
+def release_inputs_for_scope() -> tuple[str, ...]:
+ from release_20261006 import EXPORT_INPUTS
+
+ return EXPORT_INPUTS
+
+
+def test_the_rebuild_reads_only_the_bytes_the_receipt_binds(staged_board, rebuilds):
+ """A bound bundle file that changes after the receipt was checked is
+ refused rather than exported."""
+ stage, rebind = staged_board
+ payload = stage / "data-board50.json"
+ receipt = json.loads((stage / "release-ready.json").read_text())
+ base = driver.base_payload_from_commit()
+ release.rebuild_payload(stage, receipt, payload, base)
+ (stage / BUNDLE / "us/predictions.csv").write_text("Edited after the check.\n")
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="changed since strict export.*predictions"):
+ release.rebuild_payload(stage, receipt, payload, base)
+ assert [which for which, *_ in rebuilds] == ["release", "scope"]
+
+
+JSON_LEAVES = st.none() | st.booleans() | st.integers() | st.text(max_size=3)
+JSON_LEAVES |= st.floats(allow_nan=False, allow_infinity=False)
+JSON_VALUES = st.recursive(
+ JSON_LEAVES,
+ lambda inner: (
+ st.lists(inner, max_size=3)
+ | st.dictionaries(st.sampled_from("abcd"), inner, max_size=3)
+ ),
+ max_leaves=12,
+)
+
+
+@examples(400)
+@given(a=JSON_VALUES, b=JSON_VALUES, swap=st.booleans())
+def test_payload_differences_are_empty_exactly_when_the_bytes_match(a, b, swap):
+ """The freeze refuses on bytes and names paths from the parsed values; the
+ two agree, key order, 1 against 1.0, True against 1 and -0.0 included."""
+ if swap and isinstance(a, dict):
+ b = dict(reversed(list(a.items())))
+ differ = release.payload_differences(a, b)
+ assert (differ == []) == (json.dumps(a) == json.dumps(b))
+ assert len(differ) <= 5
+
+
+def test_payload_differences_name_the_first_differing_paths():
+ rebuilt = {"rows": [{"model": "m", "x": 1, "y": [1, 2]}], "z": True}
+ staged = {"z": 1, "rows": [{"model": "m", "y": [1], "x": 1.0, "w": 0}]}
+ assert release.payload_differences(rebuilt, staged) == [
+ "payload.rows[0 m].x",
+ "payload.rows[0 m].y (length 2 rebuilt, 1 staged)",
+ "payload.rows[0 m].w (only staged)",
+ "payload.z",
+ "payload (key order)",
+ ]
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("dry_run", [True, False])
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("defect", ["edited_kept", "unbound_new", "v1_claims_v2"])
+def test_the_freeze_refuses_a_verdict_edited_after_export(
+ staged_board, monkeypatch, defect, dry_run
+):
+ """Export validates the verdicts before it writes the receipt. A kept
+ verdict edited afterwards, its classes kept, its sidecar and its receipt
+ entry re-hashed, must still be refused before any workspace mutation; so
+ must a verdict the seed does not carry that is bound to no prompt, and a
+ new verdict bound to a v1 prompt whose sidecar claims v2."""
+ stage, rebind = staged_board
+ pinned_references(stage / BUNDLE / "us")
+ case = stage / "audit/cases" / KEPT
+ if defect == "edited_kept":
+ verdict = json.loads((case / "verdict.json").read_text())
+ verdict["rationale"] = "A rationale the judge never wrote."
+ verdict["models"][0]["diagnosis"] = "A diagnosis the judge never wrote."
+ (case / "verdict.json").write_text(json.dumps(verdict))
+ meta = json.loads((case / "verdict.meta.json").read_text())
+ meta["verdict_sha256"] = sha(case / "verdict.json")
+ (case / "verdict.meta.json").write_text(json.dumps(meta))
+ message = f"carried-over verdicts differ.*{KEPT}"
+ else:
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "load_seed", lambda stage: {})
+ message = f"fail validation.*{KEPT}"
+ if defect == "v1_claims_v2":
+ meta = json.loads((case / "verdict.meta.json").read_text())
+ meta.update(
+ prompt_sha256=sha(case / "prompt.md"),
+ judge_template_version=driver.JUDGE_TEMPLATE_VERSION,
+ )
+ (case / "verdict.meta.json").write_text(json.dumps(meta))
+ pending = driver.validate_verdicts(stage / "audit")
+ assert pending == [KEPT]
+ rebind()
+ before = workspace_files()
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=message):
+ release.main(["--stage-dir", str(stage)] + ["--dry-run"] * dry_run)
+ assert workspace_files() == before
+
+
+def _double_cost(frame, rows) -> list[str]:
+ columns = ["estimated_cost_usd", "total_cost_usd"]
+ for column in columns:
+ frame.loc[rows, column] = (frame.loc[rows, column].astype(float) * 2).map(str)
+ return columns
+
+
+def _slower(frame, rows) -> list[str]:
+ frame.loc[rows, "elapsed_seconds"] = "99.0"
+ return ["elapsed_seconds"]
+
+
+USAGE_EDITS = {"cost": _double_cost, "elapsed_seconds": _slower}
+
+
+def _edit_new_rows(path: Path, edit) -> list[str]:
+ import pandas as pd
+
+ frame = pd.read_csv(path, dtype=str, keep_default_na=False)
+ columns = edit(frame, frame["model"] == NEW)
+ frame.to_csv(path, index=False)
+ return columns
+
+
+def _republish_new_usage(stage: Path, exports: dict) -> None:
+ """The payload as export would rebuild it from the edited predictions:
+ Gemini 4 Argon's costUsd changes, and the export stub agrees."""
+ payload = stage / "data-board50.json"
+ board = json.loads(payload.read_text())
+ for target in (board, exports["release"], exports["scope"]):
+ stats = target["countries"]["us"]["modelStats"]
+ next(row for row in stats if row["model"] == NEW)["costUsd"] = 2.0
+ payload.write_text(json.dumps(board))
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("dry_run", [True, False])
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("edit", USAGE_EDITS)
+def test_the_freeze_refuses_new_model_usage_edited_in_the_bundle(
+ staged_board, exports, edit, dry_run
+):
+ """Gemini 4 Argon's cost columns doubled, or its elapsed_seconds
+ changed, in the bundle's predictions, with the payload rebuilt to match
+ and every hash in the stage updated (the receipt's, stage.json's and
+ model-provenance.json's), is refused before any workspace mutation: its
+ rows must be its pinned run file's in every column."""
+ stage, rebind = staged_board
+ columns = _edit_new_rows(stage / BUNDLE / "us/predictions.csv", USAGE_EDITS[edit])
+ _republish_new_usage(stage, exports)
+ rebind()
+ before = workspace_files()
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="not the pinned run's") as refused:
+ release.main(["--stage-dir", str(stage)] + ["--dry-run"] * dry_run)
+ for column in columns:
+ assert f"{NEW} {column} differs from the run on 2 rows" in str(refused.value)
+ assert workspace_files() == before
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("dry_run", [True, False])
+def test_the_freeze_refuses_a_new_model_input_edited_with_the_bundle(
+ staged_board, exports, dry_run
+):
+ """The staged run file edited together with the bundle's rows, every
+ stage hash following, is not the run file the committed pins name."""
+ stage, rebind = staged_board
+ for path in (
+ stage / "inputs" / SLUG / "predictions.csv",
+ stage / BUNDLE / "us/predictions.csv",
+ ):
+ _edit_new_rows(path, _double_cost)
+ _republish_new_usage(stage, exports)
+ rebind()
+ before = workspace_files()
+ with pytest.raises(
+ SystemExit, match=f"staged inputs/{SLUG}/predictions.csv is not the run file"
+ ):
+ release.main(["--stage-dir", str(stage)] + ["--dry-run"] * dry_run)
+ assert workspace_files() == before
+
+
+def _edit_json(path: Path, edit) -> None:
+ value = json.loads(path.read_text())
+ edit(value)
+ path.write_text(json.dumps(value))
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+ "defect",
+ ["stale_stage_json", "unrecorded_input", "provenance_hash", "fingerprint"],
+)
+def test_the_freeze_rechecks_the_prepare_time_hashes(staged_board, defect):
+ """stage.json and model-provenance.json, both bound by the receipt, must
+ still describe the staged inputs."""
+ stage, rebind = staged_board
+ if defect == "stale_stage_json":
+ path = stage / BUNDLE / "us/predictions.csv"
+ path.write_text(path.read_text().replace(INCUMBENT_ROW, INCUMBENT_ROW * 2))
+ message = f"changed since prepare: {BUNDLE}/us/predictions.csv"
+ elif defect == "unrecorded_input":
+ _edit_json(
+ stage / "stage.json",
+ lambda record: record["files"].pop(f"inputs/{SLUG}/predictions.csv"),
+ )
+ message = f"stage.json does not record.*inputs/{SLUG}/predictions.csv"
+ elif defect == "provenance_hash":
+ _edit_json(
+ stage / "model-provenance.json",
+ lambda record: record[NEW].update(predictions_sha256="0" * 64),
+ )
+ message = "model-provenance.json disagrees with the staged run"
+ else:
+ _edit_json(
+ stage / "model-provenance.json",
+ lambda record: record[NEW]["treatment_fingerprint"].update(
+ request_timeout_seconds=600
+ ),
+ )
+ message = "model-provenance.json disagrees with the staged run"
+ rebind(restamp_stage=False)
+ before = workspace_files()
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=message):
+ release.main(["--stage-dir", str(stage), "--dry-run"])
+ assert workspace_files() == before
+
+
+def _publish_annotations(stage: Path) -> None:
+ """The row annotations and case notes triage publishes for the synthetic
+ audit, with a staged record that decides none of its cases."""
+ from policybench.audit import collect_audit
+
+ annotations = stage / BUNDLE / "annotations"
+ (annotations / ADJUDICATIONS).write_text(json.dumps({"adjudications": []}))
+ collected = collect_audit(stage / BUNDLE / "us", stage / "audit")
+ cases = collected["case"].rename(
+ columns={
+ "case_failure_source": "case_failure_sources",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "case_failure_subtypes",
+ }
+ )
+ for name, frame in ((ROWS, collected["row"]), (NOTES, cases)):
+ frame.to_csv(annotations / name, index=False)
+
+
+@pytest.fixture
+def annotated_board(staged_board, monkeypatch):
+ """The synthetic stage with release 20261013b's references and the release's
+ exclusion record, and the annotations triage publishes, past every gate up
+ to the annotation gate; the next gate, the incumbents' predictions, stops
+ the freeze. The kept case is decided by no adjudication. The record gate
+ reads release 20261013b's 77 decisions, which the synthetic audit lacks;
+ it is tested on its own."""
+ stage, rebind = staged_board
+ pinned_references(stage / BUNDLE / "us")
+ monkeypatch.setattr(release, "verify_adjudication_record", lambda *a, **k: 0)
+ _publish_annotations(stage)
+
+ def next_gate():
+ raise SystemExit("Reached the prediction gate")
+
+ monkeypatch.setattr(release, "base_prediction_rows", next_gate)
+ rebind()
+ return stage, rebind
+
+
+def test_the_annotations_triage_publishes_pass_the_annotation_gate(annotated_board):
+ stage, _ = annotated_board
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="Reached the prediction gate"):
+ release.main(["--stage-dir", str(stage), "--dry-run"])
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("dry_run", [True, False])
+def test_the_freeze_refuses_a_failure_class_no_judge_gave(
+ annotated_board, exports, dry_run
+):
+ """A row's failure_source and its case note's case_failure_sources changed
+ on the kept case, which no adjudication decides, with the payload rebuilt
+ to carry the new class (export's rebuild agrees) and the receipt hashes
+ of both CSVs and the payload updated, are refused before any workspace
+ mutation."""
+ import pandas as pd
+
+ stage, rebind = annotated_board
+ annotations = stage / BUNDLE / "annotations"
+ for name, column in ((ROWS, "failure_source"), (NOTES, "case_failure_sources")):
+ frame = pd.read_csv(annotations / name, dtype=str, keep_default_na=False)
+ kept = frame.scenario_id == "scenario_000"
+ assert list(frame.loc[kept, column]) == ["llm_error"]
+ frame.loc[kept, column] = "prompt_ambiguity"
+ frame.to_csv(annotations / name, index=False)
+ payload = stage / "data-board50.json"
+ board = json.loads(payload.read_text())
+ scenario, variable = CASE
+ for target in (board, exports["release"], exports["scope"]):
+ for row in target["countries"]["us"]["scenarioPredictions"][scenario][
+ variable
+ ].values():
+ row.update(
+ failureSource="prompt_ambiguity", caseFailureSources="prompt_ambiguity"
+ )
+ payload.write_text(json.dumps(board))
+ rebind()
+ before = workspace_files()
+ with pytest.raises(
+ SystemExit,
+ match=r"us_case_notes\.csv is not what triage builds.*"
+ r"us__scenario_000__snap case_failure_sources",
+ ):
+ release.main(["--stage-dir", str(stage)] + ["--dry-run"] * dry_run)
+ assert workspace_files() == before
+
+
+def test_the_freeze_refuses_a_revised_staged_reference_before_mutation(staged_board):
+ stage, _ = staged_board
+ before = workspace_files()
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="Staged reference_outputs.csv changed"):
+ release.main(["--stage-dir", str(stage)])
+ assert workspace_files() == before
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("dry_run", [True, False])
+def test_a_reworded_explanation_is_refused(staged_board, dry_run):
+ """The judge's prompt and the payload carry the reference explanations;
+ this release rewords none, so a staged edit is refused before any
+ workspace mutation, whatever hashes follow it."""
+ stage, rebind = staged_board
+ pinned_references(stage / BUNDLE / "us")
+ path = stage / BUNDLE / "annotations" / EXPLANATIONS
+ path.write_bytes(path.read_bytes().replace(b"the ", b"thee ", 1))
+ rebind()
+ before = workspace_files()
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=f"Staged {EXPLANATIONS} changed"):
+ release.main(["--stage-dir", str(stage)] + ["--dry-run"] * dry_run)
+ assert workspace_files() == before
+
+
+def _stage_ruled_record(stage: Path, edit=None) -> dict:
+ """The staged record as adjudicate-exclusions writes it, its new ruled
+ cases' bound verdicts in the stage's audit tree; ``edit`` changes it."""
+ cases = stage / "audit/cases"
+ write_ruled_verdicts(cases)
+ record = ruled_record(cases)
+ if edit is not None:
+ edit(record)
+ (stage / BUNDLE / "annotations" / ADJUDICATIONS).write_text(
+ driver.record_text(record)
+ )
+ return record
+
+
+def _drop_an_unruled_decision(record: dict) -> None:
+ record["adjudications"].remove(_unruled(record)[0])
+
+
+def _ruled_case_files(stage: Path) -> list[Path]:
+ cases = stage / "audit/cases"
+ return [
+ path.relative_to(stage)
+ for output in ruled_new_outputs()
+ for path in sorted((cases / case_dir_name(*output)).iterdir())
+ ]
+
+
+def test_the_freeze_refuses_a_dropped_adjudication_before_mutation(staged_board):
+ stage, rebind = staged_board
+ pinned_references(stage / BUNDLE / "us")
+ _stage_ruled_record(stage, _drop_an_unruled_decision)
+ rebind(bind=_ruled_case_files(stage))
+ before = workspace_files()
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="drop recorded decisions"):
+ release.main(["--stage-dir", str(stage)])
+ assert workspace_files() == before
+
+
+def test_the_freeze_baseline_is_release_20261013b_in_git_not_the_working_tree(
+ staged_board,
+):
+ """A freeze that stopped after copying the staged record over the committed
+ one leaves them equal; the next freeze must still compare with git."""
+ stage, rebind = staged_board
+ pinned_references(stage / BUNDLE / "us")
+ _stage_ruled_record(stage, _drop_an_unruled_decision)
+ rebind(bind=_ruled_case_files(stage))
+ staged = stage / BUNDLE / "annotations" / ADJUDICATIONS
+ # What a partial freeze leaves behind: the working-tree record is the
+ # staged one, byte for byte.
+ freezer.ANNOTATIONS_DEST.mkdir(parents=True)
+ shutil.copyfile(staged, freezer.ANNOTATIONS_DEST / ADJUDICATIONS)
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="drop recorded decisions"):
+ release.main(["--stage-dir", str(stage), "--dry-run"])
+
+
+# --- A releasable board, frozen ----------------------------------------------------
+
+
+def _serving_from_the_registry(destination: Path) -> None:
+ """What freeze_serving_configuration writes in a checkout without the
+ historical run directories: every incumbent registry-backed, and each
+ addition backed by its run state."""
+ base = json.loads(base_blob(SNAPSHOT_DIR / "model_serving_config.json"))
+ serving = copy.deepcopy(base)
+ for row in serving["models"].values():
+ row["evidence"] = {"kind": "registry"}
+ for model in ADDITIONS.values():
+ serving["models"][model] = {
+ **copy.deepcopy(base["models"][INCUMBENT]),
+ "provider_id": FINGERPRINTS[model]["model_id"],
+ "evidence": {"kind": "run_state", "run": "somewhere/else"},
+ }
+ serving["evidence_summary"] = {
+ "registry": len(base["models"]),
+ "run_state": len(ADDITIONS),
+ }
+ serving["registry_commit"] = "the freezer's commit"
+ destination.write_text(json.dumps(serving, indent=2, sort_keys=True) + "\n")
+
+
+def _fake_freezer_main(calls: list, defects: set):
+ """Stand-in for freeze_snapshot.main: it writes what the freezer writes,
+ from where the freeze configured it, as freeze_run, freeze_annotations,
+ freeze_committed_artifacts and build_manifest do, with ``defects``
+ applied, and records the configuration it found."""
+
+ def main() -> None:
+ calls.append(
+ {
+ name: getattr(freezer, name)
+ for name in (
+ "SNAPSHOT_DATE",
+ "SOURCE_RUN",
+ "SOURCE_US",
+ "SOURCE_ANNOTATIONS",
+ "REFERENCE_META_SOURCE",
+ "PUBLISHED_DASHBOARD_SOURCE",
+ "PUBLISHED_DASHBOARD_ARTIFACT",
+ "RUN_STATE_EVIDENCE",
+ "AUDIT_CASES_DIR",
+ )
+ }
+ )
+ window = freezer.model_response_window(
+ freezer.SOURCE_US / "predictions.csv",
+ freezer.MODEL_RESPONSE_START,
+ freezer.MODEL_RESPONSE_DATE,
+ )
+ run = freezer.RUN_DEST
+ if run.exists():
+ shutil.rmtree(run)
+ run.mkdir(parents=True)
+ for name in ("scenarios.csv", "scenarios.csv.meta.json"):
+ freezer.copy_exact(freezer.SOURCE_US / name, run / name)
+ for name in ("reference_outputs.csv", EXCLUSIONS):
+ freezer.copy_exact(freezer.SOURCE_US / name, run / name)
+ (run / "reference_outputs.csv.meta.json").write_bytes(
+ freezer.REFERENCE_META_SOURCE.read_bytes()
+ )
+ if freezer.REFERENCE_PINS is not None:
+ freezer.copy_exact(
+ freezer.SOURCE_US / "reference_outputs.csv",
+ freezer.SNAPSHOT_DIR / "us_reference_outputs.csv",
+ )
+ if "other_exclusions" in defects:
+ doc = json.loads((run / EXCLUSIONS).read_text())
+ doc["exclusions"][-2]["frozen_value"] += 1
+ (run / EXCLUSIONS).write_text(driver.exclusions_text(doc))
+ freezer.gzip_deterministic(
+ freezer.SOURCE_US / "predictions.csv",
+ run / "predictions.csv.gz",
+ stored_name="predictions.csv",
+ )
+ serving = freezer.SNAPSHOT_DIR / "model_serving_config.json"
+ freezer.freeze_serving_configuration(serving)
+ destination = freezer.ANNOTATIONS_DEST
+ kept = (destination / ADJUDICATIONS).read_bytes()
+ shutil.rmtree(destination)
+ destination.mkdir(parents=True)
+ if "other_record" in defects:
+ kept = kept.replace(b"2026-10-10 UTC.", b"2026-10-11 UTC.", 1)
+ (destination / ADJUDICATIONS).write_bytes(kept)
+ for name in (ROWS, NOTES, EXPLANATIONS):
+ freezer.copy_exact(freezer.SOURCE_ANNOTATIONS / name, destination / name)
+ manifest = json.loads(base_blob(SNAPSHOT_DIR / "manifest.json"))
+ manifest["description"] = manifest["description"].replace(
+ manifest["snapshot_date"], freezer.SNAPSHOT_DATE
+ )
+ manifest["snapshot_date"] = freezer.SNAPSHOT_DATE
+ manifest["reference_output_refresh"]["snapshot_date"] = freezer.SNAPSHOT_DATE
+ if freezer.REFERENCE_PINS is not None:
+ manifest["reference_output_refresh"] = freezer.read_reference_refresh()
+ manifest["committed_snapshot_artifacts"]["us_reference_outputs.csv"] = (
+ freezer.REFERENCE_PINS["reference_outputs.csv"]
+ )
+ manifest["scope"]["models"] = 49 if "models_49" in defects else 50
+ manifest["model_response_date"] = window
+ records = json.loads((run / EXCLUSIONS).read_text())["exclusions"]
+ manifest["reference_exclusions"]["outputs"] = len(records)
+ manifest["reference_exclusions"]["scored_outputs_per_model"] = 1984 - len(
+ records
+ )
+ manifest["published_dashboard_artifact"] = freezer.PUBLISHED_DASHBOARD_ARTIFACT
+ pointer = json.loads((freezer.ROOT / "app/src/data.artifact.json").read_text())
+ manifest["live_dashboard_artifact"].update(
+ {key: pointer[key] for key in ("tag", "asset", "url", "sha256", "bytes")}
+ )
+ files = manifest["source_run_artifacts"][RUN]["files"]
+ if freezer.REFERENCE_PINS is not None:
+ files.update(freezer.REFERENCE_PINS)
+ files[EXCLUSIONS] = freezer.sha256_file(run / EXCLUSIONS)
+ files["predictions.csv.gz"] = freezer.sha256_file(run / "predictions.csv.gz")
+ committed = manifest["committed_snapshot_artifacts"]
+ committed["model_serving_config.json"] = freezer.sha256_file(serving)
+ audit = manifest["audit_annotation_artifacts"]["files"]
+ for name in (ADJUDICATIONS, ROWS, NOTES):
+ audit[name] = freezer.sha256_file(destination / name)
+ if freezer.REFERENCE_PINS is not None:
+ audit[EXPLANATIONS] = freezer.sha256_file(destination / EXPLANATIONS)
+ if "outside" in defects:
+ manifest["population_weight_artifact"]["sha256"] = "0" * 64
+ if "pinned_reference" in defects:
+ files["reference_outputs.csv"] = "0" * 64
+ if "explanations_pin" in defects:
+ audit[EXPLANATIONS] = "0" * 64
+ if "window" in defects:
+ manifest["model_response_date"] = "2026-06-12 to 2026-10-09"
+ (freezer.SNAPSHOT_DIR / "manifest.json").write_text(
+ json.dumps(manifest, indent=2, sort_keys=True) + "\n"
+ )
+
+ return main
+
+
+@pytest.fixture
+def frozen_board(staged_board, monkeypatch):
+ """A releasable synthetic stage: release 20261013b's references and the
+ release's exclusion record, the ruled record as adjudicate-exclusions
+ writes it, and each decided case's verdict. Gates whose inputs the
+ synthetic audit cannot hold (the annotations rebuilt from release
+ 20261013b's 61 decided cases, and the applied-adjudications check) are
+ stubbed; they are tested above and in test_finish_argon.py. The
+ freezer's own main is a stand-in (_fake_freezer_main)."""
+ import pandas as pd
+
+ import policybench.adjudications
+
+ stage, rebind = staged_board
+ pinned_references(stage / BUNDLE / "us")
+ record = _stage_ruled_record(stage)
+ write_judge_verdicts(stage / "audit/cases", record)
+ rebind(bind=_ruled_case_files(stage))
+ checked = []
+ monkeypatch.setattr(
+ release,
+ "verify_annotation_amendments",
+ lambda annotations, amendments, audit: checked.append(amendments),
+ )
+ monkeypatch.setattr(
+ policybench.adjudications, "verify_adjudications_applied", lambda *a: None
+ )
+ staged_rows = pd.read_csv(stage / BUNDLE / "us/predictions.csv")
+ incumbent_rows = staged_rows[staged_rows["model"] != NEW].reset_index(drop=True)
+ monkeypatch.setattr(release, "base_prediction_rows", lambda: incumbent_rows)
+ monkeypatch.setattr(
+ freezer, "freeze_serving_configuration", _serving_from_the_registry
+ )
+ monkeypatch.setattr(freezer, "_serving_registry_commit", lambda payload: "f" * 40)
+ calls, defects = [], set()
+ monkeypatch.setattr(freezer, "main", _fake_freezer_main(calls, defects))
+ return types.SimpleNamespace(
+ stage=stage,
+ rebind=rebind,
+ record=record,
+ calls=calls,
+ defects=defects,
+ checked=checked,
+ )
+
+
+def test_a_dry_run_of_a_releasable_stage_writes_nothing(frozen_board, capsys):
+ stage = frozen_board.stage
+ before = workspace_files()
+ release.main(["--stage-dir", str(stage), "--dry-run"])
+ assert workspace_files() == before
+ assert frozen_board.calls == []
+ out = capsys.readouterr().out
+ assert f"Validated local release inputs: {driver.RELEASE_TAG}, 50 models" in out
+ assert "49 exclusions (0 new)" in out
+ assert f"model responses {WINDOW}; snapshot 2026-10-14; nothing written" in out
+
+
+def _live_version(versions: dict) -> dict:
+ return next(v for v in versions["versions"] if v["id"] == versions["default"])
+
+
+def test_the_freeze_writes_the_release(frozen_board, capsys):
+ """The pointer, the version list, the frozen run's references and
+ 49-record exclusion record (release 20261013b's), the annotations with the
+ staged record, whose date conventions name no new wave, the wording
+ amendments record, the serving rows, and the release's predictions
+ asset."""
+ stage = frozen_board.stage
+ payload = stage / "data-board50.json"
+ release.main(["--stage-dir", str(stage)])
+ assert f"Built {driver.RELEASE_TAG} locally" in capsys.readouterr().out
+ root = release.ROOT
+ tag = driver.RELEASE_TAG
+ pointer = {
+ "version": 1,
+ "repo": "PolicyEngine/policybench",
+ "tag": tag,
+ "asset": "dashboard-data.json",
+ "url": (
+ "https://github.com/PolicyEngine/policybench/releases/download/"
+ f"{tag}/dashboard-data.json"
+ ),
+ "sha256": sha(payload),
+ "bytes": payload.stat().st_size,
+ }
+ assert (root / release.POINTER).read_text() == (
+ json.dumps(pointer, indent=2, sort_keys=True) + "\n"
+ )
+ versions = json.loads((root / release.VERSIONS).read_text())
+ previous = json.loads(base_blob(Path(release.VERSIONS)))
+ live = _live_version(versions)
+ assert live["snapshotLabel"] == "Snapshot 2026-10-14"
+ assert live["description"].endswith(" - 50 models")
+ assert (
+ "the 49 excluded outputs keep the values they were decided on: 29 from "
+ "policyengine-us 1.755.4, 18 from 2.15.17, 2 from 2.38.6" in live["description"]
+ )
+ others = [v for v in versions["versions"] if v is not live]
+ assert others == [v for v in previous["versions"] if v["id"] != previous["default"]]
+ # The frozen run: release 20261013b's references and the release's record.
+ frozen = root / FROZEN_RUN
+ assert (frozen / EXCLUSIONS).read_text() == release_exclusions_text()
+ assert len(json.loads((frozen / EXCLUSIONS).read_text())["exclusions"]) == 49
+ for name in release.PINNED_REFERENCES:
+ assert (frozen / name).read_bytes() == base_blob(FROZEN_RUN / name)
+ # The annotations: the staged record and CSVs, and the amendments record.
+ annotations = root / ANNOTATIONS_DIR
+ assert sorted(p.name for p in annotations.iterdir()) == sorted(
+ (ADJUDICATIONS, ROWS, NOTES, EXPLANATIONS, AMENDMENTS_RECORD)
+ )
+ staged_annotations = stage / BUNDLE / "annotations"
+ for name in (ADJUDICATIONS, ROWS, NOTES, EXPLANATIONS):
+ assert (annotations / name).read_bytes() == (
+ staged_annotations / name
+ ).read_bytes()
+ committed = json.loads((annotations / ADJUDICATIONS).read_text())
+ assert committed == frozen_board.record
+ conventions = committed["date_conventions"]
+ base = json.loads(base_blob(ADJUDICATIONS_PATH))
+ assert conventions == base["date_conventions"]
+ assert (
+ "(2026-09-05, 2026-09-22, 2026-09-29, 2026-10-05, 2026-10-06 or 2026-10-10)"
+ in conventions
+ )
+ assert conventions.count("and were written on 2026-10-10 UTC.") == 1
+ from policybench.adjudications import excluded_case_keys, parse_adjudications
+
+ entries = parse_adjudications(committed, "frozen")
+ assert excluded_case_keys(entries) == {
+ (r["scenario_id"], r["variable"]) for r in release_exclusions()
+ }
+ assert (annotations / AMENDMENTS_RECORD).read_bytes() == base_blob(
+ ANNOTATIONS_DIR / AMENDMENTS_RECORD
+ )
+ # The serving rows: release 20261013b's, and each addition's run state.
+ serving = json.loads(
+ (root / SNAPSHOT_DIR / "model_serving_config.json").read_text()
+ )
+ previous_serving = json.loads(base_blob(SNAPSHOT_DIR / "model_serving_config.json"))
+ for model, row in previous_serving["models"].items():
+ assert serving["models"][model] == row
+ for slug, model in ADDITIONS.items():
+ assert serving["models"][model]["evidence"] == {
+ "kind": "run_state",
+ "run": f"{RUNS[slug]}",
+ }
+ assert serving["evidence_summary"] == {
+ "registry": previous_serving["evidence_summary"]["registry"],
+ "run_state": previous_serving["evidence_summary"]["run_state"] + len(ADDITIONS),
+ }
+ assert serving["registry_commit"] == "f" * 40
+ # The freezer read the stage, as configured.
+ [configured] = frozen_board.calls
+ assert configured["SNAPSHOT_DATE"] == "2026-10-14"
+ assert configured["SOURCE_RUN"] == stage / BUNDLE
+ assert configured["SOURCE_US"] == stage / BUNDLE / "us"
+ assert configured["SOURCE_ANNOTATIONS"] == staged_annotations
+ assert configured["REFERENCE_META_SOURCE"] == (
+ stage / BUNDLE / "us/reference_outputs.csv.meta.json"
+ )
+ assert configured["PUBLISHED_DASHBOARD_SOURCE"] == payload
+ assert configured["PUBLISHED_DASHBOARD_ARTIFACT"] == {
+ key: pointer[key] for key in ("tag", "asset", "url", "sha256", "bytes")
+ }
+ assert configured["RUN_STATE_EVIDENCE"] == {
+ model: str(stage / "inputs" / slug / "run_state.json")
+ for slug, model in ADDITIONS.items()
+ }
+ assert configured["AUDIT_CASES_DIR"] == stage / "audit/cases"
+ assert frozen_board.checked == [[]]
+ # The release assets beside the stage, and the dashboard's local cache.
+ assert (stage / "predictions.csv.gz").read_bytes() == (
+ frozen / "predictions.csv.gz"
+ ).read_bytes()
+ cache = root / "app/.cache" / f"dashboard-data-{sha(payload)[:16]}.json"
+ assert cache.read_bytes() == payload.read_bytes()
+
+
+def test_freezing_twice_writes_the_same_files(frozen_board):
+ """A second freeze of the same stage finds this release's committed
+ record and pins where release 20261013b's were, passes, and writes the
+ same bytes."""
+ stage = frozen_board.stage
+ release.main(["--stage-dir", str(stage)])
+ first = workspace_files()
+ release.main(["--stage-dir", str(stage)])
+ assert workspace_files() == first
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+ "defect, message",
+ [
+ ("other_exclusions", "frozen reference reference_exclusions.json does not"),
+ ("other_record", f"frozen {ADJUDICATIONS} is not the staged one"),
+ ("outside", r"changes outside the release: \['population_weight_artifact"),
+ ("pinned_reference", r"outside the release: \['source_run_artifacts\..*"),
+ ("explanations_pin", f"outside the release.*files.{EXPLANATIONS}"),
+ ("models_49", "does not state the release.*'scope.models': 49"),
+ ("window", "does not state the release.*model_response_date"),
+ ],
+)
+def test_the_freeze_refuses_what_the_freezer_wrote_outside_the_release(
+ frozen_board, defect, message
+):
+ frozen_board.defects.add(defect)
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=message):
+ release.main(["--stage-dir", str(frozen_board.stage)])
+
+
+def test_an_incumbent_prediction_change_is_refused_before_mutation(
+ frozen_board, monkeypatch
+):
+ import pandas as pd
+
+ stage = frozen_board.stage
+ rows = release.base_prediction_rows().copy()
+ rows.loc[rows["model"] == INCUMBENT, "prediction"] = 901.0
+ monkeypatch.setattr(release, "base_prediction_rows", lambda: rows)
+ assert isinstance(rows, pd.DataFrame)
+ before = workspace_files()
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=f"Incumbent prediction evidence.*{INCUMBENT}"):
+ release.main(["--stage-dir", str(stage)])
+ assert workspace_files() == before
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+ "edit",
+ [
+ {"completed": 99},
+ {"total": 99, "completed": 99},
+ {"stopped_reason": "budget"},
+ {"model": "claude-haiku-5"},
+ {"treatment_fingerprint": None},
+ ],
+)
+def test_an_incomplete_run_state_is_refused_before_mutation(
+ frozen_board, monkeypatch, edit
+):
+ """The pinned run itself incomplete, stopped, another model's or without
+ its treatment, every pin and hash following it, is refused before any
+ workspace mutation."""
+ stage = frozen_board.stage
+ inputs = stage / "inputs" / SLUG
+ _edit_json(inputs / "run_state.json", lambda state: state.update(edit))
+ pins = {SLUG: {name: sha(inputs / name) for name in PINNED}}
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "committed_input_pins", lambda: pins)
+ frozen_board.rebind()
+ before = workspace_files()
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="Missing completed run or treatment"):
+ release.main(["--stage-dir", str(stage)])
+ assert workspace_files() == before
+
+
+# --- What the freezer wrote ----------------------------------------------------
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+ "defect, message",
+ [
+ ("extra_file", "Frozen annotation files are not the release's"),
+ ("named_wave", "beyond naming this release's waves"),
+ ("other_window", "does not state the release.*model_response_date"),
+ ("other_date", "does not state the release.*snapshot_date"),
+ ],
+)
+def test_verify_frozen_checks_what_the_freezer_wrote(frozen_board, defect, message):
+ """After a freeze, verify_frozen refuses an annotations directory holding
+ anything else, a frozen record (equal to the staged one) whose
+ conventions name a wave the release did not add, and a manifest that
+ states another window or snapshot date than the freeze derived."""
+ stage = frozen_board.stage
+ release.main(["--stage-dir", str(stage)])
+ annotations = release.ROOT / ANNOTATIONS_DIR
+ window, snapshot_date = WINDOW, "2026-10-14"
+ if defect == "extra_file":
+ (annotations / "notes.txt").write_text("Left behind.\n")
+ elif defect == "named_wave":
+ text = (annotations / ADJUDICATIONS).read_text()
+ named = text.replace(" or 2026-10-10)", ", 2026-10-10 or 2026-10-14)", 1)
+ assert named != text
+ for path in (annotations, stage / BUNDLE / "annotations"):
+ (path / ADJUDICATIONS).write_text(named)
+ elif defect == "other_window":
+ window = "2026-06-12 to 2026-10-09"
+ else:
+ snapshot_date = "2026-10-15"
+ pointer = json.loads((release.ROOT / release.POINTER).read_text())
+ serving = json.loads(base_blob(SNAPSHOT_DIR / "model_serving_config.json"))
+ arguments = dict(
+ stage=stage,
+ snapshot=release.ROOT / SNAPSHOT_DIR,
+ annotations=annotations,
+ exclusions_sha256=hashlib.sha256(
+ release_exclusions_text().encode()
+ ).hexdigest(),
+ pointer=pointer,
+ window=window,
+ snapshot_date=snapshot_date,
+ previous_serving=serving,
+ incumbents=set(serving["models"]),
+ runs=dict(RUNS),
+ )
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=message):
+ release.verify_frozen(**arguments)
+
+
+@functools.cache
+def _manifest_text() -> str:
+ return base_blob(SNAPSHOT_DIR / "manifest.json").decode()
+
+
+def manifest_leaves(value, path=()):
+ if isinstance(value, dict) and value:
+ for key, item in value.items():
+ yield from manifest_leaves(item, (*path, key))
+ elif isinstance(value, list) and value:
+ for index, item in enumerate(value):
+ yield from manifest_leaves(item, (*path, index))
+ else:
+ yield path
+
+
+@functools.cache
+def _leaves() -> tuple:
+ return tuple(manifest_leaves(json.loads(_manifest_text())))
+
+
+def _set(value, path, new):
+ for part in path[:-1]:
+ value = value[part]
+ value[path[-1]] = new
+
+
+def _allowed(path) -> bool:
+ return path not in release.MANIFEST_PINNED and any(
+ path[: len(prefix)] == prefix for prefix in release.MANIFEST_CHANGES
+ )
+
+
+@examples(300)
+@given(picks=st.sets(st.integers(min_value=0, max_value=10**6), max_size=6))
+def test_the_frozen_manifest_changes_only_where_the_release_may(picks):
+ """For any set of changed leaves of release 20261013b's manifest, the
+ problems are exactly the changed leaves outside the release's paths or at
+ a pinned reference, each once."""
+ leaves = _leaves()
+ before = json.loads(_manifest_text())
+ after = copy.deepcopy(before)
+ changed = {leaves[pick % len(leaves)] for pick in picks}
+ for index, path in enumerate(sorted(changed, key=repr)):
+ _set(after, path, ["changed", index])
+ problems = release.manifest_problems(before, after)
+ assert len(problems) == len(set(problems))
+ assert set(problems) == {path for path in changed if not _allowed(path)}
+
+
+def test_the_manifest_paths_the_release_may_change():
+ before = json.loads(_manifest_text())
+ files = ("source_run_artifacts", RUN, "files")
+ allowed = [
+ ("scope", "models"),
+ ("snapshot_date",),
+ ("model_response_date",),
+ ("reference_exclusions", "outputs"),
+ (*files, EXCLUSIONS),
+ (*files, "data.json.gz"),
+ ("audit_annotation_artifacts", "files", ADJUDICATIONS),
+ ]
+ refused = [
+ ("scope", "households"),
+ ("population_weight_artifact", "sha256"),
+ ("committed_snapshot_artifacts", "us_reference_outputs.csv"),
+ ("source_run_artifacts", RUN, "prompt_payload_sha256"),
+ *((*files, name) for name in release.PINNED_REFERENCES),
+ ("audit_annotation_artifacts", "files", EXPLANATIONS),
+ ]
+ for path in allowed + refused:
+ after = copy.deepcopy(before)
+ _set(after, path, "changed")
+ expected = [] if path in allowed else [path]
+ assert release.manifest_problems(before, after) == expected, path
+ after = copy.deepcopy(before)
+ after["a_new_block"] = {}
+ assert release.manifest_problems(before, after) == [("a_new_block",)]
+
+
+# --- The version list --------------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+def head_versions() -> dict:
+ return json.loads(base_blob(Path(release.VERSIONS)))
+
+
+def test_the_version_description_counts_the_releases_exclusions():
+ versions = head_versions()
+ out = release.release_versions(versions, release_exclusions(), "2026-10-09")
+ live, before = _live_version(out), _live_version(versions)
+ # The record is release 20261013b's, so only the model count moves.
+ assert live["description"] == (
+ before["description"].replace(" - 48 models", " - 50 models")
+ )
+ assert live["snapshotLabel"] == "Snapshot 2026-10-09"
+ assert {
+ k: v for k, v in live.items() if k not in ("description", "snapshotLabel")
+ } == {k: v for k, v in before.items() if k not in ("description", "snapshotLabel")}
+
+
+@examples(100)
+@given(
+ day=st.dates(
+ min_value=datetime.date(2026, 1, 1), max_value=datetime.date(2030, 12, 31)
+ ),
+ drop=st.integers(min_value=0, max_value=48),
+)
+def test_release_versions_changes_nothing_when_applied_twice(day, drop):
+ """For any snapshot date and any record of both engines, the second
+ application changes nothing, and only the live version's description and
+ label differ from the input."""
+ records = release_exclusions()
+ records = records[:drop] + records[drop + 1 :]
+ versions = head_versions()
+ once = release.release_versions(versions, records, day.isoformat())
+ assert release.release_versions(once, records, day.isoformat()) == once
+ assert versions == head_versions()
+ for got, had in zip(once["versions"], versions["versions"], strict=True):
+ if had["id"] == versions["default"]:
+ assert got["snapshotLabel"] == f"Snapshot {day.isoformat()}"
+ assert got["description"].endswith(" - 50 models")
+ assert f"the {len(records)} excluded outputs" in got["description"]
+ got = {**got, "description": None, "snapshotLabel": None}
+ had = {**had, "description": None, "snapshotLabel": None}
+ assert got == had
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("defect", ["default", "pointer", "engine", "shape"])
+def test_release_versions_refuses_an_unexpected_version_list(defect):
+ versions = head_versions()
+ records = release_exclusions()
+ live = _live_version(versions)
+ message = "The default version is not the one live-pointer version"
+ if defect == "default":
+ versions["default"] = "9.9"
+ elif defect == "pointer":
+ live["artifact"] = {"tag": "dashboard-data-20261013b"}
+ elif defect == "engine":
+ records = [*records, {**records[0], "engine_version": "policyengine-us 3"}]
+ message = "counts exclusions decided on"
+ else:
+ live["description"] = live["description"].replace(" - 48 models", "")
+ message = "unexpected model-count shape"
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=message):
+ release.release_versions(versions, records, "2026-10-09")
+
+
+def test_the_pointer_names_the_release_asset(tmp_path):
+ payload = tmp_path / "data-board50.json"
+ payload.write_text('{"countries": {}}')
+ tag = driver.RELEASE_TAG
+ pointer = release.release_pointer(tag, payload, "a" * 64)
+ assert pointer == {
+ "version": 1,
+ "repo": "PolicyEngine/policybench",
+ "tag": tag,
+ "asset": "dashboard-data.json",
+ "url": (
+ "https://github.com/PolicyEngine/policybench/releases/download/"
+ f"{tag}/dashboard-data.json"
+ ),
+ "sha256": "a" * 64,
+ "bytes": len('{"countries": {}}'),
+ }
+
+
+# --- Serving -----------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+def base_serving() -> dict:
+ return json.loads(base_blob(SNAPSHOT_DIR / "model_serving_config.json"))
+
+
+def _freezers_serving(tmp_path) -> dict:
+ path = tmp_path / "serving.json"
+ _serving_from_the_registry(path)
+ return json.loads(path.read_text())
+
+
+def test_merge_serving_keeps_each_incumbent_row_and_names_the_run(tmp_path):
+ previous = base_serving()
+ incumbents = set(previous["models"])
+ merged = release.merge_serving(
+ _freezers_serving(tmp_path), previous, incumbents, RUNS
+ )
+ assert release.serving_problems(merged, previous, incumbents, RUNS) == []
+ assert {m: merged["models"][m] for m in incumbents} == previous["models"]
+ assert merged["models"][NEW]["evidence"]["run"] == RUNS[SLUG]
+
+
+@examples(100)
+@given(
+ pick=st.integers(min_value=0, max_value=45),
+ field=st.sampled_from(["request_timeout_seconds", "evidence", "x_new"]),
+ value=JSON_VALUES,
+)
+def test_an_incumbent_serving_row_that_changes_is_refused(tmp_path, pick, field, value):
+ """Whatever the freezer wrote for an incumbent, the merge restores release
+ 20261013b's row; and any change to a merged incumbent row is reported."""
+ previous = base_serving()
+ incumbents = set(previous["models"])
+ model = sorted(incumbents)[pick]
+ serving = _freezers_serving(tmp_path)
+ serving["models"][model][field] = value
+ merged = release.merge_serving(serving, previous, incumbents, RUNS)
+ assert merged["models"][model] == previous["models"][model]
+ edited = copy.deepcopy(merged)
+ edited["models"][model] = {**merged["models"][model], "x_edit": [value]}
+ problems = release.serving_problems(edited, previous, incumbents, RUNS)
+ assert problems == [f"{model} is not release 20261013b's row"]
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("defect", ["registry", "other_run", "summary", "roster"])
+def test_the_new_rows_serving_evidence_must_name_its_run(tmp_path, defect):
+ previous = base_serving()
+ incumbents = set(previous["models"])
+ merged = release.merge_serving(
+ _freezers_serving(tmp_path), previous, incumbents, RUNS
+ )
+ if defect == "registry":
+ merged["models"][NEW]["evidence"] = {"kind": "registry"}
+ message = "has no run-state evidence"
+ elif defect == "other_run":
+ merged["models"][NEW]["evidence"]["run"] = "adds202609/argon"
+ message = "evidence names run 'adds202609/argon'"
+ elif defect == "summary":
+ merged["evidence_summary"]["run_state"] += 1
+ message = "is not the rows' tally"
+ else:
+ del merged["models"][INCUMBENT]
+ message = "roster differs"
+ problems = release.serving_problems(merged, previous, incumbents, RUNS)
+ assert any(message in problem for problem in problems), problems
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="Missing frozen run-state evidence"):
+ serving = _freezers_serving(tmp_path)
+ serving["models"][NEW]["evidence"] = {"kind": "registry"}
+ release.merge_serving(serving, previous, incumbents, RUNS)
+
+
+def test_the_new_models_evidence_names_the_pinned_run():
+ assert release.evidence_runs() == RUNS
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+ "run",
+ [None, "argon/run", "argon-runs/muse/run", "a/argon/run/x"],
+)
+def test_evidence_runs_refuses_pins_that_name_no_supervised_run(monkeypatch, run):
+ record = {"inputs": {SLUG: {"run": run}}}
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "head_blob", lambda path: json.dumps(record).encode())
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="does not name the supervised run"):
+ release.evidence_runs()
+
+
+def test_the_freeze_reads_20261013b_predictions_and_serving_from_git(monkeypatch):
+ import gzip
+
+ blobs = {}
+
+ def blob(path):
+ blobs[str(path)] = True
+ if path.name == "predictions.csv.gz":
+ return gzip.compress(b"model,scenario_id,variable,prediction\nm,s,v,1\n")
+ return json.dumps({"models": {"m": {}}}).encode()
+
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "base_commit_blob", blob)
+ assert list(release.base_prediction_rows().model) == ["m"]
+ assert release.base_serving_config() == {"models": {"m": {}}}
+ assert blobs == {
+ f"paper/snapshot/20260501/runs/{RUN}/predictions.csv.gz": True,
+ "paper/snapshot/20260501/model_serving_config.json": True,
+ }
+
+
+# --- The freezer's destinations ------------------------------------------------
+
+
+def test_the_freezer_must_write_into_this_checkout(tmp_path, monkeypatch):
+ workspace = tmp_path / "workspace"
+ point_freeze_at(workspace, monkeypatch)
+ release.verify_freezer_destinations(freezer)
+ monkeypatch.setattr(freezer, "RUN_DEST", tmp_path / "elsewhere")
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="would write outside this checkout"):
+ release.verify_freezer_destinations(freezer)
+ monkeypatch.setattr(freezer, "RUN_DEST", workspace / FROZEN_RUN)
+ monkeypatch.setattr(freezer, "RUN_LABEL", "another_run")
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="another_run"):
+ release.verify_freezer_destinations(freezer)
+
+
+def test_the_freezer_is_this_checkouts():
+ release.verify_freezer_destinations(freezer)
+
+
+def test_the_stage_must_be_inside_this_checkout(tmp_path, monkeypatch):
+ point_freeze_at(tmp_path / "workspace", monkeypatch)
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit):
+ release.main(["--stage-dir", str(tmp_path / "stage"), "--dry-run"])
+
+
+# --- References --------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+@pytest.fixture
+def references(tmp_path):
+ """The staged references (the release's exclusion record), the committed
+ copies and the manifest release 20261013b committed, from git."""
+ staged = pinned_references(tmp_path / "staged")
+ frozen = base_references(tmp_path / "frozen")
+ manifest = json.loads(base_blob(SNAPSHOT_DIR / "manifest.json"))
+ return staged, frozen, manifest, sha(staged / EXCLUSIONS)
+
+
+def test_unchanged_references_pass(references):
+ release.verify_references(*references)
+
+
+def test_a_second_freeze_finds_this_releases_exclusion_record(references):
+ staged, frozen, manifest, exclusions = references
+ shutil.copyfile(staged / EXCLUSIONS, frozen / EXCLUSIONS)
+ manifest["source_run_artifacts"][RUN]["files"][EXCLUSIONS] = exclusions
+ release.verify_references(staged, frozen, manifest, exclusions)
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("name", release.PINNED_REFERENCES)
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("where", ["Staged", "Committed", "Manifest pin"])
+def test_any_reference_value_revision_is_refused(references, name, where):
+ staged, frozen, manifest, exclusions = references
+ if where == "Staged":
+ (staged / name).write_bytes((staged / name).read_bytes() + b"\n")
+ elif where == "Committed":
+ (frozen / name).write_bytes((frozen / name).read_bytes() + b"\n")
+ else:
+ manifest["source_run_artifacts"][RUN]["files"][name] = "0" * 64
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=f"{where} (for )?{name}"):
+ release.verify_references(staged, frozen, manifest, exclusions)
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("where", ["Staged", "Committed", "Manifest pin"])
+def test_the_exclusion_record_is_release_20261013bs_or_this_releases(references, where):
+ staged, frozen, manifest, exclusions = references
+ edited = release_exclusions_text().replace('"decided_by"', '"decided_by" ', 1)
+ if where == "Staged":
+ (staged / EXCLUSIONS).write_text(edited)
+ message = "Staged reference_exclusions.json changed: it is not the release"
+ elif where == "Committed":
+ (frozen / EXCLUSIONS).write_text(edited)
+ message = "Committed reference_exclusions.json changed: it is neither"
+ else:
+ manifest["source_run_artifacts"][RUN]["files"][EXCLUSIONS] = "0" * 64
+ message = "Manifest pin for reference_exclusions.json is neither"
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=message):
+ release.verify_references(staged, frozen, manifest, exclusions)
+
+
+def test_the_staged_explanations_must_be_release_20261013bs(tmp_path):
+ annotations = tmp_path / "annotations"
+ annotations.mkdir()
+ path = annotations / EXPLANATIONS
+ path.write_bytes(base_blob(ANNOTATIONS_DIR / EXPLANATIONS))
+ release.verify_explanations(annotations)
+ path.write_bytes(path.read_bytes() + b"\n")
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="rewords no reference explanation"):
+ release.verify_explanations(annotations)
+ path.unlink()
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="rewords no reference explanation"):
+ release.verify_explanations(annotations)
+
+
+# --- Adjudications -------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+@pytest.fixture
+def ruled(tmp_path):
+ """The record adjudicate-exclusions writes on release 20261013b's (from git
+ at BASE_COMMIT), its new ruled cases' bound verdicts, and the release's
+ references: the baseline every staged record is checked against."""
+ cases = tmp_path / "cases"
+ write_ruled_verdicts(cases)
+ record = ruled_record(cases)
+ staged = tmp_path / ADJUDICATIONS
+ staged.write_text(driver.record_text(record))
+ source_us = pinned_references(tmp_path / "us")
+ return types.SimpleNamespace(
+ staged=staged, record=record, cases=cases, source_us=source_us
+ )
+
+
+def _write(path, record):
+ path.write_text(driver.record_text(record))
+
+
+def _case(entry):
+ return f"{entry['country']}__{entry['scenario_id']}__{entry['variable']}"
+
+
+def _ruled_cases() -> set[str]:
+ return {
+ case_dir_name(*driver.spec_key(item))
+ for item in release_spec()["adjudications"]
+ }
+
+
+def _unruled(record: dict) -> list[dict]:
+ return [e for e in record["adjudications"] if _case(e) not in _ruled_cases()]
+
+
+def _verify(ruled, rejudged=frozenset(), amendments=()):
+ return release.verify_adjudication_record(
+ ruled.staged,
+ ruled.source_us,
+ frozenset(rejudged),
+ list(amendments),
+ ruled.cases,
+ )
+
+
+def test_the_staged_record_passes_the_record_gate(ruled):
+ """The spec rules nothing: the record adjudicate-exclusions writes is
+ release 20261013b's, byte for byte, and it excludes the release's 49."""
+ assert ruled.staged.read_bytes() == base_blob(ADJUDICATIONS_PATH)
+ assert _verify(ruled) == 0
+ from policybench.adjudications import excluded_case_keys, load_adjudications
+
+ assert len(excluded_case_keys(load_adjudications(ruled.staged))) == 49
+
+
+def test_the_record_must_exclude_what_the_staged_record_lists(ruled):
+ """With an exclusion record staged that lists one output fewer, the
+ recorded decisions exclude an output the record does not."""
+ doc = json.loads(release_exclusions_text())
+ doc["exclusions"].pop()
+ pinned_references(ruled.source_us, exclusions=driver.exclusions_text(doc))
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="disagree on the excluded outputs"):
+ _verify(ruled)
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("flagged", [False, True])
+def test_a_decision_the_spec_does_not_list_is_refused(ruled, flagged):
+ """Only the spec's triage decisions may be new. A hand-written decision
+ that keeps an output scored is refused even on a re-opened case whose
+ current verdict it names, so it cannot bypass the triage gates (here, an
+ affirmation of an unflagged reference)."""
+ record = ruled.record
+ scored = next(
+ e
+ for e in _unruled(record)
+ if not e.get("excluded_from_scoring") and e["judge_model"] == driver.JUDGE_MODEL
+ )
+ added = {
+ **copy.deepcopy(scored),
+ "scenario_id": "scenario_999",
+ "judge_reference_suspect": flagged,
+ "reference_verdict": "affirmed",
+ "reference_basis": "MOCK",
+ }
+ added.pop("judge_previous", None)
+ added.pop("judge_rejudged_on", None)
+ record["adjudications"].append(added)
+ _write(ruled.staged, record)
+ _bind_current_verdict(ruled.cases, added)
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="decisions the spec does not list"):
+ _verify(ruled, rejudged={_case(added)})
+ # A decision on a case no new model re-opened is refused first.
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="no new model re-opened"):
+ _verify(ruled)
+
+
+def _bind_triage_verdicts(cases: Path) -> None:
+ """A bound Opus 5.5 verdict for each of the spec's triage cases: flagged
+ where the decision affirms the reference, and otherwise unflagged with a
+ row the judge called later law."""
+ for item in release_spec()["triage_adjudications"]:
+ case = cases / case_dir_name(*driver.spec_key(item))
+ case.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
+ affirms = item["reference_verdict"] == "affirmed"
+ verdict = {
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": item["adjudicated_failure_subtype"],
+ "models": [
+ {
+ "model": "MOCK",
+ "failure_source": "llm_error" if affirms else "reference_later_law",
+ "failure_subtype": "other",
+ }
+ ],
+ "reference_suspect": affirms,
+ }
+ (case / "verdict.json").write_text(json.dumps(verdict))
+ (case / "verdict.meta.json").write_text(
+ json.dumps(
+ {
+ "verdict_sha256": sha(case / "verdict.json"),
+ "judge_model_requested": driver.JUDGE_MODEL,
+ "judge_model_reported": [driver.JUDGE_MODEL],
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-13T19:00:00+00:00",
+ }
+ )
+ )
+
+
+@pytest.fixture
+def triaged(ruled, spec):
+ """The staged record with the spec's two triage decisions, as
+ adjudicate-exclusions writes it, and the two cases re-opened."""
+ spec["triage_adjudications"] = release_spec()["triage_adjudications"]
+ _bind_triage_verdicts(ruled.cases)
+ record = driver.exclusion_adjudications(
+ driver.base_adjudication_record(),
+ ruled.cases,
+ triage=driver.triage_items(None),
+ )
+ _write(ruled.staged, record)
+ rejudged = frozenset(
+ case_dir_name(*driver.spec_key(item)) for item in spec["triage_adjudications"]
+ )
+ return ruled, record, rejudged
+
+
+def test_the_record_gate_accepts_the_spec_triage_decisions(triaged):
+ """Release 20261013b's 61 decisions and the two triage decisions, the
+ date conventions naming their wave; neither excludes an output, so the
+ record still excludes the release's 49, and the gate counts no decision
+ beyond the ones the spec makes."""
+ from policybench.adjudications import excluded_case_keys, load_adjudications
+
+ ruled, record, rejudged = triaged
+ assert len(record["adjudications"]) == 63
+ assert [e["adjudicated_on"] for e in record["adjudications"][-2:]] == [
+ "2026-10-14"
+ ] * 2
+ assert "2026-10-10 or 2026-10-14)" in record["date_conventions"]
+ assert _verify(ruled, rejudged=rejudged) == 0
+ assert len(excluded_case_keys(load_adjudications(ruled.staged))) == 49
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+ "defect, message",
+ [
+ ("reasoning", "differs from the triage decision's entry"),
+ ("drop_entry", "no staged triage decision"),
+ ("no_wave", "only entries may change"),
+ ("not_reopened", "did not re-open"),
+ ],
+)
+def test_the_record_gate_refuses_triage_decisions_other_than_the_spec(
+ triaged, defect, message
+):
+ ruled, record, rejudged = triaged
+ if defect == "reasoning":
+ record["adjudications"][-1]["reasoning"] += " Edited."
+ elif defect == "drop_entry":
+ record["adjudications"].pop()
+ elif defect == "no_wave":
+ record["date_conventions"] = driver.base_adjudication_record()[
+ "date_conventions"
+ ]
+ else:
+ rejudged = frozenset(sorted(rejudged)[:1])
+ _write(ruled.staged, record)
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=message):
+ _verify(ruled, rejudged=rejudged)
+
+
+def _restated(entry, day="2026-10-08"):
+ from restate_gpt61sol_adjudications import named_item
+
+ return {
+ **entry,
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
+ "judge_rejudged_on": day,
+ "judge_previous": [*entry.get("judge_previous", []), named_item(entry)],
+ **({"judged_on_utc": day} if "judged_on_utc" in entry else {}),
+ }
+
+
+def _bind_current_verdict(cases: Path, entry: dict) -> None:
+ case = cases / _case(entry)
+ case.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
+ verdict = case / "verdict.json"
+ verdict.write_text('{"case_failure_source": "llm_error"}')
+ (case / "verdict.meta.json").write_text(
+ json.dumps(
+ {
+ "verdict_sha256": sha(verdict),
+ "judge_model_requested": driver.JUDGE_MODEL,
+ "judge_model_reported": [driver.JUDGE_MODEL],
+ "judged_at_utc": "2026-10-08T05:10:00+00:00",
+ }
+ )
+ )
+
+
+def test_a_rejudged_case_may_be_restated(ruled):
+ record = ruled.record
+ entry = next(e for e in _unruled(record) if e["judge_model"] == driver.JUDGE_MODEL)
+ index = record["adjudications"].index(entry)
+ record["adjudications"][index] = _restated(entry)
+ _bind_current_verdict(ruled.cases, entry)
+ _write(ruled.staged, record)
+ assert _verify(ruled, rejudged={_case(entry)}) == 0
+ # Not re-opened, the same restatement is a rewrite.
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="change recorded decisions"):
+ _verify(ruled)
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+ "edit",
+ ["judge_class", "decision_class", "reasoning", "decision_order", "entry_order"],
+)
+def test_a_rewrite_of_an_incumbent_only_case_is_refused(ruled, edit):
+ """No field of a case Gemini 4 Argon did not re-open may change, key
+ order and entry order included; a re-opened case may change its judge
+ fields only."""
+ record = ruled.record
+ entries = record["adjudications"]
+ first, second = _unruled(record)[:2]
+ i, j = entries.index(first), entries.index(second)
+ rejudged = set()
+ if edit == "judge_class":
+ first["judge_failure_subtype"] = "thresholds_rates"
+ elif edit == "decision_class":
+ first["adjudicated_failure_subtype"] = "other"
+ rejudged = {_case(first)}
+ elif edit == "reasoning":
+ first["reasoning"] += " Restated."
+ rejudged = {_case(first)}
+ elif edit == "decision_order":
+ entries[i] = dict(reversed(list(first.items())))
+ rejudged = {_case(first)}
+ else:
+ entries[i], entries[j] = entries[j], entries[i]
+ _write(ruled.staged, record)
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="change recorded decisions|entry order"):
+ _verify(ruled, rejudged=rejudged)
+
+
+def test_a_dropped_decision_is_refused(ruled):
+ record = ruled.record
+ record["adjudications"].remove(_unruled(record)[-1])
+ _write(ruled.staged, record)
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="drop recorded decisions"):
+ _verify(ruled)
+
+
+def test_a_new_exclusion_is_refused(ruled):
+ record = ruled.record
+ excluded = next(e for e in _unruled(record) if e.get("excluded_from_scoring"))
+ added = {
+ **copy.deepcopy(excluded),
+ "scenario_id": "scenario_999",
+ "judge_model": driver.JUDGE_MODEL,
+ }
+ record["adjudications"].append(added)
+ _write(ruled.staged, record)
+ _bind_current_verdict(ruled.cases, added)
+ # The spec lists no such decision, so the record gate refuses it before
+ # the exclusion records are compared.
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="decisions the spec does not list"):
+ _verify(ruled, rejudged={_case(added)})
+
+
+def test_the_committed_base_record_is_in_the_committed_form():
+ text = base_blob(ADJUDICATIONS_PATH).decode()
+ assert text == driver.record_text(json.loads(text))
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+ "defect",
+ ["duplicate_key", "note", "conventions", "compact", "named_wave", "wave_twice"],
+)
+def test_bytes_the_entry_gate_cannot_see_are_refused(ruled, spec, defect):
+ """A duplicate key hides text a parser drops; the note and conventions are
+ outside the entries; a record in another layout could hide either; and
+ the conventions name no wave this release does not add, and release
+ 20261013b's last wave exactly once."""
+ record = ruled.record
+ text = driver.record_text(record)
+ base = driver.base_adjudication_record()
+ if defect == "duplicate_key":
+ text = text.replace(
+ '"adjudicator": "developer"',
+ '"adjudicator": "SMUGGLED", "adjudicator": "developer"',
+ 1,
+ )
+ elif defect == "note":
+ record["note"] = "Rewritten."
+ text = driver.record_text(record)
+ elif defect == "conventions":
+ record["date_conventions"] = {}
+ text = driver.record_text(record)
+ elif defect == "compact":
+ text = json.dumps(record)
+ elif defect == "named_wave":
+ # A wave this release does not decide (MOCK day): the conventions may
+ # not name it, and only an engine upgrade could add one.
+ spec["upgrade_adjudications_written_on"] = "2026-10-14"
+ record["date_conventions"] = driver.release_date_conventions(
+ base["date_conventions"],
+ driver.DecisionWave("2026-10-14", excludes=True, affirms=False),
+ )
+ assert record["date_conventions"] != base["date_conventions"]
+ text = driver.record_text(record)
+ else:
+ last = (
+ "The 2026-10-10 wave's decisions exclude the outputs the references' "
+ "engine upgrade moved onto an input the prompt does not state, and "
+ "were written on 2026-10-10 UTC."
+ )
+ assert base["date_conventions"].count(last) == 1
+ record["date_conventions"] = base["date_conventions"].replace(
+ last, f"{last} {last}"
+ )
+ text = driver.record_text(record)
+ ruled.staged.write_text(text)
+ with pytest.raises(
+ SystemExit, match="committed form|only entries may change|not release 20261013b"
+ ):
+ _verify(ruled)
+
+
+@pytest.fixture
+def restated(tmp_path):
+ """A re-opened entry restated as the restate script does, with its verdict."""
+ base = driver.base_adjudications()
+ entry = next(
+ e
+ for e in base
+ if e["judge_model"] == driver.JUDGE_MODEL
+ and e.get("judge_previous")
+ and _case(e) not in _ruled_cases()
+ )
+ cases = tmp_path / "cases"
+ _bind_current_verdict(cases, entry)
+ staged = [_restated(e) if e is entry else e for e in base]
+ index = next(i for i, e in enumerate(staged) if _case(e) == _case(entry))
+ return base, staged, frozenset({_case(entry)}), cases, index
+
+
+def test_a_restated_entry_passes_the_restatement_check(restated):
+ base, staged, rejudged, cases, _ = restated
+ driver.verify_restatements(base, staged, rejudged, cases)
+
+
+# Each rewrites the appended item: the verdict the re-judge replaced must stay
+# the one 20261013b's entry names, as its seed sidecar records it.
+APPENDED_ITEM_TAMPERS = {
+ "appended_judged_on": {"judged_on": "2026-09-28"},
+ "appended_class": {"judge_failure_source": "reference_error"},
+ "appended_subtype": {"judge_failure_subtype": "other"},
+ "appended_flag": {"judge_reference_suspect": "yes"},
+ "appended_judge": {"judge_model": "claude-opus-5"},
+ "appended_flag_source": {"judge_reference_suspect_source": "a-human-typed-this"},
+}
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+ "tamper",
+ [
+ "judge_model",
+ "emptied_history",
+ "two_items",
+ "rewritten_history",
+ "day",
+ *APPENDED_ITEM_TAMPERS,
+ ],
+)
+def test_judge_fields_written_by_hand_are_refused(restated, tamper):
+ base, staged, rejudged, cases, index = restated
+ entry = copy.deepcopy(staged[index])
+ if tamper == "judge_model":
+ entry["judge_model"] = "a-human-typed-this"
+ elif tamper == "emptied_history":
+ entry["judge_previous"] = []
+ elif tamper == "two_items":
+ entry["judge_previous"] = entry["judge_previous"] + entry["judge_previous"][-1:]
+ elif tamper == "rewritten_history":
+ entry["judge_previous"][0] = {**entry["judge_previous"][0], "judged_on": "1999"}
+ elif tamper in APPENDED_ITEM_TAMPERS:
+ appended = entry["judge_previous"][-1]
+ edit = APPENDED_ITEM_TAMPERS[tamper]
+ assert all(appended.get(k) != v for k, v in edit.items())
+ entry["judge_previous"][-1] = {**appended, **edit}
+ else:
+ entry["judge_rejudged_on"] = "1999-01-01"
+ staged[index] = entry
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="not restated by the restate script"):
+ driver.verify_restatements(base, staged, rejudged, cases)
+
+
+@pytest.fixture(scope="module")
+def ruled_cases(tmp_path_factory):
+ cases = tmp_path_factory.mktemp("ruled") / "cases"
+ write_ruled_verdicts(cases)
+ return cases
+
+
+@functools.cache
+def _gate_baseline(cases: Path) -> tuple[str, str, tuple[int, ...]]:
+ """Release 20261013b's entries and the ruled record's, and the indices of
+ the ruled record's entries outside the ruled outputs (all of them: the
+ spec rules none)."""
+ from policybench.adjudications import parse_adjudications
+
+ staged = parse_adjudications(ruled_record(cases), "ruled")
+ outside = tuple(
+ index for index, e in enumerate(staged) if _case(e) not in _ruled_cases()
+ )
+ return json.dumps(driver.base_adjudications()), json.dumps(staged), outside
+
+
+@examples(200)
+@given(
+ pick_entry=st.integers(min_value=0, max_value=10**6),
+ pick=st.integers(min_value=0, max_value=10**6),
+ mutation=st.sampled_from(
+ ["value", "delete", "add_decision_key", "add_judge_key", "swap_decisions"]
+ ),
+ reopened=st.booleans(),
+)
+def test_the_gate_allows_exactly_the_judge_fields_of_reopened_cases(
+ ruled_cases, pick_entry, pick, mutation, reopened
+):
+ """For every entry outside the ruled ones (all) and every kind of single
+ change: a change to a judge field passes only where the case is
+ re-opened; any other change fails."""
+ from restate_gpt61sol_adjudications import JUDGE_FIELDS
+
+ base_text, staged_text, outside = _gate_baseline(ruled_cases)
+ base, staged = json.loads(base_text), json.loads(staged_text)
+ index = outside[pick_entry % len(outside)]
+ entry = staged[index]
+ keys = list(entry)
+ judge = mutation == "add_judge_key"
+ if mutation in ("value", "delete"):
+ key = keys[pick % len(keys)]
+ judge = key in JUDGE_FIELDS
+ if key in ("country", "scenario_id", "variable"):
+ return # a different case key is a dropped plus an added entry
+ if mutation == "delete":
+ del entry[key]
+ else:
+ entry[key] = [entry[key], "mutated"]
+ elif mutation == "add_decision_key":
+ entry["x_extra"] = "added"
+ elif mutation == "add_judge_key":
+ if "judged_on_utc" in entry:
+ del entry["judged_on_utc"]
+ else:
+ entry["judged_on_utc"] = "2026-10-08"
+ else:
+ decisions = [k for k in keys if k not in JUDGE_FIELDS]
+ first = decisions[pick % (len(decisions) - 1)]
+ second = decisions[decisions.index(first) + 1]
+ items = list(entry.items())
+ i, j = keys.index(first), keys.index(second)
+ items[i], items[j] = items[j], items[i]
+ staged[index] = entry = dict(items)
+ rejudged = frozenset({_case(entry)}) if reopened else frozenset()
+ if reopened and judge:
+ assert (
+ driver.verify_adjudication_changes(base, staged, rejudged, [], ruled_cases)
+ == 0
+ )
+ else:
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="change recorded decisions"):
+ driver.verify_adjudication_changes(base, staged, rejudged, [], ruled_cases)
+
+
+# --- Wording amendments ----------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+def _amendment(entry, old, new, field="reasoning", **extra):
+ return {
+ "case_id": _case(entry),
+ "field": field,
+ "old": old,
+ "new": new,
+ "reason": "The re-judge replaced the verdict this sentence describes.",
+ **extra,
+ }
+
+
+def test_a_listed_wording_amendment_is_allowed_and_nothing_else(ruled):
+ record = ruled.record
+ entry = _unruled(record)[0]
+ old = entry["reasoning"].split(". ")[0]
+ amendment = _amendment(entry, old, old + ", as restated")
+ original = copy.deepcopy(record)
+ entry["reasoning"] = entry["reasoning"].replace(old, old + ", as restated")
+ _write(ruled.staged, record)
+ assert _verify(ruled, {_case(entry)}, [amendment]) == 0
+ # Unlisted, the same change is refused.
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="change recorded decisions"):
+ _verify(ruled, {_case(entry)})
+ # Listed but not applied, it is refused too: the list is exact.
+ _write(ruled.staged, original)
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="change recorded decisions"):
+ _verify(ruled, {_case(entry)}, [amendment])
+ # Any other change beside it is still refused.
+ entry["adjudicated_on"] = "2026-10-06"
+ _write(ruled.staged, record)
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="change recorded decisions"):
+ _verify(ruled, {_case(entry)}, [amendment])
+
+
+def test_an_amendment_must_find_its_old_text_exactly_once(ruled):
+ entry = _unruled(ruled.record)[0]
+ for old in ("no such wording", " "):
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="occurs"):
+ _verify(ruled, {_case(entry)}, [_amendment(entry, old, "x")])
+
+
+@pytest.fixture
+def amendment_stage(tmp_path):
+ entry = driver.base_adjudications()[0]
+ stage = tmp_path / "stage"
+ stage.mkdir()
+ (stage / driver.PROMPT_CHANGES).write_text(
+ json.dumps({"added": [], "changed": [_case(entry)], "kept": []})
+ )
+
+ def write(*items):
+ (stage / driver.AMENDMENTS).write_text(json.dumps({"amendments": items}))
+ return driver.load_amendments(stage, frozenset({_case(entry)}))
+
+ return entry, write
+
+
+def test_load_amendments_accepts_wording_of_rejudged_cases(amendment_stage):
+ entry, write = amendment_stage
+ items = [
+ _amendment(entry, "a", "b"),
+ _amendment(entry, "a", "b", field="case_annotation"),
+ _amendment(entry, "a", "b", field="annotation", model=NEW),
+ ]
+ assert write(*items) == items
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+ "defect, message",
+ [
+ ({"field": "adjudicated_failure_source"}, "not wording"),
+ ({"field": "excluded_from_scoring"}, "not wording"),
+ ({"field": "judge_failure_source"}, "not wording"),
+ ({"case_id": "us__scenario_999__snap"}, "not re-judged"),
+ ({"reason": " "}, "reason"),
+ ({"new": None}, "new"),
+ ({"old": ""}, "old"),
+ ({"new": "same", "old": "same"}, "changes nothing"),
+ ({"model": NEW}, "keys"),
+ ({"field": "annotation"}, "keys"),
+ ],
+)
+def test_load_amendments_refuses_anything_but_wording_of_rejudged_cases(
+ amendment_stage, defect, message
+):
+ entry, write = amendment_stage
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=message):
+ write({**_amendment(entry, "a", "b"), **defect})
+
+
+def test_without_a_stage_list_the_amendments_record_is_release_20261013bs(tmp_path):
+ base = base_blob(ANNOTATIONS_DIR / AMENDMENTS_RECORD)
+ assert release.committed_amendments(tmp_path) == base
+ (tmp_path / driver.AMENDMENTS).write_text(json.dumps({"amendments": []}))
+ assert release.committed_amendments(tmp_path) == base
+
+
+AMENDMENT_ITEMS = st.fixed_dictionaries(
+ {
+ "case_id": st.sampled_from(["us__scenario_001__snap", "us__scenario_002__ssi"]),
+ "field": st.sampled_from(["reasoning", "case_annotation"]),
+ "old": st.text(min_size=1, max_size=5),
+ "new": st.text(min_size=1, max_size=5),
+ "reason": st.text(min_size=1, max_size=5),
+ }
+)
+
+
+@examples(100)
+@given(
+ items=st.lists(AMENDMENT_ITEMS, min_size=1, max_size=4),
+ note=st.none() | st.text(max_size=8),
+)
+def test_a_stage_list_is_appended_to_release_20261013bs_amendments(
+ tmp_path_factory, items, note
+):
+ """The earlier amendments stay, in order, before the stage's, and the
+ note names how many are this release's; the bytes are in the committed
+ form."""
+ stage = tmp_path_factory.mktemp("amend")
+ listed = (
+ {"amendments": items} if note is None else {"note": note, "amendments": items}
+ )
+ (stage / driver.AMENDMENTS).write_text(json.dumps(listed))
+ base = json.loads(base_blob(ANNOTATIONS_DIR / AMENDMENTS_RECORD))
+ text = release.committed_amendments(stage)
+ merged = json.loads(text)
+ assert list(merged) == ["note", "amendments"]
+ assert merged["amendments"] == base["amendments"] + items
+ assert merged["note"].startswith(
+ base["note"]
+ + f" The last {len(items)} (after the first {len(base['amendments'])})"
+ )
+ if note is not None and note.strip():
+ assert merged["note"].endswith(" " + note.strip())
+ assert text == json.dumps(merged, indent=1, ensure_ascii=False).encode()
+
+
+def test_the_freeze_commits_the_appended_amendments(frozen_board, monkeypatch):
+ """A stage list, bound by the receipt, is committed after release
+ 20261013b's amendments; verify_frozen checks the frozen record is that."""
+ stage = frozen_board.stage
+ item = {
+ "case_id": KEPT,
+ "field": "case_annotation",
+ "old": "outdated",
+ "new": "prior year's",
+ "reason": "The re-judge reworded it.",
+ }
+ (stage / driver.AMENDMENTS).write_text(json.dumps({"amendments": [item]}))
+ monkeypatch.setattr(driver, "rejudged_cases", lambda stage: frozenset({KEPT}))
+ receipt = json.loads((stage / "release-ready.json").read_text())
+ receipt["files"][driver.AMENDMENTS] = sha(stage / driver.AMENDMENTS)
+ (stage / "release-ready.json").write_text(json.dumps(receipt))
+ # The kept case is now re-opened: its verdict is new, bound to its prompt,
+ # and the provenance record would list it; both gates are tested above.
+ monkeypatch.setattr(release, "verify_verdicts", lambda stage: None)
+ monkeypatch.setattr(release, "verify_judge_provenance", lambda *a: None)
+ release.main(["--stage-dir", str(stage)])
+ frozen = json.loads(
+ (release.ROOT / ANNOTATIONS_DIR / AMENDMENTS_RECORD).read_text()
+ )
+ base = json.loads(base_blob(ANNOTATIONS_DIR / AMENDMENTS_RECORD))
+ assert frozen["amendments"] == [*base["amendments"], item]
+ assert frozen_board.checked == [[item]]
+
+
+# One re-opened, decided case: its verdict's rationale and diagnoses are the
+# sources triage folds into the published case note and row annotations.
+WORDING_CASE = "us__scenario_001__snap"
+RATIONALE = "The model applied an outdated threshold."
+DIAGNOSES = {"m1": "It left out A. More.", "m2": "It used last year's threshold."}
+DECISION = {
+ "country": "us",
+ "scenario_id": "scenario_001",
+ "variable": "snap",
+ "judge_model": "claude-opus-5-5",
+ "judge_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "judge_failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
+ "adjudicated_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "adjudicated_failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
+ "adjudicated_on": "2026-10-06",
+ "adjudicator": "developer",
+ "reasoning": "The threshold is the current year's.",
+}
+
+
+def _row_amendment(old, new, model="m1"):
+ return {
+ "case_id": WORDING_CASE,
+ "field": "annotation",
+ "model": model,
+ "old": old,
+ "new": new,
+ "reason": "r",
+ }
+
+
+def _note_amendment(old, new):
+ return {
+ "case_id": WORDING_CASE,
+ "field": "case_annotation",
+ "old": old,
+ "new": new,
+ "reason": "r",
+ }
+
+
+# A later amendment rewrites words an earlier one wrote.
+CHAINED = [
+ _row_amendment("It left out A.", "It left out A, as B does."),
+ _row_amendment("as B does", "as the corrected B does"),
+ _note_amendment("an outdated", "the prior year's"),
+]
+# What triage publishes with CHAINED applied, spelled out by hand.
+PUBLISHED = {
+ "m1": "It left out A, as the corrected B does. More.",
+ "m2": DIAGNOSES["m2"],
+ "note": "The model applied the prior year's threshold."
+ + " Developer adjudication (2026-10-06): the judge (claude-opus-5-5) returned "
+ "llm_error; adjudicated llm_error (thresholds_rates). The threshold is the "
+ "current year's.",
+}
+# What triage publishes on the case with CHAINED applied when no adjudication
+# decides it: the case note is the amended rationale alone.
+UNDECIDED = {**PUBLISHED, "note": "The model applied the prior year's threshold."}
+
+
+def _wording_stage(tmp_path, published, decided=True):
+ """An audit with the case's verdict, the staged record deciding it (or,
+ with ``decided`` false, deciding nothing), and the published case note
+ and row annotations ``published`` spells, every column as triage writes
+ it: the verdict's classes, which the decision affirms, beside the text."""
+ import pandas as pd
+
+ from policybench.adjudications import adjudication_sentence
+
+ assert PUBLISHED["note"].endswith(adjudication_sentence(DECISION))
+ audit = tmp_path / "audit"
+ (audit / "cases" / WORDING_CASE).mkdir(parents=True)
+ keys = {"country": "us", "scenario_id": "scenario_001", "variable": "snap"}
+ (audit / "cases.jsonl").write_text(
+ json.dumps(
+ {
+ "case_id": WORDING_CASE,
+ "scenario_id": keys["scenario_id"],
+ "variable": keys["variable"],
+ "wrong_models": list(DIAGNOSES),
+ "parse_failure_only": False,
+ }
+ )
+ + "\n"
+ )
+ verdict = {
+ "reference_suspect": False,
+ "reference_bug_hypothesis": "",
+ "case_failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
+ "rationale": RATIONALE,
+ "models": [
+ {
+ "model": model,
+ "failure_source": "llm_error",
+ "failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates",
+ "diagnosis": diagnosis,
+ }
+ for model, diagnosis in DIAGNOSES.items()
+ ],
+ }
+ (audit / "cases" / WORDING_CASE / "verdict.json").write_text(json.dumps(verdict))
+ annotations = tmp_path / "publish" / RUN / "annotations"
+ annotations.mkdir(parents=True)
+ (annotations / ADJUDICATIONS).write_text(
+ json.dumps({"adjudications": [DECISION] if decided else []})
+ )
+ classes = {"failure_source": "llm_error", "failure_subtype": "thresholds_rates"}
+ pd.DataFrame(
+ [
+ {
+ **keys,
+ "model": model,
+ **classes,
+ "reference_suspect": False,
+ "annotation": published[model],
+ }
+ for model in DIAGNOSES
+ if model in published
+ ]
+ ).to_csv(annotations / ROWS, index=False)
+ note = {
+ **keys,
+ "wrong_model_count": len(DIAGNOSES),
+ "case_failure_sources": "llm_error",
+ "case_failure_subtypes": "thresholds_rates",
+ "reference_suspect": False,
+ "reference_bug_hypothesis": "",
+ "case_annotation": published["note"],
+ }
+ pd.DataFrame([note]).to_csv(annotations / NOTES, index=False)
+ return annotations, audit
+
+
+def test_the_freeze_replays_chained_amendments_onto_the_sources(tmp_path):
+ """Each text is rebuilt from its verdict source and the adjudication
+ sentence, the amendments replayed in order; the full result must be the
+ published text, and a text no amendment names must be its source."""
+ annotations, audit = _wording_stage(tmp_path, PUBLISHED)
+ release.verify_annotation_amendments(annotations, CHAINED, audit)
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+ "published, amendments",
+ [
+ # The listed fragment is present, beside wording nobody listed.
+ ({**PUBLISHED, "m1": PUBLISHED["m1"] + " Unlisted."}, CHAINED),
+ ({**PUBLISHED, "note": "Unlisted. " + PUBLISHED["note"]}, CHAINED),
+ # A text no amendment names, reworded.
+ ({**PUBLISHED, "m2": "It used an unlisted threshold."}, CHAINED),
+ ({**PUBLISHED, "m2": DIAGNOSES["m2"] + " Unlisted."}, CHAINED),
+ # With no amendments at all, every text is still checked.
+ ({**PUBLISHED, "m1": DIAGNOSES["m1"] + " Unlisted."}, []),
+ # A listed amendment not applied, or only half of a chain.
+ ({**PUBLISHED, "m1": DIAGNOSES["m1"]}, CHAINED),
+ ({**PUBLISHED, "m1": "It left out A, as B does. More."}, CHAINED),
+ # A published row annotation dropped.
+ ({key: text for key, text in PUBLISHED.items() if key != "m2"}, CHAINED),
+ ],
+)
+def test_the_freeze_refuses_wording_the_amendments_do_not_produce(
+ tmp_path, published, amendments
+):
+ annotations, audit = _wording_stage(tmp_path, published)
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="is not what triage builds"):
+ release.verify_annotation_amendments(annotations, amendments, audit)
+
+
+def test_each_replayed_old_text_must_occur_once_when_applied(tmp_path):
+ """The first amendment makes the second's old text occur twice."""
+ twice = [
+ _row_amendment("It left out A.", "It left out A. A."),
+ _row_amendment("A.", "B."),
+ ]
+ annotations, audit = _wording_stage(
+ tmp_path, {**PUBLISHED, "m1": "It left out B. A. More."}
+ )
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="occurs 2 times"):
+ release.verify_annotation_amendments(annotations, twice, audit)
+
+
+def test_an_undecided_case_publishes_its_verdict_sources(tmp_path):
+ annotations, audit = _wording_stage(tmp_path, UNDECIDED, decided=False)
+ release.verify_annotation_amendments(annotations, CHAINED, audit)
+
+
+# Each column triage publishes beside the wording, changed on the case: its
+# rows' classes and flag, and its note's classes, flag, count and hypothesis.
+COLUMN_EDITS = [
+ (ROWS, "failure_source", "prompt_ambiguity"),
+ (ROWS, "failure_subtype", "missing_output"),
+ (ROWS, "reference_suspect", "True"),
+ (NOTES, "case_failure_sources", "prompt_ambiguity"),
+ (NOTES, "case_failure_subtypes", "missing_output"),
+ (NOTES, "reference_suspect", "True"),
+ (NOTES, "wrong_model_count", "3"),
+ (NOTES, "reference_bug_hypothesis", "The reference is wrong."),
+]
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("decided", [False, True])
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("name, column, value", COLUMN_EDITS)
+def test_the_freeze_refuses_any_column_triage_did_not_write(
+ tmp_path, decided, name, column, value
+):
+ """The texts unchanged, any other published column that is not the
+ verdict's (or, on a decided case, the adjudication's) is refused, and
+ named by its case and column."""
+ import pandas as pd
+
+ annotations, audit = _wording_stage(
+ tmp_path, PUBLISHED if decided else UNDECIDED, decided=decided
+ )
+ frame = pd.read_csv(annotations / name, dtype=str, keep_default_na=False)
+ frame.loc[0, column] = value
+ frame.to_csv(annotations / name, index=False)
+ with pytest.raises(
+ SystemExit,
+ match=rf"{re.escape(name)} is not what triage builds.*{WORDING_CASE}\S* "
+ rf"{column}",
+ ):
+ release.verify_annotation_amendments(annotations, CHAINED, audit)
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("defect", ["dropped_column", "extra_column", "row_order"])
+def test_the_freeze_refuses_columns_or_rows_triage_did_not_write(tmp_path, defect):
+ import pandas as pd
+
+ annotations, audit = _wording_stage(tmp_path, PUBLISHED)
+ path = annotations / ROWS
+ frame = pd.read_csv(path, dtype=str, keep_default_na=False)
+ if defect == "dropped_column":
+ frame = frame.drop(columns=["failure_subtype"])
+ problem = "its columns"
+ elif defect == "extra_column":
+ frame["reviewed"] = "yes"
+ problem = "its columns"
+ else:
+ frame = frame.iloc[::-1]
+ problem = "its row order or serialization"
+ frame.to_csv(path, index=False)
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match=f"differs at.*{problem}"):
+ release.verify_annotation_amendments(annotations, CHAINED, audit)
+
+
+# --- Treatment -----------------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+def test_the_registered_treatment_matches_the_run_and_a_drift_is_refused(tmp_path):
+ state = {"model": NEW, "treatment_fingerprint": NEW_FINGERPRINT}
+ path = tmp_path / "run_state.json"
+ scenarios = driver.SNAPSHOT / "scenarios.csv"
+ release.validate_treatment(freezer, state, path, scenarios)
+ drifted = copy.deepcopy(state)
+ drifted["treatment_fingerprint"]["request_timeout_seconds"] = 600
+ with pytest.raises(SystemExit, match="disagrees with registry"):
+ release.validate_treatment(freezer, drifted, path, scenarios)
+
+
+def test_the_live_runs_fingerprint_is_the_one_these_tests_pin():
+ """(local: the stage is gitignored)"""
+ state = REPO / f"results/local/argon/stage/inputs/{SLUG}/run_state.json"
+ if not state.is_file():
+ pytest.skip("no live stage in this checkout")
+ assert json.loads(state.read_text())["treatment_fingerprint"] == NEW_FINGERPRINT
diff --git a/tests/test_held_references.py b/tests/test_held_references.py
index 1bda0e3c..3553f8df 100644
--- a/tests/test_held_references.py
+++ b/tests/test_held_references.py
@@ -1115,6 +1115,22 @@ def test_the_records_carry_their_write_up_dissent_and_open_decision():
assert (ROOT / earlier).is_file()
+def test_the_standing_list_records_the_d1252_ruling():
+ """The archived records say d1252 was not ruled when they were written;
+ the standing list carries the ruling of 2026-10-13: keep scoring both."""
+ standing = {
+ _cell(record): record
+ for record in load_held_references(
+ ROOT / "reference_audit/held_references.json"
+ )
+ }
+ for cell in (VA_039, OH_025):
+ decision = standing[cell]["open_decision"]
+ assert "d1252" in decision
+ assert "ruled on 2026-10-13: keep scoring it" in decision
+ assert "not ruled" not in decision
+
+
def test_the_standing_list_is_valid_and_agrees_with_the_write_ups_it_cites():
"""The standing list as it is today, whatever it has come to hold: every
record points at a write-up, and a record that still cites this check
diff --git a/tests/test_notes.py b/tests/test_notes.py
index aa6898ee..779fcc31 100644
--- a/tests/test_notes.py
+++ b/tests/test_notes.py
@@ -173,15 +173,20 @@ def _release_tag(root: Path) -> str:
# verdicts on the same board: no model, answer, reference or exclusion
# changed, and every payload section but the five cases' audit text is
# release 20261013's (tests/test_release_20261013b.py). The Muse Wonder
- # note's facts are therefore still recomputed from this checkout.
+ # note's facts are recomputed from release 20261013's commit
+ # (RELEASE_20261013_COMMIT).
"dashboard-data-20261013": "2026-10-13",
+ # Superseded by dashboard-data-20261014, which adds Gemini 4 Argon and
+ # Muse Spark 1.3 on the same references and exclusions. Release 20261013b
+ # has no note of its own.
+ "dashboard-data-20261013b": "2026-10-13",
}
# The frozen release's board snapshot is its manifest's snapshot date.
CURRENT_RELEASE_SNAPSHOT = json.loads((SNAPSHOT_DIR / "manifest.json").read_text())[
"snapshot_date"
]
# The commit that froze each superseded release whose notes' facts are
-# recomputed from git: the merges of #182, #187, #202 and #208.
+# recomputed from git: the merges of #182, #187, #202, #208 and #217.
RELEASE_20260929_COMMIT = "d616e67c33b6f80dabf5cb7329f069f9a1de069d"
RELEASE_20260930 = "dashboard-data-20260930"
RELEASE_20260930_COMMIT = "8b4c0ca146bb6f66deba6ce24009d49d70d92df2"
@@ -189,6 +194,8 @@ def _release_tag(root: Path) -> str:
RELEASE_20261010 = "dashboard-data-20261010"
RELEASE_20261010_COMMIT = "5a8164a001efb27fa55f47fe7ea26666a0de31f8"
RELEASE_20261013 = "dashboard-data-20261013"
+# The squash merge of #217, which froze release dashboard-data-20261013.
+RELEASE_20261013_COMMIT = "bc305793c527531e7b3573dc789a436a7bc883d5"
# Release 20261013b: release 20261013's numbers with five audit verdicts
# re-judged (scripts/release_20261013b.py).
RELEASE_20261013B = "dashboard-data-20261013b"
@@ -197,6 +204,7 @@ def _release_tag(root: Path) -> str:
"dashboard-data-20260930": RELEASE_20260930_COMMIT,
"dashboard-data-20261006": RELEASE_20261006_COMMIT,
RELEASE_20261010: RELEASE_20261010_COMMIT,
+ RELEASE_20261013: RELEASE_20261013_COMMIT,
}
@@ -5127,14 +5135,14 @@ def _release_20261013_scoring() -> dict:
exact on each (``matched``)."""
import pandas as pd
- from policybench.paper_results import PaperResults
from policybench.scorer_vectors import canonical_filtered_scores
from policybench.spec import output_group_id
- payload = _dashboard()
- reference = pd.read_csv(REFERENCES_PATH)
- excluded = _excluded_at(ROOT)
- restored = sorted(PaperResults().last_engine_upgrade.restored)
+ root = _release_root(RELEASE_20261013)
+ payload = _payload_at(root)
+ reference = pd.read_csv(_in(root, REFERENCES_PATH))
+ excluded = _excluded_at(root)
+ restored = sorted(_results_at(RELEASE_20261013).last_engine_upgrade.restored)
assert not set(restored) & excluded
predictions = pd.DataFrame(
[
@@ -5174,12 +5182,10 @@ def board(unscored: set[tuple[str, str]]) -> dict[str, float]:
def _release_20261013_facts() -> dict:
- """The Muse Wonder release note's facts, recomputed from the frozen
- release's payload, sidecar and exclusion record and from release 20261010's
- payload at its commit."""
- from policybench.paper_results import PaperResults
-
- r = PaperResults()
+ """The Muse Wonder release note's facts, recomputed from release 20261013's
+ payload, sidecar and exclusion record at its commit and from release
+ 20261010's payload at its commit."""
+ r = _results_at(RELEASE_20261013)
board = r.model_stats
by_model = {row["model"]: row for row in board}
ranks = {row["model"]: index + 1 for index, row in enumerate(board)}
@@ -5225,17 +5231,17 @@ def one(value: float) -> float:
def test_release_20261013_note() -> None:
- """The Muse Wonder release note's facts are the frozen release's,
- recomputed from its payload, sidecar and exclusion record and from release
- 20261010 at its commit; and the direction its last paragraph states (every
- earlier model's rate falls) holds. test_release_20261013_note_claims checks
- the rest of what its sentences say."""
+ """The Muse Wonder release note's facts are release 20261013's,
+ recomputed from its payload, sidecar and exclusion record at its commit
+ and from release 20261010 at its commit; and the direction its last
+ paragraph states (every earlier model's rate falls) holds.
+ test_release_20261013_note_claims checks the rest of what its sentences
+ say."""
note = _note(MUSE_NOTE)
facts = note["facts"]
- # The frozen release is the note's own or release 20261013b, whose numbers
- # are the note's release's.
+ # Releases 20261013b and 20261014 superseded the note's release.
assert note["release"] == RELEASE_20261013
- assert _frozen_release() in (RELEASE_20261013, RELEASE_20261013B)
+ assert _frozen_release() != RELEASE_20261013
assert note["boardSnapshot"] == facts["releaseDate"] == note["date"]
assert note["slug"].startswith(note["date"])
assert facts["engineVersion"] in note["title"]
@@ -5248,11 +5254,12 @@ def test_release_20261013_note_claims() -> None:
release, checked on the facts recomputed from it."""
from policybench.analysis import metric_type_for_output, row_hit_scores
from policybench.model_cards import card_for
- from policybench.paper_results import MODEL_RELEASE_DATES, PaperResults
+ from policybench.paper_results import MODEL_RELEASE_DATES
note = _note(MUSE_NOTE)
facts = _release_20261013_facts()
- r = PaperResults()
+ root = _release_root(RELEASE_20261013)
+ r = _results_at(RELEASE_20261013)
board = r.model_stats
then_payload = _payload_at(_release_root(RELEASE_20261010))
then = _no_tools_exact(then_payload)
@@ -5261,7 +5268,9 @@ def test_release_20261013_note_claims() -> None:
assert set(then) | {MUSE} == {row["model"] for row in board}
released = date.fromisoformat(MODEL_RELEASE_DATES[MUSE])
assert (date.fromisoformat(note["date"]) - released).days == 1
- serving = _load_json(SNAPSHOT_DIR / "model_serving_config.json")["models"]
+ serving = _load_json(_in(root, SNAPSHOT_DIR / "model_serving_config.json"))[
+ "models"
+ ]
meta = [
m for m, t in serving.items() if t["provider_id"].startswith("openrouter/meta/")
]
@@ -5320,10 +5329,10 @@ def test_release_20261013_note_claims() -> None:
assert not partition["new_exclusions"]
then_root = _release_root(RELEASE_20261010)
then_excluded = _excluded_at(then_root)
- assert _excluded_at(ROOT) <= then_excluded
+ assert _excluded_at(root) <= then_excluded
references = {
(row["scenario_id"], row["variable"]): row["value"]
- for row in _read_csv(REFERENCES_PATH)
+ for row in _read_csv(_in(root, REFERENCES_PATH))
}
for row in _read_csv(_in(then_root, REFERENCES_PATH)):
key = (row["scenario_id"], row["variable"])
@@ -5371,7 +5380,7 @@ def test_release_20261013_note_claims() -> None:
assert [(i["scenario_id"], i["variable"]) for i in landed] == [
("scenario_080", "snap")
]
- assert ("scenario_080", "snap") in _excluded_at(ROOT)
+ assert ("scenario_080", "snap") in _excluded_at(root)
assert (
"#10033" in landed[0]["reason"]
or "policyengine-us#10033" in (landed[0]["reason"])
@@ -5385,3 +5394,192 @@ def test_release_20261013_note_claims() -> None:
text = " ".join(note["paragraphs"])
assert "{restoredFixes}" in text
assert "newest" not in text
+
+
+# --- Release dashboard-data-20261014: Gemini 4 Argon and Muse Spark 1.3 --------
+
+(ARGON_NOTE,) = sorted(
+ path.stem for path in NOTES_DIR.glob("*-gemini-4-argon-joins-the-board.json")
+)
+ARGON = "gemini-4-argon"
+SPARK = "muse-spark-1.3"
+RELEASE_20261014 = "dashboard-data-20261014"
+PUBLICATION_CHECK = ROOT / "reference_audit/2026-10-12-engine-upgrade/verification"
+
+
+def _board_reasoning_households(model: str) -> int:
+ """How many of the frozen predictions' households returned reasoning
+ tokens for ``model``."""
+ import pandas as pd
+
+ predictions = pd.read_csv(
+ PREDICTIONS_PATH, usecols=["model", "scenario_id", "reasoning_tokens"]
+ )
+ rows = predictions[predictions["model"] == model]
+ by_household = rows.groupby("scenario_id")["reasoning_tokens"].sum()
+ return int((by_household > 0).sum())
+
+
+def _release_20261014_facts() -> dict:
+ """The Gemini 4 Argon release note's facts, recomputed from the frozen
+ release, the publication check and the model card."""
+ from policybench.paper_results import PaperResults
+
+ r = PaperResults()
+ board = r.model_stats
+ by_model = {row["model"]: row for row in board}
+ ranks = {row["model"]: index + 1 for index, row in enumerate(board)}
+ by_score = sorted(board, key=lambda row: row["score"], reverse=True)
+ timing = _load_json(PUBLICATION_CHECK / "sweep_timing.json")
+
+ def one(value: float) -> float:
+ return float(f"{value:.1f}")
+
+ return {
+ "releaseDate": r.manifest["snapshot_date"],
+ "nModels": len(board),
+ "argonExact": one(by_model[ARGON]["exact"]),
+ "argonRank": ranks[ARGON],
+ "flashExact": one(by_model["gemini-3.8-flash"]["exact"]),
+ "flashRank": ranks["gemini-3.8-flash"],
+ "sparkExact": one(by_model[SPARK]["exact"]),
+ "sparkRank": ranks[SPARK],
+ "museExact": one(by_model[MUSE]["exact"]),
+ "museRank": ranks[MUSE],
+ "sparkBoundedRank": [row["model"] for row in by_score].index(SPARK) + 1,
+ "solExact": one(by_model["gpt-6-sol"]["exact"]),
+ "opusExact": one(by_model["claude-opus-5.5"]["exact"]),
+ "sol56Exact": one(by_model["gpt-5.6-sol"]["exact"]),
+ "households": len(r.dashboard["scenarioPredictions"]),
+ # The first forced run and the auto run are onboarding evidence, not
+ # on the board; the model card records their counts (checked below).
+ "forcedReasoning": 80,
+ "boardReasoning": _board_reasoning_households(ARGON),
+ "autoReasoning": 82,
+ "argonCost": f"{by_model[ARGON]['costUsd']:.2f}",
+ "checkedEngine": timing["pypi"]["newest_at_read"],
+ "engineVersion": r.policyengine_us_version,
+ "scoredOutputs": int(r.scored_outputs_per_model_fmt.replace(",", "")),
+ "totalOutputs": int(r.total_outputs_per_model_fmt.replace(",", "")),
+ "incumbents": len(board) - 2,
+ }
+
+
+def test_release_20261014_note() -> None:
+ """The Gemini 4 Argon release note's facts are the frozen release's."""
+ note = _note(ARGON_NOTE)
+ facts = note["facts"]
+ if not _recompute_against_frozen_snapshot(note):
+ return
+ assert note["release"] == RELEASE_20261014
+ assert note["boardSnapshot"] == facts["releaseDate"] == note["date"]
+ assert note["slug"].startswith(note["date"])
+ assert facts == _release_20261014_facts()
+
+
+def test_release_20261014_note_claims() -> None:
+ """What the Gemini 4 Argon release note's sentences claim holds on the
+ frozen release, release 20261013 at its commit (whose numbers release
+ 20261013b keeps, tests/test_release_20261013b.py) and the model cards."""
+ from policybench.config import PRICE_OVERRIDES_PER_1M
+ from policybench.model_cards import card_for
+ from policybench.paper_results import MODEL_RELEASE_DATES, PaperResults
+
+ note = _note(ARGON_NOTE)
+ if not _recompute_against_frozen_snapshot(note):
+ return
+ facts = note["facts"]
+ r = PaperResults()
+ board = r.model_stats
+ names = [row["model"] for row in board]
+ then_root = _release_root(RELEASE_20261013)
+ then = _no_tools_exact(_payload_at(then_root))
+ # Two new rows on the previous board.
+ assert set(names) == set(then) | {ARGON, SPARK}
+ assert facts["nModels"] == len(then) + 2 == facts["incumbents"] + 2
+ # Gemini 4 Argon reached the public API the day before the release, and
+ # is the best Gemini row; Gemini 3.8 Flash was the best before it.
+ released = date.fromisoformat(MODEL_RELEASE_DATES[ARGON])
+ assert (date.fromisoformat(note["date"]) - released).days == 1
+ gemini = [m for m in names if m.startswith("gemini")]
+ assert gemini[0] == ARGON and gemini[1] == "gemini-3.8-flash"
+ assert max((e, m) for m, e in then.items() if m.startswith("gemini"))[1] == (
+ "gemini-3.8-flash"
+ )
+ # Muse Spark 1.3 is Meta's second row, behind Muse Wonder on answers
+ # within $1, and Meta released it on September 2.
+ serving = _load_json(SNAPSHOT_DIR / "model_serving_config.json")["models"]
+ meta = sorted(
+ m for m, t in serving.items() if t["provider_id"].startswith("openrouter/meta/")
+ )
+ assert meta == sorted([MUSE, SPARK])
+ assert names.index(MUSE) < names.index(SPARK)
+ assert MODEL_RELEASE_DATES[SPARK] == "2026-09-02"
+ # The leaders are unchanged: GPT-6 Sol, Claude Opus 5.5, GPT-5.6 Sol.
+ assert names[:3] == ["gpt-6-sol", "claude-opus-5.5", "gpt-5.6-sol"]
+ # Gemini 4 Argon runs on the Gemini API like every Gemini row, on the
+ # forced tool, with no reasoning parameter (Google's default).
+ for model in gemini:
+ assert serving[model]["provider_id"].startswith("gemini/"), model
+ argon = card_for(serving[ARGON]["provider_id"])
+ assert serving[ARGON]["answer_contract"] == argon.answer_contract == "tool"
+ assert "The harness sends no thinkingConfig" in argon.notes
+ assert "default thinking_level of medium" in argon.notes
+ # The reasoning test: 80 forced against 82 auto, no significant
+ # reduction; the board's own run reasoned on 85 (recomputed above from
+ # the frozen predictions).
+ assert (
+ f"returned reasoning tokens on {facts['forcedReasoning']} and a "
+ f"tool_choice auto run on {facts['autoReasoning']} (Fisher exact p = 0.86"
+ ) in argon.notes
+ assert f"reasoned on {facts['boardReasoning']}" in argon.notes
+ assert "no statistically significant reduction" in argon.notes
+ assert facts["households"] == 100
+ # A forced tool suppresses Claude Opus 5's thinking.
+ august = (ROOT / "sensitivity/claude-thinking-2026-08.md").read_text()
+ assert "Forcing the tool suppresses Claude's thinking in practice" in august
+ assert "Claude Opus 5 request three ways" in august
+ # The introductory price, doubling on December 1.
+ assert PRICE_OVERRIDES_PER_1M[ARGON]["input"] == 2.0
+ assert PRICE_OVERRIDES_PER_1M[ARGON]["output"] == 10.0
+ config = (ROOT / "policybench/config.py").read_text()
+ assert "from 2026-12-01 they double to" in config
+ # Muse Spark 1.3: one OpenRouter endpoint, Meta's own; forced tools
+ # rejected; the JSON contract at Meta's default reasoning.
+ spark = card_for(serving[SPARK]["provider_id"])
+ assert serving[SPARK]["answer_contract"] == spark.answer_contract == "json"
+ assert "OpenRouter lists one endpoint, Meta's own" in spark.notes
+ assert "Meta rejects forced tool choices" in spark.notes
+ assert "reasons at the provider default" in spark.notes
+ # "Nothing else on the board moves": the references and exclusions are
+ # release 20261013's, and every earlier model keeps its exact rate and
+ # bounded score.
+ assert _read_csv(REFERENCES_PATH) == _read_csv(_in(then_root, REFERENCES_PATH))
+ assert _excluded_at(ROOT) == _excluded_at(then_root)
+ then_stats = {
+ row["model"]: row
+ for row in _payload_at(then_root)["modelStats"]
+ if row["condition"] == "no_tools"
+ }
+ for row in board:
+ if row["model"] in then_stats:
+ assert row["exact"] == then_stats[row["model"]]["exact"], row["model"]
+ assert row["score"] == then_stats[row["model"]]["score"], row["model"]
+ # The publication check: the newest release gives 2.41.0's value for all
+ # 1,984 outputs.
+ # The latest check, the one sweep_timing.json records.
+ timing = _load_json(PUBLICATION_CHECK / "sweep_timing.json")
+ check = _read_csv(ROOT / timing["publication_check"]["output"])
+ assert timing["publication_check"]["engine"] == facts["checkedEngine"]
+ assert len(check) == facts["totalOutputs"]
+ assert all(row["same"] == "True" and float(row["delta"]) == 0.0 for row in check)
+ assert {(row["reference_engine"], row["engine"]) for row in check} == {
+ (facts["engineVersion"], facts["checkedEngine"])
+ }
+ assert facts["scoredOutputs"] == facts["totalOutputs"] - r.excluded_output_count
+ # Links resolve to committed paths.
+ for entry in note["data"]:
+ href = entry["href"]
+ prefix = "https://github.com/PolicyEngine/policybench/blob/main/"
+ if href.startswith(prefix):
+ assert (ROOT / href.removeprefix(prefix)).exists(), href
diff --git a/tests/test_paper_results.py b/tests/test_paper_results.py
index a1801bff..3a83dc12 100644
--- a/tests/test_paper_results.py
+++ b/tests/test_paper_results.py
@@ -40,10 +40,10 @@
)
-def test_frozen_roster_has_48_display_names_and_release_dates():
+def test_frozen_roster_has_50_display_names_and_release_dates():
roster = {row["model"] for row in r.model_stats}
- assert len(roster) == 48
+ assert len(roster) == 50
assert set(MODEL_DISPLAY_NAMES) == roster
assert roster <= set(MODEL_RELEASE_DATES)
assert MODEL_DISPLAY_NAMES["claude-fable-5.1"] == "Claude Fable 5.1"
@@ -67,6 +67,10 @@ def test_frozen_roster_has_48_display_names_and_release_dates():
assert MODEL_DISPLAY_NAMES["gpt-6.1-sol"] == "GPT-6.1 Sol"
assert MODEL_RELEASE_DATES["gpt-6.1-sol"] == "2026-09-29"
assert MODEL_DISPLAY_NAMES["muse-wonder"] == "Muse Wonder"
+ assert MODEL_DISPLAY_NAMES["muse-spark-1.3"] == "Muse Spark 1.3"
+ assert MODEL_DISPLAY_NAMES["gemini-4-argon"] == "Gemini 4 Argon"
+ assert MODEL_RELEASE_DATES["gemini-4-argon"] == "2026-10-13"
+ assert MODEL_RELEASE_DATES["muse-spark-1.3"] == "2026-09-02"
def test_claude_haiku_5_5_release_date_is_recorded():
@@ -124,7 +128,8 @@ def test_parse_contract_failure_counts_come_from_frozen_dashboard():
# (Kimi K2.6 11, GLM-5.2 four, GLM-5.3 two, Kimi K3 two): 659. Claude
# Haiku 5.5 parsed every answer. Release 20261013's ten outputs the 2.41.0
# upgrade returns to scoring bring back 10 (Kimi K2.6 seven, GLM-5.3 two,
- # Kimi K3 one): 669. Muse Wonder parsed every answer.
+ # Kimi K3 one): 669. Muse Wonder parsed every answer, and so did Gemini 4
+ # Argon and Muse Spark 1.3.
assert r.parse_contract_failure_counts == Counter(
{
"kimi-k2.6": 397,
@@ -135,8 +140,8 @@ def test_parse_contract_failure_counts_come_from_frozen_dashboard():
)
assert r.parse_contract_failure_count == 669
assert r.parse_contract_failure_count_fmt == "669"
- # 669 of the 48-model board's 92,880 scored answers (48 x 1,935).
- assert r.n_canonical_rows == 92_880
+ # 669 of the 50-model board's 96,750 scored answers (50 x 1,935).
+ assert r.n_canonical_rows == 96_750
assert r.parse_contract_failure_pct_fmt == "0.7"
@@ -147,18 +152,21 @@ def test_audit_universe_counts_come_from_frozen_rows_and_annotations():
# release 20261006. Release 20261010 adds Claude Haiku 5.5's rows and
# moves the scored outputs: 8,001, 7,997 and 2,138. Release 20261013 adds
# Muse Wonder's rows and returns nine outputs to scoring: 8,503, 8,499 and
- # 2,218.
- assert r.audit_annotated_row_count == 8_503
- assert r.audit_annotated_row_count_fmt == "8,503"
+ # 2,218. Release 20261014 adds Gemini 4 Argon's 118 and Muse Spark 1.3's
+ # 144 annotated misses, on unchanged references and exclusions, and 111
+ # of their rows outside that selection with a bounded score below full:
+ # 8,765, 8,761 and 2,329.
+ assert r.audit_annotated_row_count == 8_765
+ assert r.audit_annotated_row_count_fmt == "8,765"
assert r.audit_selection_rule == ("rows whose legacy threshold score is below 1")
- assert r.exact_match_miss_count == 8_499
- assert r.exact_match_miss_count_fmt == "8,499"
- assert r.annotated_exact_miss_count == 8_499
- assert r.annotated_exact_miss_count_fmt == "8,499"
+ assert r.exact_match_miss_count == 8_761
+ assert r.exact_match_miss_count_fmt == "8,761"
+ assert r.annotated_exact_miss_count == 8_761
+ assert r.annotated_exact_miss_count_fmt == "8,761"
assert r.annotated_exact_hit_count == 4
assert r.annotated_exact_hit_count_fmt == "4"
- assert r.unannotated_below_full_bounded_score_count == 2_218
- assert r.unannotated_below_full_bounded_score_count_fmt == "2,218"
+ assert r.unannotated_below_full_bounded_score_count == 2_329
+ assert r.unannotated_below_full_bounded_score_count_fmt == "2,329"
def test_contract_violations_are_counted_both_ways():
@@ -261,19 +269,20 @@ def test_serving_evidence_caption_comes_from_frozen_configuration():
"completion ceiling",
],
}
- # GPT-6.1 Sol's, Claude Haiku 5.5's and Muse Wonder's supervised runs
- # fingerprint all four fields, and their reasoning setup and timeouts.
+ # GPT-6.1 Sol's, Claude Haiku 5.5's, Muse Wonder's, Gemini 4 Argon's and
+ # Muse Spark 1.3's supervised runs fingerprint all four fields, and their
+ # reasoning setup and timeouts.
assert r.serving_evidence_pinned_counts == {
- "answer contract": 19,
- "request shape": 19,
- "tool choice": 18,
- "completion ceiling": 19,
+ "answer contract": 21,
+ "request shape": 21,
+ "tool choice": 20,
+ "completion ceiling": 21,
}
- assert summary == {"registry": 29, "run_state": 19}
+ assert summary == {"registry": 29, "run_state": 21}
assert r.serving_evidence_caption == (
"Supervised-run fingerprints pin answer contract, request shape, "
- "and completion ceiling for 19 rows; tool choice for 18 rows; reasoning "
- "setup and timeouts for nine rows. Reasoning setup and timeouts for the "
+ "and completion ceiling for 21 rows; tool choice for 20 rows; reasoning "
+ "setup and timeouts for 11 rows. Reasoning setup and timeouts for the "
"other ten fingerprinted rows, and all fields for the other "
f"{summary['registry']} rows, are the harness registry as frozen in the "
"snapshot's serving-configuration file."
@@ -285,11 +294,11 @@ def test_serving_evidence_counts_exclude_legacy_or_unrecorded_fields():
results.serving_config = deepcopy(r.serving_config)
fable_evidence = results.serving_config["models"]["claude-fable-5.1"]["evidence"]
- assert results.serving_evidence_pinned_counts["tool choice"] == 18
+ assert results.serving_evidence_pinned_counts["tool choice"] == 20
del fable_evidence["legacy_tool_choice_label"]
- assert results.serving_evidence_pinned_counts["tool choice"] == 19
+ assert results.serving_evidence_pinned_counts["tool choice"] == 21
del fable_evidence["treatment_fingerprint"]["answer_contract"]
- assert results.serving_evidence_pinned_counts["answer contract"] == 18
+ assert results.serving_evidence_pinned_counts["answer contract"] == 20
def test_joint_credit_accuracy_exceptions_come_from_frozen_table():
@@ -369,20 +378,24 @@ def test_judge_provenance_is_frozen_in_the_manifest():
# cases Muse Wonder re-opened (one of them Opus 5's; 93, 315 and 269 in
# release 20261013), and again that day for the five carried-over
# verdicts the judge-isolation audit could not clear (one of them Opus
- # 5's, three GPT-5.6 Sol's, one Opus 5.5's own; release 20261013b).
- # A re-judged case with an adjudication keeps the replaced verdict under
- # judge_previous.
+ # 5's, three GPT-5.6 Sol's, one Opus 5.5's own; release 20261013b), and
+ # on 2026-10-13 and 2026-10-14 for the 196 cases Gemini 4 Argon and Muse
+ # Spark 1.3 re-opened (one new; two of them GPT-5.6 Sol's, scenario_043
+ # head Medicaid and scenario_056 self-employment tax; 92, 322 and 264 in
+ # release 20261014, of 678). A re-judged case with an adjudication keeps
+ # the replaced verdict under judge_previous.
assert prov["by_judge"]["claude-opus-5"]["cases"] == 92
assert prov["by_judge"]["claude-opus-5"]["judged_on_utc"] == ["2026-09-05"]
- assert prov["by_judge"]["claude-opus-5-5"]["cases"] == 319
+ assert prov["by_judge"]["claude-opus-5-5"]["cases"] == 322
assert "2026-09-30" in prov["by_judge"]["claude-opus-5-5"]["judged_on_utc"]
assert "2026-10-09" in prov["by_judge"]["claude-opus-5-5"]["judged_on_utc"]
assert "2026-10-13" in prov["by_judge"]["claude-opus-5-5"]["judged_on_utc"]
- assert prov["by_judge"]["gpt-5.6-sol"]["cases"] == 266
- assert r.audit_case_count_fmt == "677"
+ assert "2026-10-14" in prov["by_judge"]["claude-opus-5-5"]["judged_on_utc"]
+ assert prov["by_judge"]["gpt-5.6-sol"]["cases"] == 264
+ assert r.audit_case_count_fmt == "678"
assert r.audit_opus_judged_case_count_fmt == "92"
- assert r.audit_opus55_judged_case_count_fmt == "319"
- assert r.audit_sol_judged_case_count_fmt == "266"
+ assert r.audit_opus55_judged_case_count_fmt == "322"
+ assert r.audit_sol_judged_case_count_fmt == "264"
def test_joint_credit_table_orders_ties_deterministically():
@@ -461,12 +474,15 @@ def test_excluded_outputs_are_outside_the_scored_audit_universe():
# rows on the review's eight outputs (2,444 in release 20261006), moved by
# release 20261010's exclusions, regenerations and Claude Haiku 5.5's rows
# (2,212), then by release 20261013's ten restored outputs and Muse
- # Wonder's rows.
- assert r.excluded_output_annotation_row_count == 1843
+ # Wonder's rows (1,843), then by Gemini 4 Argon's 35 and Muse Spark
+ # 1.3's 37 rows on the same 49 outputs.
+ assert r.excluded_output_annotation_row_count == 1915
# Release 20260930's 820 plus the review's 325 relabeled llm_error rows
# (135 SALT, 45 Part B, 145 payroll); its eight parse failures stay.
- # 1,145 in release 20261006.
- assert r.prompt_ambiguity_row_count == 1481
+ # 1,145 in release 20261006; 1,481 in release 20261013. Release 20261014
+ # adds Gemini 4 Argon's 29 and Muse Spark 1.3's 30 rows on the
+ # unlisted-input exclusions.
+ assert r.prompt_ambiguity_row_count == 1540
assert (
r.excluded_output_annotation_row_count - r.excluded_descriptive_row_count == 38
)
diff --git a/tests/test_report_costs.py b/tests/test_report_costs.py
index 0cedf3f6..7923d623 100644
--- a/tests/test_report_costs.py
+++ b/tests/test_report_costs.py
@@ -24,12 +24,13 @@ def test_frozen_report_discloses_recorded_subtotal_and_published_total():
total = sum(costs.values())
fallbacks = sorted(set(costs) - set(recorded["model"]))
# Release 20260929's 42 of 45, $448.339 and $512.418, plus GPT-6.1 Sol's
- # recorded $2.300, Claude Haiku 5.5's recorded $0.130 and Muse Wonder's
- # recorded $7.864.
- assert len(recorded) == 45
- assert len(costs) == 48
- assert subtotal == pytest.approx(458.633, abs=0.0005)
- assert total == pytest.approx(522.7128, abs=0.0005)
+ # recorded $2.300, Claude Haiku 5.5's recorded $0.130, Muse Wonder's
+ # recorded $7.864, Gemini 4 Argon's recorded $2.789 and Muse Spark 1.3's
+ # recorded $2.059.
+ assert len(recorded) == 47
+ assert len(costs) == 50
+ assert subtotal == pytest.approx(463.4808, abs=0.0005)
+ assert total == pytest.approx(527.5602, abs=0.0005)
assert fallbacks == ["claude-fable-5", "gemini-3.6-flash", "grok-build-0.1"]
report = (run / "analysis/report.md").read_text()
assert (
diff --git a/tests/test_snapshot_artifacts.py b/tests/test_snapshot_artifacts.py
index 997d80e8..29cccd51 100644
--- a/tests/test_snapshot_artifacts.py
+++ b/tests/test_snapshot_artifacts.py
@@ -655,18 +655,23 @@ def test_snapshot_deviation_audit_annotations_are_complete_and_final():
# 2026-10-06 rulings and the engine upgrade exclude leave the universe
# while the ones it regenerates return (release 20261006: annotated 7,527,
# below full bounded score 9,599, llm_error 6,883, parse failures 644).
+ # Release 20261014: Gemini 4 Argon's and Muse Spark 1.3's rows join on
+ # unchanged references and exclusions (262 annotated misses, all LLM
+ # errors since both rows parsed every answer, and 111 more unannotated
+ # rows below full bounded score; release 20261013: 8,503 annotated,
+ # 10,721 below full bounded score, llm_error 7,834).
expected_audit_counts = {
"us": {
- "annotated": 8_503,
- "exact_misses": 8_499,
- "annotated_exact_misses": 8_499,
+ "annotated": 8_765,
+ "exact_misses": 8_761,
+ "annotated_exact_misses": 8_761,
"annotated_exact_hits": 4,
- "below_full_bounded_score": 10_721,
- "unannotated_below_full_bounded_score": 2_218,
+ "below_full_bounded_score": 11_094,
+ "unannotated_below_full_bounded_score": 2_329,
}
}
expected_sources = {
- "us": {"llm_error": 7_834, "parse_contract_failure": 669},
+ "us": {"llm_error": 8_096, "parse_contract_failure": 669},
}
manifest = json.loads((SNAPSHOT_DIR / "manifest.json").read_text())